Vol. CLVI.] Part 925.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
VEZEY-STRONG, MAYOR (November 7th and 8th),
CROSBY, MAYOR (November 9th onwards.)
HELD NOV. 7TH, 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 TEMPLE.
[Published by Annual Subscription.]
THE ARGUS PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED 10, TEMPLE AVENUE, LONDON, E.C.
On the King's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND THE PARTS OF OTHER COUNTIES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Tuesday, November 7th, 1911, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir T. VEZEY-STRONG, K.C.V.O., LORD MAYOR of the City of London (November 7th and 8th); Sir THOMAS BOOR CROSBY, M D., LORD MAYOR of the said City of London (November 9th onwards); the Hon. Sir WILLIAM GRANTHAM , one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir HENRY E. KNIGHT, Knight; Sir HORATIO DAVIES , K.C.M.G.; Sir JAMES THOMSON RITCHIE , Bart.; Sir T. VANSITTART BOWATER, Knight; and EDWARD FRNEST COOPER, Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir FK. ALBERT BOSANQUET, K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; and His Honour Judge LUMLEY SMITH , 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.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
VEZEY-STRONG, MAYOR. (November 7 and 8.)
CROSBY, MAYOR. (November 9 onwards.)
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, November 7.)
Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £50 and those of his father, Walter Harrison, in £250, to come up for judgment if called upon.
Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon.
Sentence (each), Four weeks' imprisonment, dating from October 14, entitling prisoners to be immediately discharged.
The Recorder again postponed sentence, Mr. Scott-France undertaking to communicate with prisoner's brother and sister so that they might be in attendance next Sessions.
Prisoner was understood, last Sessions, to be in the Royal Naval Reserve, and sentence was postponed to ascertain whether this was the fact, as the Recorder did not wish any punishment he might impose to affect the pension which prisoner enjoyed since his discharge from the Navy with an exemplary character. It was now stated that prisoner was not in the Reserve, so that the question of pension did not arise.
Sentence, Four week's imprisonment, dating from October 12, entitling prisoner to be immediately discharged.
Mr. SCOTT-FRANCE said he had made inquiries about prisoner. He had been employed as a miner in Wales, and received a very good character from his employers, although he had been convicted in 1908 of theft.
Sentence, Four weeks' imprisonment, dating from October 12, entitling prisoner to be immediately discharged.
BOYNES, Walter John (50, auxiliary postman) pleaded guilty , of stealing a postal packet containing a postal order for 16s., and a postal packet containing a postal order for 12s. 6d., in each case the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
SADLER, James (46, barman) pleaded guilty , of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £90 16s. 6d., with intent to defraud. (Other indictments were not proceeded with.)
Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony in 1908.
Mr. Leycester, who prosecuted, said that prisoner was one of a gang who forged and uttered cheques. His part appeared to be what was called "putting them down," that is, cashing them.
The police proved that there had been many complaints of cheques being stolen from letter-boxes, the amounts increased, and the cheques presented. Prisoner had been charged with receiving stolen property, but discharged through lack of evidence.
Sentence, Twenty-two months' hard labour.
THWAITES, Frederick Charles (29, postman) pleaded guilty , of stealing a postal packet containing a postal order for 6s., the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Mr. Forster Boulton prosecuted; Mr. Hutchinson appeared for prisoner.
Mr. Hutchinson said that prisoner was a painter. In 1902 he joined a Middlesex regiment and fought for ten months in South Africa, receiving the Queen's medal with four clasps. His discharge sheet was marked "Very good." He re-enlisted in the Northumberland Fusiliers and served in India, Mauritius, and Ireland. He remained in the Army for five years and left with the rank of lance-corporal. That discharge sheet was also marked "Very good." He had had to keep a wife and child on 11s. 3d. a week, his wages as an assistant postman, plus 3s. 6d. from the Army. During the last ten weeks he had been working for a firm of contractors at Woolwich and their manager gave him a good character and was quite willing to take him back if he were dealt with as a first offender.
Two witnesses were called to character. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
WIELAND, William Ernest Joseph (25, postman) pleaded guilty , of stealing a postal packet containing a purse, 17s., and two penny and three halfpenny postage stamps, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
Prisoner had been convicted of unlawfully wounding his wife, but generally he bore a very good character; he had been nineteen years in a militia battalion and had served fourteen months in South Africa as a volunteer.
Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
COLBRAN, Richard (26, soldier) pleaded guilty , of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, certain orders for the payment of money, to wit, bankers' cheques for £6 4s. and £60, in each case with intent to defraud; attempting to obtain by false pretences from Samuel Benjamin one overcoat and £4 16s. 6d., with intent to defraud; stealing one watch and chain, the goods of John Westbury Cardew.
Prisoner was a gunner in the Royal Garrison Artillery, stationed at Portsmouth. He was officer's servant to Major Fraser, and had stolen his cheque book, and also that of Lieutenant Cardew, and forged the signatures. He had a record of ten years' good service.
The case was postponed at prisoner's request for the attendance of an officer.
(Friday, November 10.)
Sergeant WALTER GRESTY, M Division. I communicated with prisoner's commanding officer and received the certificate of character produced." His character as shown from his conduct-sheets is exemplary. No entry has been recorded against him during his whole service." In January next he would have completed 11 years' service. There is no previous conviction.
Prisoner stated that he had been invalided home from South Africa. It must have been a mad idea come over his mind to steal the cheque books.
Sentence was postponed to next Sessions.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, November 7.)
HUTCHINSON, Robert Hopwood Percy (58), who was convicted at the July Sessions (see preceding volume, page 455) of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the payment of £975, and feloniously receiving and obtaining from Albert Wright and from Lloyd's Bank, Limited, and causing to be paid by them to a person unknown £975 upon and by virtue of a forged instrument, with intent to defraud, was again brought up.
Since the trial in July prisoner had appealed and the Court of Criminal Appeal had upheld the conviction. There were a number of other indictments for forgery and obtaining money by falsepretences; these were now ordered to remain on the file of the Court.
Sentence (upon the conviction in July), Four years' penal servitude.
JOHNSON, Thomas (35, labourer) pleaded guilty , of feloniously possessing five moulds and other tools and articles intended to be used for counterfeiting coin, unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same.
Convictions proved: March 8, 1904, North London Sessions, bound over for burglary; North London Sessions, April 12, 1904, stealing bread; Surrey Assizes, March 4, 1906, in the name of Waite, uttering counterfeit coin; at this Court, January 7, 1908, four years' penal servitude for possessing counterfeit coin.
Sentence, Four years' penal servitude, to include the remanet of the previous sentence.
Prisoner was tried last Sessions (see preceding volume, page 675) when the jury disagreed.
Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted; Mr. Tristram Beresford defended.
The same witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution and prisoner (on oath) repeated his evidence.
(Tuesday, November 8.)
The following further evidence for the defence was given:
WALTER MATTHEWS , 17, Roman Road, Barnsbury, commercial traveller. On September 6 at 7 p.m. I met prisoner in Essex Road near Balls Pond Road. We went into the "Royal William," where prisoner changed a 5s. piece for drinks, receiving a halfcrown, 2 shillings, and 3d.; he afterwards paid the three pennies for another drink. We then went to the "Mildmay Park Tavern," where prisoner changed the half-crown for 4d. drinks, receiving 2 shillings and 2 pennies.
Cross-examined. I have known prisoner two years. I had met him on September 6 by appointment for the purpose of getting him a situation, which I succeeded in doing.
Conviction proved: North London Police Court, June 17, 1910, six weeks' hard labour for larceny.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.
(Tuesday, November 7.)
FORBES, Robert Duncan (53, broker), HARRISON, Charles (41, broker), and ISAACS, Charles (52, insurance agent) , conspiring and agreeing together to defraud those subjects of His Majesty the King as should deal with a firm called Duncan Forbes and Co. in the buying and selling of stocks and shares; conspiring and agreeing together to defraud those subjects of His Majesty the King as should deal with a firm called the Prudential Exchange, in the buying and selling of stocks and shares; all obtaining by false pretences from James Farquharson postal orders for £5, £5, and £10; from John Albert West postal orders for £5 and £15; from William Francis Richman a banker's cheque for £10 and other cheques of the value of £2,640; from Edwin Beare banker's cheques for £5 and £10; from Mortimer Petty a Bank of England note for £100 and a banker's cheque for £30, in each case with intent to defraud; all attempting to obtain by false pretences from John Albert West certain money, with intent to defraud; Forbes and Harrison being undischarged bankrupts unlawfully obtaining credit to the extent of £20 and upwards, to wit, from William Francis Richman to the extent of £2,650, and from Mortimer Petty to the extent of £130, without informing them they were undischarged bankrupts.
Mr. Muir, Mr. Stanley Crawford, and Mr. Briggs prosecuted; Mr. Wickham and Mr. A. A. Scanlan defended Forbes; Mr. Huntly Jenkins and Mr. J. H. Myers defended Isaacs.
JAMES FARQUHARSON , labourer, L. and S.W. Railway. In conesquence of an advertisement I saw in the "Daily Mirror" similar to this (Exhibit 291): "Increase your income. Why rest on content with 5 per cent. interest on your invested capital when you can obtain a handsome fortnightly dividend on sums of £10 and upwards invested in absolute safety and your capital guaranteed against loss and withdrawal at short notice?". On January 27, 1910, I wrote this letter to Duncan Forbes and Co. (94) asking for further particulars. In reply I received circulars similar to these (94, 96, and 96). I filled up the subscription form enclosed and sent five £1 postal orders with a letter dated February 4 (97) and received this receipt (98) signed "Duncan Forbes and Co." headed "Deal, 208," with a letter stating that a cheque for profit would be duly forwarded on the usual Stock Exchange pay day. About the end of the month I received a cheque for 8 1/2 d. with a statement of account (Exhibit 100) showing they had bought De Beers at £105, and sold them at £106 5s., making a profit of £1 5s., but as the result of a loss on their transaction in Koffyfontein shares the net profit was 8 1/2 d. Before receiving that cheque on February 18 I sent another letter enclosing a further £5 in postal orders and received a receipt for it headed "Deal, 210" (102), which says on the back of it: "In consideration of our making no charge unless a profit is made, we reserve to ourselves the absolute control of the transaction as to the opening and closing of the deal, and under which understanding this receipt is given and accepted. A subscription is subject to a three months' notice of withdrawal unless otherwise arranged. I continued receiving small cheques fortnightly till May, 1910, when they began doing two deals monthly and I received cheques once a month. This continued till January. I received about £6 altogether in this way. With each cheque I got a statement of accounts similar to Exhibit 100, but relating to different stocks. Some time in March last year I received a telegram from them in consequence of which I sent them ten £1 postal orders, receiving the receipt (104) headed "Special Deal." Subsequently I received this sold note (105) dated March 22 and on March 25 I got a letter asking me to return it as it contained a clerical error and enclosing a rectified sold not (107). I continued to receive payments to the end of the year. On January 21, 1911, I wrote them Exhibit 108 asking as regards special deal in Norfolk and Westerns whether I was expected to instruct them to close the same. They replied stating that they much regretted they had not been able to close this deal as the markets were in a very unsettled state, but assuring me that as soon as they saw a substantial profit could be made they would close and forward me my capital and profit. I never received any part of that £10 back. On June 17 I received this circular from them (Exhibit 110: "In view of the comments which have been most unjustly made by certain sections of the
Press in disparagement of this firm's operations and position, which have most prejudicially affected the immediate realisation of.... investments.... we have thought it desirable under legal advice to temporarily discontinue our active operations for a short period...") In sending my money I believed that Duncan Forbes and Co. were stockbrokers on the Stock Exchange, and that my capital would not be lost because it was guaranteed and I believed the statements contained in the circulars. I believed that the postal orders sent me were profits on stock deals, as shown in the accounts I subsequently received (Exhibits 62 and 62a) relating to the Prudential Exchange. I replied, but I sent no money.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. I believed, according to the circulars, that the profits were being made by operating either for a rise or a fall in two different stocks; I am prepared to say they did not cover themselves by this method. I understood the circular. (Exhibit 96.) I do not allege that Duncan Forbes and Co. represented themselves in their circulars as being on the Stock Exchange. I never gave notice of withdrawal according to the notice on the back of Exhibit 102. None of my friends have ever had any transactions with the firm. I know that some of my money was invested in the French Palace Syndicate, but they never mentioned anything about cover running off; I understood it was part of the "Complex Stock Deals." It was not in consequence of Mr. Muir's opening speech at the Police Court, in which he said that these circulars were only sent to ignorant people that I made a complaint. I never knew anything about cover. I knew nothing about the shares going up and down.
Cross-examined by Harrison. The fact that you said you had been in business four years was part of the inducement to me to send money. I understood from you I could withdraw the money I sent for the "Limited Liability Deal" on the same three months' notice as the "Complex Deal," but I did not give that notice. I understood that you were buying the shares outright and handling them.
ALBERT JOHN WEST , carriage cleaner, Great Eastern Railway Company. From time to time I received circulars from Duncan Forbes and Co and on April 26, 1910, I received this one, relating to "Complex Stock Deals" (Exhibit 68). On April 29 I sent them five £1 postal orders and received a receipt. I subsequently received Exhibit 69, showing transactions in Straits Bertam and Merlimau shares resulting in a profit of 6s., for which they sent a cheque. Between May 27, 1910, and January 27, 1911, I received these accounts (Exhibits 70 to 76), each with small cheques. Amongst the circulars I received was one relating to "Limited Liability Cover Department," and on June 10 I sent this letter (292), enclosing £15 in respect of it. I received a receipt (79). I have had nothing from them in respect of that amount. On June 14 they sent me a contract note showing how the money had been invested (12). Not having received anything in respect of that I wrote them on the following April 2, asking them why, and they replied regretting that the deal had been carried over so long, but that it was due to the heavy slumps in the American
markets and asking time in which they could recoup their losses before they closed the deal and send me my profit. The total amount I have received in dividends is £1 18s. 3d., which was in respect of the £5. I believed they were carrying on a genuine business and the statements contained in their circulars were true.
To Mr. Wickham. I understood if they made a false deal and lost the money, the money would nevertheless be returned to me. I did not know that my £15 was invested in the French Palace Syndicate. I first came forward and gave evidence when I heard of the case in the papers, but it was not in consequence of reading Mr. Muir's opening speech. I was not told when my capital would be returned to me and I have never asked for it. I have never had transactions with outside brokers before. I did not understand that if my money was lost through the stock going down, it would be invested in the French Palace scheme; I received a circular about that scheme, but I knew nothing about it. I knew my shares went down, but I did not understand anything about my cover running off.
Re-examined. In no document sent to me in connection with my transactions is there mentioned anything about a French syndicate. (Witness's letter of April 2, 1911, and Duncan Forbes and Co.'s reply thereto, dated April 3, 1911, above referred to, were read, put in, and marked (Exhibits 293 and 294).
Further cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. I understood that if there were a loss the firm held the matter in their control. I did not understand that the title, "Limited Liability Cover Department" meant that there was a cover which might run off.
Rev. JAMES FRANCIS RICHMAN, Vicar of Powerstock, Dorset. Amongst other circulars I received from Duncan Forbes and Co. were two one of which dealt with "Complex Stock Deal" and one with "Limited Liability Cover Department," similar to Exhibits 294 and 295. Exhibit 294 contains a list of previous transactions from July 1, 1909, to May 9, 1910, and Exhibit 295 an account with "J. T. L.," all showing profits. Believing them to be true and that the firm were carrying on a genuine business and had correspondents in all financial centres, as they stated, I sent this cheque for £5 for investment in the "Complex Deal" and received this receipt, dated June 4, 1910, which has an endorsement at the back similar to the one on Exhibit 102. On June 9 I sent a further cheque for the Limited Liability Special Deal and received a receipt which had the same endorsement. Exhibit 130 is the sold note I received, showing how my money was supposed to have been invested. On June 29 I received my first dividend relating to the Complex Deal, with a letter stating that my original capital had been reinvested. On July 11 I sent a further £100 for a special deal. About a fortnight before this I went to their offices and saw Forbes. I talked to him about the circulars I had received and asked him about the profits and he said that they had made profits of about 100 per cent. (Witness detailed the following further investments he had made: July 16,
£1,000, Complex stock deal; July 27, £200 Complex stock deal; July 29, £25 Complex stock deal; August 6, £15 special deal; August 19, £40 Complex stock deal; September 3, £30 Complex stock deal; September 17, £1,180 Complex stock deal and Limited Liability deal; October 1, £55 French Palace Syndicate and Complex stock deal, producing the original cheques, the receipts, sold notes, and other documents in connection therewith.) I can identify Exhibit 141 as being the original list of deals with other people, which they sent me on July 26, by the fact that the filing holes on it are the same as my files would produce. I can identify the circular, Exhibits 146 and 147, in the same way, the latter being headed, "Limited Liability Cover Department. How £15 may be invested on this occasion to produce £155 profit or more." I believed all the statements contained therein, (Witness gave details as to the sums he had received which were alleged to be dividends, producing statements of account in connection therewith. July 28, 2s. 9d. and £27 10s., Exhibits 183 to 186; August 12, 16s. 3d., £6 10s., £32 13s. 3d., August 31, £21 15s. 6d., £4 6s., 10s. 10d., £2 4s., Exhibits 193 to 200; September 15, 19s. 6d. and £41 5s., Exhibits 201 to 204. His contract note of July 28, 1910, shows dealings in Grand Trunks to the extent of £150,000, resulting in a profit of £27 10s., for which I received a cheque for £27 10S. (abovementioned). I received this circular, dated September 13, 1910 (Exhibit 158), headed "Special offer," and stating that, having received inside information, which they had verified, concerning a future rise in certain shares, they were prepared to guarantee £10 profit for every £50 invested, though a much higher profit was assured by waiting.) My cheque for £1,180 is Exhibit 159 and the form I sent therewith is Exhibit 160. I received a telegram from the firm asking me to call at London Wall. I went and saw Isaacs. He explained to me that Forbes was out, having waited for me, and I was late in keeping the appointment. We spoke for a few minutes about the French Palace Syndicate and then, referring to the Complex stock deal, he said that they had not done so well with them lately. I then returned to Powerstock. Subsequently, about the end of September, Forbes came and saw me. He spoke of nothing but the French Palace Syndicate. On October 1 I sent him on a cheque for £50 to buy shares in that concern on the terms contained in the booklet he had given me. and a further £5 for the Complex stock deal, the profit to be rendered to me fortnightly thereon, as with the previous cheques. I produce the cheque for £55, the form I sent with the Complex stock deal, and the receipt from them. Before sending this money I had received, on September 29, cheques for £25 2s. 8d. and £28 3s. 4d., being the profits as shown on the statement of account enclosed (205 to 208). On October 14 I received further profits of £67 10s. (210) and the statement of account enclosed therewith (209) shows dealings between October 3 and 8 in Canadian Pacifics to the amount of £491,692, and in Grand Trunk Third Preference £141,450. On that day I received a further dividend of 2s. 9d. (Exhibit 212), and Exhibit 211 is the statement of account.
(Wednesday, November 8.)
Rev. JAMES FRANCIS RICHMAN (recalled). Further examined. On October 15 I sent £25 by cheque (Exhibit 171) and a form of subscription (172) for a Complex stock deal. I received a letter and a formal receipt (173, 174) showing my £5 was so applied. On October 28 I received a further dividend of 2s. 9d. (213) in Complex stock deal No. 244, representing the profit on transactions in Unions and Norfolk and Western. Exhibit 214 is a statement of accounts. On October 27 I received a further dividend of 2s. 9d. and statements (215, 216) relating to the same transactions; on October 28 a dividend of 11s. and statement (217, 218); on same date a dividend of £67 13s. and statement (219, 220). Exhibit 220 relates to dealings in Unions and Norfolk and Western to a total amount of £699,024, the profit being £67 13s. and the commission £9 4s. 6d. Exhibit 209, October 14, relates to Canadian Pacifics and Grand Trunks, the amount being £679 7s. 6d., yet the commission and net profit are the same, £67 13s. On November 3 I sent a further investment of £10 by cheque (175) and form of subscription (176), which was acknowledged by letter (177) enclosing a receipt showing the £10 went to the Complex stock deal. That was the last money I sent. I sent altogether £2,500 for that deal and £150 for the special deals. I continued to receive dividends till February 24, 1911, each accompanied by sold and bought notes and statements of account. I received these documents (221 to 230), the total amount of dividend being £543. I never got any of my capital back again. Exhibits 231 to 254 are the cheques I received in payment of dividends. I never knew Forbes and Harrison were undischarged bankrupts. I believed they were able to fulfil the guarantee to repay giver in their circulars and in parting with my money I relied upon that guarantee. I should not have parted with it if my capital had not been guaranteed. Forbes verbally gave me references to Mr. Lever and Mr. Harper and I received letters from them in reply to mine. [Letters read, dated July 1, 1910.] I believed the dividends I received had been earned by transactions on the Stock Exchange. The bundle of letters (179) is the correspondence between the firm and myself, from July 19, 1910, to May 9, 1911. [Letters of November 8 and 17, January 25 and 30, February 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, and 27, March 1, 6, 8, 9, 29 and 31 were read.]
To Mr. Wickham. I at no time asked for my capital to be returned. The letter of March 31 received from the firm said that all financial arrangements re the French Palace would be completed at the end of April, when I would be repaid, with the guaranteed bonus. I did not see from the newspapers that Mexican Second Preference, which on September 19 stood at 33, were down to 32 on September 23. If that is so I agree the cover had run off. I have had transactions with other outside brokers on many occasions, and understand the cover system in a general way. I did not get a guarantee from the other outside brokers. As to the transaction on October 28, £699,000 in Norfolks, I certainly understood I Was to find 1 per cent.
and the firm 99 per cent. I admit I had an interest in the deals for the money I sent. I supposed the French Palace was going on all right until the attacks in the Press. I understood from Mr. Lever that he had been dealing with the firm for a period of four years, and I have no reason to think that is not true. To the best of my recollection Forbes's words to me were, "I," or "we," representing the firm, "have carried on the business successfully for five years." Forbes said the French Palace Syndicate had been underwritten, and that all moneys would be repaid in a month or six weeks. He said one partner attended to the Complex deals through an inside broker. I had no doubt the firm were outside brokers. I thought that actual transactions took place on the Stock Exchange. As to the cheque for £5 sent on June 3, there was nothing definite said about profit, but Forbes said the average profits would be about 100 per cent. I do not think, even at compound interest, it would work out to that. There was some difficulty with the Mexican stock on account of the rebellion in Mexico, but that was after I wrote. I did not watch the stocks in the newspapers and do not know if the cover ran off some of them, but if so, but for the guarantee I should have had no further interest in those stocks, I presume. I do not know that on the question of principal and agent I should have had to indemnify them if I ordered them to buy something by cover. I did not read Law at Oxford. I believed the firm had correspondents in all financial centres and that that was a point likely to work in their favour. Forbes told me they had not been able to make any profit on the Limited Liability and special deals. I recognised from that that they could not have had unvarying successes. I continued to send money for investment after I had been told that some of the deals had not been doing so well. I made inquiries about the French Palace Syndicate and found it was satisfactory. I did not know that owing to the action £23,000 belonging to Duncan Forbes had been lost. I understood they would have had £100,000 if it had been successful and hope everyone would have been paid. I understood Duncan Forbes did not run the French Syndicate but were merely financing it. The guarantee was that of Forbes and Co. and not of the British Government and I must admit it depended necessarily upon the result of the investments. I received the dividends regularly. Early in August I received a subpœna to attend at the Guildhall; I think that was the first intimation I received from the prosecution. I did not make any complaint to the police. I cannot say I think the firm are more to be pitied than blamed. I expected the French Palace would shortly be able to pay everyone until I saw the notice of the bankruptcy on July 12.
Cross-examined by Harrison. I am aware one can deal on the Stock Exchange to thousands of pounds without ever touching a piece of scrip or certificate of shares. I did not suppose the stock entered into my possession. I realised I was entering into speculation, which means losing or gaining.
Cross-examined by Mr. Myers. On one occasion in September when I called to see Forbes I saw Isaacs, and he told me he would report to Forbes. I did not know what position Isaacs held in the firm. I think before seeing Isaacs I was told I could see the manager. None of the letters to me were signed by Isaacs, or by him as manager for Duncan Forbes.
Re-examined. I did not understand when I invested my money that the guarantee was dependent upon the success of the French Syndicate. The point never occurred to me.
EDWIN BEERE , director of a company carrying on a refreshment-room business at Bridge House, Richmond. On August 31, 1910, I received this circular (Exhibit 299), headed "Complex Stock Dealing." I also received these circulars (300 and 3), the latter as to the financial crisis in America, and another similar to Exhibit 4, together with a form of application. (Exhibit 5.) On September 2 I sent a cheque for £5 (6) for an investment in the Complex stock deal. On September 3 I got a receipt (7). On September 15 I received a letter from Messrs. Duncan Forbes (9), saying I had made a profit on deal 238 of 3s. 3d., also a form of account and a cheque for the amount. I also received bought and sold notes. As to other deals, on September 29 and October 28, with profits of 2s. 4d. and 5s. 6d. (12, 13, 14), I had a circular on December 30 (15) apologising for not having carried through a single transaction that month. On January 27 I received a bought and sold note and statement (16, 17), stating I had made a profit of 4s. 4d. and on March 29 a circular of apology similar to Exhibit 15. I understood they dealt in the stocks referred to and that the cheques were for profits on deals. I thought my money had been invested in those stocks. I believed their statement that neither the firm nor one of their clients had ever suffered a reverse and that they had carried on the Complex stock deals for four years. With regard to special deals, I received this circular (19) on September 13, and on September 14 sent in an application form and a cheque for £10 (20, 21) for investment in that special deal, obtaining a receipt (22). There is a note on the back. I did not see that at the time. On September 14 I received a letter (Exhibit 23) and a contract note (24), and wrote acknowledging it (25). I also received a circular on October 26 (26) with an application form and wrote in reply (27). I watched the prices every day and made some memoranda on the back of Exhibit 19. On November 11 the price was 33—34; on November 15 it was 33 1/2 in one paper and 33(—(in another. I wrote on November 15 asking them to close the account and I also called them up on the telephone, the shares having reached 5 points profit. I had no reply. The next I heard was another circular about a special deal, on December 6. I invested no more money. I used their prepaid telegram to ask for a reply to my previous letter. I had no answer. I called upon the firm some time about the middle of December at 49, London Wall. Several times I saw nobody, but on one occasion I saw Isaacs and told him I had heard nothing in reply to my instructtions to close and what was I to understand? He said he would
inform Forbes that I had called. We discussed the matter generally and I said I was quite satisfied with the five points profit and did not desire to hold the stock any longer. He said several other people were interested in that stock and it was for Forbes to consider whether he would close the stock to pay me out or not. I said, "There is no necessity to close the stock; you are still offering it. Pay me my profit and capital back." I had not seen Mr. Isaacs before, but subsequently I saw him five or six times. When on the first, occasion I asked for Mr. Forbes and was told he was not in I asked to see someone in authority and they said "Will you see the manager?" I simply looked upon him as the manager. The letter of mine of December 14 was written the same day, when I returned home. I think it necessitated another call, but to that I did get an answer eventually. The circular shown me was the only answer I got. It is a paper entitled "Our Weekly," dated December 13. From then to the middle of January I must have made five or six calls. I saw no one but the clerks. Then I watched the premises outside till I saw Mr. Isaacs go in and followed him upstairs. I asked to see him and was told he was not in. I insisted that he was and eventually saw him. He severely reprimanded the clerk for saying he was not in without making inquiries. He admitted I was entitled to receive my profit and capital, but it was a question of paying the amount. He said he would tell Mr. Forbes, who would probably send me a cheque. On February 15 I received another special deal circular (Exhibit 31), on the strength of which I think I wrote suggesting that, as they would have many applications from other clients, would they take over my ten shares? I either wrote to that effect or told Isaacs. He said he would see Forbes and write to me. 1 got no answer. On April 13 I received a letter (Exhibit 32) and wrote in reply (33). Then I wrote to Harrison's private address (34) and got a reply from the firm on May 6 (35). On the same date I wrote stating that I had told Isaacs I was prepared to accept an immediate payment of £20 in full satisfaction of my claims (Exhibit 303). I received Exhibit 36 and replied by Exhibit 37. I heard nothing further. I wrote again on May 15 and 20 (38, 39), and also on May 20 to Harrison's private address (40), and in reply received Exhibit 41. Immediately after that I went to the police really for information, to know if they knew anything of the standing of the firm. The last communication I had from the firm was a circular dated June 17 (Exhibit 42). I invested £15 altogether and received about 15s. 3d. in dividends from the Complex deal and nothing from the other. I never received my capital back, though I applied for it. I believed the statements in the circular (Exhibit 19) before I parted with my money. I understood by the guarantee that they had such confidence in the way they invested their clients' money that they could afford to guarantee their capital and that they were in a position to do so. I believed their statements that they had made profits by simultaneously opening a bull and bear operation and that they had a correspondent in New York from whom they got advice from time to time.
To Mr. Wickham. It may have been on July 3 I swore the information at the Guildhall. I am well versed in company matters. My company is very small, with only eight shareholders. I sent a cheque for £5 on September 2 and got a receipt with a notice on the back (Exhibit 22). I did not see that notice at all. I received dividends: September 15, 3s. 3d.; September 29, 2s. 2d.; October 28, 5s. 6d.; January 27, 4s. 4d. I have not worked out the percentage of profit. I know the firm would have to pay certain expenses on the Stock Echange. I had one or two communications to the effect that, owing to the markets being stagnant, they were unable to work their business profitably. I thought the circular strange because a lot of money was being made on the Stock Exchange at that time by judicious investors. When I invested the £5 I thought they were principals and brokers—that they both dealt and invested for clients. I believed they invested my £5 in various stocks and themselves gave the balance to make up the £100. In face of the letters I received I believed they carried on the deals without a single reverse. I have had dealings with other outside brokers; I had an account, not the cover system. If a stock had gone down 20 points I should have had to pay £20 on each £100. I do not deny that Mexico Second Pref. which I bought on September 14 at 33 1/2 were down to 32 1/2 on September 21. My cover had not gone, because they guaranteed the capital. There was no connection between the guarantee and the French Palace. On May 6 my letter to Harrison was acknowledged by Duncan Forbes and Co. and they asked me to name the terms of settlement which I had proposed to Harrison. That was after I had threatened to go to the City Police. I thought their correspondents were in possession of reliable information and would guide them. I have no reason to doubt the business had been carried on for four years. I did not doubt there was a branch office in Paris, but I know nothing about it. I heard there were correspondents in Amsterdam and New York. When I wrote claiming immediate fulfilment of the contract I referred to the contract when I sent the cheque for £10.
Cross-examined by Harrison. I swore in the information that I thought the firm were genuine stock and share dealers and brokers. I think you say in your circular you had brought the shares for 26. If they were bought it was a genuine Stock Exchange transaction.
(Harrison here wished to hand to witness a contract showing that 200 shares had been bought that very day, but in answer to the judge said he did not put the document in. It was in at the police court.)
Judge Lumley Smith. To show him a document he knows nothing about will not advance your case. If you want to prove you did buy them it must be shown in some other way.
Cross-examination continued. When I saw Isaacs I did not ask him to produce a contract. I did not see the notice on the back of the receipt which states: "In consequence of the guarantee which we give to repay the capital we reserve to ourselves the right of opening and closing the deal." If I had I should have communicated with you upon it, because it was not part of the contract, which was without
any reservations. The document was in my possession for twelve months, but I first saw that notice at the police court. There is no reference on the face of the document to it. There were several papers pinned together. You evidently infer by that notice that you reserve that right. I saw that, in, order to get a return of my capital in the Complex, I had to give three months' notice of withdrawal. I gave verbal notice to withdraw in the Mexicans, but I never pressed for my money in the Complex deal. I think the three months had expired when I went to the police. I claimed the return of the £10 upon the face of the contract I signed, and your circular which said that when five points profit were made you undertook to return the profit and the capital; but if I so chose I could go on until the shares reached some fabulous price, somewhere about 70. The "immediate result" I expected from going to the police was exposure. I thought the money was due to me when I saw Mr. Isaacs, but I lost confidence in your ability to keep your promise.
To Mr. Myers. I sent £15 altogether and offered to settle it for £20 with Isaacs and he said he would suggest my wishes to Forbes; he was only the manager and was not in a position to give me a cheque. As to the occasion when I called after I had seen Isaacs go in and was told he was out, I know there is a separate entrance to his room without going through the clerks' room. The boy maintained he was not in, after I told him he was. Eventually he went away and came back and I was shown in to Isaacs. He reprimanded the boy for being so stupid as to say he was not in when he was.
Re-examined. The letter (Exhibit 36) from the firm said, "We will satisfy your claim of £20." I did not see the notice on the back of the receipt, but even if I had it would have been after I had accepted the offer of the contract and would have made no difference, except that I should have objected to it. I had paid the money on the strength of the circular (19). I received the circular repeatedly, stating that they had had no reverse and I believed it. Isaacs said he thought I was entitled to my claim; he did not say anything about the cover running off. I did not look upon it as cover at all. There is nothing in any circular stating that upon the cover running off the guarantee would take effect in the French Palace. I did not go to the police till May 25 and I have made no claim upon the firm since. I have seen the bought and sold notes and statements of account which came with my cheques and I believe on one occasion I noticed commission was charged. That did not help me to judge as to whether they were principals or brokers.
WALTER PETTY , schoolmaster, Hull. On March 23, 1911, I received this circular about Complex stock deals (Exhibit 111). As to the statement that the system had been carried on by Duncan Forbes and Co. for five years I had no information to contradict it. I suppose I may say I believed it. I believe they had done so without a single reverse. I believed the account set out of "M. D. H." represented genuine transactions, that the profit had been earned and paid to him. I sent £100 in notes on April 29, together with a
letter (Exhibit 112). I suppose believed they could repay the capital they were guaranteeing. I sent in a form of subscription (113). I got a letter and receipt (114, 115), dated May 2, showing my money had been applied to the Complex stock deal. On May 9 I received a telegram (116) and sent them a letter and a cheque for £30 on May 10 (117, 117a). I received a letter and receipt dated May 11 (118, 119) showing that my £30 was applied to Limited Liability special deal. I also got a sold note dated May 11 (120) recording a sale to me of 150 Atchisons at 113(. At the end of the month I wrote twice and wired once, but got no reply. I never got any money back at all. I came to London on June 3 and went to 49, London Wall, the office of the firm. I saw no one except a man who seemed to be waiting about. I fancy he was in charge. But there was nobody there who knew anything about the business, and no furniture. I did not know that the partners in the firm were undischarged bankrupts.
To Mr. Wickham. I did not know on June 3 that there had been attacks in the Press on the firm which had ruined the business. I bought 150 Atchisons on May 11 at 113(. I watched the papers but I cannot remember whether on May 12 they were 112(. I did say at the police court that I attached no importance to the guarantee; it was a personal guarantee, that was all, and therefore if anything went wrong with the firm the guarantee went with it. I agree that when the cover ran off my interest in the stock altogether ceased except for the guarantee of the firm. I said at the police court, "I was not deceived by the circular."
To Mr. Myers. I do not know Isaacs at all, and have had no correspondence with him.
Re-examined. I understood it was merely a personal guarantee and depended entirely on the gentlemen themselves. There was no security at all for the guarantee, and I must trust or leave. If I had known the two men were undischarged bankrupts I should not have accepted their guarantee or sent my money. I took the circular to be bona-fide, but the sequel opens my eyes, and I find that I was deceived.
JOHN TREVOR , surveyor, 2, Coleman Street. The agreement for the letting of 49, London Wall (Exhibit 92) was executed in my presence by Mr. Duncan Forbes, described as trading as Duncan Forbes and Co., of 325 and 326 Finsbury Pavement House. It is for five years at an annual rental of £170, payable quarterly in advance. I also had the letting of the latter address. At first Duncan Forbes and Co. were the sub-tenants of Mr. Casparis, but afterwards they had the exclusive use of two rooms for £2 per week. I introduced them to Casparis.
To Mr. Wickham. As I let the offices to Duncan Forbes and Co. I knew who they were when they went to London Wall, and
what their business was. They moved from one to the other of their own accord.
To Mr. Myers. Mr. Isaacs had nothing to do with the offices being let.
WILLIAM WAGSTAFF , porter at Finsbury Pavement House. In the autumn of 1909 there was a tenant there named Casparis, who had as sub-tenants Duncan Forbes and Co. from September, 1909, to February, 1910. I knew three gentlemen as members of the firm—as using the rooms.
To Mr. Wickham. Trevor, the agent for letting the offices, did not introduce them to Casparis, so far as I am aware.
To Mr. Myers. I always understood Isaacs to be classed as one of the firm; but I had no grounds for coming to that conclusion.
To the Court. The three defendants used to come there every day. I used to go into the place when they were there perhaps three or four times a week. Isaacs used to give his orders.
CECIL SMITH , managing clerk to John Trevor. I know Forbes. (Pointing him out in the dock.) I knew him by the name of Rupert Scott. He called at our offices in May of this year in that name and wanted some offices. He called several times, and said he wanted them at once. I prepared an agreement for the letting of 103 and 104, Cheapside (Exhibit 122) for five years at £80, payable quarterly in advance, on May 9. It was executed in my presence by the prisoner, and I saw him sign the name "Rupert Scott" at the end. The rent was paid in advance by cheque drawn "Per pro Harrison."
To Mr. Wickham. I said at the police court, "I knew him as Duncan Forbes and Co. before he signed the agreement." He gave a reference, which I took up; it was a man in King Street, Cheapside. I swear Forbes signed the agreement. I did not sign as a witness because I did not wish to do so. It is the practice for me to witness agreements.
Re-examined. I should say the signatures "Rupert Scott." in the agreement (Exhibit 122) and in Exhibits 62 and 62a are in three distinct handwritings.
Mr. Muir. Exhibit 62 is the letter sent with the circular relating to the Prudential Exchange, which is the address in Cheapside, and 62a is the circular itself. They are lithographed signatures.
WILLIAM DAVID FILKINS , secretary to William Wilson and Co., Limited, 103 and 104, Cheapside. At the beginning of May, 1911, Forbes came with an order from Mr. Trevor to view some offices in that building. I asked for the name, but he said it was for a friend of his. I saw the agreement (Exhibit 122) afterwards, with the name "Rupert Scott" upon it. No one ever entered into possession of the office or had the keys. A good number of letters came addressed to Rupert Scott and the Prudential Exchange. A messenger called three or four times with a note, "Please give bearer any letters that may have arrived for the Prudential Exchange or Rupert Scott." I produce
one such note, signed "R. Scott" and dated May 29, 1911. It ends, "Hope to be up in a day or two." [Put in and marked Exhibit 304.]
To Mr. Wickham. About one-eighth of the letters were letter-packets returned from the Post Office. I should not know whose writing the signature on the agreement was.
EMIL ADOLPH SCHIDECKER , managing director of the Polyglot Printing Company, Finsbury. I have done printing work for Duncan Forbes and Co from about September, 1909, till the beginning of this year. It was mostly circulars. Exhibit 65 is a file of such circulars, and 64 is the accounts relating to the circulars, and other documents printed. Some were for Finsbury Pavement House and some for London Wall. The total amount was £7,405. All the accounts were duly paid up to the last. I have done work for them this year. £302 is now owing. The circulars when printed were sent to Messrs. Smith and Co., envelope dressers and circular posters. Each of the three gentlemen in the dock gave me orders, and I have had orders from the young ladies in the office, from the office boy, or on the 'phone. Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 15, 18, 19, 26, 28, 31, and 111 were all printed by me for Duncan Forbes and Co.
To the Court. Most of the orders were given to me by Isaacs, I think.
To Mr. Wickham. I took the first order myself, not my partner. Payment was satisfactory until the attacks in the Press. It was after the arrest of Forbes that I was asked to give evidence.
To Harrison. I only took orders once or twice from you. It was when you published "Our Weekly" instead of the circulars. You gave me the "copy" and that was the order. I believe there was a delay between when the order was given and the "copy" given to me. I could not say the order was given by you.
To Mr. Myers. Whoever gave the order, it was put down to the account of Duncan Forbes and Co. I always understood Mr. Isaacs to be a servant of the firm. Sometimes the orders were given by the young lady typists or the office boy.
To the Court. They handed me the "copy." That was the only order I had for all the work. There were five or six young ladies there, a commissionaire, an office boy, and the defendants.
HARRY CLAYTON , clerk at Messrs. Strakers, Ludgate Hill. On May 22, 1911, this order was brought in to print headings for letter paper (Exhibit 124). It was for the "Prudential Exchange, head office, 103 and 104, Cheapside, secretary, Rupert Scott." Isaacs brought the order. The paper when printed was sent to the Roneo Duplicating Company.
To Mr. Wickham. I did not see the prisoner nearest to me (Forbes). I was asked to give evidence about a fortnight before I did so. I gave evidence on August 2.
62 and 62a are the circulars. He said the headed sheets would come from Messrs. Straker's and we were to do the typing. The order was for 2,000—1,000 four-page and 1,000 two-page.
To Mr. Myers. Isaacs subsequently sent a boy named Gall.
CYRIL HENRY GALL . I am called "John." I was employed by Duncan Forbes and Co. from February 12, 1910, onwards, as office boy and general clerk. Harrison engaged me. I attended at the offices, 235 and 236, Finsbury Pavement House, and 49, London Wall, daily, down to May, 1911. Forbes, Harrison and Isaacs carried on the business; Forbes and Harrison as partners and Isaacs as manager. In February, 1910, there were on the staff myself and four girls. Arnold, the commissionaire, came afterwards. When persona came to the office who wanted an interview they saw Forbes or Isaacs, never Harrison. Isaacs opened the letters in the morning as a rule, and sometimes Forbes. Harrison ceased to attend the office first, just after Christmas, then Forbes, about March, and Isaacs remained till the middle of May. After they had all ceased to attend I still attended, together with Miss Harling, Miss Underwood, Miss Hopkins, Miss Bull, Miss Cousins, and the commissionaire, until the beginning of June. That was at 49, London Wall. I stayed till the bailiffs took away the furniture on June 12. During that time I used to communicate with Isaacs either on the 'phone or at the corner of London Wall and Coleman Street by appointment. I gave him the names of clients who called, and sometimes he gave me the wages and messages to Miss Harling about the clients, to tell them the firm would write to them. The letters which arrived were given to Miss Harling and she opened them, and if there were any cheques in them she sent them to the bank. They were entered in a pay-book and we used to write and say we had received the cheque, and answer the letters. Neither Isaacs nor any of the defendants ever saw those letters. After June 12 Miss Harling, Miss Constance Underwood, Miss Edie Underwood, and I went to 63, Finsbury Pavement, the office of Harrison. That is about two minutes' walk from 235, Finsbury Pavement House. I had been at 63, Finsbury Pavement during the period between the middle of May and June 12 and had seen Harrison, Forbes, and sometimes Isaacs there. I went to take a letter given me by Miss Harling to take over. I delivered it to one of the three defendants, and sometimes I got an answer to the letter. I only did that two or three times. The staff remained there till a few days before the arrest, the end of June. I never saw either of the defendants there after the staff went there. The last date I saw them there was about the beginning of June. While I was there I communicated with Isaacs, and sometimes with Harrison and Forbes by post and telephone. I used to ring them up at the Coventry Restaurant, Finsbury. Isaacs gave me the key to 63, Finsbury Pavement on the day the bailiffs took the furniture from London Wall. Isaacs sent me to the Roneo Company to get some printed matter. Exhibits 62 and 62a are similar to what I got. We folded them up and sent them off to clients. They are Prudential Exchange circulars. We were using the London Wall office then. We
also sent them from 63, Finsbury Pavement, on instructions from Isaacs. The address on the documents is "103 and 104, Cheapside." I never went there. On one occasion at London Wall a man threatened me on the stairs that he would fetch a policeman if I did not tell him where Harrison was. I told Harrison that, and he told me to collect all papers from his desk and take them to J. J. Edwards and Co., solicitors, Sackville Street, which I did. Exhibits 269, 270 and 271 were among the papers I took there. That would be about March. I never saw them again till I saw them at the police court. I deposited a parcel at the cloak room, Broad Street Station, and got this ticket for it (Exhibit 58). It contained the paying-in books. I got them from Harrison's desk and the safe. I had instructions from Isaacs. The ticket is in Harrison's name, and I sent it to him at 28, Victoria Road, Kensington, where he lived.
Mr. Wickham said that the boy had admitted in his corrected depositions that the man who threatened him with the police was an advertising agent and had nothing to do with anything else.
(Friday, November 10.)
GEORGE THOMAS MALCOLM , clerk, London City and Midland Bank, Coleman Street Branch. Forbes opened an account at our branch on September 18, 1909, in the name of Duncan Forbes and Co. At first he was the only person who signed cheques on that account. Afterwards Harrison signed. That account was closed on October 21, 1911. I produce correct copies of extracts from the books of the bank.
SAMUEL LANGWORTH , cashier, Barclay's Bank, Lombard Street, E.C. Exhibit 279 is a copy of the ledger account of Burrow Cleveland and Fuller, who were customers of our bank, Forbes was the customer we knew as B. C. Fuller. Exhibit 280 contains particulars extracted from the books of the bank showing bank notes paid into and out of Fuller's account.
GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE , messenger, London Bankruptcy Court. I produce the file in the bankruptcy of Charles Suraco, trading as H. Chancellor and Co., 19, Manchester Avenue, E.C. The date of adjudication is February 19, 1895; the petition was filed in 1894. The bankrupt has not been discharged. I produce the file in the bankruptcy of William Humberd, 24, Queen Victoria Street, E.C, stock and share dealer, residing at 7, Ridgmount Gardens, Gower Street. The petition was filed on May 29, 1909, the receiving order was made October 29, 1909, the adjudication was November 26, 1909. The bankrupt has not attended for public examination. I produce the file in the bankruptcy of Burrow Cleveland and Fuller. The adjudication was December 20, 1897. The bankrupt has not been discharged.
WILLIAM HOLLAND , Sergeant at Mace for the Sheriffs of the City of London. On March 17, 1911, I took possession of the effects of Duncan Forbes and Co, at 49, London Wall, under a judgment for £206 4s. That was satisfied on March 27. On March 22, I received a further execution for £31 2s.; that was satisfied on April 15. On April 8 I received a further execution for £34; that was satisfied on May 6. There was a further execution for £26 10s. on April 13, which was satisfied on May 27. Between May 25 and June 11 there were three other executions amounting to £270, which, as far as I know, were not satisfied. After May 27 I had to withdraw in favour of another officer.
CYRIL GALL recalled, cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. The man who stopped me on the stairs and wanted me to make a parcel of some contract notes was an advertising tout. The firm of Edwards and Co., to whom I afterwards took the contract notes, had nothing to do with that. After Harrison left London Wall I did not see him at the offices of the French Palace Syndicate. It was Mr. Isaacs I saw. They could both be found there. I saw a lot of foreign correspondence at London Wall. I knew M. Parent, of Paris, was a correspondent of Duncan Forbes. About 3,000 cheques a fortnight were sent out for dividends. I first heard of the attacks in the Press about August, 1910; I am not certain about the date. I believed the business carried on was bona fide. When I left London Wall there would be 60,000 or 70,000 cheques which had been paid to clients. They show that more than £250 had been paid to clients. Forbes left the offices just after Christmas and went to the offices of the French Palace Syndicate. Instructions were given to Miss Harling in my presence to return all letters with money. I know she did return them. I often telephoned the brokers. In doing so I have told Magniac Williamson and Co. we were Duncan Forbes and Co. When I deposited certain documents at the cloak-room last witness had not been to the office.
To Harrison. The advertising tout threatened me with the police and pinned me in a corner. When I 'phoned you about it next morning you were not frightened. I did not take all the contents of your desk to J. J. Edwards. I found the contract notes in your desk. That is where they were kept. They were not kept in the outer office in a file. I got the key of your desk from you or Miss Harling. I did not get the contracts out of your desk; I got some out of a box file which was kept in the outer office. I did not take anything else up to J. J. Edwards. I have said that you absented yourself from the offices immediately after Christmas. I remember a member of the staff getting married in February. You gave several of us permission to go to the ceremony. When you were not at the office you could be found at the French Palace office up to the very last. I came there and saw you frequently. Clients were always attended to when they came. You always fixed appointments with people in connection with
the French Palace business at 63, Finsbury Pavement, the offices of C. Harrison and Co. Miss Harling and Miss Underwood went there for instructions.
To Mr. Huntly Jenkins. I looked upon Forbes and Harrison as the principals in the firm. I was there over a year, up to the arrest. I do not know if Isaacs was a paid servant. I looked upon him as the manager. The staff was paid regularly till within a short time of the arrest by Forbes. I did not see him pay Isaacs. I deposited the parcel at the cloak-room by Isaacs's instructions. That was about May, I think. He told me to send the ticket on to Mr. Harrison. He conveyed to me that it was being done by Harrison's directions.
Re-examined. The instructions to return letters containing cheques were given at Finsbury Pavement after we had left London Wali. Miss Harling only returned one to my knowledge. I would ring up the stockbrokers and say we were Duncan Forbes and Co.; then Harrison would speak. I did not hear him say who he was. No one else spoke after I had rung up to my knowledge. I only rang up Magnac Williamsons, not Howe Newbold and Co.
MINNIE DAVIDSON HARLING . I was engaged as bookkeeper to Duncan Forbes and Co. In January, 1910, I answered an advertisement and saw Harrison at Finsbury Pavement. I moved with the firm to 49, London Wall, and on June 12 to Finsbury Pavement. I left about the end of June. I received my instructions from Forbes and Harrison, and from Isaacs occasionally. All three attended regularly at London Wall. Harrison and Forbes ceased to attend, as far as I remember, about February, 1911, and Isaacs a little later, April or May. After that date I used to get instructions from Harrison by telephone. Forbes may have telephoned once or twice. As far as I remember that was the only sort of communication I had with Forbes from February to June. I had a letter from Harrison. Letters from Paris came by post. I might have had verbal messages from defendants through Gaul, the office boy. I think the brokers were in possession of the offices at London Wall from March 7 to June 12, when the goods were removed. I then got instructions to go to 63, Finsbury Pavement, through Gaul. I made entries in Exhibit 43 respecting Complex stock deals. There was some writing in it before. Each deal was dated when I entered it and numbered. This entry of deal 206B shows the names and the amounts received by the firm. The earliest entry in the book is October 4; it does not say what year, I think it is 1909. It is in Harrison's writing. The writing at page 262 is Isaacs's. Exhibit 2 is a circular issued by Duncan Forbes, dated August 31, 1910; the third page contains a list of Complex stock deals. The earliest is numbered 195B. That is obviously July, 1909. There are no entries in the ledger handed to me on any of those deals down to 197B, which deal is also in Harrison's handwriting. Exhibit 44 is another Complex deal book which was kept by Miss Hopkins. I instructed her in the method of keeping it. She began making entries in it on May 23, 1910. Some of it is in my writing. The latest date in the book is October 10,
1910. Exhibit 45 is another Complex stock deal book beginning October 17, 1910. That is in Miss Hopkins's writing. Some of it is mine. We also kept a book which had the names of the persons subscribing for the Complex stock deals arranged approximately in alphabetical order. Exhibit 48 contains partly the same particulars as Exhibits 43 and 44. The deals are not shown in Exhibit 48; they are arranged in alphabetic order. I cannot tell by looking at the book what deal I was first engaged in. The subscribers got the same amount of money no matter what deal they were in. Sometimes there were two deals. Then they had different dividends. Page 2 Exhibit 111, which is a circular dealing with Complex stock deals, says, "The following illustration, which is a correct copy of the statement of account, shows the rise and fall of the market and also the particulars of the transaction M. D. H. in account with Duncan Forbes and Co." M. D. H. are my initials. I never had an account with Duncan Forbes and Co. I cannot see those initals in the books or any name with those initials. The book marked "ex register" contains the names and addresses of clients. I cannot find any intials M. D. H. I was never asked to give a reference for Duncan Forbes and Co. I think Harrison gave me instructions to make entries in Exhibit 50. £5,468 6s. had been returned in dividends and £880 capital in Complex stock deals. The figures have only been roughly got out, but subject to accidental error they are correct. Mr. Harrison made the first, entries in Exhibit 45, limited liability deals. The earliest entry made by myself is January, 1910. While I was there a few persons were paid dividends on special deals, perhaps 20. There are no entries in the ledger for Complex stock deals after April, 1910. Mr. Hermann was one who received dividends in limited liability deals. He was the father of a lady clerk in the office. When cheques were first sent out they were in the form of cheques on the bank. Afterwards Duncan Forbes sent out cheques on themselves, which were presented by bank clerks at the office. No other record was kept than the counterfoils of the cheques of dividends sent to clients. A record was kept in a book called the bank book of cheques drawn by Duncan Forbes on themselves and presented for payment by bank clerks. I think they were always crossed. The book (Exhibit 274) records transactions between Harrison and stockbrokers on the Stock Exchange. No record of Mrs. Fuller's dealings were kept in the office. No record was kept of anybody else's dealings at Duncan Forbes's with stockbrokers. Exhibit 45 records the repayments of capital only, not dividends. The latest entry is April, 1911. Repayments in respect of limited liability deals would be found in that book. Such repayments were mostly by cheque; sometimes by money order. Exhibit 24 is a sold note to Mr. Beare, dated September 14, 1910, 50 National Mexico Second Preference, 33? I filled in that note from information supplied by Harrison. That was the usual practice. I have spoken to Magniac Williamson and Co. on the telephone, not to Howe Newbold and Co. that I remember. I used the name of Mr. Harrison. I did not mention Duncan Forbes and
Co. I would then call Mr. Harrison. I would give the stockbrokers directions if Harrison instructed me, but not often. I received instructtions from Harrison to return remittances just before I left. This was at Finsbury Pavement. I returned one £10. I did not return any after that; we did not receive any. Exhibits 272 and 273 were cheque-books used for the purpose of returning capital to clients. There was another previous to those. The circular (Exhibit 111) is similar to that sent to Mr. Petty. Exhibit 284 is similar. It has the words in pencil, "Send to clients who have had capital returned." I do not know the handwriting. I heard Harrison say it was his. I never saw a press copy letter book used. I never saw letters to a correspondent in New York, Amsterdam, or Berlin.
To Mr. Wickham. I do not know where Forbes was after he left the offices at London Wall. I knew there was such a place at the French Palace office. I did not know he was there. I do not know whether there were intervals when the brokers were not in possession between March 7 and June 12. I did not have any instructions from Forbes in connection with Exhibit 306. The book (Exhibit 48) is not dated. I have looked up the name of Hatton. It is H. D. Hatton; the H does not look like an M. I think the illustrations given in the circular of January 4 (Exhibit 95) are all genuine transactions as far as I remember. I have identified some of them with the particulars in the book. Clients wrote sometimes asking us not to put their names. Dividends were not paid as late as May 23, 1911. My instructions were to at once return capital when there were complaints. I drew the cheques and they were sent off when signed. I do not recollect Farquharson applying for his money back. The telephone was in the name of Duncan Forbes and Co. Gaul answered the telephone more often than I did. To the best of my recollection we returned capital before 1910. We had perhaps two or three foreign letters a day. Duncan Forbes and Co. had a clerk to attend to foreign correspondence, Miss Cousins. I have seen her trying to make out a letter in a foreign language. She was a French woman. There was no secrecy about anything in the office; everything was perfectly open as far as I remember. The cheques for profit were made out once a fortnight, about 3,000 at a time before the attacks in the Press. I remember on one occasion £60 being sent in postal orders. I do not think there is any record of that. The draft bought and sold notes were kept quite open in the office. Clients in the Complex stock deals had to give three months' notice of withdrawal. Some gave notices which were complied with. About £19,000 was repaid. I understood the reason Duncan Forbes issued their own cheques was that the bank objected to the number of cheques they had to deal with. Duncan Forbes's printing and advertising expenses were very heavy. There was also a loss in connection with Aviation Courses. I know nothing about the Russo-Turkish War Loan except that I kept the book in connection with it. I know nothing about Mount Hecla. If Farquharson or Richman had asked for the return of their money I should have sent it at once under my instructions. I did not see
letters from them applying. I do not know anything about the French Palace business. I said at the police court that the principals paid proper attention to the business and that I never had any suspicion as to its bona-fide nature or I should have left at once.
To Harrison. I was the head of the staff and came more in contact with you than any other member of the staff. As far as I remember you absented yourself from the office in February. Miss Hermann was married, I believe, on February 11. You gave me permission to attend. That was not your last appearance at the office. I do not remember your going to France. I will not swear February was the last month you were there. My memory is vague as to that; it might be April. I saw you once or twice afterwards at 63, Finsbury Pavement. We were in constant telephonic communication. Every one of the participants in the Complex stock deal would get exactly the same documents and the same amount as profit if they subscribed the same sum. You would tell me the names of the stocks that were going to be operated in, and when the account day came round you would tell me the prices to fill in so as to calculate the profit. Sometimes you told me the date of closing and I looked them up in the papers myself. One per cent profit on 25 shares is £5 and on 50 shares £10. It is irrespective of the name or price of the shares as long as the quantity dealt in is the same. In the fortnightly account there has been more than one stock deal. Provided they were all £5 subscribers the participators would get the same 5s. 6d. I know the testimonials were true copies of letters received from clients. As to the £880 which I said was the capital returned, that is altogether out of it; it must be more. £1,000 would be a minimum. I have Exhibit 47, limited liability book, before me. On October 17, 1910, he had a cheque for £25 sent him. Maurice had a cheque for £7 0s. 8d. in November; George Wright, February 14, £26 10s. 3d. On May 23 we were still paying dividends. All the contracts with stockbrokers were kept in the office. You handed them to me as you received them in the morning and I kept them in a special file in the clerks' office, and when the fortnightly settlement came round I checked the contents with the statement. Sometimes I found mistakes. I made out a cheque if there was a difference and sent it to Magniac Williamsons. I am sure I was at Finsbury Pavement when you told me to return capital to clients. I frequently transferred accounts from limited liability to Complex deals. Clients would get impatient and ask to be transferred. They then received their dividends on their investments. All letters were duplicated on the typewriter. The duplicates were kept on a file in the outer office.
To Mr. Huntly Jenkins. Isaacs was a servant like myself. I did not know he was getting £3 a week and afterwards £5. I was paid £2 5s. It might have been as late as April that dividends continued to be paid. Isaacs ceased coming to the office about March or April. I do not think his stopping away from the office had anything to do with paying dividends.
the petitioning creditor, in the bankruptcy of William Humbert, of Queen Victoria Street. I served the bankruptcy notice on Humbert at 7, Ridgmount Gardens on March 1, 1909. He is prisoner Harrison.
Cross-examined by prisoner Harrison. To the best of my ability you are the man I served the notice upon. It was early in the morning. It was on the first or second floor, I think, on the right hand side of the staircase. I will not be positive whether it was the first or second floor; it was the first, I think. I called two or three times.
(Saturday, November 11.)
CHARLES LINDSAY NEWBOLD , partner in Howe, Newbold and Co., stockbrokers, 13, Copthall Court. I know Forbes as Fuller. I did some business for Mrs. Fuller. Exhibit 288 are contract notes relating to the transactions; two or three are missing.
To Mr. Scanlan. Mrs. Fuller's account was always paid up; the differences were always met in a prompt way; there was nothing to complain of. The account was closed by Mrs. Fuller's husband. The attacks in the newspapers did not affect my mind at all. The sold note issued by Duncan Forbes indicates that they were dealing as a principal. It is the ordinary form.
CHARLES ERNEST WOOD , manager, Magniac Williamson and Co., stockbrokers, 33, Old Broad Street. Harrison was a customer of our firm from February to November, 1910. Exhibit 287 is a complete record of our transactions. I knew Forbes as Fuller. He had no connection with Harrison's account with us except that he received commission mission for the introduction of Harrison. I did not know that oither of them was connected with Duncan Forbes and Co. while we were dealing.
To Mr. Scanlan. I am not a member of the House. I am well acquainted with the rules. The account was closed in October, 1910, because we heard Harrison was a partner in Duncan Forbes and Co. It is incorrect to say it was in consequence of the attacks in "Truth." rang up Harrison many times on the telephone. I do not know what my telephone number 1s. We have a big telephone department and we simply get through to the client. Duncan Forbes and Co. never said through the telephone, "We are Duncan Forbes." I have never put the question to our telephone operators. We discontinued dealing with them because the very fact of their advertising in the newspapers, from our knowledge, could not be conducting what we considered a fair business. I do not think we have any outside brokers on our books just now, but we would deal with them if they were honest. There are no deals on the Stock Exchange which can produce the profits they state they can make by complex stock deals. The total turnover, including contangos, is £430,452. The account shows profit for end-March, £540; April 15, £64 3s. 9d; April 29, a loss of £379 9s. 6d.; October 28, £677 3s. 6d. loss; April 1, £540 2s. 9d. profit. The differences were met regularly; once there was a delay of two or
three days; that was an amount of £2,000. We were brokers for the Johore Para Company. We recommended Harrison to take shares in that. He took 750 at a little over 20s. They were sold for about 10s.
To Harrison. You told me when you started dealing with us that you were depending upon information you were getting from Amsterdam. That information in some cases was good. Of course, circumstances arise which will cause a big slump and which cannot be foreseen by anybody. I do not remember whether there was any crisis in America in July. There was a big slump undoubtedly. On the day the £2,000 was due from you you sent a cheque for £1,500 and the balance a day or two later.
Detective-Sergeant GARRETT. On Monday night, July 3, I saw Forbes. I said to him, "Is your name Fuller?" He said, "Yes." I said, "You have been trading at 49, London Wall as Duncan Forbes and Co." He said, "Well, I was in the office." I said, "I am an officer of the City of London Police and hold a warrant for your arrest charging you with being concerned with a man named Isaacs and another in obtaining money by false pretences and conspiracy. I took him to the police station at Brighton, where I read the warrant to him. I conveyed him to London next morning. I mentioned to him that he had obtained a sum of money from Mr. Beare. He said, "Who is Beare? I do not know the man." I saw Isaacs in Graham Road, Dalston, as he was leaving his house. I told him who I was and that I held a warrant for his arrest for conspiring with a man named Forbes, who was in custody, and another man, to obtain money by false pretences. He replied, "Me, I have had absolutely nothing to do with the business." I conveyed him to the police-office, Old Jewry, where I read the warrant over to him. In reply he said, "As far as I am concerned it is incorrect." All the papers found at 49, London Wall were taken to the police office at Old Jewry. When I searched Isaacs I. found on him two railway cloak-room tickets for parcels deposited at Moorgate Street Station dated May 11 and 29 and one for a parcel left at North London Railway, Broad Street, June 9, in the name of Harrison. The parcels contained 24 different documents relating to the business of Duncan Forbes.
To Mr. Wickham. Only one of the parcels was deposited in a name; that was Harrison. I found no papers on Forbes which had anything to do with the Prudential Exchange. In regard to the statement in the Information that only £250 had been repaid to clients, I took no part in the Information. 60,000 cheques were part of the documents' found at London Wall. Beare was the only person who swore an Information for a warrant. I did nothing at all in order to ascertain whether his cover had run off. I did not know that a writ was issued by J. J. Edwards and Co. on behalf of Harrison against "Truth."
Detective-constable FRED POTT. On July 4 I received a number of books which were taken from London Wall.
To Mr. Wickham. I do not know where the originals of the letters are. I have made no inquiry. I know nothing about the case previous
to the arrest. I knew nothing about the French Palace, Russo-Turkish War Loan, Aviation Courses, or Mount Hecla.
(Monday, November 13.)
Detective-Sergeant GARRATT, recalled, further examined. I produce three documents found at 49, London Wall. One an application form from the Rev. W. Richman, a letter from Mr. Beere and a letter from A. J. West.
To Mr. Huntly Jenkins. I arrested Isaacs in a turning running parallel with Graham Road. He has lived there a considerable time. He did not say to me, "Good morning, I know your face, but cannot quite place you." I think I said, "You must remember seeing me in the City." He did not ask me what brought me there. I do not think I said I had got bad news for him. He did not say, "I have nothing to do with their business. I was simply in their employ." I am trusting to my memory; my opinion is he said, "The business" not "their business." I took two letters from him; they related to insurance business and were posted immediately afterwards. They were nothing to do with Duncan Forbes. I found a large number of documents relating to insurance business at his house. I did not take possession of those.
Inspector MACLEAN. I received a warrant from the Guildhall for the arrest of Harrison on July 3. On July 23 I saw Harrison at No. 77, Rue Charles Duflos, Bois Cologne, near Paris. I was then with two French police officers. I told him I was a police officer from London and that a warrant had been issued for his arrest, charging him with being concerned with Forbes and Isaacs in obtaining money by false pretences and conspiracy. He said, "Yes, very well." I told him that his extradition had been applied for by the British Government. He said, "I shall not contest such extradition." While he was in conversation with the two French officers I heard him tell them he was known at that address by the name of de Riva. I afterwards accompanied him with the French officers to the police depôt, Paris, where he stated that his proper name was Charles Colaco, but he was otherwise known as Harrison. On August 22 I received him into custody and conveyed him to the detective office, Old Jewry, where I read the warrant to him. He made no reply.
To Mr. Wickham. I found that Duncan Forbes and Co. had had a branch office at 87, Rue de Petit Champs, for about nine months during 1910, which office was closed about September 1, when the furniture in the office was seized for non-payment of taxes. The offices had been taken by a Frenchman named Parent on behalf of a man named Colazo. There was no staff employed there. Parent called occasionally for letters. The rent was paid three months in advance. The amount returned to clients as shown by ledgers is £240. The books have been referred to by Miss Harling as ledgers. I said in the Information, "It was represented to me that the firm had bought a
parcel of National Mexico Second Preference shares and they had not done so." I have since heard the stockbroker in the box say that they were bought. At the time I swore it I believed it to be true. I also said in the Information that I could find no entry showing dealings with brokers on the Stock Exchange. I could find no trace of it. There were about 60,000 or 70,000 cheques paid to clients found at London Wall. The warrant was granted by Alderman Hanson, who is a stockbroker. He took no further evidence after the first hearing. I first saw the book showing Stock Exchange transactions at the end of July. I was not aware that Forbes and Harrison were well known by brokers in the House. There were a quantity of evening papers and other documents which would show the prices of different stocks. Mr. Beare had some figures which showed the cover had not run off. I was not aware at the time the Information was sworn the Beare looked upon the matter as a criminal offence and that afterwards he demanded back his money and very large profits. He told us he had been in communication with the firm and offered to settle on certain terms, which they declined to do. All I know about "Truth" is hearsay. I have not been seen personally by them. The papers of Duncan Forbes and Co. were not sent for in consequence of attacks in the Press. I did not investigate cases put before me, and find they were perfectly correct and all the money had been repaid. In one instance out of five money was repaid. There are documents I have not looked at personally. Every document has been looked at by some offier or another. There are letters from Paris. I have not seen any letters from New York myself. If there had been I should have seen them. I will not swear there is not correspondence from Elsberg and Co., Amsterdam. I have not seen any written documents from Berlin. I have found that Duncan Forbes and Co. had paid £10,000 to the London County Council for the option of the site of the French Palace, which option expired on May 1. I made no inquiries about the Russo-Turkish War Loan. Some money I expected from that, but whether it is money due to the persons stated is a matter to be settled. The Hecla Silver Mine is not a genuine affair so far as Duncan Forbes and Co. are concerned. They had the option of purchasing three certificates of 1,000 shares each from a Mr. Crysler at 1s. 3d. a share. They obtained possession of the certificates, but Mr. Crysler has never been paid. The only books found at London Wall were in connection with Duncan Forbes and Co. The Russo-Turkish Loan and the Hecla mine were so far as I know introduced by J. J. Edwards. I know Forbes and Harrison had bills of sale on their property. I do not know that Mrs. Forbe advanced money to the firm when they were in difficulties. I do not know that wagering for differences on the Stock Exchange are gambling transactions and are void in law. I know they have never set up the Gaming Act. I think Harrison and Forbes left London Wall about the same time. That is what Miss Harling said. I could not say whether the signature to the agreement signed Rupert Scott is Forbes's, but there is a striking resemblance to it in one I have compared.
To Harrison. I left London for Paris about June 29 before the warrants were granted. I was informed you left by train from Charing Cross. When you were arrested you gave me every facility. The concierge told me Mr. Parent had taken the offices on behalf of Colazo. He did not speak French. I had a representative from the British Embassy with me. He spoke French and English. I have not seen cheques to the amount of nearly £1,000 in the name of Crysler. While I was making inquiries for months Duncan Forbes and Co.'s offices were still open. I never went there to make inquiry.
To Mr. Huntly Jenkins. There was an enormous number of paid cheques, 20,000 to 30,000 extending from some time in 1909 to early May this year. They covered the whole period that Isaacs was employed there.
Detective-sergeant GARRATT, recalled. I looked among the correspondence during Inspector Maclean's absence abroad. I looked for letters from New York and Amsterdam and saw none.
Detective-constable POTT, recalled. I searched for letters from Amsterdam, Berlin, and New York and found none.
To Mr. Wickham. I did not find the books mentioned in the list of things found. They were brought to the office and I had to look through them. They were taken from London Wall on July 4.
Detective ARTHUR THORPE. I assisted in the search for correspondence from New York, Berlin, and Amsterdam, but found no copy letters to or letters from people at those places. The counterfoil receipt book is a book showing the name of the client and the amount sent. It does not show dealings on the Stock Exchange in National Mexico Second Preference.
To Mr. Wickham. Exhibit 50 shows that £8,000 had been returned to clients. That book was found among the correspondence afterwards and immediately used.
EDITH MAUD HOPKINS . I entered Duncan Forbes's employment on May 7, 1910, as bookkeeper and shorthand writer. Exhibit 44 is a Complex stock deal book in which I put the clients' names and the amounts received from them. Those names were subsequently transferred into Exhibit 48 in alphabetical order. I was there about a year. I did not see any foreign correspondence.
To Mr. Wickham. I did not keep any French accounts. I entered up the advances made by Duncan Forbes and Co. in connection with the French Palace. That was not in an account book, but on plain paper. The total might be a little more than £17,000. I know nothing about the other enterprises. I had no reason to think the business was not bona-fide. There was no secrecy. Everything was conducted quiety; there were no rows at the office.
To Harrison. I think your attendance ceased at London Wall in February.
CONSTANCE UNDERWOOD . I was shorthand typist at 49, London Wall, from June, 1910, to May, 1911. Then I went to 63, Finsbury Pavement. I was there about a week. The circulars of the Prudencial Exchange were put up in envelopes by the office boy, my sister and myself. Isaacs and Forbes did some as well. I entered in Exhibit 282 notices of withdrawal for the complex stock deals. I made no entries in No. 281. This is before I came into the office. The handwritings are Forbes and Isaacs'. In a lot of cases capital was repaid.
To Mr. Wickham. I said at the police court that all capital was returned until the attacks in "Truth." That is correct. I believed the business was bona fide or I should not have stopped.
To Harrison. I was with the London and Paris Exchange before I went to Duncan Forbes. There was no prosecution in that case. I could not say I know that business was run on the cover system. Exhibit 50 shows dividend paid £5,568. You were still attending at London Wall when Miss Harman got married; that was in February. I do not remember your going to France. When clients were dissatisfied we returned their money. I do not remember telling you, "You are sending the money back easier than we did at the London and Paris." I was not aware the Finsbury Pavement office was kept for the purpose of interviewing people in connection with the French Palace. When I wanted to find you I used to ring up the French Palace in the Strand. Miss Cousins used to deal with the foreign correspondence, and Miss Janson before her.
ADA BULL . I was shorthand clerk and typist to Duncan Forbes and Co. from November, 1909. Forbes engaged me. Isaacs was there. Harrison came two or three weeks afterwards. Later on at London Wall I had to do with sending dividends. I got the amounts from Miss Harman or Miss Harling. I did not see any letters going to or coming from abroad.
To Mr. Wickham. I have put a 2(d. stamp on letters to France. I have only seen letters go to France. I have not posted letters to New York, Amsterdam, or Berlin. I said at the police court, "When I first went there capital was always returned when asked for." Everything was perfectly open in the office. But for the attacks in the Press everything would have gone on all right.
WILLIAM CASH , partner, Cash, Stone and Co., chartered accounttants. I have made an examination of all the books in connection with the business of Duncan Forbes and Co. I find no book showing the exact position of the firm towards any of their customers in total. Speaking as an accountant, there are a number of books and ledgers, some of which show the personal accounts with clients, but there is nothing in the nature of what I should technically describe as a private ledger which would show the profit and loss of the business or the total
liability to clients or anything of that sort. I have examined the banking account of Forbes in the name of Fuller and Mrs. Fuller. The total amount received from the public by Duncan Forbes and Co. in connection with their complex stock deals is £30,004 5s., in regard to limited liability deals £41,187 13s., and for other matters £9,735 10s. 11d. The total dividends paid amount to £7,776. The capital repaid from the two accounts of Duncan Forbes is £6,325 16s. 2d. These figures are the best I can do with the material available. I believe them to be substantially correct. They are not seriously at fault. There appears, in addition, to have been £246 paid from Harrison's account. There are 933 limited liability accounts in Exhibit 47. Only 34 of those got anything returned; 24 or 25 received less than they paid. I understand only two brokers were employed, Magniac Williamson and Howe Newbold. I have shown the results of the fortnightly deals on a tabulated statement. The net result of deals with Magniac Williamson from February 21 to December 16, 1910, is a loss of £3,731 10s. 8d., and with Howe Newbold and Co. from April 14, 1910, to June 14, 1911, a loss of £114 14s. 7d. The total amount of stock dealt in was £223,243 with Magniac Williamson and £67,831 with Howe Newbold. The last figure is arrived at after ignoring stocks carried over. My reason for doing that is, if this figure is to be used for the purpose of comparison with the firm's transactions with clients of course a very large proportion of the clients' money was purporting to be employed over and over again in a similar way. (The witness went into details of the transactions.)
(Tuesday, November 14.)
WILLIAM CASH , recalled. To Mr. Scanlan. I have had experience in Treasury and public prosecutions. I have not audited outside stockbrokers' accounts before. The words on Duncan Forbes and Co.'s contract note are, "We have sold to you this day." If they did not immediately purchase those stocks on the market they are civilly liable to their clients. If you get a contract note from a broker the stock is bought for you and the man is acting as a broker. I cannot say if you demand to know the principal that you are entitled to have it put on the contract note. The jobber is the principal to the broker. He enters into a contract to deliver certain stock at certain prices. When he is a bear he is anticipating a fall. If he contracts to sell 5,000 Great Boulders to a broker and has not got them on his book for delivery he is compelled to purchase them back when delivery is demanded. There would not have been a profit to Duncan Forbes if Achisons had fallen one point, because they guaranteed the client against loss. If a man buys stock on cover and the cover runs off, of course he loses it. He would lose it but for the guarantee.
(Witness was cross-examined further on stock market fluctuations of the different deals.) The total amount paid by Duncan Forbes and Co. in connection with the French Palace is £10,539. I should be surprised to hear that it was £17,000. They paid to printers £7,244 and for advertising and circulars £12,601. I have traced paid into Harrison's account £11,474, but as against that there are sums returned by him to Duncan Forbes, mostly in connection with Stock Exchange transactions, £2,371, and other moneys on account of Duncan Forbes, which leave remaining in Harrison's account £4,800. In Forbes's account on the same basis there is £1,979, but that account is complicated by transfers from Harrison's and Mrs. Fuller's account and so on. They paid out in connection with the RussoTurkish War Loan £4,660, Aviation Courses £2,820, of which they returned to clients £864 capital and £216 bonus.
To Harrison. Goodchild's account opened October 17, which was settled, showed a profit of £10 4s. 6d., after deducting the £10 subscribed. There was contango charged, not commission. Mann's deal in July, 1910, resulted in a cheque being sent him for £30 12s. 4d. The dividend paid to Andrews is not stated. Assuming that account was not closed the transaction could have been recorded by opening a separate account. I did not find any fault with that. I find £1,745 returned through solicitors. There is an amount of £207 14s. which has to be added on to repaid capital. (Witness was cross-examined as to market fluctuations.)
ARTHUR HENRY MOON , clerk to H. W. Smith, auctioneer, 6, Great James Street, Bedford Row. I made an inventory of the furniture and effects of Duncan Forbes and Co. at 49, London Wall. The goods were moved next day to auction rooms at 13, High Holborn. They were sold a few days afterwards on June 16. I have no document by which I can fix the date. The furniture and effects were removed from 49, London Wall, on June 13, 1911.
(Wednesday, November 15.)
ARTHUR HENRY MOON , recalled, cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. I thoroughly inspected the goods. There were no documents in drawers that were open. There was one locker in a safe, which was locked. I believe there were documents in that. My principal took charge of them. I have my idea who has got them now. He has (them or has handed them to the Official Receiver. I was first asked to give evidence yesterday. I was served with a subpœna by an officer. He took a statement from me in writing.
Sergeant GARRETT, recalled. I did not get documents from last witness's principal. I took them from a safe which was removed from 63, Finsbury Pavement, to the sale-room of Benjamin Norman, who acted for the landlord of the premises in the distraint. The safe was
in a sale-room at Carter Lane, and I went there with a key supplied to me by Gaul, opened the safe, and took the books from it to the Police Station, Old Jewry. It is the safe spoken of by last witness. There is no other safe that I am aware of.
To Mr. Wickham. I did not say they were Harrison's private papers. I understood last witness to say there were no documents in the safe.
Re-examined. The safe came from 63, Finsbury Pavement. Whether it was transferred from 49, London Wall, I could not say.
Further cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. I said the safe taken from Finsbury Pavement was Harrison's safe and was taken by his landlord in distraint for rent. I cannot say how the furniture could have been taken from London Wall if the business had been transferred to 63, Finsbury Pavement.
Detective-constables FREDERICK BLIGH, JOHN LOAKES and FREDERICK HUTTON spoke to searching the correspondence of Duncan Forbes and Co., and finding no letters from Amsterdam, Berlin, or New York.
Detective-inspector JOHN COLLINSON. On December 30, 1908, I called at some offices in 24, Queen Victoria Street. They were the offices of Humbert Nephew and Co., stock and share dealers. I spoke there to Harrison. I asked his name; he said William Humbert. He told me it was his business and he was the only person in the business.
To Harrison. I swear I saw you there. Sergeant (now Inspector) Thompson was with me.
Mr. Wickham submitted (1) that on counts 13 and 14 (Beare's case) the case should be withdrawn from the jury. On October 18 last tie Recorder under precisely similar circumstances, as the jury were going to stop a case in connection with a taxi-driver, withdrew the case from them. (Cited R. v. Smith, C.C.C. Sess. P., CLV., 710.) On May 1 there was no doubt Beare was under the impression that the firm had acted in a criminal way in regard to his investment. On May 9 he wrote, "I am prepared to accept £20 in full satisfaction." On May 25 he went to the police again. (2) With regard to counts 1 to 14, the money was obtained through the medium of the contract which Farquharson, West, Richman, Petty, and Beare had all broken, for no notice, as was required, has been given, and a charge of false pretences cannot be maintained. (3) No false pretence as to existing facts, as prisoners alleged, not that they had 284 per cent, or even 100 per cent, in hand, but that they would make it in future. (4) To constitute an offence of obtaining money by false pretences there must, as in larceny, be an intention to deprive the owner wholly of his property. In no single case has there been any intention shown, neither has the owner been wholly deprived of his property. (5) That the prisoners were carrying on a genuine business was proved by Mr. Newbold, who said that by their sold notes they constituted themselves principals, as they were not bound to purchase such stocks as they were short of as options, but they were bound to purchase stock to get stock enough. (6) On the bankruptcy charges counsel cited the case of R. v. Coombes (C.C.C. Sess. P., CLV., 705). Prisoner was an undischarged bankrupt who gambled in differences with stockbrokers. He was unable to meet those differences, which exceeded £20, and was prosecuted and convicted for obtaining credit as an undischarged bankrupt. If that was a good conviction, the converse would hold good; for instance, the brokers who carried on the business in connection with differences, if they were undischarged bankrupts, could not have been prosecuted, because they were selling. (Cited R.
v. Bancroft, 3 Cr. App. R., 16; R. v. Crab. 11 Cox, 85; R. v. Williamson, 11 Cox, 328; R. v. Watson, Dears, and B., 348; R. v. Ragg, 29 L.J.M.C., 86; R. v. Codrington, 1 C. and P., 661; Dears and B., 348; Thacker v. Hardy, 4 Q.B. Court of Appeal, p. 684, R. v. Kilham, 11 Cox, 561. R. v. Bryan, Dears, and B., 348; Lovell v. Beauchamp, 1894 A.C., 607.) (Objections overruled.)
ROBERT DUNCAN FORBES (prisoner, on oath). My name is Fuller. I have never gone by any other name except for business purposes. Before I joined Harrison I was in business, as a mortgage broker and commission agent on my own. I met Harrison by accident in the Haymarket in 1909. I had not seen him prior to that for nine or 10 years. He asked me to call at his flat, where he was doing, I believe, a stock and share business. He told me he intended to transfer his business to offices in the City in combination with mortgage broking and financial agency. He said he had settled on the name of Duncan Forbes and Co. and asked if I would join him. I declined at first; I told him I did not know anything about stockbroking. He said he would undertake that part of the business if I looked after the other part, the office. He arranged to find all the money necessary. I had money of my own, at least, my wife's. He guaranteed to give me £500 a year. Harrison could not go up to the City at the time and I had to arrange about the offices, bank, printing, advertising, and to facilitate matters I was to assume the name of Duncan Forbes. As far as I undersand, the difference between an inside and an outside broker is that an inside broker is simply an agent who buys from the jobber. I opened an account with Howe, Newbold and Co. in the name of my wife. I had two reasons: one reason was if I had opened it in my own name I should have had to disclose the fact that I was an undischarged bankrupt; the second reason was I should not have got the 40 or 50 per cent, commission for introducing a client. I did not keep the commission myself; on two occasions I gave the cheques to Isaacs and they were realised for the benefit of Duncan Forbes and Co. On other occasions I showed the cheques to Harrison and paid them into my account and gave him his half back. I have never applied for my discharge in bankruptcy; I could clear it all off; it is not a very large sum. I disclosed the fact of my bankruptcy to a partner of the printing company when I was arranging the affairs of Duncan Forbes and Co. With regard to the different enterprises we were interested in inquiries were made in every case, with the exception of the Aviation Courses, which was introduced by Mr. Williams, of J. J. Edwards and Co., solicitors, Sackville Street, W. I had nothing whatever to do with the stockbroking or financial part of the business beyond signing cheques for dividends and returned capital and introducing Harrison to Magniac Williamson and Co. and opening the account with Howe, Newbold and Co., and buying stocks and shares under instructions from Harrison. All dealings with Newbold were in my wife's name. I do not suppose I saw a dozen clients while the business existed. I did not tell persons I had been carrying on business personally for four years. The letters received amounted to
100 to 700 daily, the latter being the largest number. I used to read and classify them. I used to reply to letters relating to limited liability deals towards the end when Harrison was much pressed for time in regard to the French Palace. People were continually writing and I simply wrote and put them off until I could get him to attend to it, as I did not understand it myself. I ceased attendance at London Wall in April last. Isaacs was left in charge. I did not know anything of Mr. Petty. That came as a surprise to me when he appeared at the Guildhall. After I left London Wall it was understood all money was to be returned for the complex or limited liability deals. The business was not removed from London Wall until the brokers removed all the furniture, which was somewhere about June 12. I first became acquainted with Mr. Lever's name when the offices were in Finsbury Pavement House. He was an old client of Mr. Harrison's. The cause of our taking offices at Finsbury Pavement was our being attacked by the Press. We wanted to disconnect any fresh business that was introduced to us from Duncan Forbes and Co. I attended at Finsbury Pavement House every day, till nearly the end of June, and the French Palace office, and the solicitors. I communicated with the staff by telephone when I had occasion. Isaacs was there. I borrowed £355 from my wife to pay the staff, etc., in 1911. I did not sign the agreement in connection with Rupert Scott. I was not present when it was signed. I did not go with an order to view. I went to look at the offices and said I came from Mr. Trevor. After looking over the place I was asked for my name and I said, "It is nothing to do with me." Isaacs was introduced to me by Harrison. Isaacs said he met me years back, but I do not remember him. There was an idea of carrying on Duncan Forbes and Co. as the Prudential Exchange. I took no active part in it. The object of that was to save us from attack. The London and Paris Exchange did the same thing. I knew of no reason why it should not be done. We anticipated the French Palace scheme would be through in July. The Coronation stopped it, otherwise it would have been through in June. I did not read the circulars that went out. In the French Palace we were to have £26,000 capital we advanced and £80,000 in cash and shares, and the option of all the side shows for 99 years. Crysler's statement to Inspector Maclean about the Hecla silver mine is absolutely incorrect. We expected to get the return of our money and £800 besides from Aviation Courses. I went five times to Doncaster and Burton-on-Trent. The cause of the failure of that was that the managing director and the judge he nominated and steward were drunk all the time; they did not appear on the course till six or seven o'clock in the evening after keeping people waiting all day long; there were no barriers put up and all the three-card-trick men and that kind of thing were there. The French Palace was introduced to us by Mr. Gerard about February, 1910. A £100,000 syndicate was to be formed to promote a company of over a million. The solicitors were J. J. Edwards and Co.; the chairman was a K.C., who is now dead. Gerard had the option of the site for 99 years from the L.C.C. The
option was twice renewed, £5,000 being paid each time. They hold at the present moment £10,000. The total amount paid in connection with that is £18,738. It had the patronage of a member of the Royal Family. £300,000 was underwritten by one firm in London and £200,000 by a bank in France. There were also promises to underwrite. It being delayed by the Coronation, we expected to get it out by October. It is now being financed by a group at Havre. As to the Russo-Turkish War Loan, I have information from Mr. Davis that the Ottoman Court have arranged with some Paris bankers to pay the whole amount, £26,000. With regard to the sample deals on the circulars, we did not propose to sell shares equal to them, not similar shares. I am speaking for myself. Harrison found all the money required. I could have found it if necessary. At the beginning of the business we could have easily fulfilled the guarantee between the two of us. In the majority of instances I believe the cover ran off. It would have been lost with us but for the guarantee. The cover run off was advanced to the various enterprises. Dividends were paid on the stock under the guarantee. I never heard of such an arrangement as Mr. Richman has said, that he found I per cent. and we were to pay the other 99 per cent. We were always in a position to guarantee the money sent; it is invested. We believe we could return the money. Mr. Richman asked me in 1911 what I anticipated as regards profit per £5 share per fortnight; I said 8s. I told him business had been carried on between four and five years. It was not a new business because it was transferred from Harrison. I suppose by the statement that we had not had a single reverse Harrison meant that not a single person had lost their money. No letter left the office to my knowledge, saying the cover had run off and the money was gone. The capital stands to their credit. It has never been written off. Sir Charles Euan Smith was connected with the Russo-Turkish War Loan, notwithstanding the disclaimer in "Truth." He had a claim of £2,000; whether it was paid or not I cannot say. I had a conversation with an officer after my arrest. I told him I knew the papers had been sent up, that pressure had been brought to bear on the City Solicitor by the solicitors of "Truth," and that he had sent down to Old Jewry for all papers or complaints against Duncan Forbes and Co., and there were five complaints. They were instructed to write to the police of the districts where those complaints came from. There was no private ledger at Duncan Forbes and Co.; everything was open. I saw letters that came from a relative of Harrison's at Amsterdam; he called him Loo; he is a member of the firm of Elsberg and Co., stockbrokers. The French office was open in May when I wrote to Harrison and it was open when he arrived there in June; the furniture was there and everything else. Harrison had a correspondent in New York, a Mr. Whiting.
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I had not seen Harrison between 1900 and of June, 1909. I do not know if he had an office then; I only saw his at his flat, Redgemount Gardens. He did not tell me very much about his business; he simply said he was carrying on stock and share
business, in the name of Harrison, at his flat. This was in August, 1909. He said he had been carrying it on for two or three years. The only books he showed me were the four registers that went to Finsbury Pavement House. They were at 49, London Wall when I left. I have not seen them here. They are in the hands of the police. They are registers of names and addresses of clients. I never saw any other books of Harrison's. I took the offices in the name of Forbes. I have never heard the name of Duncan Forbes till Harrison mentioned to me that that was the name he was going to use when he transferred his business. I put "Robert" on. I opened the banking account in the name of Duncan Forbes and Co. I did not tell the bank I was trading alone. I said nothing about a partner that I know of. (Book handed.) I think that is one of Harrison's, and there is another there. I was in the office about two weeks before Harrison arrived. He continued coming to the office till November. Miss Bull has made a mistake. I never heard the name of William Humbert. I did not know he had carried on business in that name at Queen Victoria Street. The first I heard of his having a receiving order made against him in October, 1909, was here. I cannot tell you when he first had authority to sign cheques on the account of Duncan Forbes and Co. It was his business. He provided the money. I gave the first orders to the printers. Harrison drafted the circulars at his flat. I never read them before they were printed. I suppose the list of deals set out are Harrison's deals. They were before Duncan Forbes and Co. started business. I gave the draft of this circular to the printers on September 27 or 29. I have not the faintest idea whether the profits mentioned therein were made. I had nothing whatever to do with the Stock Exchange part of the business. It was entirely Harrison's circular. I know they were sent out to the public. Commission was paid to Mr. Lever and one other man. I do not know his name. With regard to the cheque for £99 sent to Lever I believe those profits were made. I have not got any of Harrison's letters. He has read letters to me from Amsterdam. He did not show me any letter from New York about Mexico Second Preference shares. He told me he had information they were going up. Only two persons that I know of gave references for Duncan Forbes and Co. They were paid commission. I did not know of the books being deposited at the cloak-rooms: I was away at that time. They were moved because the brokers were going to take the furniture. My wife has a small income. She had no banking account till this business started. I forget when she opened it. It would be about the same time I opened with Howe, Newbold and Co. She had about £1,500 saved up at the time. We intended going out to Australia until I met Harrison. I had a portion of the £250 which was raised on the bill of sale. I borrowed £300 besides from her. She drew it from Barclay's Bank in March or April, 1911. The reason of her mortgaging her furniture and houses was that we expected this French Palace to go through and I wanted to do my utmost. There was a rush on Duncan Forbes and
Co. and I wanted to pay them off. I ceased to attend 49, London Wall the second week in April. Then I divided my time between 63, Finsbury Pavement and the French offices in the Strand. Harrison did the same. I think Isaacs ceased attending the office a day or two before the furniture was taken. I did not know he was meetin the office boy at street corners. Harrison or I handed the money to pay the staff to Isaacs when we had it. Isaacs told me he was being badgered by callers, the brokers and one thing and another. I did not give him any orders what to do. I cannot answer for what Harrison may have said. I never saw the circular of March 23. It was sent out but I never looked at it. It was sent from the printers straight to the people who sent it off. I cannot say if money came in in response to circulars in March or April. No one was more astonished than I when Mr. Petty said he sent money in April. When I left the office the instructions were that money was to be returned to senders immediately. I understood £10 was all that came. I do not know that Petty's £100 went into the banking account. I knew nothing about it. This original telegram is in one of the clerk's writing. It is not mine, Isaac's, or Harrison's; neither is the receipt for £30. I did not sign the name of Rupert Scott on the agreement. I put it on a slip of paper because they would not give up letters without an authority at 40, King Street. I wrote it on the spur of the moment. I think Isaacs told me there would be letters there and asked me to call for them. The handwriting on the counterfoil of the payfing-in book is Isaacs's. It shows £5 gold and £130 notes paid into the bank on May 1. The business of Rupert Scott was a transfer of Duncan Forbes's. Nothing was decided in regard to the matter. I was not present when the agreement was signed and could not swear who signed it.
(Thursday, November 16.)
CHARLES ISAACS (prisoner, on oath), 136, Graham Road, Dalston. I have been there six years and pay £36 a year rent. I have never gone by any other name. I have never been bankrupt and this is the first time any charge has been made against me. I have known Forbes since 1909 and Harrison several years. Before entering their employ I was an insurance broker and general commission agent. On October 11, 1909, I received a letter from Duncan Forbes and Co. (Exhibit 51) and I went round and saw them. I saw Forbes first and Harrison later. They had a scheme whereby they wanted me to cover certain risks; I applied to several insurance companies, but failed. Finding that the business was a growing one they asked me if I would assist them in taking charge of the sending out of the circulars. I started at £3 a week, and I was given permission to use their office and telephone for my own business. I was not really the manager. Harrison drafted the circulars and I attended to the printing and distributing. In February, 1910, the business was removed from Finsbury Pavement to London Wall, one reason being that the business had increased to such an extent. My duties were
the same. I never had authority to sign cheques; I signed one cheque in the presence of the bank clerk because both Harrison and Forbes were away and the money was wanted in the office. I paid into the bank very often and I would sometimes fill in the paying-in slips with others members of the staff, just as it was convenient. In the absence of Forbes and Harrison, if Miss Harling could not deal with callers she would refer them to me. Very few made complaints. I would take down what they said and tell them I would report to Forbes or Harrison when they came in. I complained that the time I was putting in was not sufficiently remunerated, and this led to the letter of April 10, 1911, in which they admitted that this was so, but asking me to keep on and do my best and when the French Palace scheme was completed he would put insurance business in my way which would be worth my while; I stayed on with that hope and continued to attend the office regularly. In February, 1910, my salary had been increased to £5 a week. In March this year they wrote me saying that the business having fallen off they must contract their expenses, that I was to consider myself free in a week's time and that if business subsequently improved they would be only too glad to have me back again. From that time I kept in touch with the firm by going to the office at London Wall or Finsbury Pavement almost daily; the reason for my doing so was the insurance in the French Palace Syndicate, of which I had been promised. Harrison during my time did all Stock Exchange transactions; I know nothing of them except what I occasionally overheard; I was never consulted by either Forbes or Harrison as to them. The cloak-room tickets came into my possession in this way: the bailiffs were in possession and the partners thought it advisable to remove a few of the papers concerning the RussoTurkish loan and other matters to the nearest station cloak-room, with a view to their being sent to the solicitors afterwards to prevent them being sold up. The reason I met Gall outside the Wool Exchange on two or three occasions was this: The staff had to be paid and I met Harrison at the Strand Office; I 'phoned through to Gall to meet me there; he did so, and I handed him the money for the staff which I got from Harrison and Forbes. I did not know who "Rupert Scott" was. I gave instructions to Straker's to print 5,000 sheets with the heading because Forbes and Harrison asked me to do so. The unpresented cheques found on me were used in the course of the firm's business and I had to take them with the other papers found in my house to M. Davies, the solicitor. My salary was always paid to me weekly in cash or notes. The only cheques that were drawn made payable to me was one of £50 in January, 1910, which was given me as a sort of bonus to help meet the expenses of my daughter's marriage, and there was also a cheque that I had to pick up in money which was dishonoured through another bank. When arrested for being concerned with Duncan Forbes and Co. I said, "What—me? I have nothing to do with their business," not "I have had absolutely nothing to do with the firm." I had not the slightest knowledge that the business was a fraudulent one, if it were fraudulent.
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I first knew Harrison when he came from Holland in 1891, but the only business I did with him previous to this was in 1908, when he gave me an introduction in connection with some insurance business. I knew him in 1908 as "Charles Samuel Charles"; he had no office of his own then; he used the office of the National Cab Company in Poultry. I did not know he was carrying on business in the name of Humbert; I heard the name for the first time in this Court. I think there is a firm named "Humbert, Son and Nephew," in Queen Victoria Street, but I did not know Harrison in connection with it, nor did I have any connection with that firm myself. This is the first time I have seen this cheque and this slip of paper (Exhibit 321). If found at my house, they must have been among Harrison's papers I had to deliver to Mr. Davies. I see the cheque is drawn by Humbert, Nephew and Co.; Harrison probably filled it in; I do not know in whose handwriting the slip of paper 1s. I have never been to 17, Abchurch Lane, 79, Queen Victoria Street, Wardrobe Chambers, or No. 9, Poultry; I do not know whether this latter is the office of the National Cab Company; Humbert and Co. do not have offices in the building. I do not know that Harrison was carrying on that business. As "Charles and Co." he was carrying on the business of the National Cab Company in 1908. I do not know what he was doing in 1906. I do not know the name of "Bradshaw and Co." Harrison introduced Forbes to me as "Fuller." I looked upon "Duncan Forbes and Co." as a trade name. I first knew Harrison by the name of Harrison a little before they started the business of Duncan Forbes and Co.; I do not know why he adopted the name. I did not think it was my business to ask. His right name, I believe, is "Seruco." I did not start in the employment of the firm to be of any use until October or November, 1909. It is not true that I was carrying on the business with Forbes before Harrison came in. The French Palace scheme was first thought of in February, 1910; it was certainly not as late as April. I knew very little with regard to the payment made by Forbes and Harrison in connection with the option, but I know the £10,000 was paid to the L.C.C. I occasionally read the circulars sent out, but I never discussed them with Forbes or Harrison. I do not know that they were undischarged bankrupts or I should certainly have had nothing to do with them, because, as regards guaranteeing the capital, I should have thought they would be taking credit when they had no right to. I agree that the guarantee would be worthless if they had no capital, but I did not inquire what their capital was; I never looked into the business so deeply. I ceased to be in their employ on March 31, but I continued working for them in April and some time in May, but I was not paid. I popped into the office at London Wall. I only 'phoned to Gall to meet me outside the Wool Exchange because it saved me going round to London Wall. Gall's evidence referred to May. I did not pay any wages in April. Forbes and Harrison, whilst at the Strand offices, asked me, as I was going to the City, to meet the boy and give him the money which they gave me. It is true that there are entries dated May, 1911, in the paying
in book (Exhibit 320) in my writing; after I left on March 31 Forbes and Harrison asked me to call in and give a hand to Miss Harling. (Witness was taken through a large number of items in the paying-in book ending on May 8, 1911, which he admitted to be in his hand-writing; the counterfoil receipt books for "Complex Stock Deals" and "Limited Liability Deals," Exhibits 323 and 324, showing the source of such payments in.) I do not recognise the handwriting in Exhibit 122 and Exhibits 62 and 62a as being Forbes's or Harrison's. I assisted in sending out the circulars on May 24 as a friend. Gall took the papers to the cloakroom to safeguard them against the bailiffs, in accordance with the arrangement made by Forbes and Harrison. I did not go through the parcels; they were put together by Forbes or Harrison. I do not remember anything about the things to which the cloakroom ticket relates (Exhibit 57); I have no doubt they were sent to the Broad Street Station. I knew nothing of the contents of the tin box to which Exhibit 59 relates. It is true the cloakroom tickets, Exhibits 57, 58, 59, were found in my possession; they were given to me about the end of June with the bundle of papers to take to Mr. Davies. I called at his office and he was on the Continent; I did not leave them as I wanted to give them to him personally. Harrison simply requested me to take them to the solicitor; I do not know why.
Re-examined. When Harrison gave me the tickets and the papers he contemplated going to Paris to see Mr. Davies there in connection with the Russo-Turkish matter. The reason that the items in the paying-in book are in my writing is because they did not want me to beat off entirely from going to London Wall, and they asked me to call in and give a hand to Miss Harling.
To the Court. I used to know what the balance at the bank was as I was requested very often to find out.
(Friday, November 17.)
CHARLES HARRISON (prisoner, not on oath). He contended that there was no justification for the severe criticism of the way the firm's books were kept since Miss Harling had been able from a glance to state how a client stood with the firm. He submitted also that the fact Mr. Richman's two cheques of £67 were as regards different stocks did not show that the accounts were fictitious, this submission being borne out by Mr. Newbold. He stated that the man who had threatened the boy on the staircase was merely a loafer touting for business in connection with the French syndicate, and this incident had nothing to do with his giving orders for certain papers to be cleared away on the following day. He stated that from the £4,800 which Mr. Cash had stated had gone into his own pocket must be deducted sums which had been wrongly allocated to his private expenditure, which
should really be allocated to the French Palace and other matters. With regard to the guarantee all the witnesses had admitted that there was no limitation of time mentioned for repayment of capital; this was necessarily so since the money had to be invested in other concerns to make a profit. If the whole of the money had been invested in the Stock Exchange, it would have a worse gamble than the French Palace or the Russo-Turkish war loan, and great loss would have resulted. He stated that it was true that he had financial correspondents abroad. In Amsterdam his cousin had sent admittedly reliable information; his letters containing family matters were not kept. The letters from a friend of his in Berlin and from Mr. J. W. White from New York, giving official information, were kept in a pigeon hole in his private desk and he did not know what had become of them. In no circular had he stated that transactions would be done on the Stock Exchange with the exception of "Our Weekly," but this had not reached the witnesses who had given evidence. Unlike other outside brokers who had been prosecuted, they had paid larger sums in profits and had in no instance pleaded the Gaming Act. To Mr. Cash's figure of £16,000 paid as dividends must be added the sums paid by postal orders and into the county courts, which he had not included, these bringing the total to over £20,000. Even if they had been compelled to buy all the shares which had been sold to their clients, it would have been an impossibility to buy such large numbers, but he contended they were in the same position as jobbers and not compelled so to do. He stated that, in spite of the slump in the American market, but for which they would have had no liabilities, they had forwarded dividends on, when asked, returned capital, which showed the value of the guarantee, and that the circulars they had sent out with reference to this slump were based on fact. He submitted that it had been proved that the money had not been applied for their own purpose and therefore there was no question of fraud; they had invested it in concerns from which they had a reasonable hope of making a profit. He went into details as to the formation of the French Palace Syndicate and stated they had made themselves responsible for £5,000 paid to the L.C.C. for the option on the Strand site; they had paid further sums and had generally financed the scheme and were anticipating to make £80,000, out of which all their clients would be paid, but owing to these proceedings the Syndicate was wound up and the interests transferred to another syndicate which was now in existence. If the scheme now went through the syndicate would release the £20,000 paid by his firm and take over their shares and nobody could know what would come to the Official Receiver in their bankruptcy as a result. It was true M. Gerard, the architect, who had been sent over by the French Government to put the scheme on foot, had become a bankrupt just recently, but that was because his resources had been exhausted during the past five years in negotiations in connection with the scheme for which he was not remunerated. As regards the Russo-Turkish Indemnity Loan, they had advanced £6,000 to a certain Turkish gentleman, whose name he gave, for
use in expediting the payment owing to him by the Turkish Government of an enormous sum, and they received a charge of £26,000 for so doing. He had gone to see Mr. Davies in Paris in reference to this very matter. Since then an offer has been made to the Trustee in Bankruptcy of £20,000 in respect of this matter, and it was impossible to say whether and to what extent the creditors would eventually be losers. As regards the Hecla Silver Mines it had been proved that £880 had been paid for shares. They also felt justified, owing to the success which had attended the Blackpool and Doncaster meetings, in spite of the adverse circumstances, in laying out about £3,000 for a few months, as they were told a profit of £8,000 would be made. Owing, however, to the bad management of others they lost their money. During the time the firm was being attacked by the Press, which resulted in a large number of people withdrawing their money, their bankers and brokers closing their accounts with them, and their solicitor, Mr. Edwards, stating thai he was reluctantly compelled to cease from acting any more for them. Sandwichmen paraded London Wall with placards stating "Exposure of a Swindling Bucket Shop"; overtures were made to them by certain papers offering to cease this nuisance, but these they would not entertain. In spite of the huge number of writs and summonses with which they were served they stood their ground and endeavoured to make terms wherever possible, in no case pleading the Gaming Act. Eventually an execution was put in, the amount was too large to pay, and the furniture removed and the offices closed. There was not the slightest doubt that but for the attacks in the Press the business never would have been closed. If they had only listened to overtures made to them for the advertisements in certain papers, the attacks would have ceased, but these they would not listen to. So large were the withdrawals that the firm failed. He denied being Humbert, on whom a bankruptcy notice was served in Ridgemount Gardens, and stated that he had never seen Humbert in his life. He submitted the bankruptcy proceedings against him, which happend 16 years ago, did not apply to this case. He contended if they were principals they had sold stock to their clients for which they had received part payment, and no question of credit was involved. He pointed out that Mr. Farquharson and Mr. Richman had never asked for a return of their capital and neither of them had complained to the police until after his arrest; and that Mr. Beere had ignored altogether the notice that his capital was subject to three months' notice of withdrawal. In conclusion he stated that he was not penniless at the time the firm was started, there being the rent of the office and the expenses of sending out circulars to meet, but that now after all his hard work and anxiety in connection with his different schemes, which none could foresee would be failures, he was now a beggar.
Verdict, "We find Forbes and Harrison Guilty on all counts and Isaacs guilty of conspiracy as a servant."
Upon Mr. Huntly Jenkins pointing out that there was no count in the indictment charging Isaacs with conspiracy "as a servant," the foreman of the jury said, "We delete those words; we find him Guilty of conspiracy."
It was stated that Isaacs bore a good character. Harrison's character, so far as this class of fraud was concerned, was as bad as it could possibly be. He was convicted at this Court in 1901 and sentenced to four years' penal servitude for obtaining money by false pretences. The names were mentioned of "bucket-shop" businesses with which Harrison had been connected. In the management of one of them he was associated with two persons, one of whom had since been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for "bucket-shop" frauds and the other to three and a half years' penal servitude on a charge in respect to a slate-quarry company. Forbes was in 1901 convicted and sentenced to two consecutive terms of three years' penal servitude on charges in relation to a cab company. This offence of keeping fraudulent outside brokers' businesses was rampant in the City of London. There were at the present time complaints as to no fewer than 20 such businesses being actually carried on at this moment, and the police were more or less helpless. Private individuals could not prosecute, the expense rendering it impossible, and they were unwilling to come forward because they felt that they had made fools of themselves and did not want to be gibbeted before the public as such. It was not until an office was closed and the public began to clamour for the profits promised them that the police got to know anything about the matter.
Sentences: Forbes and Harrison, Five years' penal servitude each on the charge of obtaining money by false pretences. (Judge Lumley Smith stated that he deferred the sentences with regard to the other counts so as to avoid the inconvenience of having concurrent sentences of imprisonment and penal servitude. He would recommend that Harrison be deported at the expiration of his sentence.) Isaacs was released on his own recognisances and those of Abraham Moss (brother-in-law of prisoner) in £500 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM.
(Wednesday, November 8.)
Mr. W. W. Grantham prosecuted; Mr. Roland Oliver defended.
Detective-inspector ARTHUR NEILL. At 12.30 p.m. on October 12 I was in conversation with prisoner's wife in Brewery Road, when prisoner came up. I said to him, "Is your name Thomas Collins?" He said "Yes." I said, "I am a police officer and I shall have to arrest you for attempting to murder your wife last evening." He said, "Quite right; I intended to do it. She summoned me at the
police court yesterday for persistent cruelty. The case was adjourned and we went home together. We had a drink on the way and, going upstairs when we got home, I lost my temper and pulled her hat off. She went into a room where her mother was. I went into the other room and got the knife and tried to cut her throat. Her mother interfered and I left." The mother was living in a room in the same house. On the way to the station he said, "It is all her own fault. She has been going into public-houses with other women drinking, and I heard she was going to leave me and go with the lodger. I did it more to frighten her than anything else. After I had done it I went and got some money owing me at my work and I have been on the drink ever since." He certainly had been drinking when I arrested him. He said, "I have spent 3s. on the drink since."
Cross-examined. He was quite rational in his conduct. A Mr. and Mrs. Gray occupied the part of the house downstairs. There is no doubt that prisoner's wife was on a day or two previously in a public-house with Mrs. Gray, but she behaved herself properly; she is regarded there as a very peaceable woman.
SUSANNAH HILL , 96, Brewery Road. I live on the first floor. Prisoner and his wife, my daughter, lived on the second floor; they have been married three years, and she has had three children, of whom one is alive. About 5 p.m. on October 11 they came back home having been to the police court. Outside my kitchen door he hit her, took her hat off and tore it up. I had heard them rushing up the stairs, and I opened the door. I took my daughter into my kitchen and prisoner went upstairs. About fifteen minutes later he came, knocked at my door and asked for a match. I gave him one and said, "Why don't you be quiet and leave off. She has been and summoned you and of course you have got to go through it." My daughter said, "If you hit me again, I will go and fetch a policeman. I am going out and I won't come back any more." He said, "You don't go out of this place alive," and he rushed over to her with a knife in his hand; I do not know where he got it from; I have seen it in his room. My daughter fell back in the chair and screamed. She put her hands up to save her throat, and I rushed up to him and held him while she ran downstairs. The knife fell on the ground; it had only cut her hand.
Cross-examined. He had complained of her going out to drink with Mrs. Gray; he said that Mrs. Gray was the cause of all the trouble between them. He told her that he had been told she was going to go away with Mr. Gray. She is living with him now as his wife. He accused her of drinking with other men, but he did not mention Mr. Gray especially. The knife was knocked out of prisoner's hand in consequence of my daughter putting her hands up. He had not seized hold of her at all.
ELLEN COLLINS . Prisoner is my husband. On October 11 I took out a summons against him for cruelty. It was adjourned till the 17th. We left the police court to go home. On the way I had drink with him as he said he would break my neck if I did not. On reaching
home I was going upstairs when he pulled my skirt. I ran up the stairs and outside my kitchen door he tore my hat off and knocked my head against the door. I screamed, and my mother came to my assistance. He went up to his room, and returned after 10 minutes. I was sitting in a chair in my mother's kitchen. He asked for a match and mother gave him one. He looked as if he was coming towards me, and I said, "If you don't leave me alone, I shall call a policeman." He said, "You don't go out of this house alive," and he pulled this knife from his breast pocket and rushed at me, saying, "I will cut your throat." I put my hands up and the knife caught my thumb. Mother pulled him away. He left the house. My thumb was dressed.
Cross-examined. I did not say at the police court that he knocked my head against the door, because I did not think of it. He was nasty drunk, but he knew what he was doing. Two or three days before he said he had been told I was going away with Gray and we quarrelled. He also suggested that I had been drinking with other men and with Mrs. Gray. He asked me not to go out drinking with Mrs. Gray. Gray has left his wife, and I have now gone to live with him because I had nowhere to go to when prisoner was remanded. I knocked the knife out of his hand.
WILFRID ARTHUR DOBBIN , Assistant Police Surgeon. On October 11 I saw prosecutrix at 96, Brewery Road. She had a cut two inches long on the back of her thumb which could have been caused by this knife. It was not serious.
Cross-examined. When the cut was inflicted the blade was evidently slanting upwards.
THOMAS WILLIAM COLLINS (prisoner, on oath). Before October 11 there had been quarrels between myself and my wife which resulted in our going to the Clerkenwell Police Court. Her evidence is correct as to what happened after. When she said she would call the police if I touched her I went upstairs and got the knife. I came down and asked mother for a match and she gave me one. I was making a cigarette. I walked over to my wife as she was sitting in a chair. She said, "If you hit me again I will fetch the police." I pulled the knife out of my pocket and said I would cut her throat. She threw up her hands and knocked the knife from my hand. I did not intend to injure her in any way; I only said it to frighten her.
Cross-examined. I did not bang her head against the door; she must have knocked her head when I was pulling her hat off. I was the worse for drink, but she was not nor was my mother-in-law, and they would be likely to remember what took place better than I. I do not remember saying when arrested with attempted murder, "Yes, quite right; I intended to do it;" but being drunk I might have said it. I remember saying, "I lost my temper." It is quite possible I said she should not leave the house alive. When I was up in our room it came into my head all of a minute to get the knife.
Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding under great provocation.
Prisoner received a good character.
Sentence, Three months' hard labour.
DE VENE, Harry (21, artist) , breaking and entering the shop, No. 111, Oxford Street, and stealing therein one camera, the goods of the Westminster Photographic Exchange, Limited ; feloniously shooting at Ambrose Askew and Richard Bell, Metropolitan police officers, with intent to murder them; feloniously receiving one automatic pistol, the goods of Joseph Lang and Son, Limited, well knowing the same to have been stolen.
Prisoner pleaded guilty to the first indictment and to shooting at Ambrose Askew with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. This plea was accepted by Mr. Muir, for the prosecution.
Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony in August 23, 1910, at the Newington Sessions.
Prisoner was stated to have an exceedingly bad record and to be a desperate character. In endeavouring to escape arrest he had shot at two policemen, wounding one slightly. When subsequently arrested there were found on him a revolver, 42 live cartridges, a large knife, a mask, and a pair of gloves. He was stated to be an associate of a well-known blackmailer and sodomites. Since April 27, 1906, when he was 16 years of age, he had been convicted six times in the names of "Harry Clay" (this was stated to be his real name), "Henry," "Harry," and "Herbert" "Gordon," and "Harry Lyons"; he was released from his last sentence on September 8, 1911.
Sentence, Fourteen years' penal servitude, Mr. Justice Grantham stating that the offence was one of the most serious that the Court had to deal with.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, November 8.)
ALLEN, Arthur (26, fitter) pleaded guilty , of obtaining by false pretences from Frederick Evelyn Printer, one pony and trap, from Robert James Mapley, one mare, and from Jane Feldman one pin, one pendant, and other articles, in each case with intent to defraud.
Several previous convictions were proved. Prisoner is now under going a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment at Banbury.
Sentence, Eighteen months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with that sentence.
Mr. Forster Boulton prosecuted.
MARGARET MCNAIRE , housekeeper, 16, Grafton Street, W. I identify the cover of a parcel I made up on October 23 to despatch by post. It contained newspapers and letters and was addressed to Townend of Symington. I gave the parcel to Rose Gurney about 11 a.m.
ROSE GURNET , housemaid, 16, Grafton Street, W. I received the parcel from last witness about eleven a.m. on October 23. After stamping it with stamps bought at the post office, I handed it to the clerk. It was left on the parcel counter.
ELSIE KATE ALDUS , clerk, Dover Street Post Office. I was attending to the parcels business on Monday morning, October 23. A lady brought in a parcel of which this is the cover; She stamped it and it was put on the counter where the parcels are put if there is a lot of them. The counter is quite open. I did not see prisoner come into the post office. He took up the parcel and asked me if he could have it registered. I said, "No, it must be sealed." I added, "It does not belong to you; a lady just left it." I took it away from him. He said, "Where is my parcel?" He had not put anything on the counter as far as I know. He said, "You might look behind the counter." I looked; there was nothing there. He said, "Perhaps the postman has taken it." I told him the postman cleared from the back of the counter, not from the counter. The postman had cleared before the lady brought her parcel in. Prisoner then said he must have left it in the motor. While prisoner was looking about the counter I went and told the supervisor, and when she came he was looking in the telephone directory.
Cross-examined by prisoner. When I drew your attention to the parcel you said, "That is not my parcel." I had told you it belonged to somebody else. I am sure you did not bring in any parcel.
JOAN HOLLAND , supervisor, Dover Street Post Office. Last witness made a communication to me about 11 a.m. on October 23. I saw prisoner there. He was turning over the leaves of a telephone directory. I asked him what he meant by attempting to get possession of a parcel that did not belong to him. He told me he had handed over a parcel which could not be found and wished to have it registered. He then went on to say the principal reason of his coming into the office was to consult the telephone directory to telephone to Charing Cross to see how much a taxi would cost him from the Bath Club. I said, "I do not believe you. The same kind of thing has happened at another office." He mumbled something about wanting to go back to the Bath Club. I followed him to the door. He first went to the right in the direction of the Bath Club which is four or five doors down on the same side of the street, then he turned and saw me and turned to the left, passing me as I stood in the doorway. He then turned down Hay Hill which is one door away from the office. I asked a taxi driver to stop him. He told me I should find a policeman at the bottom of the hill. The policeman stopped prisoner. I asked the policeman to keep him in the office while I communicated with the postmaster; having done so I gave prisoner in charge.
(Friday, November 10.)
JOAN HOLLAND , recalled, further examined. After prisoner had been given in charge I had a service message enquiring about a parcel addressed to an address given by prisoner; enquires showed that there was no such parcel in the office.
Police-constable CLIFFORD COLE, 290 C. On October 23, about 11.15 a.m., I was on point duty in Hay Hill when I saw prisoner running, followed by Miss Holland. When he saw me, prisoner said, "It's all right, sir. I knew you were here; I was just coming to fetch you; I have done nothing wrong." Miss Holland said, "This man has been to the Dover Street Post Office and tried to steal a parcel from there."Prisoner said nothing then. I took him to the post office; there he said, "I brought a parcel here to post, with a sixpenny stamp on it; I laid it on the counter and asked the young lady if I could register that parcel, thinking it was my parcel; I lost sight of my parcel." I took him to the police station.
To prisoner. It is not true that you yourself came to me and said, "I want you to come to the post office, there is something wrong."
Detective-sergeant ERNEST HILLS, C Division. I was at Vine Street Police Station when prisoner was charged. He said, "I took a parcel in to the post office; what has become of that?" I said, "Where was it addressed to?" he said, "To Mr. T. Godfrey, 2, Temple Terrace, March, Cambridge; it contained a plush table cloth." On searching him we found this piece of paper and piece of string. I said, "If you took the parcel in, perhaps you will tell me where you got the table cloth from, and I will make inquiries"; he said, "That is my business."
To prisoner. It was about noon when I saw you; it was about 3.15 when you were charged; certain enquiries had to be made on your behalf. (To a juror). There was no writing on the piece of paper. (To prisoner.) You told me you refused to give your name and address till charged. The letters in your pocket were authenticated after you were charged. (To the Court.) Prisoner had a furnished room in Brown Street. (To a juryman.) I do not produce the letters because they have nothing to do with the charge. I produce the brown paper and string found on him, because they probably have something to do with it. (To prisoner.) The paper was probably to cover up the identity of any parcel you have taken from the post office. (To a juryman.) The delay in charging was because the police had no power to charge, as the attempt was not made in their sight. The prosecutrix could not charge without the authorisation of her principal.
JOAN HOLLAND , recalled. I was in charge of the whole office, including the parcels. Every hour the postman takes parcels away, and they are counted. They go to the Bird Street depot, where they are sorted. No record is kept of their destination, if unregistered. I first heard about the parcel about 1 o'clock. We have to look at the addresses to see whether they are to be charged inland rate. They
might be going abroad. I am absolutely positive that prisoner brought nothing into the office in the way of a parcel.
Prisoner. I asked her before the magistrate, "Will you swear that I did not bring a parcel with me on the morning of October 23," and she said, "No. I will not."
Witness (to the Court). He did not give me a parcel. I did not see him come into the post office. (To the jury.) I was the only person taking in parcels at that time of the day. The other four assistants were doing other work.
Mr. Forster Boulton proposed to give evidence of a similar attempt by prisoner at the Regent Street Post Office.
The Recorder. I cannot accept that. This case is a peculiar one and must stand upon its own footing.
THOMAS ALEXANDER GABRATT , chief clerk of the. Bath Club, Dover Street. I have never seen prisoner before. I have looked through the register of members, and he is not a member of the club. The entrance fee is 30 guineas.
Prisoner. At the present time I am not a member.
Witness (to the Court). The register goes back to the foundation of the club in 1894. I can find no such name. He was not employed there on October 23 last. I could not say whether he ever was. There may be lots of people employed I never heard of.
Mr. Forster Boulton proposed to give evidence of the Regent Street attempt, in order to show that prisoner did not go into the post office with a bona-fide intention at all, but to commit felony.
The Recorder. You ought to have charged that in the indictment, it being possible to charge as many misdemeanours as you please. Do you press this evidence?
Mr. Forster Boulton. No. That is my case.
A Juryman. Are we going to have any evidence as to whether any one has been to Temple Terrace, March?
The Recorder. No such evidence is brought forward. There might have been a witness from the post office, wherever it was, to which this message was sent.
Mr. Forster Boulton. We have done our best, but the time has been rather short to obtain a witness from March.
EDWIN HAMILTON (prisoner, not on oath). I went to the post office at Dover Street on October 23 to post and register a parcel to Mr. Godfrey, 2, Temple Terrace, March, Cambridge. I got there about 11 a.m. and Miss Aldus was engaged talking to a young man for about four minutes instead of attending to her duties. There were two men and a boy on my left hand side. I had had an operation for my eyes before, and when Miss Aldus came up to me I passed this parcel to her and asked her to register it. She said, "This is not your parcel." I looked down and said, "No; this is not my parcel." I looked at four or five others, and they were not mine. I then walked the length of the post office and came back and said, "I cannot see my parcel anywhere. May I look at the back of your counter?" she gave me
permission, but I did not see it. One of the men beside me was tall and elderly, and I heard him say, before the young lady came up to me, "I am going to the Bath Club and take a taxi to Charing Cross." I was going to the Bath Club to see whether this man was there. Instead of that the young lady, who now appears to be the supervisor, came to me and said, "I am going to give you into custody" A man standing on the pavement said to me, "There is a policeman round the corner." I went out and saw the policeman, and I went to him and said, "I want you to come to the post office with me." The first question I put to Miss Aldus was, "Will you swear I did not bring in a parcel on the morning of October 23 last," and she said, "No, I will not." The second question was, "When you drew my attention to the packet and I looked at it I at once replied, 'That is not my parcel,'" and she said, "Yes." The last and most important question was, "I did not at any time attempt to take that parcel, or say it was mine," and she said, "No, you did not." All those answers, I think, are in my favour. The prosecution have not brought any witness to prove that I did not bring in a parcel on that morning, and unless they can do so I think I am entitled to be acquitted.
Verdict, Not guilty.
The Recorder (to Mr. Forster Boulton). I repressed that evidence as to Regent Street, because I thought the case on the evidence was a weak one, and the Postmaster-General ought not to try to strengthen one case by producing another, which might have been equally weak. If you had pressed the evidence, however, I should have admitted it.
BEFORE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, November 8.)
Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.
SUSAN EMERSON , barmaid, "Old King's Head" public-house, Bear Street, W.C. On October 10, at 10.30 p.m., prisoner came into the four ale bar and asked me for a glass of ale; I served him, and he tendered a florin (produced) in payment, for which I gave him 1s. 11d. change. I am not sure whether he left the bar or not, but a quarter of an hour afterwards he called for three glasses of ale for himself and two other men. I served him; he tendered another florin (produced) in payment for which I gave him 1s. 9d. change; he then went out. At 12.20 he again came into the public bar and called for a pennyworth of shag tobacco, tendering a third florin which I tested under the beer engine, and it bent. I took the other two florins from the till and I said, "What do you mean by giving me this money; this is the third one you have given me." He denied giving it me, and put down a half-crown. I said, "There is no one else in the bar, so that it could not have been anybody else." I recognised the two I took out
of the till because they were brighter and of a lighter colour. I then called Mrs. Hare the licensee down and told her in the presence of the prisoner that he had given me the bad coins; she asked him what he meant by it, and said she would call a constable. The till was not touched by anybody except me after 9 p.m.
Cross-examined. Prisoner did not say he was sorry; he put down a half-crown and said, "Take it out of the half-crown." Five minutes may have elapsed before the police-constable came. The coins in the till are all mixed up.
BEATRICE ETHEL HARE , licensee, "Old King's Head." In the early morning of October 11, I was called down to the bar; Emerson showed me some coins and said the prisoner had given them to her. I said to the prisoner, "What do you mean by passing this money?" He pointed to a half-crown and said that that was his money, and that that was the first time he had been in the house. I asked Emerson if she was sure, and she said, "Yes." There were two good florins in the till at 9 p.m. when I took the register.
JAMES JOSEPH BRENNAN , surveyor, Theobald's Road. In the early morning of October 11 I was in the private bar of the "Old King's Head" public-house when I saw prisoner in the adjoining bar being served by Emerson. She said, "Look at the money you have passed on me," and accused prisoner of having passed three other florins. He said that he bad not been in there before, and Emerson said he was in there three quarters of an hour before.
Cross-examined. Emerson tested the coin before she went to the till.
Police-constable FRANK HERCOTT, 10 CR. On October 11, at 12.30 a.m., I was called to the "Old King's Head" public-house. Hare accused prisoner of passing three counterfeit florins (produced). Emerson said prisoner had come in three times and passed these florins; prisoner denied it. I searched him and found a good halfcrown which he had just taken from the counter. He was taken to the station and charged; he said he had only been there once.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
PEEL, Sir Robert (baronet, about 50), having been adjudicated bankrupt unlawfully did obtain credit to the extent of £20 and upwards, to wit, to the extent of £39 17s. 3d. from the Midland Railway Company, without informing them that he was an undischarged bankrupt.
Mr. Bodkin, for the prosecution, stated that prisoner had incurred a debt of £39 17s. 3d. by staying at the St. Pancras (Midland Railway) Hotel; the officials were well aware of his bankruptcy although the
particular staff of this hotel were not; there had been no concealment on the part of prisoner; he therefore proposed to offer no evidence.
The jury, on the direction of the Common Serjeant, returned a verdict of Not guilty.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at this court on November 15, 1910, of the same offence, receiving 12 months' hard labour. He was also sentenced at this court to six months' hard labour for uttering, after three previous convictions. He refused to give any account of himself to the police.
Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.
O'CONNELL, George Joseph (23, florist) pleaded guilty , of, having been entrusted with certain property, to with, two banker's cheques for £10 and £50 respectively, the property of Edward Cecil Guinness (Lord Iveagh) in order that he might deliver the proceeds to a certain other person, unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.
Prisoner was stated to have been of previous good character and to have stolen the money in order to go to Australia.
Sentence, Four months' imprisonment, second division.
Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.
ALICE FREE , daughter of Thomas Free, licensee, "Bridge House" public-house, Bow Common Lane. On October 16, at between 10 and 10.30 p.m., I served Jones a glass of ale, price 1d., for which he tendered me 6d., which I thought was light and showed it to my father. While he was testing it Jones turned round to Cox, who was also in the bar, and said, "They are testing it." About 20 minutes later Cox went out; Jones followed five minutes afterwards. That same night I picked Jones out from a number of other men as being the man who tendered the coin. My father gave the bad coin back to Jones, who paid for his ale in good money; I cannot identify the sixpence.
Cross-examined. I saw no third man in company with the two prisoners.
Police-constable ARTHUR SALTER, 587 K. On the night of October 16, I received certain information and in consequence spoke to prisoners in Bow Common Lane, and said I should arrest them for being in possession of counterfeit coin. Jones said, "I do not know what you mean." Cox in the meantime secretly placed a sixpence (produced) on a window-sill, and on the way to the station he dropped
a sixpence, and dropped another when he was searched. I found nothing on Jones.
Verdict, Jones, Not guilty.
Sentence, Cox, Four months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM.
(Friday, November 10.)
Mr. Herman Cohen prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.
Mr. Cohen stating that the Grand Jury having thrown out the bill in this case and prisoner being here only on the verdict of the coroner's jury, he proposed to offer no evidence.
Mr. Justice Grantham, in directing the jury to return a verdict of Not guilty, stated that a great deal was heard about the uselessness of Grand Juries, but he found here, as he did elsewhere, that they served a useful purpose in saving a man being put upon his trial on a serious charge of this character.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Friday, November 10.)
Prisoner confessed to a conviction of felony at the London Sessions on November 2, 1909, in the name of John Munroe. A long list of convictions was proved, dating back to 1902, for similar thefts (from railway platforms).
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
These prisoners were indicted last Sessions (see preceding volume, page 725), James Bullock for receiving, the other four for larceny. The four pleaded guilty; James Bullock pleaded not guilty. At the trial (of James) the jury disagreed. James Bullock was now
Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended. The evidence given for the prosecution at the former trial was repeated. At the close of the case for the Crown,
Mr. Purcell submitted, on the authority of R. v. Annie Lewis (4 Cr. App. R., 96) that there was no case to go to the jury. In that case the woman was living with a burglar, who pleaded guilty to the burglary, some of the proceeds of which were found in the house. There were pawntickets relating to other stolen property found, and also jemmies, and there was no doubt the woman knew the character and occupation of the gang who occupied the house. The woman was acquitted, Mr. Justice Jelf stating: "Even if she did know all about it, this is not possession by her if Gardner was the thief and did not part with the possession. Even assuming that appellant knows that those with whom she is consorting are thieves, the mere fact of finding property admittedly stolen on premises occupied by her is not per se sufficient to raise a presumption that she is in possession of that property." As to the ticket, even assuming that it was stolen and that prisoner's explanation was not a reasonable one, evidence under the Prevention of Crimes Act could only be given for the purpose of proving that a person knew that the property of which he was charged with being in possession was stolen. It was not admissible to prove possession. The evidence with regard to Bourne and Hollingsworth's ticket did not assist the proecution as to whether prisoner was in possession of Selfridge's property. There was not sufficient evidence that the man was ever in possession of the property at all.
Mr. Curtis Bennett. On September 15 two women who had pleaded guilty to stealing the articles were seen to enter prisoner's house with a parcel and to come out without it. In the meantime, prisoner had entered, and there was a strong inference that he and the women went into the sitting-room on that occasion, where the women were found on the 18th with the property. There is evidence to go to the jury as to whether it must not have been in his possession from the 15th to the 18th. In the case of Annie Lewis, the property was found in a silk handkerchief under the mattress of a bed, and therefore might never have been seen by the woman.
The Recorder. I do not think there is sufficient evidence in this case of the prisoner ever having been in possession of the property, particularly after the decision in R. v. Annie Lewis, and I therefore direct the jury to return a verdict of Not guilty.
Verdict, Not guilty.
Upon the other indictments against James Bullock no evidence was offered and a formal verdict of Not guilty was returned.
Cooper, Evans, Roberts, and Jane Bullock were then brought up for sentence.
Police evidence was given that Jane Bullock had been previously convicted for feloniously receiving stolen goods and sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour on April 27, 1903. She had also been sentenced for keeping a brothel and was the accomplice of professional thieves. She and James Bullock had made a perfect business of receiving for years. Cooper had been previously sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour for larceny from the person and other terms of fifteen, eight, and two months. Evans had undergone three months' hard labour for stealing in 1899 and also terms for soliciting and as a suspected person. Roberts had not been previously convicted, but had refused any assistance from the police as to tracing her past career.
Sentences: Jane Bullock, Four years' penal servitude; Cooper, Three years' penal servitude; Evans, Eighteen months' hard labour; Roberts, Six months' hard labour; the sentences to date from the first day of last Session.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Friday, November 10.)
Lipman pleaded guilty of possessing; Myers pleaded guilty of uttering; these pleas were accepted by the prosecution.
Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted; Mr. A. C. Fox Davies appeared for Myers; Mr. Ernest Wetton defended Rubenstein.
Detective ALFRED KIRBY, City Police. On October 25, at 3.15 p.m., I saw the three prisoners together in Gresham Street, behaving suspiciously. I followed them through Milk Street into Cheapside, when Myers went away for a short time and returned. They then went through Gresham Street into Aldersgate Street, when Myers again disappeared for a short time; he came out of an Aerated Bread shop and all three went into Falcon Square, where Myers went into the "Bodega" public house; I followed; he called for a small lemonade and tendered a new two-shilling piece (produced), which the barmaid tested in my presence and found to be counterfeit. Myers then joined the other two, gave Lipman something and Lipman handed something back to Myers. They then went to the "King's Arms" public house in Aldersgate Street; Myers went in and called for a smell lemonade, tendering a new two-shilling piece, for which he received change. I spoke to the barmaid, but she was unable to give me the coin, as the till was locked. All three went on; Myers handed Lipman something and handed Rubenstein some bronze coins, went into the "Goldsmith's Arms," near Bartholomew Close, and called for another small lemonade. I spoke to the proprietor; he handed me the counterfeit two-shilling piece which Myers tendered and at my request detained Myers. Having got the assistance of some people in the bar I told Lipman and Rubenstein, who were waiting outside, I was a police officer and should arrest them for being concerned with another man in uttering counterfeit coin at various public housed; they made no reply. I took them back to the "Goldsmith's Arms" and said the same thing to Myers, who replied, "I have never seen them men before." I said, "Which of you has counterfeit coin—produce it," whereupon Lipman produced 39 counterfeit florins separately wrapped in blue tissue paper (produced). On searching Rubenstein I found two shillings, a sixpence, 2s. 7d. in coppers, two cakes in a bag of the Express Dairy Company, and one lead pencil. Later on I saw the barmaids at the "Bodega" and the "King's Arms" public
houses and received from them two bad florins (produced). Prisoners were charged and made no reply.
Cross-examined. No counterfeit money was found on Rubenstein. I had never seen him before. He struck me as being very suspicious in his actions, but I cannot say if he had been alone that he would have attracted my notice. I repeatedly saw his face. I had the three men under my observation from 3.15 to 4.15.
BETTY STONE , barmaid, "Bodega" public house, Falcon Square; EDITH MURRELL, barmaid, "King's Arms" public house; and NATHANIEL GLUCKSTEIN, licensee of the "Goldsmith's Arms," 1, Albion Buildings, corroborated the last witness.
SOLOMON RUBENSTEIN (prisoner, on oath). I am 19 years old, a porter by trade, and have always borne an excellent character. On October 25 I was going to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, as I had a sore throat, when I met Lipman, whom I had known four months. He gave me two cakes and said he was going along with somebody else changing bad coins. I said, "I do not want to have anything to do with that." I asked him to pay me the half-crown I had lent him a couple of days ago and he gave me a shilling, 1s. 7d. in bronze, and a pencil. I was about to leave him when I was arrested. At this time I had made arrangements for going to Australia.
Cross-examined. Besides the 2s. 7d. which Lipman gave me I also had earned 1s. that day by selling papers; the 2s. 6d. I won betting the day before.
Verdict (Rubenstein), Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy on account of his youth and previous good character.
A number of short sentences for stealing, etc., were proved against Lipman. Rubenstein and Myers were stated to be of good character.
Sentences, Lipman, Twelve months' hard labour; Myers, Six months' hard labour; Rubenstein, Three months' hard labour.
The Jury commended the conduct of Detective Alfred Kirby, by whose promptitude prisoners were brought to justice. The Common Serjeant concurred.
Mr. M. Macmahon prosecuted.
WILLIAM HAYNES , plasterer, Elizabeth Cottage, High Hill Ferry, Clapton. On October 2, at about 6 p.m., I was in the "Ship Aground" public-house, by Lea Bridge, when both prisoners asked me to stand them a drink; I thought it was the best way of getting rid of them, so I put down a shilling; at 6.30 I left. Mead followed and asked me to come back; I refused. Thinking I had got rid of them I went along the bank of the River Lea when I was suddenly struck
violent blows on the head; when I recovered the two prisoners had hold of me and were searching my pockets. I struggled and received a violent blow in the eye; when I recovered they had gone.
Cross-examined. I was assaulted at between 8 and 8.30. (To the Judge.) I lost 10s., a watch, and other articles, which were taken from me.
WILLIAM THOMPSON , 31, Middlesex Wharf, Clapton. I am nearly 13 years old. On October 2, between 7.45 and 7.50 p.m., I saw Mead, whom I know, dragging prosecutor along a wharf beside the River Lea. Prosecutor called out, "Is there no one strong enough to help me?" This wharf is 200 yards from Lea Bridge—I could run it in five minutes.
Cross-examined. I know the time because the laundry girls come out at 8; this happened 10 minutes before.
WALTER FRANK UNDERWOOD , 12, Dockway, Clapton. I am 12 years old. On October 2 at between 7.45 and 7.50 p.m. I saw Mead, whom I know, pulling prosecutor over some steps by the Lea. Prosecutor said, "Ain't there anybody strong enough to help me?" Then another man holloaed out to prosecutor, "Ain't you coming home?" He answered "Yes"; then Mead, prosecutor, and the other man went along together. I was not in company with the witness Thompson.
Detective JAMES FORD, N Division. On October 3 at about 10.15 p.m. I was with prosecutor in the "King's Head" public-house, near Lea Bridge, when he pointed out Clark to me and said in prisoner's hearing, "That is one of the men that robbed me last night." Clark put his head on one side as if to hide. I told him I should take him into custody for assaulting and robbing prosecutor. He said, "I know nothing at all about him." He became very violent on the road to the station. I afterwards saw Mead, and said, "Is your name Mead?" He said, "All right, I know who you are; I will go quiet; I know what you want me for. I heard you got my pal Clark last night. Don't make a fuss." He was taken to the station and prosecutor picked him out from among nine others. He made no reply to the charge.
Cross-examined. When Clark turned his head he was not speaking to anybody else.
Cross-examined. I was in the "Ship Aground" public-house at 7, not at 6.30. I did not ask the prosecutor for a drink and he did not give me one. I know the witness Thompson and Mead. I did not see Mead on October 2.
JAMES MEAD (prisoner, on oath). On October 2, at 6 p.m., I came along the Lea and went to Stratford, where I spent the night in a lodging house. Next day I came back to Clapton, was arrested at my mother's house, and said "All right."
Cross-examined. My arrest was a complete surprise to me; I did not tell the officer I knew what he had come for. I know Thompson and Underwood. The evidence of the prosecutor, Ford, Thompson, and Underwood is false.
Verdict (both) Guilty.
Convictions proved: Clark, North London Police Court on February 25, 1905, six weeks' hard labour; and on April 20, 1904, twenty months' hard labour for stealing; stated to have done odd jobs. A large number of convictions were proved against Mead, including three years' penal servitude in 1905; stated to be of very bad character.
Sentences: Mead, Fifteen months' hard labour; Clark, five years' penal servitude.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Saturday, November 11).
CHOWN, William (20, labourer); PRATT, Frederick William (21, labourer); and GREEN, Thomas (19, fitter) , stealing a quantity of copper wire, the goods of His Majesty's Postmaster General ; GREEN, stealing one bicycle and other articles, the goods of George Hamnier and others; GREEN stealing five rolls of cloth, the goods of Frederick William Garnham .
Chown and Green pleaded guilty to the first indictment; Green not guilty to the indictments on which he was charged alone. Chown confessed to a previous conviction of felony on June 22, 1909.
The trial of Pratt on the first indictment was proceeded with.
Mr. Forster Boulton prosecuted.
Police-constable CHARLES LANSDALE, 640 J. There have been a number of cuttings of wire in the neighbourhood of Regent's Canal, and we were, in consequence, paying attention to the towing path. At 7.30 p.m. on October 15 I heard the fire engines going to St. Agnes Terrace in the neighbourhood, and I went on the towing path. I saw three figures moving about and two coils of wire underneath the Victoria Park railings. I climbed over the fence into the park and went on my hands and knees in their direction. When I got up to within two or three yards I took a good look at the men for about five minutes. Green was cutting the wire down from the telegraph post and Chown and Pratt were coiling it up. I crept up so as to get them between Police-constable Pennicutt, who was with me, and me. I heard his whistle blow and I ran towards the prisoners. They climbed over the railings and got into the park. I climbed over and
followed Pratt and Chown. Green ran away by himself. I managed to get near enough to strike Pratt with my truncheon; I said, "If you don't stop I will brain you." I then tripped over some wires in the park. On the following evening I went to the station and identified Chown, Green and Pratt from a number of men. In going back to the spot where I had seen them I found this cap (produced) in the park and this wire and sack (produced) on the towing path.
Cross-examined by Pratt. You were standing on the lower part of the towing path, within a couple of yards from the telegraph post. I saw no one besides you three.
Police-constable THEOPHILUS PENNICUTT, 309 J. I was with Police-constable Lansdale on this occasion. I saw three men on the towing path. I blew my whistle and ran towards them. They climbed over the fence into the park. I ran backwards and forwards on the towing path; they were in the park, and I thought they might return. Chown came back and looked over the fence. I subsequently identified him. I saw no fourth man there.
Police-constable WILLIAM ANSELL, 279 J. At about 8.30 p.m. on October 16 I saw Pratt and Green talking with a number of other men in Hackney Road. I knew Pratt before I told him I should arrest him on suspicion of stealing telegraph wire on the 15th, about 7.30, from the towing path at Regent's Canal. He said, "I know nothing about it. I can prove where I was all Sunday evening." I took him to the station where Police-constable Lansdale identified him from a number of others. Police-constable Pennicutt failed to identify him.
Police-sergeant WILLIAM SMITH J Division. I was present when Police-constable Lansdale picked out Pratt from eight other men, whom I had assisted to get out of the street; they were similarly dressed and of a similar stature. On the following morning when conveying him to the police court he said, "This is a bad job for me. I met a friend of mine the other night and told him wire was going from the towing path. On Sunday evening I met one of my mates. He said, 'Tommy Green, Chownie and young Crow had just gone to get some wire from the towing path.' About 7.30 p.m. I saw Green cutting the wires and Chown and Crow were rolling it up. A policeman came and we all ran away." He lives about 400 yards from the place where this wire was cut down. To the Count: Crow was taken to the station at the same time as Pratt was taken; he bears no resemblance to Pratt; he is of the same age and clean shaven like him, but he is very much shorter. Crow was not identified by anybody.
To Pratt. You and you went down on the towing path.
HENRY JOHN BRAGDEN (linesman, G.P.O.). The wires along the towing path were all right on the night of October 14. On October 15 I found 16 wires had been cut down, amongst which was the wire communicating with the fire station. This sort of thing has been going on several years. The value of the wire cut down on this occasion was about £4. I identify it as the property of the Postmaster-General.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate." I wish to call my wife to prove where I was on Sunday night."
FREDERICK WILLIAM PRATT (prisoner, not on oath). I did not call my wife at the court to prove anything in connection with this case at all—only to prove what time I went out and what time I came in. My defence is that I was employed by detectives, whose names I can give, who are in court at present—Mr. Ansell and Mr. Sholter. At Hackney police station I was employed by these detectives to get all the information I could concerning different cases. Before I was arrested I gave them information concerning this case. I was working for them several weeks. I have no policeman here who can prove that statement. I have got nothing else to say. I plead guilty. It is proved, and the constable said I was rolling the wire up. All I wish to prove is that I had no intention of stealing the wire. I joined the prisoners after they got it. Here the Recorder stated, in summing up, that prisoner having stated that he was there winding up the wire, it was for them to say whether they had any doubt that he was concerned in stealing it.
Pratt confessed to a previous conviction of felony on August 24, 1909.
Police-constable WILLIAM ANSELL stated that Pratt had informed him on October 11 that Chown and Green had gone down on the previous night to the towing-path with the intention of stealing wire, but owing to there being too much light they had not done so, and that Pratt had not given him any information concerning the robbery of which he had been convicted.
Police-sergeant PERCY SAUNDERS (J Division) proved two further convictions against Pratt, 12 months' hard labour in 1907, and 21 days' imprisonment in 1908. It was stated that he did very little work, and was an associate of thieves.
Four further convictions were proved against Chown; he was released from his last sentence on September 2 of this year. He was stated to be in constant association with young thieves, amongst whom were Green and Pratt. Green had never been convicted before, he had been at work for several firms, to whom he had given satisfaction. Upon his premises, however, a quantity of stolen goods were found, the subject of two further indictments, to which he had pleaded not guilty.
Evidence was called as to the large numbers of robberies of copper telegraph wire in this vicinity during the past years.
When called upon Chown stated that Green, who was in the employ of the detectives, had forced him into this crime. Green made a statement to a similar effect, and Pratt stated that he was there with no felonious intent, but as an informer.
Upon hearing Pratt's statement the Recorder directed that the verdict be not entered, stating that Pratt had not made his defence clear; he directed that he should be tried again. The other indictments in the meantime were to remain on the files of the Court.
Sentences, Chown, Twelve months' hard labour; Green, Six months' hard labour.
(Tuesday, November 14.) Pratt was brought up.
The Recorder stated that in consequence of the very serious aspersions made against the police by Pratt, he had thought it better that an opportunity should be given of investigating them; but, although in law there was a wide discretion as to the circumstances under which a jury might be discharged when there was some misunderstanding as to what in fact the Jury had before them, he did not think that this came within it, and he would act upon the verdict of the jury.
Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
Mr. Penry Oliver prosecuted.
Detective-Sergeant FREDERICK WISE, City Police. About 9.55 p.m. on October 16 I was standing in St. Paul's Churchyard when I saw prisoner, whom I knew, carrying this linen bag, from which I could see this box protruding. I said, "What have you got there and where have you got it from?" He said, "A box, but I shall not tell you whre I got it from." I took him to the station. On the box I found two labels, one "Messrs. Van Oppen and Co., Limited, continental carriers," and the other "Messrs. Cook, Son and Co., 22, St. Paul's Churchyard." I communicated with Messrs. Van Oppen and Co., and, in consequence of what they told me, I charged prisoner with stealing and receiving the box from a van in St. Paul's Churchyard. He said, "Not in St. Paul's Churchyard. It was at the corner of Watling Street, by Old Change." I found the box contained 12 white cardboard boxes, each containing one dozen lace collarettes.
Cross-examined by prisoner. When I saw you you were going in the direction of Bartholomew Close, where the box came from.
GEORGE WILLIAM FERRY , carman, Van Oppen and Co., Limited, continental carriers, 90 and 91, Bartholomew Close. I collected this box at Great Eastern goods station on October 16 and put it in my van; I took it to Cook and Sons, St. Paul's Churchyard, and I found I was too late to deliver it there. I completed my delivery of other parcels and then went home. I then missed it; I had started with eight boxes for Cook's and found I only had seven. It could not have dopped from the van; it was a covered van, and I had a boy behind. I delivered at two or three places in Watling Street. I identify this box; the value of its contents is £5 19s.
To prisoner. The boy did not tell me that anybody had come to the van and taken the parcel from it.
that it was addressed to Van Oppen's, I was going towards Bartholomew Close to take it there when the sergeant stopped me. I would not tell him where I had got it from, as he was in plain clothes, and I did not know who he was.
Cross-examined. It is true that it did not have Van Oppen's address upon it, but I knew where they were, it was their property as it had not yet been delivered to Cook's. I put it in the bag because I did not want anybody to see it; I did not know whose it was and anybody might have come up and claimed it. I will never give any policeman any information, and when I was arrested I would not do so. I did not tell the magistrate my defence because I had made up my mind to come for trial.
Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at this Court on September 7, 1909. He had been continuously in prison since 1889; there were over 20 convictions against him.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Saturday, November 11.)
BOUGHTON, Robert (52, architect) , having been adjudicated bankrupt within four months next before the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him unlawfully pawning certain property which he had obtained on credit and had not paid for, to wit, 12 chairs from Charles Baveystock and others, two knife-cleaning machines from Spong and Company, Limited, one cork drawer from F arrow and Jackson, Limited, four cupboards from David Colville and others, one camera and one pair of binoculars from William Albert Rouch, in each case with intent to defraud; in incurring certain debts and liabilities, to wit, to the amount of £5 8s. from Charles Baveystock and others, £1 12s. from Farrow and Jackson, Limited, £2 2s. from Roneo, Limited, £6 6s., £5 18s. 6d., £5 14s. 6d., £6 17s. 6d. from Barnett, Limited, £2 15s. 2d. and £1 6s. 3d. from Spong and Company, Limited, £13 10s. from Symes and Colville, Limited, £6 6s. and £5 10s. from William Alfred Rouch, and £6 13s. from William Platt and others, in each case unlawfully did obtain credit by fraud other than false pretences, and with intent to defraud. Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Graham-Campbell, and Mr. H. D. Roome prosecuted; Mr. L. S. Green defended.
Mr. Green submitted that counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 17, 19, 22, and 25 to 29 were bad; being under Section 11, Sub-Section 15 of the Debtors Act, 1869, the defendant must be a "trader," and the goods disposed of "not in the ordinary way of his trade"; the counts disclose no criminal offence.
Mr. Bodkin said the counts had been drawn in this way in order to obtain the opinion of the Court on a matter of great importance to the Board of Trade and the Bankruptcy officials. He submitted that the distinction which up to 1883 had been drawn between traders and non-traders had been removed by the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 and by 53 and 54 Vict. c. 71. sec. 26; that the words "being a trader" were impliedly repeated, and the words "otherwise than
in the ordinary way of his trade" were only retained parenthetically for the purpose of providing a defence to a trader dealing with goods unpaid for in the legitimate way of his trade (Reg. v. Juston, 61 J.P., p. 605).
The Common Serjeant. I think it is clear these counts are bad. There used to be, of course, "bankrupts" who were only bankrupts in the sense of being traders, and "insolvents" in cases of persons who were not traders. That distinction has been done away and all persons, whether traders or not, can be made bankrupts. By the Debtors Act, 1869, Sec. 11, Sub-sec. 15, under which these counts are drawn, a number of misdemeanours are specified. The same considerations would apply to sub-section 14. It is only necessary to-day to consider the effect of the various changes of the law and the words in the Acts which apply to the offence specified in the Debtors Act of 1869, Section 11, Sub-section 50. The distinction between traders and non-traders for the purposes of bankruptcy is abolished, and it is provided by. the Act of 1883, first, in Section 103, that where there is a judgment against a person by which he becomes a judgment debtor, then if application is made by the judgment creditor for the committal of the judgment debtor the Court may decline to commit him to prison and may, with the consent of the judgment creditor, make a receiving order against him. Then by Section 163, Sub-section 2 of the same Act, it is provided that the provisions of the Debtors Act as to offences by bankrupts shall apply to any person whether a trader or not in respect of whose estate a receiving order has been made, as if the term "bankrupt" included a person in respect of whose estate a receiving order has been made. Therefore, when the receiving order has been made, but no bankruptcy follows, the provisions of the Debtors Act apply, and they may be applied to any person, whether a trader or not. But we now have to look, after that Statute is passed, to the offence constituted by Section 11, Sub-section 15, of the Act of 1860; there the word "trader" and the following words do not come in by way merely of a definition of a person; they describe the offence. The offence is that being a trader he pawns, pledge's, or disposes of property which he has obtained on credit and not paid for otherwise than in the ordinary way of his trade. It is not because a trader may be made bankrupt, or because a person who is not a trader may be made bankrupt, or because the whole of section 11 does not apply to anybody but traders, that a person not a trader commits the offence described. This is describing the offence. The nature of the offence is that he is a trader—a man in trade (taking in of course all the statutory definitions of a "trader"), who having obtained property on credit which he has not paid for disposes of that not in the way of his trade. Although the whole of Section 11 constituting offences would now apply to people who are not traders, that change in the law does not make a new offence; the offence is only that, being a trader, he disposes of property not in the way of his trade, meaning that he has obtained property as a trader in the way of his trade and has got rid of it in some other way. It is quite dear, in my opinion, that that sub-section cannot apply to a person who is not a trader, because the offence is that he disposes of it otherwise than in the ordinary way of his trade. If it was intended to apply to a person, not a trader, who obtained property on credit and did not pay for it and pawned or pledged it, then it would be an entirely new offence. That person the legislature has not provided for. Therefore as the offence constituted here is only that of a trader disposing of property obtained on credit and not paid for, otherwise than in the ordinary way of his trade, and as that offence is not charged in these particular counts, this indictment charges that which in law is no offence. Therefore the counts must be quashed. I say nothing about what would be the effect of a verdict upon such counts at these; a verdict of guilty might be held to cure certain defects. Here the objecttion is taken on the counts as they stand and before a verdict The counts in my opinion charge no offence and therefore they must be quashed.
Prisoner then pleaded guilty to counts 18, 20, 23, 30, 31, and 33, under Election 13 of the Debtors Act, 1869, which plea was accepted by the prosecution.
Sentence, Six months' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Monday, November 13.)
Prisoner, an American citizen who had come over here for the Coronation, had obtained the above goods and moneys on the plea that he was stranded; there were several other complaints against him of a similar nature. He had been previously imprisoned in this country for "cab-bilking." It was stated that there was another warrant against him, but on the prisoner stating that he was innocent of the offence upon which this was granted, the Recorder said he would not, in his sentence, take it into account.
Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, second division; recommended for expulsion under the Aliens Act.
WALKER, Edward James (26, publican), and SMITH, Thomas (34, barman) pleaded guilty , of conspiring and agreeing together to contravene the Servants' Character Act, 1792, in that the said E. J. Walker pretended to Joseph Elliott, Charles George Bird, Charles Newman, Michael Eldridge, Robert Gale and Harry Edward Rawlings, that the said T. Smith had been hired for certain periods by the said E. J. Walker as a barman, whereas he had not so been hired, and that the said T. Smith falsely pretended to the said Joseph Elliott, Charles George Bird, Charles Newman, Michael Eldridge, Robert Gale and Harry Edward Rawlings that he had served as barman.
Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. H. D. Roome defended Walker.
Walker had 3 1/2 years ago been employed in the same public house as Smith, but was now manager of "The Angel," Hammersmith. On Smith losing his employment he referred intending employers to Walker for a character, which Walker gave. Having been discharged from this situation for being drunk, Smith again referred to Walker. Walker continued giving references in this way in response to applications, although it had come to his knowledge that Smith on every occasion had been discharged for drunkenness or misappropriations. On Smith being charged with misappropriating his employers' money, Walker stated that he had no knowledge of him. Smith was now undergoing the sentence of six months' hard labour for the offence, which the Recorder was asked to take into account.
Walker received a good character, RUEBEN WASH, the licensee of "The Angel," Hammersmith, stated that he was willing to take him back into his employ.
Sentences, Smith Three months' hard labour to date from November 7; Walker's sentence was postponed till next sessions. The Recorder refused to make an order that Walker should pay the costs of the prosecution.
SULLIVAN, John (32, labourer), and BROWN, William (25, labourer) , robbery with violence upon Thomas Bower Smart, and stealing from him a parcel containing an undershirt and other articles, his goods.
Mr. Wilson prosecuted.
THOMAS BOWER SMART , stonemason, 18, Finchley Street, London Road. At 7 p.m. on October 14, I was looking into a shop window in London Road, when three or four men came round and jostled me; two of them were the prisoners; they were strangers to me. One of the men snatched at a parcel which I had under my arm. I held on to it, when one of them gave me a nasty blow under the heart which made me leave go. The parcel contained this vest and these two collars, value 3s. Brown got the parcel and made a dash with it down the street. I saw a detective run after him and catch him. Sullivan ran away; he was arrested by the same officer.
Cross-examined by Sullivan. I was within a couple of feet from the window. I was struck on the left hand side. The officer ran you into the shop and you were arrested.
Detective JOSEPH HAYMAN, L Division. About 7 p.m. on October 14 I was passing a second-hand clothes shop in London Road, when I saw prosecutor looking in at the window surrounded by the prisoners and another man; they were jostling him and trying to take a parcel from underneath his arm. Sullivan struck him in the stomach, took the parcel, and threw it to Brown, who caught it and ran down Goodwood Street. I chased him. On catching him he threw the parcel over some railings and I directed a boy to fetch it for me. I had Brown against the railings. Sullivan and the other men then came up, struck me, and got him away from me; I ran after him and caught him at the corner of London Road. He struggled very violently, and the other men then came, struck me, and tried to get him away again. I pushed him into the second-hand clothes shop. A man on the other side of the road blew a whistle and a policeman came to my assistance. I managed to keep Brown and Sullivan in the shop; the third man escaped. It took six men to get Sullivan to the station. When charged, Brown made no reply, and Sullivan said, "Thank you, is that all you can make of it." I produce the parcel which I had dropped in the shop.
To Sullivan: You struck the prosecutor on the right side. You came in the shop after Brown and myself; you did not go out and come back again.
JOHN SULLIVAN (prisoner on oath). On this night I saw Brown, with whom I had an appointment, in the centre of a crowd in Goodwood Street. Hayman, who I did not know was an officer, had hold of him, and I asked him what was the matter. He said if I did not go away he would serve me the same. I stopped there and he took Brown back to the shop. I went in and again asked him what the
matter was, and he told me to clear out or he would arrest me. I went out and returned shortly afterwards. I stayed there until a policeman came in and arrested me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wilson. I did not see anything of the prosecutor. I did not jostle or hit him. I stayed in the shop of my own accord. The reason I struggled so on being taken to the station was because they twisted my arms. I never struck Hayman.
WILLIAM BROWN (prisoner, on oath). On this night I was going down Goodwood Street on my way to meet Sullivan when a man ran past me with a brown paper parcel which he threw in a garden. Hayman tapped me on the shoulder and said, "I want you." I asked him what he wanted, and he said, "Come back to the shop." On getting there he knocked me down and started punching me. Sullivan came in and said, "Don't hurt him. He ain't kicking up no row." He then went out, came back again and stayed there until he was arrested.
Cross-examined by Sullivan. You did not throw the parcel to me. You were not in my company when this disturbance occurred.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wilson. Sullivan was told to go out of the shop and he refused. Another man did not come in with him. I never saw the prosecutor until I saw him at the station. It is not true that Hayman had the against the railings and Sullivan and another man came and attacked him. I did not get away. I was not arrested again.
Sullivan confessed to a previous conviction of felony on October 2, 1910, at the Tower Bridge Police Court. Another conviction in 1907 was proved against him. Both prisoners were stated to be violent characters and never to have done regular work.
Sentences, Sullivan, Eighteen months' hard labour; Brown, Nine months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Monday, November 13).
WILLIAMS, Geo. (38, printer); GREEN, Geo. (30, jeweller); LEVY, Beatrice (26, factory hand); and GRIFFITHS, May (29, cashier) Williams and Green . unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same. Green, Levy and Griffiths feloniously possessing two moulds upon which was impressed the obverse and reverse sides of a florin; each assisting, harbouring, and maintaining the principal felon as accessories after the fact.
Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted; Mr. St. John McDonald defended Green; Mr. F. Watt defended Williams, Levy and Griffiths.
Green, Levy and Griffiths were tried upon the second indictment
for possessing a mould on September 26, 1911, and each receiving, maintaining, and harbouring the others.
WILLIAM EGGLETON , Sewardstone Road, Victoria Park, manager to George Glover, landlord of 25, Smith Street, Clerkenwell. On September 2 I let to Green a workshop in 25, Smith Street; he gave the name of George Grey, described himself as a cheap jeweller, and paid one week's rent (2s. 6d.) in advance. Nine days later I called for the rent. Green opened the door a little way, stood in the doorway and said he was not quite prepared with the rent, but would call round next day and pay it, which he did. I noticed that a screen had been erected. I did not see him again until these proceedings. A fortnight later the two female prisoners called between one and two o'clock. Levy said she want to pay Mr. Grey's rent, and that Grey was travelling. She then paid 2s. 6d., and asked if she could go into the workshop. I told her Grey had the keys; she produced a key which we tried, but found would not open the door; Levy then said she would go back and try to get some more keys. I did not see her again.
Cross-examined by Mr. Watt. Griffiths did not say anything; she seemed to be simply a companion.
GEORGE GLOVER , fancy goods manufacturer, Rennie Street, St. Luke's. I have a workshop on the second floor of 25, Smith Street. During the first week in September the workshop under me, which had been empty, was let. I saw the prisoner in the yard several times; September 22 was the last time I saw him. After that I heard somebody trying to open the door; they rang my bell; I went down, but they had gone. I pushed the door with my knee and it opened. I went in and saw on a bench a lot of acids, antimony, some of which I took away, basins, and plaster of Paris; a small saucepan on the fire, a tin box (produced.) in which I found some moulds, one of which (produced) I took away.
Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. I could hear several men talking underneath; I only saw Green.
Evidence of the illness of SUSAN TRICKEY having been given, her depositions at Old Street Police Court was read as follows: I live at 25, Smith Street, Clerkenwell, wife of Wm. Trickey. We occupy the basement, the parlours, and the top room. On September 2 I saw Mr. Eggleton with a man go into the workshop. Subsequently on another occasion I saw two men go in and out of the workshop. On September 26 I saw two women, the female prisoners, pass into the passage from the back yard about 2 p.m. About 3 p.m. I saw the prisoner Levy again with a man; he was not one of the men I had seen before. They went upstairs into the workshop. I went into the wash-house. Some water dripped on to me from the workshop. They stayed there about 10 minutes. When they came down I asked Levy if she had left any water running. She said she had sopped it up. Levy was carrying box (No. 3). The man was carrying a brown paper parcel. When they went into the house they had nothing with them."
Sergeant JAMES LAING, G Division. About 7.30 p.m. on September
26, I went to 25, Smith Street, and Glover handed me mould (produced), which has since been broken, and a piece of antimony (produced). Having obtained the keys I entered workshop on first floor; I found saucepan with white metal in the bottom, two small galley pots, three basins, plate containing plating fluid, file with metal in the teeth, 2 pieces of glass, copper wire, and other things, all of which I produce. There was also a gas meter and ring in the workshop, the windows were whitewashed.
Inspector WM. BURNHAM, E Division. At 10.45 a.m., on September 27, I went to 20, Winchester Street. Griffiths opened the door; 1 said, "Is Miss Levy in?" She said, "Yes"; I followed to the first floor front room, where I saw Levy. I said "I am a police officer. Who occupies this room?" Levy said, "We both do, we pay 3s. 6d. a week each." I said, "I have reasons to believe that you have implements for the manufacture of counterfeit coin here, and I am going to search." In the corner of the room I found tin box (produced), which had a little plaster of paris in the bottom. Under the bed I found broken pieces of mould, wrapped up in a newspaper. In a drawer I found two small galley pots containing cyanide of potassium and nitrate of silver, some copper wire with plating on it, pieces of antimony, and three geats; in a cupbooard I found some plaster of paris. I showed all these things to the two female prisoners; I said, "These two pieces of mould have the impression of a florin on them." Levy said, "A man asked me to mind the box the day before yesterday. I did not know what it contained. I said, "Do you know who the man is, and where he lives?" She said, "No." Griffiths said, "I know nothing about it." I was present when Green was identified by Eggleton and Glover, and the two women by Eggleton and Mrs. Trickey. After the identification Green said, "Where do you say the shop is?" I said, "25, Smith Street." He said, "Oh yes, that is the workshop I took for a man named Carpenter."
ELIZA POULTER , 20, Winchester Street, King's Cross. I let furnished rooms. In the evening of September 15 Levy and Griffiths rented a room from me at 3s. 6d. a week each. They said they worked at the laundry.
Cross-examined by Mr. Watt. Only Griffiths said she worked at a laundry.
SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , assistant assayer, H.M. Mint. The articles produced are all implements used for coining. There are also a whole obverse mould of a florin and portions of three moulds, one obverse and two reverse. There is also a lot of antimony and three geats.
Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald All these moulds are so damaged that it would be impossible to manufacture a counterfeit coin from them.
GEORGE GREEN (prisoner on oath). None of the coining implements produced belong to me; they must belong to a man whom I know as McCarthy or Carpenter, for whom I took the workshop at 25, Smith Street, in the name of Grey, on September 2. I had met him in a public house. He asked me to take a workshop for him as I could do so easier than he, being a jeweller and silversmith. I was only in there three times, the last time being September 12, when Eggleton called for the rent and I opened the door. McCarthy paid me 10s. to pay the rent and fit up the bench, and 2s. or 3s. besides. I never saw him at the shop and I never saw any of these coining implements. I know nothing about Levy and Griffiths and had nothing to do with their carrying away the tin box. I took the shop in the false name of Grey because in my trade it is hard for a man to get employment if he is thought to have set up for himself. When Eggleton asked for my address I told him 8, Anson Houses, which is my mother's address. Later on McCarthy told me he was going to give up the shop, and he handed me the key to give back to the landlord; that key was found on me when I was arrested.
Cross-examined by Mr. Morice. I do not know why McCarthy did not take the shop for himself; he told me he was an inventor; I had known him about three weeks. I do not know where he lives. There was no screen in the shop, but there was a piece of brown paper stuck to the ceiling. When Mr. Eggleton came for the rent I had been waiting there to pay him, but when he came I found I had no change.
Cross-examined by Mr. Watt. I know nothing about 20, Winchester Street.
BEATRICE LEVY (prisoner, on oath). Griffiths and I went to live at 20, Winchester Street, as stated. On September 26 I saw McCarthy, whom I had never spoken to before, in Pentonville Road. He called to me and asked me to go to 25, Smith Street, and pay half-a-crown rent for him in the name of Grey, at the same time giving me half-a-crown and a key. That was the first time I had ever heard of the place. I went with Griffiths to Mr. Eggleton, paid him the half-crown, saying I came from Grey. We then found that the key would not fit; I said I would go back—nothing more. I again saw McCarthy in Pentonville Road; he asked me if I would mind a box for him. I asked what it was. He said, "Nothing that matters." He offered to pay me for minding it as he was moving his shop, and I agreed to do so. I then went back with him to 25, Smith Street; he opened the door with a key while I stayed outside; he brought out tin box (produced) and asked me to take it home. I did so and left him. He said he would call for it the next morning. When I got home I opened it and found what I took to be a lot of rubbish; I did not know the articles were used for coining. I rolled some up in paper, intending to throw it in the dusthole; the rest I put in my drawer. I had no conversation with Griffiths as to the box or its contents. The next morning Inspector Burnham came into the room as he has described. He did not say he was going to search—the room; he did so. I did
not tell Eggleton that Grey was travelling. Mrs. Trickey asked McCarthy if he had left any water running; he replied that he had sopped it up; she never spoke to me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Morice. I had know McCarthy by sight about four weeks; I had heard him called both McCarthy and Carpenter. I told Burnham I did not know his name because I did not know which was right. I did not ask McCarthy why he could not pay the rent himself. I did not tell Eggleton that I would go back and get some more keys. When McCarthy gave me the half-crown and the key I arranged where I was to meet his again. I opened the box because I thought I would be "nosey" and when I had opened it I thought the man was having a game with me and had got me to mind a Jot of rubbish; I intended to put them on the dust-heap if McCarthy did not call the next day. I put them in the drawer really for no reason at all. I have seen Green casually two or three times before.
Re-examined. Pieces of what I took to be rubbish I put under the bed in a newspaper, intending to throw them on the rubbish heap, but as the metal was more valuable I put it in the drawers. There was nothing to prevent my throwing them away if I had been so inclined.
MAY GRIFFITHS (prisoner, on oath). At the time of my arrest I was Jiving with Levy at 20, Winchester Street. I went with her to 25, Smith Street for company's sake. I had no conversation with her about the box, and knew nothing about it until Burnham came as he has described. I do not know McCarthy or Green.
Cross-examined by Mr. Morice. Levy and I went out the day before our arrest; a man beckoned to her; while she was talking to him I went on; then she told me that she had to go on a message and asked me to go with her. I knew nothing of the message. That night I went to the theatre, and when I came home I did not turn the light up because Levy was asleep, so I did not see the box until Burnham came in the morning at 10.45 a.m. I did not hear him say that he was going to search the room.
Re-examined. I did not examine into Levy's things. She often went out; I knew nothing about her business.
The Common Serjeant suggested that the possession of the broken pieces of moulds was not the possession of a mould; that Glover had taken the whole mould out of the tin box before the two women got it; and that evidence proving that the women carried away what might be evidence against Green was not evidence on an indictment for assisting, harbouring, and maintaining Green, the principal felon.
Mr. Morice submitted that the possession of part of a mould was in law the possession of a mould; that if Levy and Griffiths knew that the whole mould was in the tin box before Glover took it, that guilty knowledge made them guilty of possessing that mould; carrying away evidence was of the same legal import and meaning as assisting, harbouring, and maintaining.
The Common Serjeant quashed the counts charging the two female prisoners with possessing a mould, and held that there was no evidence to go to the jury against Griffiths.
Verdicts, Green Guilty on first count of possessing a mould; Levy guilty on fifth count (assisting, maintaining and harbouring); Griffiths Not guilty.
The Common Serjeant said that he would state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal, or would grant a Certificate of Appeal as regards Levy's case.
Mr. Watt stated that he thought it most in the interest of his client that a case should be stated.
Williams and Green were then tried for possessing 20 counterfeit florins with intent to utter.
Police-constable WALTER SELBY, G Division. At 6.30 p.m. on September 22 I saw Green and Williams among a crowd waiting for the trams at the terminus in Moorgate Street behaving suspiciously. I told Green I was going to arrest him as a suspected person attempting to pick pockets; he said nothing. In the meantime Detective Gill, who was with me, arrested Williams, and we took them to the City Road Police Station. Oh the way I heard Williams, who was behind me, shout out, "Get rid of them." Gill then said, "Look after his hand." I looked towards Green's left hand, but he was too quick and flung a newspaper packet behind him. Gill picked it up; it contains 20 counterfeit florins (produced). Williams was very violent. Prisoners remained at the tram terminus for half an hour.
Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. When Gill called out to me Green had his right hand in his trousers pocket; he threw the packet away with his right hand. I had him by his left hand and could not have dragged his hand and the packet out of his pocket.
Cross-examined by Mr. Watt. I was about a yard and a half in front of Williams when he shouted. There was no crowd.
Detective ARTHUR GILL, G Division, corroborated the last witness.
GEORGE GREEN (prisoner, on oath). On the evening of September 22 I had been with Williams about five minutes when I was arrested. Before that I had been with a man named McCarthy, he asked me to mind a parcel for him; I did so. I had not examined the parcel when I was arrested. As we were being taken along to the station, somebody holloaed out, "Look after his arm." I had my hand in the pocket where the parcel was; Detective Selby. dragged my hand out of my pocket pulling the parcel out too. I did not know what was in that parcel and I did not deliberately throw it away.
Cross-examined by Mr. Morice. I do not know where McCarthy lives; he is supposed to be an inventor; I have known him three or four weeks and have met him three or four times in public-houses; I do not know what work he does; I met him on this occasion for him to pay me some rent for a shop that I let him have. He asked me to take this parcel because he said he was going into rough company. Williams did not call out, "Get rid of it." There were a lot of people
there. I was so flabbergasted about being arrested that I did not tell the officers that I had had this parcel given me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Watt. Williams knew nothing about this parcel.
GEORGE WILLIAMS (prisoner, on oath). On September 22, at 6.20 p.m., I met Green at the tram terminus in Moorgate Street; I was going on a tram when two detectives came up and said, "I shall arrest you as being suspected persons attempting to commit a felony." I said, "You have made a mistake." He said, "I shall take you to the station." On the way to the station Green took a packet out of his right hand trousers pocket and threw it down beside him. I did not say anything to him. There were about 30 or 40 people there. I heard Gill, who had hold of me, shout "Look out," but I did not see any reason for his doing so. I was 15 yards behind Green.
Cross-examined by Mr. Morice. I was with Green five minutes at the tram terminus; the detectives are not telling the truth when they say we were there for half an hour. Green dropped the parcel. I did not struggle on the way to the station.
Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. I did not notice whether Selby pulled Green's hand and the parcel out of his pocket.
Verdict (both) Guilty.
Twelve previous convictions were proved against Williams commencing in 1886, including three years' penal servitude in 1894; six years' penal servitude and three years' police supervision in 1903, and three years' penal servitude in 1908; no convictions for coining offences; stated to be on license. No previous convictions were recorded against Green, but he was stated to be an associate of coiners.
Sentences: Green, Five years' penal servitude; Williams, Four years' penal servitude; Levy, Three months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, November 14.)
Mr. Leycester and Mr. Adrian Clark prosecuted.
Hambleton pleaded guilty of assault causing actual bodily harm.
Mr. Clark stated that there was not sufficient evidence to support the charge of attempted rape, as the prosecutrix was asserted to have been under the influence of drink.
A verdict of Not guilty was taken on the second indictment and Mundy was discharged.
DARLOW, Albert (44, engineer) , having been convicted of assisting in the management of, and keeping a brothel, unlawfully assisting in the management of and permitting certain premises to be used as a brothel. Brought up for trial having failed to surrender to bail at Sessions, September 5, 1911.
Mr. Leycester and Mr. Adrian dark prosecuted; Mr. Penry Oliver defended.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at Marylebone Street Police Court of assisting in the management of a brothel on October 15, 1910, where he was fined £10 and £3 3s. costs and of keeping a brothel on March 31, 1911, and fined £25 and £3 3s. costs.
Sentence, Three months' hard labour; prisoner to pay the costs of the prosecution to an amount not exceeding £25.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, November 15.)
BRACE, William (56, motor dealer), and BRACE, William Edward (31, motor dealer), both feloniously receiving 25 outer cover motor tyres, the goods of the Motor House, Limited, well knowing the same to have been stolen.
Mr. Huntly Jenkins and Mr. Morley prosecuted; Mr. Marshall Hall, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Trickett defended.
Mr. Huntly Jenkins, for the prosecution, offering no evidence against William Brace, a verdict of Not guilty was entered and he was discharged.
The goods in question were part of the proceeds of a robbery for which Jno. Warren and others were convicted at the September Sessions. (See preceding volume, page 559.)
JOSEPH ERNEST PUXLEY , assessory manager to the Motor House. At 7 p.m., on June 21, I locked up the premises safely. On the morning of June 26, on re-opening them, I found they had been broken into and goods to the value of £400, of winch I produce a list, had been stolen. (The witness was about to give details of the tyres that were stolen when Mr. Marshall Hall stated that, of them, the prisoner admitted buying the following 16 Continental tyres: 2, 700 by 85; 2, 920 by 120; 3, 760 by 90; 5, 875 by 105; 3, 815 by 105; 1, 700 by 85, and 1, 870 by 90. I have a list supplied to me by the police of 17 tyres. The retail price would be £132 19s. 6d.; and wholesale, that sum less 25 per cent, and 5 per cent.
Cross-examined. I do not know that last year Continental tyres were supplied by that company at 50 per cent. off as an advertisement. I cannot produce the invoices for these tyres as the company is in liquidation, but I can say these tyres were bought at the retail price less 25 per cent. and 5 per cent. If the cover is perished the value of the tyres is practically nothing.
JOSEPH RAWLINGSON . I was convicted of stealing these tyres last September and I am now serving a sentence of three months' hard labour. I have known prisoners about seven months. A little after 2 p.m. on June 24 I went to the Royal Garage and saw Brace, senior; his son, William Edward Brace, could hear what we said. I asked him if he would buy motor tyres; I was referring to the stolen tyres which I had at Portman Mews. He said he would. I said I had eight which came from the Motor House (I did not tell him how) and described the sizes. He offered me £18. I went and got them. Young Brace paid me the money. I said to Brace, senior, who was present, I have 17 more. Will you buy them. He said he would and offered me £38, which comes out at about the same rate as he bought the first lot. On June 26 I and Hutchings hired a van in Little Albany-street and went to Portman-mews. The carman's name was Kent. We collected the 17 tyres and drove to the "Mitre" public-house in Carltan Road, where we met William Edward Brace by arrangement. He had a red motor van and into this we put the tyres. He left with the van and after 20 minutes returned with it empty. Hutchings and I then went with him to his garage, where he paid us £38 in gold. Hatchings, Thompson and I split the money up between us.
Cross-examined. I pleaded guilty to receiving these tyres. I do not think I told prisoner that this was bankrupt stock. I had sold him some tyres earlier in the year which I had bought from Laurie and Marner's—a bankrupt stock. I have never been convicted before; I have always been known in the trade as a respectable dealer. I had offered these very tyres to a Mr. Mansell, but it was not I who took them there. I have never had any dealings with a Mr. Tate. On the 24th June, Mr. Brace could not have known of the robbery, but he was told, I believe. I helped to collect the tyres from Mr. Mansell, who would not buy them, they had been left there. Young Brace told me that he would be up in that part of the world and he would meet us at "The Mitre." His van had in big letters on it the full name and address of his garage.
Re-examined: They were new tyres. I did not tell prisoner that they were bankrupt stock.
HARRY HUTCHINGS . In September Sessions I pleaded guilty of receiving these tyres and am now undergoing a sentence of 12 months. On June 24 I went with Rawlingson to the Portman Mews, collected some tyres there, and took them to the Royal Garage, the prisoner's garage. I had not seen prisoners before this. On June 26 I ordered a van from Little Albany Street and 1 and Rawlingson went to the Portman Mews again and collected 17 more tyres. I did not know at the time where they had come from. We drove to "The Mitre," where young Brace met us with a red van. We unloaded the tyres on to his van. He drove away and returned in about half-an-hour with his van empty. We then went with him to the Royal Garage, where he gave us £37 odd. About a week later I met him in the street and
said, "I believe those tyres what we sold you was stolen"; I had since heard that. He said, "For God's sake don't say that."
Cross-examined: Rawlingson had been doing business in buying and selling old rubber. I bought the inner tubes from Laurie, and Marner sold them to Mr. Brace; I had sold him lots of things before this. On the Friday after the Coronation a man said he had bought these tyres in question from a firm as old stock; he brought them to me and I took them down to Mr. Mansell and left them there for him to buy if he liked. I do not remember Rawlingson telling prisoners that they were bankrupt stock; the word was used once, I believe.
Re-examined. I bought these tyres in Osnaburgh Street from a dealer; I do not know his name; he was not one of the men convicted.
Cross-examined. My guvnor deals in motor accessories. About the end of June Rawlingson came and told me that there were some tyres he knew of. On June 23 Hutchings brought about 20 Continental tyres and left them there till the following Monday with a view to the guv'nor looking at them. No business was done and they were taken away again. I knew them as honest and respectable dealers.
Detective-inspector ARTHUR NEAL, Y Division. On July 21, with Sergeant Seymour, I saw prisoners together at their garage. I said to the elder prisoner in the presence of his son, "We are police officers. we are making inquiries respecting a number of Continental tyres and outer covers which were stolen from a motor house, 318, Euston Road, during the Coronation week. I am given to understand that you purchased them at about 3 p.m. on June 26 last, and that your motor Van here met a covered horse van outside the "Mitre" public house in Carlton Road and took over the tyres from the van and brought them here." Brace, sen. replied, "No, it is a mistake; I have not bought them. I do not care what other people say." Then I said, "Who drives this motor van!" He said, "I never allow anyone to take that car out but myself or my son." I said, "It is strange that the carman of the horse van recognises this car, and took the telephone number and address off it at the time, which I see is the same number as on the car now. Can you give any account of it?"He said, "I cannot help what they say. It is a mistake." Brace, jun. said, "I know nothing about it." Then I said, "I want to be quite fair with you because there can be no question that this was the car that took over the stolen tyres, as I have said. Could your son or anyone here have taken the car out to use it for that purpose without your knowledge or consent?" Brace, sen. replied, "No, no one drives that car but me and my son, and whenever it goes out it is with my consent, and I am responsible for whatever my son does with it. I also drive it myself. There must be a mistake. My son could not have used the car without my knowledge, and I am responsible for whatever he does with it." I then said to Brace, jun., "Do you remember anything about the transaction," and he replied, "I know nothing about it." I then asked Brace, sen. if he had any tyres on the
premises, and he replied, "You can see if you like to look round and satisfy yourself." I had a look round with a member of the firm, but none of the tyres were there. Afterwards I said to Brace, sen., "What is your private address," and he said, "You will find it in the directory." Leaving, I said to him, "Of course this matter will be further inquired into, and therefore if anything happens you cannot blame us. We wanted to give you every opportunity to explain if you did purchase these tyres." He replied, "I can assure you we know nothing about them."
Detective-sergeant JOHN SEYMOUR. On September 27 I went to prisoner's garage and told them that I had a warrant for their arrest. I read it to them and they made no reply. When charged they said nothing.
JOHN ERNEST PUXLEY , recalled, further cross-examined. I have no doubt that these invoices handed me are genuine Continental in voices dated January, 1909, and I see that deductions of 50 per cent. have been made from the prices. Since 1909 the prices have varied a lot. In June of this year there was an anticipation of a drop, and there has been a very big drop. Possibly very large quantities of tyres were got rid of about that time. I see on these invoices for June, 1911, 50 per cent. deductions have been made. I can only say what we have paid.
Mr. Marshall Hall submitted that there was no case to go to the jury.
The Recorder said that he could not withdraw it from the jury, the difficulty being the want of frankness on the part of William Edward Brace when interviewed by the detective-inspector.
The jury here stopped the case and returned a verdict of Not guilty.
Prisoner had been in the employ of the prosecutors, Roneo, Limited, since April 24, of this year, at a salary of £4 a week. The moneys he obtained by tendering false vouchers for journeys to Liverpool which he had not taken. It was urged on his behalf that in canvassing for orders he had really incurred in expenses the amounts with which he was charged. He received a good character.
Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £25 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, November 15.)
Mr. Bernard O'Connor prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.
Police-constable ALBERT GREENWOOD, 156 E. On October 9, at 11.50 p.m., I was on duty near Gray's Inn Road when I heard a police whistle. I followed the sound and in Elm Street, Gray's Inn Road, saw a man lying on the ground bleeding in the face, about 18 or 20 yards from a public-house. There were two or three people there; the injured man pointed to prisoner, who was running away. I followed prisoner through Mount Pleasant and caught him in Warner Street, where I told him I should arrest him; he began struggling violently and attempted to put his hand in his pocket, but which I prevented. With assistance of another constable, I took him to Gray's Inn Road Police Station, where he said "Me done it; I done it with this like this," taking knife (produced) from his pocket and making a downward movement. When charged he said, "I was assaulted and I called, 'Police, Police.'" I heard no cry of "Police" before I arrested prisoner.
Cross-examined. I was too far away to hear any cry. At the police station an Italian interpreter was sent for and spoke to the prisoner, but these statements which I have mentioned were made in English.
JOHN REES GABLE , registered medical practitioner. On October 10 just after midnight I saw Mingard at the police station. He had a wound below the eye on the left side about 1 1/2 inches long, not very deep, which was bleeding profusely. There was also a superficial wound on the same side of the cheek lower down. Next morning I examined him, found a cut through his coat, waistcoat, and shirt at the back below his left shoulder, and a slight cut in the skin. The wounds were not dangerous, but were in a dangerous place.
The Common Serjeant ruled that there was no evidence of felonious wounding; the Jury had to consider whether prisoner was entitled to use a knife.
Police-constable ALBERT GREENWOOD, recalled, further cross-examined. Neither Mingard nor his mother have been before this Court at all. Inquiries have been at his house and we have ascertained that he is not there, the money for the police court expenses has been sent to him, but has been returned.
CARLO BRUNETTI (prisoner, on oath). I am a bootmaker at 1, Tankerton Street, Gray's Inn Road. On October 9, after 11 p.m., I was walking with my wife near the "Yorkshire Grey" public-house when a man pushed my wife; I gave him a blow, but apologised when I saw he was blind; he said, "It is all right." At that moment a woman came out of the public-house and then brought out Mingard, whom I now understand to be her son. They abused me and shoved me in the back; a lot of people collected, and they knocked my wife down. I tried to explain, but could not make them understand; then I and my wife went along Gray's Inn Road to return home; my wife was frightened. I shouted "Police, Police!" Before this occurred I and my wife had been eating a melon, and I still held in my hand
a knife with which I had cut it. I hit out with my fist, forgetting in the confusion that I held the knife I picked my wife up, the crowd dispersed, a police-constable came up and took me to the station. I showed the police-constable the knife, but could not explain clearly in English; I told the interpreter at the police station that it was an accident. I was released on bail. The next day Mingard, his wife, and four other persons came to my house and demanded money, threatening to break everything they could lay their hands on. I have been carrying on business at 1, Tankerton Street, for eight years.
Cross-examined. I did not say in English at the police station, "Me done it; I done it with this like that." I did not say in English, "I was assaulted," because I do not know how to say "assaulted." I did not run away from the police-constable, I was running away from these people. I had never seen any of these people before; they might have been assaulting me because I had hit the blind man. I have not seen the blind man since.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Thursday, November 16.)
Mr. H. C. Bickmore prosecuted; Mr. St. John McDonald defended.
WILLIAM SHELDRICK , licensee, "Rothbury Arms," Matilda Street, Islington. On Saturday, September 30, at 10.15 p.m. I heard my barman shout from the other end of the bar; there was a scuffle in the bar. The public bars and the private part of the house are separated by a wooden partition, the door of which was shut before this occurrence; I afterwards found it prized open.
Cross-examined. There is a staircase from the bar to a concert room, which is open to members of the club only. The bar was very full.
GEORGE CLARKE , potman, "Rothbury Arms." On September 30 between 10 and 11 p.m. I was keeping observation on prisoner and two other men who kept going into a urinal at the back of our premises. I followed prisoner out to the urinal and then back into the bar, then I missed the three men from the bar; I went up through the concert room to the landing, where I had locked the door leading into the private part that night. I pulled that door, it opened, and I saw prisoner standing inside the door with his back to me; he immediately hit me twice on the head with something heavy, which was not his fist. I holloaed out; prisoner and another man jumped past me and ran down the stairs with me after them, holloaing. In the bar there was a bit of a struggle; they got out into the street. I followed prisoner, keeping about a yard behind him, until a police-constable
arrested him; I did not lose sight of him. I then went to the Royal Free Hospital, where my wounds were attended to.
Cross-examined. The concert room is open to members of a trade union club of about 20. When I was struck on the head it was slightly dark, but I could see. I did not fall down, but I was dazed. Our bar was very full that night. When prisoner ran through a Mr. Robins in the bar caught him; I did not hear anybody say, "That is not the man, let him go." I daresay there were 30 or 40 men in the bar; prisoner got away because his pals helped him. I did not say I did not know who hit me. Prisoner was not put up for identification because I was by his side when he was arrested. I had no doubt that this is the man who struck me.
SAMUEL ARTHUR ROBINS , 66, Outram Street, Islington, barge loader. On September 30 at about 10.30 p.m. I was in the "Rothbury Arms," when I heard somebody calling, "Help! stop him!" Prisoner ran through the bar and knocked me over; I flung my arms out and caught hold of him, we had a scuffle and he and others dragged me out into the street, where prisoner was arrested. I lost hold of the other man.
Cross-examined. There was a row in the bar and some people who were with prisoner flung themselves on the ground in order to prevent prisoner's arrest. At the police court I said I held prisoner until the police-constable arrested him; that is a mistake. When prisoner was brought back in custody Clarke at once said, "That is the man." Nobody in the bar shouted that prisoner was not the man.
Police-constable HEZEKIAH MEAD, 38 Y R. On September 30 at 10.30 I was on duty in Outram Street, Matilda Street, when I received information and went to the "Rothbury Arms." I saw prisoner running away followed by a crowd; I gave chase; prisoner tried to butt me by getting in a crouched position. I dodged, arrested him, and took him to the police station. When charged he said, "This is an open house." I searched him and found just inside the top portion of his trousers a small pocket electric flash light (not produced).
Cross-examined. The glass of the electric lamp was broken and lamp not serviceable. No money was found on prisoner.
Inspector GEORGE ASHTON, Y Division. On September 30 at 11a.m. I went to the "Rothbury Arms" and examined door on first floor separating the public from the private part of the premises. I found the door opened, though locked, the hasp being forced back by some instrument. I had a jemmy given me, which I cannot produce, which might easily have made the marks on the door.
CHARLES BERRY (prisoner, on oath). On the night of my arrest at about 10.15 I was in the "Rothbury Arms" by myself for about an hour watching some men playing bagatelle. I had been in two or three times before. All of a sudden there was a struggle; I was struck in the eye with an electric lamp, which I picked up and went to see who threw it; I was knocked against Robins, knocking him over; he got up, started struggling with me and got hold of two of us. I-was
surrounded by about 20 men, who said I bad hit a potman. Then somebody said it was not me and they let me go, and I had got two or three turnings away when I saw the crowd running after me. Thinking they were going to treat me in the same way as before I ran on, when I saw a police-constable running after me, I then stopped and went back with him. I did not try to butt him. I did not know any of the other men in that public-house. There were about 40 or 50 people in the bar. I heard the potman call out, "Stop him," while I was struggling. The potman did not follow me. When I came back with the police-constable Clarke said, "That is not the man." I do not know the ins and outs of that public-house at all. This is the first time that I have been in there. I went to the lavatory and the potman followed.
Cross-examined. After the electric torch had hit me on the eye it fell on the billiard table and I picked it up. When the police-constable arrested me I was walking away. As I came round one turning he came round another. (To the Judge.) When I was charged at the police station I said it was an open house. I thought it was the urinal, and I said anybody could go into this urinal.
Prisoner confessed to having, been convicted at this court on April 18, 1904, in the name of John Barker, receiving 18 months' hard labour for robbery with violence. Other convictions proved: North London Sessions, October 10, 1905, stealing a chain, 15 months' hard labour in the name of John Barker; North London Sessions, 1908, 21 months' hard labour for shop breaking; also a conviction for drunkenness. Stated to be a most desperate criminal.
Sentence, Four years' penal servitude. The Common Serjeant awarded Samuel Arthur Robins 40s. as a reward for assisting in the arrest.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Friday, November 17.)
Prisoner was sentenced at this court on December 7, 1909, to six months' hard labour for a similar offence.
Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
Mr. Thomas A. T. Case prosecuted; Mr. St. John McDonald defended.
JAMES WALTER KEAST , 18, East Street, Bloomsbury, stoker. On October 10, at 11.20 p.m., I was passing the urinal at the corner of Exmouth Street and Mount Pleasant when I saw five men on the pavement. One said, "That's him." I went down Rosebery Avenue; at the bridge which passes over Warner Street a man rushed out, struck me in the face, and grabbed my watch-chain. I seized the chain, which broke, and the man made off with a portion of it I could not see the man. The police took up the chase.
Cross-examined. I was sober. The five men were not Italians; connected the robbery in my mind with them.
Police-constable WILLIAM GARDINER, 408 E. On October 10, at 11.20 p.m., I was stepping out of a doorway in Rosebery Avenue when I saw prisoner strike the prosecutor on the left side of his face, snatch his watch-chain, and run down the steps leading from Rosebery Avenue into Warner Street. I gave chase down the steps, along Warner Street, Bath Court, and into Bath Square, where I caught him. I said I should take him to the station on a charge of assaulting a man with intent to rob. He said, "I have not got anything, governor. I was hit in the mouth." I took him through Bath Court into Warner Street, where I found prosecutor. We went to Gray's Inn Road Police Station, where prisoner was charged. He called prosecutor a dirty bastard. Prisoner was examined by the station sergeant; there was no injury to his mouth. I caught prisoner about two yards from Great Bath Street; there was no one else about at the time.
Cross-examined. It was quite light enough for me to identify the prisoner.
Police-constable WILLIAM TETT, 54 T. On October 11, at 2.10 a.m., on the footway on the north side of Cold Bath Square, about five yards from Great Bath Street, near where prisoner was arrested, I found portion of chain produced. I showed it to prisoner and told him where I had found it; he said, "All right." I examined prisoner's mouth and told him I found no mark of violence. He said, "Well, I was hit and I ran away." He was charged; he called prosecutor a dirty bastard. Prosecutor had evidently been drinking, but was not drunk.
LAURENCE BUCKLEY (prisoner, on oath). On the night of October 10 I was accosted in Mount Pleasant by a woman who appeared to be an Italian. I rejected her advances, when four or five Italians came up; as I walked away one struck me in the mouth; I took to my heels, chased by these men through Mount Pleasant and Warner
Street, and fell into the arms of Police-constable Gardiner. He said, "What are you running for?" I said, "I have been struck in the mouth by an Italian man and I am running away from him." I took Gardiner to Cold Bath Square, where I was struck and where I saw prosecutor talking to another constable. Gardiner said, "What is the matter?" The other police-constable said, "This man has lost his chain." Gardiner said, "Is this the man who stole the chain?" Prosecutor said he did not think so. Then Gardiner said to me, "You must come to the station." At the station the acting sergeant said to prosecutor, "Can you swear that this is the man who has taken your chain?" Prosecutor said, "I. do not know. If I was to say that is the man who took my chain I would be doing a wrong thing." The sergeant asked me what I was running for. I told him the same as I had told Gardiner and showed him my lip. He did not examine it. I had nothing to do with stealing the chain.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at this Court on March 6, 1905, receiving three years' penal servitude for highway robbery with violence, after six previous convictions, including three years' penal servitude in 1899. He was stated to have worked as a printer since his release on June 8, 1907. Prisoner on July 15, 1908, was released on probation and bound over for 12 months at North London Sessions on a conviction of attempted larceny from the person.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Monday, November 20.)
LEE, William (36, greengrocer), and HAGAN, Chris (31, green-grocer) , both stealing 1,846 rings, 970 pairs of earrings and other articles, the goods of Lawson, Ward and Gamage, Limited ; both stealing one horse, the goods of Lawson, Ward and Gamage, Limited .
Mr. Walter Frampton and Mr. H. Du Parcq prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended Lee; Mr. Purcell defended Hagan.
ERNEST WILLIAM WEDGE , 72, Trinity Road, Wood Green, traveller to Lawson, Ward and Gamage, Limited, Clerkenwell Road, jewellers. On September 5 I left my firm's premises with a brougham, jobbed from Brookman, Limited, and driven by Booker, containing a large quantity of jewellery, value £3,200. I had about 1,700 gem rings, 600 brooches, 1,000 pendants, 100 ladies' guards, a number of long guards, 600 or 700 bracelets—all of 9, 15, or 18 carat gold. I made two calls, and arrived at my house, 72, Trinity Road, Wood Green, about 1 p.m. I left Booker in charge of the brougham and horse. I next saw it at Wood Green Police Station at 3.30 p.m., quite empty. Some days later I was shown four leather cases and a few articles of jewellery of very small value.
GEORGE BOOKER , coachman, employed by Brookman, Limited, Goss Street, Gray's Inn Road. On September 5 I drove the last witness to Trinity Road. I had a glass of milk in Trinity Road, drove the brougham opposite the "Prince of Wales" public-house, had my lunch, and drove to a public lavatory on Jolly Butchers' Hill, which is about 20 yards from an undertaker's shop, at which I left the brougham, locking the wheel with a padlock and chain. I went into the lavatory and returned in about five minutes; the brougham had gone. It was afterwards found by the police—the chain was broken and the spoke of the wheel damaged.
EMMA BUSE , wife of William Francis Buse, 178, Westbury Avenue, Wood Green. On September 5, at 2 p.m., I saw from my garden a traveller's brougham, driven by a man in livery, a short man sitting beside him. It stopped at the corner of Boreham Road and Westbury Avenue, the short man got off, crossed the road and the brougham drove on and returned, passed my house and disappeared. I identify the driver as Hagan. A four-wheeled cab then passed; the short man put up his finger, it stopped, he got in, and the cab drove on after the brougham. The next day I read of the robbery and gave to the police a description of the three men. On September 19, at Wood Green Police Station, I picked Hagan out from a number of others.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. I described the driver as a red-haired man. I did not notice any-other red-haired man except Hagan in the row of men put up. I also picked out another man who is not charged.
Detective-sergeant ALFRED GROSSE, stationed at Hornsey, proved a plan of the locality. Mrs. Buse's house is 56 yards from the corner of Boreham Road.
ROSETTA MAUD MURRAY , 27, Sand ford Avenue, Wood Green. On September 5, at 2 p.m., I was on Jolly Butchers' Hill, when I saw a traveller's brougham opposite the lavatory. I also saw a short dark man with a straw hat on, and another man, the driver, in a greenishblue livery, with light metal buttons. The short man gave something to the driver, who drove off towards Tottenham; the short man then entered the lavatory. I heard of the robbery and gave information. On September 19 at Wood Green Police Station I picked out Lee as the short man.
Cross-examined. I knew that a short dark man was one of the men wanted. I looked for and identified the man I had seen.
ANNIE MORAN , servant to Dr. Taylor, 2, Stanley Villas, Boundary Road, Wood Green. On September 5, between 2.20 and 3 p.m., I was in the dining room in the front of the house with my mistress when I saw a traveller's brougham standing in Boundary Road; presently a four-wheeled cab came along past the house from the direction of Westbury Avenue, came back again in a minute or two and passed the house very slowly. I spoke to my mistress; she stood up and came to the window. A man wearing kid gloves was walking on our side of the road with the cab; the cab then drew up behind the brougham on the opposite side of the road; the cabman got down; I saw the man
who had been walking, mount the cab and put into the cab cases (produced), which he took out of the brougham. My mistress, who had left the window, returned to it. Then the man who had been walking got into the cab; it drove away, leaving the brougham in the road. The next day we saw a report of the robbery, communicated with the police, and I made a statement. On September 20 at Wood Greer Police Station, I picked out Lee from a number of other men as being the man I had seen walking on the pavement.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. I was unable to pick out Hagan.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. There are curtains in this window all the way down. The cab took about from five to eight minutes to pass the window. It took from five to eight minutes to remove the cases from the brougham to the cab. Our road is very quiet and when I saw this brougham and the cab I thought there must be a funeral or a wedding. The man who was driving the cab had a bowler hat and a collar; the other man had a dark suit, a straw hat, and a pair of kid gloves. There was a description of a man wanted in the paper, but that did not agree with either of the men I saw. I saw no description of Lee before I picked him out. I should think there were two or three men in the row shorter than Lee.
MARY ANNE TAYLOR , wife of Victor Beresford Taylor, M.D., 2, Stanley Villas, Boundary Road. On September 5 I was sitting in the dining room when Moran spoke to me; I looked out of the window, saw in Boundary Road, which is usually very quiet, a cab very slowly pass the house from the direction of Westbury Avenue, it turned round, passed the house again, and I saw a man on the pavement keeping pace with the cab; the cab then stopped behind a brougham which was standing on the opposite side of the road; the man who had been walking on the pavement crossed the road in front of the brougham. I then turned away from the window, but shortly after wards my maid, who had been standing there the whole time, spoke to me again, and I looked out of the window and saw the man, who had been walking on the pavement, stepping into the cab with a case like one of those produced in court. After he had got in with the case the cab drove quietly away, the brougham being left there. The next day I read a report of the robbery and communicated with the police. Inspector Scholes called and in my presence my maid gave him a description of the men, which I agreed with. On September 20 I went to Wood Green Police Station and picked out Lee from a number of other men as the man I had seen on the pavement.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. The cab passed my window the second time about a minute or two after it passed the first time; it took about a minute or less to pass before it got to the brougham. When the police came next morning they asked me no questions; my maid spoke and I assented. I saw no description of Lee.
Re-examined. There was one other small dark man in the row besides Lee when I picked him out. I have no doubt he is the man.
Mrs. MARY ANNE BANNELL, widow, 7, Redvers Road, Wood Green. On September 5 I was looking out of the second floor bedroom window
of 175, Westbury Avenue, where I was then living, when I saw a brougham driven by Hagan, followed by a cab coming along Boundary Road towards me from the direction of Westbury Avenue. Both vehicles stopped at the corner of Westbury Avenue; Hagan got down and conversed with the driver of the cab, whom I cannot recognise, but who was short, wore a straw hat, and looked like a gentleman. Hagan took a box out of the brougham; they put it in the cab, conversed together, did something to the wheel of the brougham; then both mounted the cab and drove away, leaving the brougham standing in the road. That night I heard a robbery had been committed and the next morning I made a communication to the police. On September 20 at Wood Green Police Station I picked Hagan out from a number of other men. Box produced in court is like the one I saw in Hagan's hand. Hagan was dressed in blue livery with silvery buttons.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. This occurrence lasted a very shout time. When Hagan was removing the box from one vehicle to another he had his back to me. I am not going to talk about whether there were many red haired men there when I went to pick Hagan out. I said at the police court, "Prisoner Hagan is like the man; I do not say I should like to swear he was the man." I walked up and down the row of men, looked at them about three times, and said, "That is the one," not "I think that is the one." I had never seen Hagan before. I told the police the day after the robbery about his height and his fair hair.
AMELIA CANTLE , wife of Edwin Cantle, 46, Canonbury Road. My sister is prisoner Lee's wife; they have no children; they occupy two rooms in the basement of 53, Oakley Road, Dalston, where I assist them in the housework. On September 5 I was sent home and had a holiday and came back next day at 10.30 a.m. As I usually do, I went into the front room and noticed a dozen or 20 gold pendants in a saucer on a table. I have never before or since seen such a thing in the house. Inspector Neil received from me a piece of cloth (produced) which my sister had given me a week before. After September 6 Lee bought a new suite of furniture, some rugs, overmantel, clocks, bronzes, etc.; Lee had a new suit, my sister had a new costume, and went away to Yarmouth on the following Monday with Lee's mother. My sister came back on the following Friday and prisoner's mother came back on the following Sunday night.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. This piece of cloth is just as I received it. I was not afraid of any charge being brought against me. I knew my brother-in-law was charged with stealing a quantity of jewellery; when the police searched my house they said they were searching for a piece of cloth—not for jewellery. My sister and I have not exactly quarrelled, but we are not very good friends. I only had one day's holiday and I remember that day was a Tuesday; I know it was September 5 because there was a sale at a house which a friend of mine was caretaking. I never told the police I saw pendants, they told me; they said I saw pendants and I said, "Yes, a dozen or 20."
My sister has given me lots of things; she gave me that piece of cloth to make clothes for my children. I did not hear of my brother-in-law having won some money on a horse.
Re-examined. I was on good terms with my sister up to the time of Lee's arrest. I told the police about the cloth in answer to inquiries they made; I do not think they would have known if they had not asked me the question. (To the Court.) That is the whole of the cloth I received.
JACOB WORTMAN , 308, Kentish Town Road, tailor and costumier. I make liveries. Cloth produced consists of certain parts of a black or blue-Mack livery coat. The whole of the coat is not here. The coat would fit a man 30 inches round and 5 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft. 10 in. high. The coat must have had some wear.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. Livery cloth is a strong kind of cloth; it is also used for ordinary overcoats, but not for ordinary coats.
Police-constable JOHN HALL, 83 Y.R., stationed at Wood Green. On September 5 at about 3.20 p.m. I was patrolling through Westbury Avenue, when I noticed a horse and brougham unattended in Boundary Road. The window in the door on the off side of the brougham was smashed, the chain and a spoke were broken. I took it to Wood Green Police Station, and it was identified by Wedge and Brooker.
Police-constable ARTHUR SMITH, 539 J, stationed at Victoria Park. In the early morning of September 7 I was on Hackney Marshes when I noticed some leather cases and a black japanned box lying on the Marsh with some small articles of jewellery lying around (produced). The jewellery had tickets on them.
Divisional-inspector ARTHUR NEIL, Kentish Town. On September 5 the loss of a brougham and jewellery to the value of some £3,000 was reported to me; as the result of my enquiries I went on September 19, at about 11.30 a.m., to 53, Oakley Road, Dalston, and found Lee in charge of Tanner. I said to Lee, "I am going to arrest you on suspicion of being concerned in stealing on the 5th instant a brougham containing jewellery to the value of about £3,000, from outside a lavatory at the foot of Jolly Butchers' Hill, Wood Green, where it was said it had been left a short time unattended by the coachman." Lee said, "All right." I told him that I should search his room. He said, "You will find nothing here." I found nothing relating to the charge, except that the room was furnished with a large quantity of new property consisting of furniture, clothing, clock, ornaments, new oil cloth, etc. I asked Lee if he could account for his possession of this furniture, or if he could show me receipts. He said, "My mother has them and they will be produced at the proper time." I pointed out to him that it would be to his interest to show me the receipts to prove the time the goods were purchased, but he declined. In the cab on the way to Stoke Newington Police Station he said, "I suppose some kind friend has put me away, if I am identified I am innocent, I have been working." I said, "For whom?" He said, "Mr. Hagan is my governor, he is a greengrocer." I then said to
him, "Where does he live?" He said, "I shall not tell you now, I shall want him to prove I was working for him that day." I said, "If you like to tell me where he lives I will see him and make enquiries." He said, "No, I shall not give you his address." When we arrived at Stoke Newington Police Station I sent instructions to Police-constable Tanner, whom I left at Oakley Road, and at 2 p.m. he arrived with Hagan in custody. I told Hagan he answered the description of one of the men concerned in this robbery, which I described to him. He said, "I know nothing about it, I am innocent; I know Lee." I then told him Lee was also in custody and he said, "He has been doing odd jobs for me, but not regular. We were together last night driving, but we got the worse for drink; I left him somewhere in Goswell Road; we were going to Bishopsgate Street, but we never got there." I told Lee Hagan had been arrested; he said, "Oh, he is a straight man, he had nothing to do with the job." They were then conveyed to Wood Green Police Station where Hagan was identified from 17 others by Mrs. Buse. On September 20 Lee was identified from 14 men by Mrs. Taylor and Annie Moran; Hagan by Mrs. Bannell. I told them they would be charged. Hagan said, "I am innocent, I know nothing about it." Lee said, "All right." When charged neither made any reply.
(Tuesday, November 21.)
Detective-sergeant TOM TANNER, J Division, stationed at Hackney. On September 19 I was at 53, Oakley Road. Lee, his wife and Mrs. Cantle were there. At 11.30 Hagan called and spoke to Mrs. Lee. He had a greengrocer's trolley, and a basket on his arm. At 2 p.m. I saw Hogan in Balls Pond Road with the trolley. I said, "I am a police officer, you answer the description of a man wanted for being concerned with a man named Lee and others in stealing a horse brougham and a large quantity of jewellery from Wood Green in the early part of this month. You will have to come with me to Stoke Newington Police Station and see Inspector O'Neill." He said, "Do not say that. You will ruin me. Bill Lee has been jobbing about with me—in fact, we were on the booze together yesterday. I hired a trap, we had this pony, and we had a drive, but I am innocent of being concerned in stealing anything." I took him to Stoke Newington Police Station, where he was seen by Inspectors Neil and Scholes, and subsequently to Wood Green Police Station, where he was charged on September 20. He made no reply to the charge.
Detective-inspector ALFRED SCHOLES, Y Division, Wood Green. I arranged for the identification of the prisoners on September 19. Twelve others men were brought in from an adult school, some of medium height and some tall. The prisoners were asked if they were satisfied; they made no reply and took up their position. Mrs. Murray picked out Lee.
WILLIAM BENTON LEE (prisoner, on oath). On September 5 I was living at 53, Oakley Road with my wife; I have no children. My sister-in-law, Mrs. Cantle, used to come and assist as my wife was very ill. On September 5 I left home at 5.30 a.m., went to Spitalfields Market, got one or two jobs, and left about 9.30 to go to Whetstone to see a former employer. I then went to Barnet Fair and stayed about three hours, got back to Whetstone about 6.30 p.m., and came home by tram, arriving about 9 p.m. On August Bank Holiday I won £22 backing horses with Alfred Davis, a bookmaker. I purchased out of that money the furniture, clothes, and other new articles which have been mentioned. I also paid for my wife to go to Yarmouth for a few days.
Cross-examined. I do not know whether I told Mrs. Cantle that I had won £21 10s. racing. I bad spent nearly all the money when I was arrested. I bought a second-hand suite of furniture costing £3 14s., a suit of clothes £2 9s., two rugs about 18s., a clock 25s., overmantle 2s., two imitation bronze horses, I think, 18s. Two weeks before I won this money I had been earning 32s. a week for about 13 weeks for a Mr. Ashton demolishing houses. I had no clothes suitable for that work; I destroyed my old mole-skin trousers because they were worn out. I have also done odd jobs for Hagan. On September 5 I went to Spitalfields Market and I have since heard that Hagan was there, but I did not meet him there. I also went to Barnet Fair for amusement that day; I went round having drinks and also met a man named Bartlett, whose address I do not know, but who has a stall somewhere in Chapel Street, Islington; I just passed the time of day to him, that is all, but he recognised me. I did not see Hagan that day at all. When Inspector Neil arrested me I said, "I suppose some kind friend is getting this up for me," meaning that someone was trying to get me into trouble; "I have been working." When Inspector Neil asked me for whom I had been working I mentioned Hagan at the time, because he was the last one I had done a job for. I did not mention Ashton. I said, "Mr. Hagan is my governor; he is a greengrocer." I did not say I should want Hagan to prove I had been working for him that day; the inspector must have made a mistake. I did not ask him any questions at the police court about that because I reserved my defence, but I pointed that mistake out to my solicitor. I refused to give Hagan's address because I did not think I should want him as I did not thing the case would become so serious; Neil told me he had a lot of witnesses to call for identification and so I would not want him that day. The only time that I have been out with Hagan drinking was the day before my arrest when we went down to the City together. Hagan treated me and when we got to the City it was too late. I did not buy any jewellery with the £21 10s. I won; there were one or two pendants in my house. Cantle is wrong about the pendants.
ALF DAVIS , 28, Alton Road, Islington, musical instrument maker and bookmaker. On August Bank Holiday I saw Lee, whom I know by sight, at Sandown Park Races. He betted with me in the name of "Tich." I entered them in book produced and the result was that he won £21 10s. Prisoner started by laying out 10s.
CHRIS HAGAN (prisoner, on oath). I live at 190, Balls Pond Road, am a greengrocer. For the last six years I have been employed by Colonial Governments in England at fruit shows as an apple expert and have had large sums of money belonging to other people passing through my hands. This is the first time that any criminal charge has been made against me; I come of a highly respectable family. I have known Lee for three years; I have given him work. On September 5, at 5 a. m., I got up, went to the market, loaded my van; I then went on my round along the Holloway Road, Fairmead Road, Yarbury Road, starting my round at 8.45 a.m., and got back to my stables about 12.45. I then refilled my baskets, went back to Holloway Road, and had a conversation with Alice Peasland, the cook, of 37, Lorraine mansions at about 1.30. I do not know Jolly Butchers' Hill, but I suppose Wood Green would be about an hour's drive from Lorraine Mansions. I then served Mrs. Turnbull at 149, Inglefield Road, came home and had my dinner at about 2 p.m., took my trolley which I do my rounds with home, and at 4 p.m. I took my wife out for a drive to Barnet Fair. I was not at the Jolly Butchers' Hill, Boundary Road, or Westbury Avenue that day. I had nothing whatever to do with this robbery. When Mrs. Buse picked me out I was the only red-haired man there. The Holloway round takes about half an hour on a week-day. I do not go my round everyday, but I never miss Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, which are market days. Lee has worked for me as a casual porter at the market. On the day before the arrest I was driving down Essex Road towards the City, when I met Lee and asked him to come with me; he did so, and we drank together and were too late for the business I was going to the City for. Lee was not working for me at all on September 5. When Sergeant Tanner arrested me for stealing £3,000 worth of jewels, I laughed, I thought it was silly; he said, "You know Lee"; I said I was in his company the day before.
Detective-inspector SCHOLES, recalled. (To Mr. Purcell.) It takes 25 minutes by tram to get from Lorraine Mansions, Holloway, to Jolly Butchers Hill; it is about three and a half miles.
Mrs. ANNIE TURNBULL, 149, Inglefield Road. I have known Hagan for four years and have dealt with him for four months on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. In September on Barnet Fair day on a Tuesday Hagan called at about ten minutes to two; I know the time because the school bells were ringing. I took my vegetables from him and we stood talking; he said he was going to take his wife to Barnet Fair and would I like to go on his trap; his trap was small, and he only said it was a joke.
Cross-examined. I knew Barnet Fair was on before he told me because it is generally in the papers. I have never been there and it
did not interest me. He never comes to my house except on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. My sister, Rose Vesley, saw the prisoner on that day.
ALICE PEASLAND , cook to Mr. Cooper, 69, Lorraine Mansions, Caledonian Road. Hagan supplies greenstuff to my mistress. On September 5 he called and delivered greengrocery. I remarked to him, "How smart you look." He told me he was going to Barnet Fair. It was the second day of the fair. My master, mistress, and their little girl also went to Barnet Fair on that day.
BENJAMIN GEORGE GOGAY , horsekeeper to Mr. Cooper. On September 5, the second day of Barnet Fair, I went there with my master. On that day about 1.20 I saw Hagan, he asked me to have a drink. I said I could not as I had to get off to Barnet Fair. Peasland said, "Is not he made up to-day," and referred to his going to Barnet Fair.
JAMES SAVARY , 161, Copenhagen Street, horsekeeper. On September 4 I saw Cooper at Barnet Fair; he exchanged a horse which I had to take from Lorraine Mansions to Hoxton on the following day, bringing back the horse in exchange to Lorraine Mansions, which I did, arriving there at 1.30 p.m. I saw Hagan with his trolley delivering greenstuff. I said, "You are made up. Are you going to Barnet Fair?" He said he was. I left at about 1.35. Hagan was dressed in a grey suit and brown boots.
On the suggestion of the Common Serjeant that Hagan had made out a good alibi Mr. du Parcq withdrew the case as against him. Verdict (Lee), Guilty; (Hagan), Not guilty.
Lee confessed to having been convicted on January 19, 1909, at Newington Sessions of being found in unlawful possession of housebreaking implements.
Prisoner was then indicted for that he is a habitual criminal.
Detective-inspector ALFRED SCHOLES proved the service of the statutory notice.
Sergeant CHARLES GOODCHILD proved the following convictions: August 1, 1902, Guildhall, Westminster, 3 1/2 years' penal servitude and 3 1/2 years' police supervision in the name of William Burton; released June 10, 1905. On April 22, 1907, 20 months' hard labour for burglary as William Blackwell; released September 2, 1908. On January 19, 1909, County of London Sessions, 3 years' penal servitude for possessing housebreaking implements as William Lee; released April 13, 1911. At Wood Green Police Station he was asked by Inspector Neil if he had been working for anybody. He said, "I will let you know that next week." The following week he stated that he had been working for Mr. Ashton, 87, Westmoreland Place, City Road. Ashton told me the prisoner had been working for him during the summer pulling down houses near Chancery Lane from April 19 to May 29 and from June 2 to July 14—about eight weeks. Lee has also been convicted: On February 18, 1896, Clerkenwell Police Court, six weeks, frequenting, as William Lee; March 31, 1896. six weeks at Mansion House for stealing. January 15, 1897, four months' hard
labour, stealing; released May 1, 1897. May 18, 1897, nine months and nine months at North London Sessions for housebreaking; released November 2, 1898. February 7, 1899, six months for stealing; released August 5, 1899. November 7, 1899, North London Sessions, twelve months for burglary; released September 23, 1900; January 21, 1901, Worship Street, nine months, prevention of Crimes Act; released September 1, 1901; then follow the 3 1/2 years' police supervision already mentioned. October 12, 1906, Nottingham, three months' hard labour for loitering; released January 2, 1907. Then follow the two other convictions mentioned.
Divisional-inspector ARTHUR NEIL. Prisoner's sentence on April 22, 1907, was for burglary at a jeweller's shop of a most daring character. Lee was born in 1876. He is regarded as one of the most daring jeweller's shop thieves.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude, to be followed by five years' preventive detention.
BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.
(Monday, November 20.)
Mr. P. Scott-Crickitt prosecuted.
GEORGE SMITH , labourer, 22, North Street, Bethnal Green. I live with Alice Boyd, and prisoner lives in the same house with another woman. A little before September 22 I had given him notice, he being landlord. I had only been there two weeks. He seemed to be a bit nasty over it and got at me two or three times about it. On the Tuesday night before Friday, September 22, he threatened what he would do to me. About 9 p.m. on September 22 I went home; I had had a little drop to drink, but I knew what I was doing. I got two pints and a half and went and sat in my kitchen as prisoner had threatened me. Prisoner and his missus went out leaving me alone. I bolted the street door, thinking he might come in and do me some harm. I went to sleep and was awakened by hammering at the door. As I was going to open the door prisoner came behind me in the passage. I turned round and he gave me two blows with something heavy in his hand across my head and knocked me down. He kicked me, giving me two black eyes and fracturing my ribs. I became unconscious and was taken to the infirmary, where I was for five weeks.
Cross-examined by prisoner. There was no row between us on the night before; I did not take up a glass to throw at you; I did not break open your bedroom door, and there was not a fight between us. It is true that Boyd on that night slept downstairs; we might have had a few words, but I had not threatened her with any violence. I did not knock at your door the following morning and say, "I am going to have you to-day you b—!" I did not go downstairs and kick Boyd. I had a few words with her at the "Rose and Crown" on the evening of that day, but there was no row—it did not happen in the morning. You threatened me because I did not like the place. I never came and abused you the afternoon of Friday. It was practically pitch dark in the passage when you assaulted me. I did not spring out of the front room and strike you, and I did not fall against the frame of the door.
ALICE BOYD . I live with the prosecutor at 22, North Street. On the night of September 22, I went into a public house where I saw prisoner and his wife. I asked him if Smith was at home, and he said, "Yes." We were all on the way home when he said four or five times that he was going to send Smith to the infirmary or the mortuary that night. I said, "You kill them right out when you start," and he said, "I will him—he ought to have been dead years ago." When we got home we found the door bolted. The neighbour next door allowed prisoner to get over his wall and go through the back yard. His wife and I were waiting for him to open the door when I heard in the passage a heavy blow and a fall. I broke the door open and saw Smith lying unconscious in a pool of blood with prisoner standing over him with some weapon in his hand. He got over the wall and ran away. I followed him and caught him with the help of a man. The night before they had a row, but I stopped them.
To prisoner. You challenged him on that night to fight, and he came to the door of our bedroom. I did not hear him challenge you. I did not hear him say he was going to have you shot. I went downstairs to the kitchen that night because I thought you might be rowing again, and it would be the best for me to be out of the way. Mrs. Hardy, prisoner's woman, never gave me two pillows and a coat and I did not say at the police court that she did. Smith did not come down and kick me on the following morning. Later at the "Rose and Crown" we might have had a few words, but we did not have a row. I did not hear Smith come to your front room and abuse you in the afternoon. I did not come to you in the "Rose and Crown" that afternoon and say, "Don't stop in here. He's coming up here to kill me and you and all." A day or two after this I told the police that I missed a hammer from the coal cupboard in the passage, but a couple of days afterwards I found it in the washhouse and I informed the police.
Re-examined. I have never heard prosecutor threaten or strike the prisoner.
Police-constable CHARLES SKINNER, 169 J. About 10.15 p.m. on September 22 I arrested prisoner and took him to 22, North Street, where
prosecutor was lying. On the way be said, "He asked for it last night and he f—well got it to-night." On being taken to the station and charged he made no reply.
HENRY FENTON , labourer, 28, North Street, Bethnal Green. At 10.15 p.m. on September 22 I was coming out of a public-house in Mare Street when I heard a woman shouting, "Stop him! He has nearly murdered an old man." I ran and caught hold of prisoner, who was running, and gave him to the constable. On getting to the house he said to me, "That man has been on to me all day. He asked for what he got. I am very sorry for what I done."
WILLIAM COWELL , Acting Medical Superintendent, Hackney Infirmary. In the early morning of Saturday, September 23, prosecutor was admitted. There were two wounds on his scalp, one about six inches long from the root of the nose and over the scalp, and the other on top of the head about three inches long; they could have been caused by a blunt instrument. He had also two ribs on the right side fractured. His condition was serious. He was detained for a little over a month. He will suffer a certain amount of inconvenience as his scalp is adhering to his skull on the Bite of the wounds and he has adherent plura as a result of the fractured ribs.
To prisoner. I think the long wound in the forehead could have been caused by falling on the edge of a door frame. Prosecutor is permanently injured. The wounds were such that the blood might have spurted out on to the wall. I cannot imagine a man getting into an attitude to get the wound on the top of the head from the door.
Police-constable CHARLES SKINNER (recalled). I noticed finger marks of blood on the wall, but no marks of blood five or six feet high; they were such as a man in a sitting position would make when he was trying to rise.
FREDERICK BOYD (prisoner, on oath), general dealer. On the night of September 21 I and my missus were sitting downstairs with the prosecutor drinking, when Dodd came in shouting that the prosecutor was not going to chuck her out. He made to hit at her and I prevented him. He took up a glass to throw at me, but Dodd prevented him doing so. Later on he came out of the room, burst into our room, and struck Mrs. Hardy. There was a fight between us. I knocked him down and Dodd dragged him out. Dodd stayed downstairs and slept all night in our front room. The following morning prosecutor came to my room and shouted, "Don't forget. I am going to have you to-day—you b—." He ran downstairs and I heard Dodd scream; I heard her tell Mrs. Hardy that he had kicked her. I met Dodd with my missus at 12.30 and she told me that she had had a fight with prosecutor at the "Rose and Crown" about him kicking her. We had drinks and then went home. They went up to bed. Prosecutor, who was in the kitchen, came and abused me and challenged me to fight. I told him to go away, as I did not want
to fight an old man. About 4.30 p.m. I and Mrs. Hardy went out leaving the prosecutor at home. While in the "Rose and Crown" Dodd came in and said, "For Christ's sake, Fred, don't stick in here; he has gone mad. He is coming up here to kill you and me and all, I have just had another 'shimozzle' (row) with him. Let's clear out of here in case he comes up." We then went round to another public house. We left Dodd in the public house and went home. The prosecutor again started abusing me and we went out again. We met Dodd, had another drink and went home. I tried to open the door and found that it was bolted. By permission of the man next door I got through the back way. As I was going through the passage the prosecutor was standing inside my front room door. As I came up he struck at me on the back of the neck. I turned round and knocked him down. He got hold of my left leg and I started kicking him. Dodd broke the door open and I ran away. I was stopped by the crowd.
Cross-examined. There was never any ill-feeling between the prosecutor and me before this, he had not given me notice. The ill-feeling began when I began protecting Dodd from him. I did not use any instrument on the prosecutor; I only kicked him because he was trying to throw me. The prosecutor did not hurt me in any way. I did not make any statement at the police court because I knew I was committed for trial, and I did not put any questions to the prosecutor about it because I was told I was wasting my energy. Prosecutor and Dodd have concocted the whole of their evidence; what they said at the police court was entirely different, and the Clerk left out a lot of what I put. I am going to call Mrs. Hardy; I have seen her about six times in prison. The larger wound on prosecutor's head was caused by his head coming in contact with the door frame, and the smaller one I admit I caused by kicking him. It is not true that I said I was going to send him to the mortuary or the infirmary.
Mrs. HARDY generally corroborated as to what happened prior to the assault. When we got back again the door was bolted. Prisoner by going through next door was going to let us in, when I heard a scuffle in the passage. Dodd broke open the door and I followed her in behind. I saw prosecutor lying injured on the floor. Prisoner had gone.
Cross-examined. I did not hear prisoner say anything about sending prosecutor to the infirmary or the mortuary. I never heard prisoner threaten him in any way.
On his return to the dock prisoner repeated the statement he had made, and stated, though warned by the Judge, that the jury ought to know something about the character of the prosecutor and asked that evidence should be given as to it.
Detective-sergeant WILLIAM SMITH, J Division. On February 11, 1903, prosecutor was sentenced to three months' hard labour for living on prostitution; on January 16, 1906, he was again sentenced to three months for a similar offence; on November 20, 1906 he had 18 months for larceny, and there are three convictions against him for assault. According to the record he has never served a term of penal servitude.
Cross-examined. On September 15, 1910, prisoner was sentenced to one month's hard labour for larceny, and on February 8, 1910, 14 days for a similar offence.
Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding, under provocation.
It was stated that prisoner was an associate of thieves, and a dangerous man, and that there was no doubt that No. 22, North Street was being used for immoral purposes.
Sentence, Ten months' hard labour.
Mr. Cruickshank prosecuted; Mr. Lever defended.
Prisoner pleaded justification, but undertook not to publish any more of the pamphlets complained of. The evidence was of an unreportable nature.
Verdict (November 21, 1911) " Guilty, but we consider it was under great provocation. We find that the plea of justification was not made out."
It was stated that there was a conviction against prisoner in 1893.
Sentence, One month's imprisonment, in the second division, to date from November 7.
BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.
(Tuesday, November 21.)
Mr. Heddon prosecuted; Mr. Fox-Davies defended.
This prisoner was twice tried at the October Sessions (see preceding volume, pp. 667, 727) on an indictment for stealing a match-box from Messrs. Gamage's; at both trials he was acquitted. He was then tried for the theft on August 6, 1911, of a pair of field-glasses from Messrs. Bateman's; he was convicted and sentenced to three months' hard labour and recommended for expulsion under the Aliens Act. The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed that conviction. Prisoner was now indicted for the theft of a pair of field-glasses from the same firm of Bateman's (at another of their establishments) on September 1, 1911.
SAMUEL TWITCHER , manager, Frederick Bateman and Co, opticians, 48, Edgeware Road. On September 1 prisoner, who came into the shop with another man, asked me to show him some field-glasses, as he wanted them for a present, and his friend could not speak English well. I saw they were not buyers because the other man sat down in a most extraordinary manner for a buyer; he did not take much interest in the glasses. He got up from the chair, while prisoner covered me so as to keep me engaged all the time, and I could not see what he was doing; he slipped behind to the back of the window. Prisoner said the glasses were too dear, and they left the shop. I missed from the window this pair of glasses (produced) that I had seen only the minute
before. On September 18 I went to the police court and picked prisoner out without hesitation.
Cross-examined. I also identified Darioli, who last month had pleaded guilty to this indictment. I do not remember saying at the police court that I did not think prisoner saw what the other man was doing when he (prisoner) was covering me, but on looking ait my depositions shown me I see that I did.
PERCY GRAVITT , assistant, Robert W. Jay, pawnbroker, 73, Charlotte Street, W. On September 1 I took in pledge this pair of glasses (produced) for £3 from a man giving the name of Antonio Balti; I have not been able to identify him. (To the Jury.) I identify the glasses by the number on them.
EMILIO RUFFINO (prisoner, on oath). I first got to know Darioli on August 30 in a coffee-shop in Charing Cross Road. He cannot speak a word of English. At 11.15 a.m. on September 1 I left the Savoy Hotel, where I had been to look for work, and went to have some dinner at the Rocco Restaurant. Darioli came and asked me if I would interpret for him as he wanted to buy a present. He paid my bill and he said that he would pay expenses. He told me he knew a shop where he could buy a cheap pair of field-glasses, and we went to this shop in Edgware Road. I told the shopman that Darioli wanted to buy some glasses to make a present. The shopman showed us some, but Darioli said he wanted some prism glasses, I think he called them. The shopman showed us some more, and said the price was £5. Darioli said to me that they were too dear, and that he knew a friend of his who had only paid £3. I interpreted this, and the gentleman said that he would not get a pair of glasses like that for £3, so I said they were too dear and we left the shop. I walked down to the Marble Arch. I had no idea that Darioli had stolen any glasses. I did not pawn them, or have any part of the proceeds.
Cross-examined. I have heard that Darioli has been sent out of the country. I said to the shopman, "We want a pair of glasses for a present."
Verdict, Not guilty.
HOMER, Charles Henry (33, taxi driver) , having received certain property, to wit, the sum of £2 19s. 10(d., for and on account of the Sharp Motor Cab Company, Limited, did unlawfully and fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.
Mr. Leycester and Mr. Adrian Clark prosecuted.
JOHN GEORGE BENCH , foreman, Sharp Motor Cab Company, Carlton House, Regent Street. On September 28 I employed prisoner as a driver at our branch in Seagrave Road, Fulham. At 10.30 a.m. on October 4 I signed him out; his taxi was No. L.D. 4,707. I checked his meter reading on this sheet (produced); it is signed by him. In the ordinary course he would return in 24 hours, but he did not come back at all. In consequence of what I heard, on October 12 I sent a
man to fetch the cab from a garage in Walworth Road. On its return I examined the meter and made out this sheet showing its condition. (Produced.) The difference in miles run is 304, the extras are the same, and there is a difference of 39 hires, which at 8d. a time comes to 26s.
The difference in the takings is £2 13s. 10d. The total due is £3 19s. 10d., of which he would be entitled to a quarter, leaving £2 19s. 10(d. He never came back and has never accounted for that. I complained to the police and he was arrested.
Cross-examined by prisoner. There is no written agreement between you and the firm as to within what time you should pay money in, but you are expected when you bring the cab back to pay what is on it.
Detective-sergeant JOHN GARNER, B Division. On October 14 I saw prisoner in Harleyford Road, told him that I was a police officer and that I held a warrant for his arrest for converting £2 19s. 10(d. to his own use. He said, "How do you make that out?" I said, "I do not make it out at all." I read the warrant to him and he said, "All right. Where have we got to go?" I took him to the station. On the way he said he had been driving his cab about trying to get some money and the car had been laid by in a garage for three days at Hampton Street, Walworth Road. When charged he said, "All right."
To prisoner. I did not get my instructions to ask you before you were arrested if you had any money to pay with. This was Saturday night. I do not remember your saying that you could have got it by Monday morning.
ROBERT MONTAGU BOLWELL , garage proprietor, Hampton Street, Walworth Road. In October, I do not remember the date, prisoner put up a cab belonging to the Sharp Motor Cab Company at the garage; I was not there when it was brought in. I believe it was about 12 o'clock at night. I saw it the following day. It was not there a full 24 hours. He did not come back for it. I handed it over to Bangs on the calling.
WILLIAM BANGS , fitter, Sharp Motor Cab Company. About 9 p.m. on October 12 I was sent to fetch one of our cabs from Mr. Bolwell's garage. I went and brought it back to our premises; I did not put the flag up so the meter would only record miles and not money; it was in exactly the same condition, but for that, as when I took it from the garage.
CHARLES HENRY HOMER (prisoner, on oath). On the first night I took this cab out at Windsor Hotel, Victoria, I was bilked of £1 2s. 10d. by a man going in by one door and coming out by another. In consequence I could not take the cab home because a driver has to make good such money. I kept the cab out trying to earn sufficient money to make it up. Finding I could not do so on the following Wednesday night I put it up at Mr. Bolwell's garage, having had it
out for a week. When arrested I had 35s. on me and I could have got the balance by the Monday morning. I promised to do so, but I was not given the chance. Section 53 of the Abstract of Law (witness produced a book) says that where there is no signed agreement proprietors cannot enforce the payment of earnings, and there was no signed agreement in my case.
Cross-examined. I only suggest that if I had been given time I should have paid. It is true that there was another £2 17s. due on the taxi, excluding the money which I had been "bilked" of, but I did not go and pay that in because if I had taken the cab back instead of to Bolwell's garage I should have got the "sack" for being short. I had not even got the £2 17s., because I had to pay garage and petrol. I did not tell the constable that I had been "bilked" and it was no use going to the station as I have to get the name and address of the fare first, and I had not got it. I have tried to find the man and that is the reason why I put the cab up at the garage. It is true that I simply said when I was arrested that I had not got the money. I do not know why I did not tell the magistrate this story; I suppose it went out of my head.
It was stated that prisoner had been a taxi driver since May of this year and that he had been with two different employers, by both of whom he had been discharged for not paying in the full amounts he had earned.
Sentence (prisoner had been in custody since October 16), One month's imprisonment, to date from November 7.
EDWARD LEITH , bookmaker, 61, High Holborn, W.C. About 8.20 p.m. on October 26 I met prisoner outside Finch's by appointment; I had had transactions with him and I heard there was something between him and my clerk. He asked me whether I was going to pay him the cash or not and I said, "I have never received any cash or paper whatever from you." He said, "Very well; if I don't get it, I shall put a bullet through you." I said, "Don't talk like that," and we went to have a drink at the "Phœnix." I was with my wife and my clerk. He threatened three or four times to "put a bullet through me" or "blow my brains out"; he also said that to the clerk, Smith. He demanded £34 from me, but I told him it would be only £26 if he had done the bet. On coming out I gave him a sovereign, although I told him I had had nothing from him. He remarked, "That will do to buy a revolver with and bullets." Smith said, "Give me the sovereign and I will go and buy it for you." Smith then said, "Well, I will tell you the truth. I would not do it before because I was frightened of getting the 'sack.'" Then he told me prisoner had given him a sovereign and a slip, and he had accidentally left the slip in his pocket when giving me the other slips
he had taken. He then borrowed £1 from me to give to Smith and he agreed with prisoner to give him 5s. a week until the balance, £24, was paid up. I was to stop it out of his wages. I then told prisoner that I would see that he got the money and he said he was satisfied. We had a final drink, shook hands, and left. At 8.5 p.m. on October 28 I was with my wife when I again met him outside Finch's. I said, "You want to see me, Mr. Bedford?" He said, "Yes, what about my money?" I told him that I had not had his money or his slip, and he would get nothing from me. He said his life was worth nothing and he would put a bullet through my brains. I said, "Oh, talk sensibly." He asked me to come up the passage and I said I would not. He then said he would call three of his confederates out of the bar and he did so. He went on threatening me, then he went a little way off and put his hand into his right jacket pocket. I saw a revolver in his pocket. One of his confederates rushed over to him and wrestled with him to keep him from taking it out of his pocket. My wife ran to fetch a policeman. He arrived, and when I saw him I rushed to prisoner and helped his confederate to keep his hand in his pocket. I told the policeman that prisoner had a firearm in his righthand coat pocket and he asked prisoner if it was loaded and prisoner said "Yes." The policeman took it out of his hand and took him to the station.
Cross-examined by prisoner. If I did not say at the first police court hearing that you said when I gave you a sovereign that it would do to buy a revolver with, it was because I did not think of it; it is not an invention on my part. The revolver was out of your pocket all but an inch. You had hold of the handle. (To the Court.) My clerk admitted the prisoner had given him the slip in proper time for the race, but he only found it after the race was run and the horse had won. Prisoner was entitled to look to me for his £26.
FREDERICK SMITH , clerk to Edward Leith. On October 25 prisoner made a bet with me for £1 and gave me a slip on which was the horse's name. I left it in my pocket. On October 26 I was with prosecutor when I saw him outside Finch's. (Witness corroborated previous witness's evidence as to what happened on that occasion.)
To prisoner. I put your sovereign in with the guv'nor's money at first, but when I found that your slip had stuck in my pocket I took it out and put it in another pocket. On leaving us you said you would not expose prosecutor to his other clients and you shook hands and were good friends. I saw you the next afternoon and you said you had lost your job, and I said, I was very sorry, that I wanted you to get your money back, and suggested your seeing prosecutor outside Finch's at three o'clock the next afternoon, and making an arrangement with him. I did not see you at 3 p.m. the next day and tell you that the guv'nor would see you at eight and that he had gone to fetch the money for you.
corroborated prosecutor's evidence as to what happened on this occasion and added:) When the other man was trying to restrain prisoner he said, "I mean to do it." Prisoner was trying to get his hand out of his pocket. I fetched a constable.
To prisoner. I only saw about one inch of the handle of the revolver.
Police-constable ARTHUR MASTERS, C 384. At 8.30 p.m. on October 28 I was on duty, when I was fetched to Princess Street, where I saw prosecutor, prisoner, and three or four other people. Prosecutor said, "This man has threatened to blow my brains out. I will charge him." Prisoner seemed very excited and I asked him if he had any firearms on him. He replied, "Yes," and handed me this revolver. (Produced.) He said, "He (prosecutor) owes me £34 and I am going to have it." The revolver was loaded in five chambers. I found six live cartridges on him.
Inspector GEORGE WEBBER, G. Division. The last witness handed me a revolver, six live cartridges, and a license dated October 27 he had taken from prisoner. Prisoner told me he had bought it on the day previouly at a pawnbroker's, having previously obtained a license.
HARRY BEDFORD (prisoner, on oath), builder's foreman. On the afternoon of October 26 I met prosecutor by arrangement outside Finch's and asked him for the £34 he owed me on a bet. We went to have a drink at the "Phœnix" and then his clerk admitted he had had my money and slip and had not given it up. Prosecutor eventually gave me £1 and Smith £1 and it was arranged that Smith was to pay me 5s. a week till it was paid off. The next day I saw Smith in a public-house and he told me to make another appointment with prosecutor and perhaps he would pay me. On his leaving a man standing fry asked me how much prosecutor owed me and I said £34. He then said, "They may pay you, but you won't get away with it. The class of men that tout about for him would kill you for 34 pence, let alone £34." I thought over it and then I thought I would protect myself and get a revolver in case I was attacked; so I got a license and with it a revolver. I saw Smith next day and he told me that the prosecutor would not keep his appointment at 3 o'clock, but would see me at 8 o'clock, and that he thought he had gone to get the money. I met prosecutor at eight outside Finch's, leaving my friends in the bar. Prosecutor said he would not give me any money, so I went and fetched my friends. When they came out I asked him again for the money and he said he would not pay me. One of my friends called out, "Break up his connection." I said, "That is what I intend to do." The constable then came up and arrested me. I gave him the revolver. I never had the slightest indention of pulling it out.
Cross-examined. I never said a word about shooting on the 26th; The witness's evidence as to that is all concocted. I ridiculed Smith's suggestion that he should pay me 5s. a week. I did not tell this
story at the station because I was in such a dilapidated condition. I do not think I was asked at the police court if I had anything to say; if so, I did not understand it. The prosecutor did not see the revolver in my pocket. Smith told them I had it. Glenister, a man that works with me, saw me loading it on the Saturday morning and he went and told Smith's father-in-law and he told Smith. This was a trap laid for me so the prosecutor could get out of paying the money.
Cross-examined. Prisoner asked me if I would go down with him as he was going to meet somebody to get some money. I did not know he had a revolver in his pocket. He was a bit excited. I did not see Mrs. Leith go for a policeman.
Judge Lumley Smith stated that he did not see under the circumstances how the jury could convict prisoner of attempting to shoot prosecutor, because he had not got the revolver from his pocket.
On this the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty on that indictment.
Counsel for the prosecution stated that there was a second count charging prisoner with common assault.
Judge Lumley Smith expressed the opinion that in no event could there have been a case substantiating that charge, and in accordance with his direction the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty on that count.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, November 22.)
MILLS, Harry (31, motor builder), FROST, William (27, motor engineer), and WILLIAMS, George Frederick (69, accountant) , conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from such liege subjects of Our Lord the King as should be induced to invest money in an undertaking known first as the Wellington Motor and Cycle Manufacturing Company and afterwards as the Heston Motor Manufacturing Company, Limited, divers sums of money, with intent to defraud; conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from Samuel Croft the sums of £55 and £95, and from other persons various other sums, in each case with intent to defraud; in incurring certain debts and liabilities of £5 and £95 to Samuel Croft, £50 to Herbert Archibald Brown, £50 to Alfred Bassett, £25 to William Charles Schoof, £30 to George Quarterman, £169 to Frank Craddock, and £30 to Robert Edwin Parish, in each case did obtain credit by means of fraud.
Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Boyd prosecuted; Mr. Purcell and Mr. Fox-Davies defended Mills; Mr. Clarke Hall defended Frost; Mr. Ronald G. Cruickshank defended Williams.
FRANK JOSE , partner in the Hounslow Model Laundry. We are leaseholders of 190, Hamworth Road, Hounslow. On May 10, 1910, Mills applied to us to take those premises for a motor business; he gave us references which were satisfactory, and ultimately we let him the premises on a three years' agreement, rent £60 the first year and afterwards £70 a year. He took possession just before the June quarter day, 1910. We had difficulty in getting the rent from the very first. On July 31 we got a letter from Mills saying that he had sublet the premises to the Heston Motor Manufacturing Company, Limited; that that company had paid him the rent that was due and that he would be personally responsible. As subletting was contrary to the agreement we distrained for the arrears of rent; the distress realised £90.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. That was more than enough to pay us, so we lost nothing through Mills' tenancy.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clarke Hall and Mr. Cruickshank. I never had any dealings with Frost or Williams.
JAMES AUSTIN , fitter's mate, 18, Orchard Road, Shepherd's Bush. On August 5 I saw in the "Daily Chronicle" this advertisement (Exhibit 26): "Motor trade. Men (two, smart) wanted to learn motor trade, with investment from £50; one to live on premises; married; chance to learn motor business; one as traveller and secretary." I answered the advertisement and got a letter headed "Wellington Works, 190, Hamworth Road, Hounslow," making an appointment. On August 12 I called at 190, Hamworth Road. Frost opened the door; he said the manager was out; I waited for about an hour, when Mills came in. He told me he was going to put some oars on the road and wanted a man to drive and learn a certain amount of mechanism; he said he had already two cars in the yard and expected two others down in a week or so. He asked whether I was prepared to put money into the business; I asked him what capital he had; he said he had enough money to carry on the business for 12 months. He told me that any money I deposited he would return at a month's notice, and that it would bear interest according to the interest named by the firm. I agreed to put in £50 on those terms. As to wages, he said that as I was not a skilled man he could only give me £1 a week to start with, which would be increased after three months to 22s. 6d. or 25s., according to ability shown. Frost was present during part of this conversation. On August 13 I received a letter (Exhibit 7) headed "Wellington Works," signed "C. Hale," enclosing copy agreement. I never saw any Mr. Hale. I called on August 13 at 190, Hamworth Road, and saw Mills and Frost. I paid Mills in Frost's presence £10 deposit. On the 15th I started work. There were two cars in the yard, one under repair; I was put on to rub off the varnish and paint. On August 20 I paid the balance of my deposit, £40, getting this receipt: "Received Fifty pounds by way of investment in above agreement," signed W. Frost and H. Mills; Frost was present when I handed over the £40. I stayed with the firm until December 10; all that time only two other cars came into the yard; all I did
was to rub down the bodies, and do painting on the shop itself. One small car was once let out on hire. I went out on five occasions with Frost to be taught to drive. I got my £1 a week wages until December 10. On that day Mills said that work was slack and I had better stay at home till the end of the week, and he would pay the wages as usual. On December 17 I called and did not see Mills, but 15s. had been left out for me; I did no work that week. On the 24th I called and was given 15s. with a letter signed by Milk and Frost, saying that that was "the best they could do under the circumstances until things are settled." I called on several occasions afterwards and saw Mills and Frost; I wanted to know when they were going to start work again and whether I could get some money; I never got any satisfactory answer. Mills eventually told me to put in my month's notice of withdrawal of the money, and this I did about March 7; I gave it to Mills personally. When the notice was up I saw Mills; he told me that he had no money at the present time, would I call again. I called several times up to the end of June, but I have never seen a penny of my money.
To Mr. Purcell. Altogether I received in wages about £17. I had five days' observation of the establishment before I paid the £40. I expected that they were going to start a business in hiring and building bodies. I put my money into a business which was going to be started and which I hoped would be a success.
To Mr. Clarke Hall. Frost was working at the premises just as I was; he told me that he had paid £100 to come in.
SAMUEL CROFT , foreman engineer, Hounslow, said that upon replying to an advertisement similar to Exhibit 26 he got into communication with Mills and Frost. Witness was desirous of giving his son a start in life. Mills, in Frost's presence, told witness that his son would have an excellent chance of learning motor engineering. Eventually witness put in £100, which was to beer interest at 5 per cent. and a share of the profits, and to be redeemable at a month's notice; his son was to be a partner in the business. After being at the place for some time the son found that there was no business being carried on; witness made repeated applications to Mills and Frost but could get no satisfaction. On January 9 witness gave a month's notice calling in the money; he had never got the money back.
To Mr. Purcell. I understood that Mills was raising fresh capital to develop his business. I kept pressing him for the return of my Money; he said, "I have no money, you cannot get blood out of a stone." That was in February; he said the money had gone into the business.
To Mr. Clarke Hall. Frost told me he knew nothing about the management of the business and that he had lost a lot of money. I asked him why he had signed my agreement, he said he thought of getting a little of his own back. He never told me he had put in £100. I understood that Frost and the others had been in business at Walthamstow.
To Mr. Cruickshank. Williams, as far as I knew, had nothing to do with obtaining my money.
SAMUEL CROFT , son of the last witness. In July, 1910, I was out of employment; I had been a footman and desired to learn motor engineering with a view of becoming a chauffeur. I went to the works at Hounslow and saw Frost and afterwards Mills. He told me he had a good business, that he had several cars for hire, and did body building; he said I should learn driving, motor engineering, and body building. He said, "Is the money yours?" I said "No." He asked how much my father was prepared to put in the business. I said I did not know. He said he had found that if men had money in the business they took more interest in it. He saw my father about the agreement. I went to the works in August, 1910; I used to rub down the paint work, paint the bodies, and I did painting on the premises; I gave the men a hand on one occasion in putting a car together. I was taught nothing in motor engineering. I went out with Frost once in a oar; we drove a mile and we came back. I got no instructions in driving. I received wages, 25s. a week, up to about a fortnight before Christmas; next week I was 5s. short; next week 10s. short; after that I only received 6s. in March.
To Mr. Purcell. Some bodies of cars were made at the works; there were five or six other men working; there was a large machinery shop; there was no smith's shop while I was there; there was a paint shop and a trimming shop. Mills did not say he could not give back the money, but he would be able to give my father £150 worth of shares. There was some talk about my father becoming a director. Mills said my father had asked him to give him £150 worth of shares and that he could not give him £150 worth of shares for £100.
To Mr. Clarke Hall. I knew Frost had invested £100.
To Mr. Cruickshank. Williams used to travel for the firm.
HERBERT ARCHIBALD BROWN . In November, 1910, I was cellarman at the Hounslow Empire Musical Hall. I saw advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle: "Chance for 6 smart men to learn motor engineering, driving, body building, &c., Investment £50, returnable at will. Constant good wage to start with." I wrote for particulars and received letter (produced) stating it was a splendid chance, etc. I called at the works and saw Mills and Frost. Mills showed me over the place; there were four oars, a garage, a body makers' room, and some bodies were being built there. Mills said it was a genuine concern, that he had had 20 years' experience, that he had a lease for 19 years, that there were no debts, that he had several orders to build cars for the trade, that I should be able to learn driving, and would have no difficulty in obtaining my driver's license; I was to receive 25s. a week wages. I then received letter of November 5 with draft agreement, and on November 10 paid £50 as deposit and signed the agreement. On the following Monday I started work. I heard nothing more of the orders for 20 cars. I learned nothing of the mechanism of a motor-car, and had no opportunity to learn to drive. I received my wages until about Christmas time, when I stayed away for
a few days and saw Mills; he said there was no work for me. I said I must have my money. He paid me 2s. or 3s. I repeatedly asked for my £50 back, Mills said, "I have no money, you cannot get blood out of a stone." I said, "Neither can I live off the air."
To Mr. Purcell. I suggested having a week's start before I deposited my money, Mills said it would be unfair to him to do that—he refused to let me have a week on trial. I trusted him—I thought I was dealing with honest people, and that it was a genuine concern. Mills said it was not a matter of money, he had plenty of money. I went twice to the works before I paid my £50. I got five weeks' wages and £1 11s. afterwards. Mills told me afterwards that the business was to be turned into a limited company or cooperative society. He did not suggest my taking shares.
To Mr. Clarke Hall. All the business arrangements were conducted with Mills; Frost was apparently working about in the shop and receiving wages like myself.
(Thursday, November 23.)
ROBERT EDWIN PARISH . On March 9 I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle": "Learners wanted for the motor manufacturing trade; a small premium required." I applied and received a letter from the Heston Motor Manufacturing Company suggesting an appointment. On March 20 I went to Hamworth Road and saw Mills. I told him I wanted to learn the motor manufacturing business; he said there was a good opening for me. I told him I was a plumber by trade. Mills told me he was manager of the firm. He asked me if I would be willing to pay £30, and I agreed. He told me that they had plenty of orders in, and said he was a practical man. On March 24 I went to the offices of the company, paid the £30 premium, and signed the agreement. I paid the £30 to Williams; he told me he was secretary. I will not be sure whether they said it was a limited company. I did not see Frost there then. I started work on March 27. I then saw Frost. The only work I did that day was filing some step irons and helped with the belting for the machines that were there. I was employed on that for two or three weeks. I was not shown anything of the mechanism of motor-cars. Other work I did was to help with a wind screen. I did not receive any instructions as to the making of cars. I painted a car. Sometimes there were four or five cars there for repairs; four or five were built while I was there and sent away. During the time there was some business going on. I was satisfied at that time and I received my wages (15s. a week) up till August 5. On August 11 I received a letter from the Heston Motor Manufacturing Company, signed "G. F. Williams, secretary," stating that the works would not be reopened on the following Monday and that notice would be given when business would be resumed. They were never reopened. I never received my money back.
To Mr. Purcell. Regular time-sheets were kept. I have seen the place packed with cars. There were seven or eight men employed at one time.
To Mr. Clarke Hall. I did not see Frost during the negotiations. He was a workman like myself.
To Mr. Cruickshank. I knew Williams merely as secretary of the company.
FRANK R. SELLARS , clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Somerset House, produced the file of the Heston Motor Manufacturing Company, Limited. The company was registered on December 24, 1910, on the presentation of Mills; its nominal capital was £2,000 in £1 shares. The original subscribers were Mills, 300 shares; Frost, 300; and E. A. Gillings, 100. There is nothing on the file to show that anything was paid for the Mills and Frost shares. Mills and Frost were managing directors for the first ten years, Mills receiving £150 and Frost £100 a year as fees. G.F. Williams was secretary. On September 16, 1911, the company was wound up voluntarily.
HERBERT LONG , manager, London and Provincial Bank, Hounslow branch. On July 26, 1910, Mills opened an account in his own name; on August 5, 1910, the account, with a credit balance of £55, was transferred into the name of the "Wellington Motor Body Manufacturing Company, Henry Wills and Wm. Frost, partners." On December 31, 1910, the account was £26 15s. 1d. overdrawn.
To Mr. Cruickshank. Williams had a private account at my branch; it was always satisfactorily kept; I believe he is a quite respectable man.
NATHAN W. RAW , manager, London County and Westminster Bank, Chiswick branch, produced certified copy of the account of the Heston Motor Maufacturing Company, Limited, opened by Williams on February 11, 1911.
ALBERT STEVENS , of Dickens and Co., Limited, advertising agents, proved the insertion of advertisements in various papers on the instructions of the Wellington Company or the Heston Company, the orders being signed by Frost or Williams.
Detective-sergeant THOMAS HALL, T Division. On September 23 I saw Mills in Hamworth Road and told him I had a warrant for his arrest on a charge of conspiracy to defraud. He said, "Somebody thinks he has been clever, I suppose; who is the originator?" I told him the complainants included Basset, Croft, and Brown. He said, "Oh, I shall say they are shareholders; that will do them all right."
To Mr. Clarke Hall. Frost has always borne a good character.
To Mr. Cruickshank. The books of the business were quite clearly kept by Williams.
Detective-sergeant ROBERT CHARLES, T Division. On September 23 I saw Williams and told him he would be charged on a warrant for conspiracy to defraud. He said, "I am surprised, yet not surprised; this is spite; it is worse than spite; it is dastardly." On September 27 I arrested Frost. On my explaining the warrant he said, "I do not understand it; I have not defrauded anyone; I have lost £119 in the business and have not received a penny back, so I reckon I have been defrauded; I never had more than half of my wages; I even borrowed money to pay the other chaps, and, if anyone has been defrauded of their money, Mills has had it; but I thought he was paying some of the others their money back." On being formally charged he said, "I signed some of the agreements, but I was not a partner; I also signed some of the cheques, but Mills never let me see the pass-book."
To Mr. Clarke Hall. Frost was earning a respectable livelihood at Sunderland.
Detective-inspector FRANK KNELL, T Division, spoke to finding at the premises in Hamworth Road the correspondence and drafts of the advertisements (produced) in the case.
(Friday, November 24.)
Mr. Purcell stated that after considering the evidence he felt that, although a good deal might have been said with regard to the conspiracy and the false pretences counts, he would have very great difficulty in dealing with the counts under the Debtors Act (counts 7, 10, and 13) and he had advised Mills to plead guilty to these counts.
Mr. Travers Humphreys stated that he would accept this plea.
Mr. Clarke Hall stated that he followed the same course with regard to Frost, and this plea was also accepted by Mr. Travers Humphreys.
Mr. Cruickshank submitted on behalf of Williams that there was no case to go to the jury, and on the Recorder stating that in his opinion this prisoner's conduct was perfectly consistent with his innocence, Mr. Travers Humphreys stated he would leave the matter in his Lordship's hands.
The Recorder directed the jury to return a verdict of Not guilty.
Mills and Frost having pleaded in accordance with their counsel's statements, the jury returned verdicts of Guilty as to counts 7, 10, and 13 against Mills, Guilty as to count 13 against Frost, and Not guilty as to Williams, the foreman remarking as to the last prisoner, "We have great doubts about it ourselves."
Against Mills a conviction on April 30, 1909, in the name of Henry Mansfield was proved; he then pleaded guilty to a similar offence under the Debtors Act. On his release from prison he had started another business of a similar nature, and there were other charges against him
in connection therewith. (These the Recorder said he would hot take into account.) As to Frost, it was urged that he had previously borne an excellent character; he had entered this business in the belief that he would by investing his money establish himself in a responsible position, and having been undeceived as to the nature of the business, he had continued his connection with it in the hope of regaining his money.
Sentences: Mills, Twelve months' hard labour; Frost was released on his own recognisances in £100 to come up for judgment if called upon.
Williams was further indicted with soliciting Frank Craddock to make a false declaration.
Mr. Travers Humphreys stating that he was satisfied that the letter, the subject matter of the indictment, was written by prisoner at the instigation of Mills, offered no evidence, and the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, November 22.)
Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. Oddie defended.
Prisoner was indicted at the September Sessions (see preceding volume, page 541) for feloniously wounding Henry Ansell with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. He was found guilty but insane, and ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure. The conviction was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. To the first count of the present indictment, Mr. Oddie put in on prisoner's behalf a plea of autrefois acquit (the point being that on the former indictment it was open to the jury to convict of unlawful wounding).
The jury returned a verdict that prisoner had been formerly acquitted.
Prisoner was then tried on the second count of the indictment. The evidence given at the previous trial was repeated.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, November 8.)
PREEDY, Edward (20) pleaded guilty , of breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Reed and stealing therein one gold chain, one gold brooch and other articles, his goods; stealing two rings of the value of £3, the goods of Mary Ann Reed ; forging a certain order, to wit, a banker's cheque for £10; a banker's cheque for £20; a banker's cheque for £12 17s. 3d.; a banker's cheque for £23 5s., and a banker's cheque for £23 5s., in each case with intent to defraud.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at Rochford Petty Sessions on July 30, 1911, of stealing clothing, receiving 14 days' hard labour. He was stated to be the son of respectable parents and to have borne a good character until this year. He had given a stolen ring and a ring purchased from the proceeds of forgeries to a young woman, who was willing to return them; an order of restitution was made.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude on each indictment, to run concurrently.
BEFORE Mr. JUSTICE GRANTHAM.
(Friday, November 10.)
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. H. D. Roome prosecuted; Mr. A. S. Carr defended (at the request of the Court).
This indictment had reference to the felonious using by prisoner of a certain instrument upon deceased and causing her to take a certain noxious drug with intent to procure her miscarriage. Verdict, Guilty of manslaughter.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude, Mr. Justice Grantham remarking that there could be no doubt that prisoner had been guilty previously of similar illegal practices, and that he felt convinced that this class of offence could not be stamped out until the women upon whom such operations were successfully performed were themselves punished.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, November 15.)
Mr. M. E. Gwyer prosecuted; Mr. Macrae Diggle defended.
On August 31 at about 7 a.m. I was waiting for employent outside the gates of the Union Cartage Company in Sancroft Street, Kennington, when I saw the prisoner, whom I know; he said he was after a job; I have no doubt he is the man. Somebody fetched him in; I saw him come out driving a horse and van. I next saw him at the West Ham Police Court on October 10, when I picked him out from among about eight or nine other men. He was wearing different clothes.
Cross-examined. I was waiting for work at driving a van; I got no work that day and I have not had any since from the Union Cartage Company. I think there was only one man besides us two waiting there for work. I cannot tell you what clothes prisoner was wearing. A man named Fred Mack, a carman in the employment of the company, took the prisoner in. The van prisoner brought out had a black tarpaulin cover with a drop gut horse. I went to pick prisoner out in company with Mr. Frost, who was the foreman on August 31. He did not tell me anything about the prisoner's appearance. I was shown a photograph of the prisoner before I picked him out.
Re-examined. That photograph was shown me amongst eight photographs; nobody told me which was the prisoner's; I picked it out without any trouble.
GEORGE FROST , 13, Prince's Road, Kennington, foreman to the Union Cartage Company. On August 31 I was on duty in the Union Cartage Company's yard at Kennington; it was my duty to engage any men who were wanted. Prisoner had been waiting for work for two or three days, and I gave him a horse and van with instructions to drive down to the docks to a Mr. Manuel. He signed his name "G. Green" in tally book (produced), and left the yard at 7.30. I did not see him again that day, but in consequence of information I received I sent a man to West Ham Lane, who brought the van back at 11 p.m.; it was empty and the name of my company was blackened out. On October 9 I picked prisoner out from among eight or nine other men at West Ham Police Court, and have no doubt he is the man. He was not dressed in the same way.
Cross-examined. We employ these casual men without making any inquiries as to their characters. The police showed me some photographs before I picked prisoner out. Those photographs were not mentioned before the magistrate.
WILLIAM MANUEL , 23, Sudeley Street, City Road, dock foreman to the Union Cartage Company at Victoria Docks. On August 31 I was on duty in the Victoria Docks when prisoner came at 9.30 a.m. for some meat. Under my instructions he waited until 2.30 p.m., and then I told him to load 10 quarters of meat and take it to the Great Western Railway depot at Smithfield Market, at the same time giving him a tick note. He loaded the meat and drove away and I did not see him again until October 10, when I failed to pick him out at West Ham Police Court. I then asked the inspector in charge to
let me see the forearms of the eight or nine men who were there, and I then identified the prisoner by tattoo marks I had seen while he was loading the meat at the docks. I have no doubt that this is the man.
Cross-examined. Prisoner did not take off his coat.
WILLIAM RAWLINSON , 23, West Smithfield, assistant manager to the Union Cartage Company. On August 31 I was expecting a consignment of 10 quarters of beef, value £30, at West Smithfield depot, but it never came.
HENRY HILL , 3, Newburn Buildings, Kennington, carman, Union Cartage Company. On August 31 at 6.30 p.m. I went to West Ham, where I received from a publican an empty van and bay mare belonging to my company.
Cross-examined. I cannot recognise prisoner.
Detective JOHN HANCOCK, K Division, stationed at West Ham. On October 9 I saw prisoner detained, read the charge over to him, and told him he would be taken to West Ham, where he would be put up for identification. He said, "There is a mistake somewhere." On the way to the station he said, "I never worked for the Union Cartage Company in my life, it must be somebody very much like me. I shall want a fair identification. I suppose they have put it on to me because I have had a bit of meat out of the market before." He was placed among seven other men of similar age, build, and appearance and picked out by Frost and Manuel. When identified by Manuel he said, "Who told you I had Indian ink marks on my arms?" When charged he said, "This is what they say I have done, I see." On the way to the police count the following morning he said, "I am going to have a go to get out of it, you cannot blame me, I know nothing about it."
Cross-examined. The prisoner has been in trouble before and the police had got a photograph of him, and I have no doubt they also had a note of his tattoo marks.
Prisoner's statement. All I can say is I have been getting a living by selling bananas. I have nothing to say about this charge.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at the Guildhall Police Court on May 25, 1911, receiving three months' hard labour for stealing a carriage bicycle and its contents. Other convictions proved: County of London Sessions, July 5, 1910, stealing two horses and harness, eight months' hard labour; Guildhall, December 29, 1909, three months' hard labour for attempted fraud.
Sentence, Fifteen months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, November 8.)
Previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
BANCROFT, Annie (63, charwoman) pleaded guilty , of breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Sarah Miller and stealing therein certain articles, her goods; stealing five petticoats and other articles, the goods of Eleanor Pennington .
Several previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, Fifteen months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Friday, November 10.)
Prisoner confessed to a conviction of felony at Middlesex Quarter Sessions on July 7 last in the name of John Smith. A number of convictions were proved, going back to 1908.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Monday, November 13.)
Mr. Attenborough prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended Sheldon; Mr. Purcell defended Heard.
EDWIN MASON , manager to Mr. Downham, jeweller, 8, Hill Road, Wimbledon. At 8.5 p.m., on September 7, I was behind the counter when I heard a tremendous smash of glass. I opened the window-case and saw that the centre window had been smashed; it was split in all directions, and there was a hole nearly a foot in diameter. A hand took a diamond necklace, worth 450 guineas, leaving the case open.
It was then withdrawn. I rushed to the door. Sheldon jumped into a taxi which was passing by slowly; he followed another man who had got away. This other man was clean shaven. I rushed to the taxi and held the door to keep them from shutting it, but I had to leave go. Sheldon attempted to hit me with this black stick (produced), but I dodged it. I went back to the shop. We have never recovered the necklace. We lost in addition several diamond rings, which we have not recovered. The bracelet and this 5-stone diamond ring (produced) were picked up outside and brought into the shop by some people the same evening. Directly I returned to the shop I saw this hammer (produced), wrapped in cloth as it is now, underneath the window. I gave it to the police.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. There was a number of people about. It would only take me two or three seconds to get to the door. I did not see either of the prisoners actually break the window.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. When I got outside several people were standing about and others were running up. (To the Court.) The other man in the cab was very much like Heard, but I cannot swear to him.
Re-examined. There is a large arc lamp outside, which gives a splendid light.
PERCY RUSH , The Lawn, Montague Road, Wimbledon About 8 p.m., on September 7, I was on the pavement in Hill Road, about 12 feet away from Mr. Downham's shop, when a taxi approached me slowly, going in the direction of the shop; prisoners were walking in the same direction in front, and they passed me. Heard went up to the window and smashed it with what seemed to me to be half a brick or a hammer. He put his hand in the window and he then withdrew it and darted off to the taxi, which had now got a couple of yards past the shop. He got in, Mr. Mason ran out of the shop and went to the cab. I saw Sheldon strike at him from the window with a black stick similar to this one (produced). The taxi was stopped by the crowd and Sheldon got out on the off-side and tried to place the stick between the people's legs. I went on to the pavement and was going home when I saw Heard running up the hill. On September 12 I went to the station and identified prisoners.
To Mr. Fulton. From the time I heard the crash till the time I walked away, about a quarter of an hour elapsed; the taxi was then about ten yards up the hill. An excitable crowd collected. I got so near the off-side window that I caught hold of the stick which was being brandished about through the window by Sheldon, I was there about three minutes and then went away. I did not see Heard get out. There were about 200 people round the cab. They surrounded Sheldon when he got out, and some of them struck at him.
To Mr. Purcell. I did not take particular notice of the prisoners when they passed me. When Heard darted from the window he went away from me. I did not see their full faces up to then, but I saw their faces sufficiently to enable me to recognise them again. Among the men from whom I identified Heard I do not remember seeing any
old ones; a good many of them were fairly well dressed; I cannot say that most of them were fair haired. I did not see Heard in the taxi.
Re-examined. I identified them without hesitation.
LILIAN EDWARDS , 62, Pelham Road, Wimbledon. About 8 p.m. on September 7 I was standing opposite Downham's shop when I heard the glass smash. I turned to look at the window when I saw Heard take out his hand from a hole he had broken in the window; he was holding a gold bangle. He was about five yards from me. He ran to a taxi and got inside. I saw nothing of Sheldon. On the following day I identified Heard from a number of the men at the police station. I had been standing beside him before he broke the window and I noticed him looking in.
To Mr. Fulton. A good many people came to look in at the window. I suppose Sheldon was arrested at the corner about 10 minutes after. He was surrounded by an angry and excited crowd, but I did not see anybody strike him.
To Mr. Purcell. I did not see Heard break the window. He had been standing by me alone a few seconds before I heard the smash. He darted away very quickly to the taxi. I cannot say what the other men were like from whom I picked him out; I went straight for him. I saw his full face when he turned to the left to run to the taxi.
Re-examined. I am certain that the man I saw taking his hand out of the window was the man I saw get into the taxi.
Police-constable HENRY BOWEN, 804 V. On the evening of September 7 I was on point duty at Wimbledon Station, near Hill Road. A few minutes after eight I saw a taxi outside the South Western Hotel; it was stationary, but the engine was in motion. The driver got off the box and spoke to the porter. He returned to his seat and drove slowly in the direction of Downham's shop; the taxi was empty. Very shortly after I, heard the sound of breaking glass from that direction and I saw the prisoners standing outside that shop. They turned and sprang into the taxi, Sheldon opening the door. The taxi was moving slowly. I ran to the front of the cab and a number of people came up. Somebody shouted "Stop them! They have stolen a necklace." The taxi stopped and Sheldon got out on the offside and tried to run in the direction of Wimbledon Hill, when he was caught by two men and myself. He was very violent and said several times, "I will kick your f—b—out." Somebody got hold of his legs and he was carried to the station. I saw Heard get out of the offside of the cab and run in the direction of Wimbledon Hill and then I lost sight of him.
To Mr. Fulton. My point is outside the railway station, about 200 or 300 yards from this shop. I was on point duty when I saw the cab. There were about five or six people about between where I was standing and the shop when I saw prisoners. I am allowed to patrol on my point and from where I was standing I could see prisoners' faces. It took me only a few seconds to get to the shop and a few seconds after that I arrested Sheldon; there was not a crowd round the
taxi 10 minutes before they were arrested. I saw a stick being flourished from the window on the off side. Detective-sergeant Gillan and Wing saw Sheldon carried to the station.
To Mr. Purcell. When I said at the police court that I did not identify Heard I meant I did not identify him as having smashed the window. I only had a glance at his face from a distance of about 30 yards; that was when I heard the window smash. I was some little distance from my point duty at the time.
Detective-sergeant GILLAN, G Division. At 8.10 p.m. on September 7 I heard a call of "Help!" and saw a crowd running towards Hill Road. I ran and opposite the railway station I saw Heard being held by two men. In consequence of what was said to me I handed him over to them and went over Wimbledon Railway Bridge, where I saw Sheldon surrounded by a large crowd. I assisted Police-constable Bowen to take him to the station; he was very violent. At the station I said to both prisoners, "You will be detained and charged with breaking into Mr. Downham's shop, but the nature of the robbery I am not in a position to say." Subsequently the nature of the charge was explained to them and neither made any reply. Prior to this I told them I wanted their names and addresses. Sheldon said, "You will get no f—name and address from me." Heard said, "I will tell you nothing. You find out." Later Sheldon said he lived anywhere—usually in Rowton houses. On the charge being read over to them, Sheldon said, "I know nothing about it." On Sheldon was found £2 16s. 3 1/2 d. and on Heard 4s. 5d. This photograph (produced) accurately represents the state of Downham's window after it was smashed. This dark stick was handed me by a man named Randall, after prisoners were taken to the station, and this light stick I found in the taxi when it was brought to the station.
To Mr. Fulton. Some of the people assaulted Sheldon by striking him and he was bleeding from the head. He was struggling very violently and was practically carried to the station. I saw two people assault him.
(Tuesday, November 14.)
HAMILTON MCMILLEN , draughtsman, 76, Essex Road, New Malvern. About 8.10 p.m. on September 7 I was in the middle of the road opposite Downham's shop, when I heard the smashing of the glass. I saw a taxi-cab being driven in the direction of Wimbledon Hill and people were trying to get into it on the near side. I cannot identify who got in, but I can identify Heard as having got out on the off side. He tried to get away, but he was tripped up in St. George's Road, about 30 yards from the cab. I did not lose sight of him at all. With the assistance of another I took him to the station.
To Mr. Purcell. There were only a few people on the off side running after the cab. I was about two yards away when the cab was stopped. I only saw one get out; I did not stop to see a second
person get out; I ran after Heard. I am quite certain that nobody got out before he did. I did not actually see him tripped up, but I only inferred it. He did not say when we seized him, "What are you holding me for?" I heard him say at the station, "I had nothing to do with the robbery." People were running after him besides myself, but I did not notice anybody in front of me hit him.
JOSEPH ALDER , insurance clerk. About 8.10 p.m. on September 7 I was about opposite Down ham's shop, when I heard a smashing of glass and I saw two men run from the window of the shop towards a taxi-cab, which was a yard or two past the shop; I cannot swear to their identity. I saw one of them get in; I am not sure whether the other did. The cab stopped a few yards further on and I saw a man get out on the off side; he was caught by several people. He was then taken to the police-station. I did not see his face. I followed to the station, but when I got there they had been taken away.
To Mr. Fulton. I probably did say at the police court that I saw the prisoners rush to the taxi-cab; it was probably a mistake.
JOHN WING , common keeper. Shortly after 8 p.m. I was about five yards away from Downham's shop on the Same side, when I heard smashing of glass. Prisoners were standing right in front of that shop. There was a fair light there from an arc light on the other side of the road. Sheldon ran and jumped into a taxi, which was passing by slowly and Heard, walking hurriedly after him, did the same. Mr. Mason ran out of the shop and caught hold of the taxi door as they were closing it. Sheldon hit at him with a stick from out of the window. The cab was stopped by the people getting in front of it, and Sheldon got out on the off side, when he was arrested. Heard got oat on the near side and ran towards St. George's Road. I chased him and at the corner he fell down. He was secured and I went to assist Police-constable Bowens with Sheldon, who was struggling very violently. He used filthy language. He kicked at the constable and myself; we had to get hold of his legs and carry him to the station. On arriving at the station I was able to identify them as being those that I Saw outside the window.
To Mr. Fulton. I did not see anybody strike Sheldon; if anybody had done so I should have seen it. He had had a blow on the head sufficient to make a man momentarily dazed, but I don't know who did it. I did not see Lilian Edwards in front of the window when I saw prisoners there., A number of people were walking up and down the road, as it was just the busy time. I had a good view of the prisoners, side face; I was five yards away; I was standing on the kerb and had a cross view. It was only a moment before the crash that I saw them, but I saw them also in the cab. I should think within a minute 60 people gathered round the cab. From the time they got into the cab until they were arrested I should think about 30 seconds elapsed.
To Mr. Purcell. Heard slipped as he was leaving the kerb. I was near enough to see his face when he was secured and I am prepared to say he is the same man as the man I had had a momentary glance of outside the shop.
CHARLES RANDALL , clerk. About 8.10 p.m. on September 7 I was. standing almost opposite Mr. Downham's shop on the other side of the road when I heard the smashing of glass. I saw a cab pass by the shop. Sheldon got out on the off side and Heard on the near side. I saw no more of Heard until he was at the station, when I recognised him. As Sheldon got out, Police-constable Bowen and others held him. With this dark stick (produced) he tried to fight the people away from him. I wrenched it from him and it was broken, as it is now, in the struggle. I gave it to the police. I helped to take him to the station; he had to be carried because he refused to walk.
To Mr. Fulton. I could not say whether anybody struck him on the way to the station; I was with him the whole time. The crowd was quite quiet. I know he was struck, but how I cannot say. I attended at the police court, but I was not called on to give evidence.
To Mr. Purcell. I saw Hoard's face sideways as he left the cab. He did not run towards me. I saw him at the station between two constables and I recognised him.
HARRY TRENCOMB , taxi-cab driver, General Motorcab Company, Brixton. About 7.40 p.m. on September 7 I was plying for hire in Wimbledon and was turning round in the Broadway when I was stopped by three men, two of whom I believe were the prisoners. One of the three, who had a bowler hat, threw a stick into the cab; the other two wore caps. They did not get in, but they directed me to go to the South Western Hotel in Hill Road. I did so. One went inside the hotel and the other two walked in the direction of Downham's shop on the same side of the road. After waiting until the meter registered 1s. I got fidgetty and spoke to the porter. I returned to the box and waited until I saw one of the three men come into middle of the road and beckon me. I went up slowly, I had lost sight of him. I had just passed Downham's shop when I heard the smashing of glass. Somebody then opened my near side door and got in. I stopped the cab and I saw a fight going on the off side with somebody in the cab. The crowd pulled a man out and he was taken to the station. I did not see anybody else get out. I followed with the cab to the station. Inside it was found this light stick (produced).
To Mr. Fulton. When I got to the station the prisoners did not look like two of the men who engaged me because they had been roughly handled.
GEORGE SHELDON (prisoner, on oath). About 8 p.m. on September 7 I was waiting with Heard for a motor omnibus near this shop and on the same side, when three men came and forced me in the roadway. I asked what they did it for and they accused me of pushing against them. They seemed to be very quarrelsome; two more men joined them. Heard pulled me away and we walked away. After going about six yards I looked round and saw they were following us. I drew Heard's attention to the fact and he told me not to
take any notice. Shortly afterwards I heard shouting from behind, which I thought came from these men. I got frightened. A taxicab was passing us slowly. I suggested to Heard that we should get into it. I had just got to the door when I heard a smashing of glass. I got in the cab and turned round to help Heard in, when I saw he was running away. One of these men was waving a stick and two of the others were behind him. Heard never got in the cab. I ran to the off side door, which was surrounded by these men. As I stepped out the man with the stick hit me on the head, cutting my head open. I tried to ward off the blow with this black stick, but failed to do so. They then closed with me and I tried to free myself, but I was too dazed. I do not remember any policeman there at the time; he came up afterwards. I was taken to the station and all the way I was being struck; these three men had hold of me. I have not seen any of them before. At the station when charged I denied having anything to do with the robbery and said to the police officer that I had got into the cab to get away from these men, but they would not listen to me. I had nothing whatever to do with the robbery.
Cross-examined. I had never seen these men before. I do not know whether they committed the robbery. They said when I got out of the cab, "This is him. We see him do it." The reason why I did not tell this story to the magistrate is that I was told to reserve my defence, as they asked to have me committed for trial. I never threatened to kick wing and the policeman. I never refused to give my address. I was not one of the three men who engaged Trencomb. I never used the stick until I got out of the cab, and then I only used it to protect myself.
JOHN HEARD (prisoner, on oath), after corroborating Sheldon's evidence as to the encounter with the three men, stated: When I left Sheldon he was about to open the door of the taxi. I turned my head and noticed the three men coming up behind, one with a stick lifted above his head. Instead of getting into the cab I ran into the road. I turned my head to see where Sheldon was and I tripped up in the tram metals, about 12 yards from the cab. Before I could regain my feet I was held by several young men. I heard the smashing of glass just as Sheldon was about to open the door. I had nothing to do with the breaking of the window or the robbery. I was taken to the station by two constables. I asked what it was for, but all the answer I got was to have my arm twisted. When at the station I asked what I was there for they told me I should hear later on. When charged three or four hours later I said I did not know anything at all about it.
Cross-examined. At the station they would not listen to anything we had to say about the three men. We appealed to no one to help us as against these men, although there were plenty of people round. I did not see any of the witnesses there. When I was being held on the ground I asked what it was for, but they would not tell me. Sheldon and I had been waiting for a bus about three minutes; we had seen two young women whom we had met in Putney home; we had not seen them before; we had left them about 20 minutes; I cannot say who they were.
Re-examined. At the police court I was advised to reserve my defence until I came for trial. When Edwards identified me I could see by her eyes that she was counting the men from the left; with Bush it was the same.
Sheldon confessed to a previous conviction of felony at the County of London Sessions on August 27, 1907, and Heard to a previous conviction of felony in the name of John Dawes at the County of London Sessions on April 26, 1904. Sheldon was indicted for that he is a habitual criminal; he pleaded not guilty.
The following statutory convictions were proved: September 18, 1900, three years' penal servitude in the name of Charles Munro; March 3, 1903, five years' penal servitude and three years' police supervision; August 27, 1907, four years' penal servitude and three years' police supervision. He was released on August 19 of this year.
Detective-sergeant FREDERICK PUSEY, V Division. I produce the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions and a duplicate of the notice I served upon prisoner on September 27. I told prisoner that he would be charged with being a habitual criminal, and asked him if he could give me the name and address of any person to whom he had applied or for whom he had done any work since his release. He said, "I have done work for someone, but I shall not tell you. I will call him at my trial." So far as my inquiries have gone I have not been able to find anybody for whom he has worked. When arrested he was on ticket-of-leave. I found that he was in the habit of visiting the address that he gave, 90, Drummond Street, but he does not reside there; a man named Buss, with whom he stated he had been living, had closed the shop and had left.
Cross-examined. He had to report monthly, but he was not required to report at this time—not till September 19. I know nothing of his movements since his release from his last sentence on August 19. Mr. Fulton submitted that there was no case to go to the jury that the prisoner bad been persistently leading a dishonest or criminal life, since it had not been proved that prisoner had not made any effort to obtain honest employment since his release from the last sentence (R. v. Turner, 3 Cr. App. R., p. 103). The notice to the prisoner stated that the prosecution would affirmatively prove that such was the case.
Mr. Attenborough submitted that the three statutory convictions of themselves may be sufficient proof that prisoner was leading a dishonest or criminal life (R. v. Waller, 1910. 1 K.B., p. 364).
The Recorder said, it was not for the prosecution to prove a negative; he did not see how it was possible to prove that prisoner had not made an effort to obtain honest employment. He ruled that there was abundant evidence to go to the jury.
THOMAS BUSS , wardrobe dealer, 53, Margaret Street, Clerkenwell. At the date prisoner was arrested he had been in my employ close on three weeks; on September 7 he was working for me till 2 p.m. He was an "all-round" man.
Cross-examined. I paid him 8s. a week and his food and lodgings. He lived in the house with me. He is no relation of mine. My
brother asked me if I would give him a job and I said I would do so. My brother is at present out on license; he has known prisoner several years; he was living in the house with us. I do not know Heard.
Heard was indicted for that he is a habitual criminal; he pleaded Not Guilty.
The following statutory convictions were proved: October 22, 1900, nine months' hard labour, in the name of John Coburn; August 2, 1901, 18 months' hard labour, in the name of " James Ryan"; April 26, 1904, 21 months' hard labour, in the name of John Dawes.
Detective-sergeant FREDERICK PUSEY, V. Division. I told prisoner that fie might be indicted as a habitual criminal and asked him if he could give me the name and address of anyone to whom he had applied or done any work for since his release from prison. He said, "I cannot refer you to anyone."
(Wednesday, November 15.)
Detective-sergeant F. PUSEY (recalled) produced the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions and duplicate of the notice served on prisoner.
Inspector CHARLES FORWARD, Brighton Borough Police, stated that he was present when prisoner was convicted at the Marlborough Police Court on March 31, 1903, under the Prevention of Crimes Act and was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour in the name of "John Smith."
HENRI VIGNERON , under-brigadier, Paris Police Safety Service. I arrested prisoner in company of three other persons at the Gare du Nord Station, Paris, on May 16, 1906, for snatching the pocket-book of a passenger. On June 22, 1906, he was sentenced by the Eleventh Correctional Chamber in Paris to five years' imprisonment; I was present and gave evidence.
Mr. Purcell, while admitting that the witness could give evidence as to the sentence, submitted that he could not state the nature of the crime of which prisoner was convicted. It was necessary to show that the offence which he had committed came within the definition of "crime" contained in the Statute.
Mr. Attenborough stated that he was not proving one of the statutory convictions, where such a course would be necessary. The witness was only giving evidence under section 10 of the Act of 1908. The Recorder ruled that he could not exclude the evidence. Examination continued. Prisoner appealed and on July 28 his conviction was affirmed. He was also sentenced to be deported. He was released on December 10, 1910, and was deported.
Cross-examined. Prisoner before he was tried was interrogated on several occasions by the Juged' Instruction. According to our law, he was defended on those occasions by an advocate. We sent here the date of the conviction, which is an official document. There is no entry of the sentence here. I do not think anybody requiring such could obtain it by paying for it. In France parole evidence is admitted as proof of a conviction.
Re-examined. I was present myself at the conviction. He had an interpreter at his trial.
Mr. Attenborough proposed to prove a number of earlier convictions by a witness who would produce prisoner's record, contending that this record was sufficient proof (R. v. Franklin, 3 Cr. App. R., p. 48).
Mr. Purcell submitted that such evidence was irrelevant, as it did not have regard to the period which had elapsed from December 10, 1910, during which time it had not been proved that prisoner had been persistently leading a dishonest or criminal life.
The Recorder stated that the Legislature, in framing the Act, had not apparently had time to consider important points in reference to it, but ruled that the evidence was admissible since it went to show that prisoner had been persistently leading a dishonest or criminal life since the age of 16.
Detective-sergeant FREDERICK PUSEY (recalled) proved the following further convictions: September 3, 1894, bound over on his own recognisance, in the name of "John Dawes"; August 21, 1895, three months' hard labour as "John Dawes," in the same name; December 13, 1895, bound over in his own recognisances, in the same name; April 18, 1898, three months' hard labour, in the same name; October 20, 1898, six months' hard labour, in the same name; July 19, 1899, six months' hard labour, in the name of "John Ryan."
Mr. Purcell submitted that there was no case to go to the jury since it had not been proved that prisoner had since December 10, 1910, to September 7, 1911, a period of a little over eight months, been persistently leading a dishonest or criminal life; he contended that the Court should not take into consideration the French conviction, since it was the first time under the Statute that such evidence had been admitted in similar proceedings.
The Recorder stated that it had not been his practice in ordinary trials, when inquiring into a man's previous career, to inquire into the circumstances of any conviction against a prisoner in a foreign country.
Mr. Attenborough stated that this was the first time such a question had arisen under this statute, and the authorities therefore desired an uthoritative decision.
Mr. Purcell submitted that, having regard to the differences in the law and practice between this country and France, the Court had not sufficient materials before it to enable it to consider such a conviction. He did not, however, make this the basis of the objection, but rather that it had not been proved that since December 10, 1910, prisoner had been persistently leading a dishonest or criminal life; it was necessary under the statute to prove that such was the case (R. v. Kelly, 3 Cr. App. R., p. 248; result thus stated in Archbold, p. 1,472: "Where, however, nine months had elapsed since the accused last came out of prison and the prosecution gave no evidence as to his conduct during that period, the conviction for being an habitual criminal was quashed.")
The Recorder stated as to R. v. Kelly that he did not concur in the report as in Archbold. The Court of Criminal Appeal only quashed the conviction in that case because the jury's attention had not been sufficiently directed to the fact that there was such an interval and not that because of that interval the prisoner could not necessarily be found to be a habitual criminal.
Mr. Purcell further submitted that, in order to prove that prisoner had been persistently leading a dishonest or criminal life, the evidence relative thereto must be brought down to date (R. v. Turner, 3 Cr. App. R., p. 160).
The Recorder. I do not think I can withdraw this case from the jury. Upon the question of how far the Court ought to take into consideration convictions in a foreign country, it is very desirable indeed that the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal should be given. They may be of opinion that the dishonest criminal life must be within His Maiesty's dominions, for anything I know. I should not take upon myself to decide that question.
MICHAEL JOHN CONNELL , steeplejack, 235, High Holborn. In May I was at work at St. Giles's School, Endell Street, when prisoner asked me to give him a job. He told me he had been out of work some time and he had got a wife and family to support. I told him he would start the following morning. He did so, and worked from that day, May 23, to June 28, excluding the Coronation holidays and Whit Monday. I had then nothing further for him to do and at his request I took his name and address, promising him the first vacancy that came along. I produce his time-sheets.
Cross-examined. I do not remember seeing him after June 28. Nobody applied to me for a reference. (To the Court.) I found him a thorough good working and willing workman.
Sentences (each prisoner), Three years' penal servitude, and Five years' preventive detention.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Friday, November 17.)
Mr. H. C. Condy prosecuted; Mr. St. J. McDonald defended.
GEORGE CHARLES WELLER , 62a, High Street, Mortlake. I occupy the shop formerly kept by prisoner. On September 29 I, with my wife, saw prisoner at 62a, High Street, in reply to advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle": "General Stores.—A little gold mine for working couple; low rent; half let off now. An excellent living trade. Fully stocked; £25 secures everything. Stock and fittings worth double. Can be bought with £5 cash deposit and rest by arrangement if required. Call prepared to arrange 62a, High Street, Mortlake." Prisoner said there was a good trade, that he wanted to get rid of the business because he had not sufficient capital to work it; with capital I could double the trade. I agreed to purchase for £20 for the rent, agreement, and utensils and fittings, and £5 for the stock, to complete on October 10. I paid 5s. deposit, for which prisoner signed receipt (produced). On October 9 I paid £5; October 12, £10; October 14, £4; I took possession on October 19, and afterwards paid his wife £5 5s., leaving 30s. in abeyance. I am now in possession.
Cross-examined. I am a wire worker by trade. Prisoner said he was in negotiation with others. He referred me to the landlord as to the transfer of the agreement for the premises and I have since arranged it.
in "Daily Chronicle," which has been read. He said he wanted £5 down and £5 on taking possession; I afterwards agreed to buy the business, paying deposit of £2 and £3 on taking possession. I paid the £2, for which he gave me receipt, which I handed back on October 6 at my house, paying £3 when he gave me receipt (produced): "Received from Mr. Stevenson the sum of £5, possession to Cake place on or before October 12, 1911, providing Mr. Stevenson's references are satisfactory to the landlord. Balance of £20 to be paid £1 monthly. Money to be returned if not satisfactory." On October 7 I sent prisoner two references. On October 10 he said he had sent the references to the landlord, but had no reply; he said the same thing the next day. I afterward saw the landlord, Mr. Maunder, and on October 16 saw prisoner; Drake was present; I said to prisoner, "What is the idea of selling the business to two or three people?" He said, "I can take as many deposits on the business as I like. You have not completed so you forfeit your deposit." After Drake left prisoner said he was going to show me how easy it was to catch people. He wrote Exhibit 11: "September 15, 1911. Mr. Hudson.—I return 10s. and agree to pay the amount of £4 10s. which remains on or before 19th inst. October. I agree, F. A. Stevenson. Witness Thomas Hudson." He asked me to write one exactly the same and I did so, he signing his name. He gave me 10s. and then said, "Now I have caught you. See if you can get your £4 10s. It has cost me half a sovereign to-day. Now you can only make a County Court job of it. I have enough County Court summonses to paper my room with." I asked him afterwards for the £4 10s. He said, "I have never worked in my life and don't intend to."
Cross-examined. I first saw prisoner on September 30. I looked over the shop and said it was all right. I did not speak to Lloyd. Prisoner introduced Lloyd as a friend of his. I asked what the takings were and Lloyd said, "Between £11 and £12"; then I paid £2 deposit. Prisoner said the shop was taken on a three years agreement at £32 a year; that the references were a matter of form, and that the first deposit would secure the business.
WALTER JOHN MAUNDER , 12, Ashley Road, Mortlake, omnibus driver, I am the landlord of 62a, High Street, Mortlake, and let the premises to prisoner on July 31, 1911. On October 10 prisoner introduce Weller to me, he said he was selling the business to him. I said he would have to see my solicitor and if his references were satisfactory I would accept him. I never heard of Stevenson or Drake. I received a letter from Stevenson and spoke to prisoner. He said Stevenson had come to buy the business, but he had not enough money to make completion and therefore the matter fell through. The fittings, sample, counter, and fixtures belong to me, except the window fittings. I have now accepted Weller as tenant.
Detective-sergeant EDWARD HUNT, V Division. On October 19 at 8.30 p.m. I saw prisoner in High Street, Mortlake. I asked if his name was Thomas Hudson. He said, "Yes, that is my name. I live at 62a, High Street, Mortlake." I said I was a police officer and held
a warrant for his arrest, cautioned him, and said I would read the warrant there or at the police-station. He said he preferred to have it read at the police-station—which I did. He said, "I have done nothing wrong. If you go to my house you will find a receipt and some letters from Mr. Drake and Mr. Stevenson. They did not complete their payments 50 they are not entitled to the business." I went to 62a, High Street and found a quantity of correspondence, which I showed prisoner; he said, "All right." When charged he made no reply.
Cross-examined. Among the documents I found receipt produced dated October 14, 1911, for £25 from Weller in payment for the business.
Mr. McDonald submitted that there was no case of false pretences, the business not having being sold until after the receipt of money from Drake; prisoner at that time could have made a valid assignment to Drake; there was no count for fraud other than false pretences.
The Common Serjeant held that there was no evidence of the exact offence charged, and on his Lordship's direction the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.