JULY (2), 1912.
Vol. CLVII] [Part 935
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HELD JULY 22ND, 1912, AND FOLLOWING DAYS.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORTHAND BY
Shorthand Writers to the court.
POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
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 Monday, July 22nd, 1912, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir THOMAS BOOR CROSBY, M.D., LORD MAYOR of the said City of London; the Right Hon. Lord COLERIDGE, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir HENRY KNIGHT , Knight; Sir HORATIO DAVIES , K.C.M.G.; Sir JOHN POUND , Bart.; Sir GEORGE W. TRUSCOTT, Bart.; Sir CHARLES JOHNSTON , Knight; and Sir HORACE B. MARSHALL, Knight, LL.D., 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; His Honour Judge LUMLEY SMITH , K.C., Commissioner; and His Honour Judge RENTOUL, K.C., Commissioner; His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
CROSBY, MAYOR. ELEVENTH SESSION.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
BEFORE THE RECORDER. (Monday, July 22.)
Evidence was called by the Post Office to show that prisoner's allegations of unfair treatment in the matter of overtime and boot allowance were groundless. Sentence: Six months' hard labour.
Prisoner, having expressed his contrition for the offence, was released on his own recognisances and those of his father (William Frederick Waters) in £100 each to come up for judgment if called upon. The Recorder remarked that it was monstrous the violence to which inoffensive men engaged in their employment were subjected.
SCHOLFIELD, Edwin Weston (49, porter) pleaded guilty , of stealing a postal packet containing a purse, 13s. 2d., and three halfpenny postage stamps, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Prisoner, an Army reservist, had been in the service of the Post Office for 17 years. Evidence was called as to his previous good character.
Sentence: Nine months' hard labour.
COOKE, George Edmund (33, postman) pleaded guilty , of stealing a postal packet containing a postal order for 5s., the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office; stealing a postal packet containing a postal-order for 2s. 6d., the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Prisoner had been 18 years in the service of the Post Office. Since last January prisoner admitted having stolen postal orders to the value of £8 16s. Drink was attributed as the cause of his downfall.
Sentence: Nine months' hard labour.
BLAKE, Henry (19, no occupation) pleaded guilty , of stealing one suit case and other articles, the goods of Harold Ernest Riley ; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, certain orders for the payment of £5, £5, and £7 12s. 8d. respectively, in each case with intent to defraud.
Prisoner had stolen a suit case from a railway train and by a clever forgery had succeeded in cashing circular notes contained therein; he had also forged and presented a cheque taken from a book; there were eight cheques in all missing. There was a warrant for his arrest on a charge of arson in Ireland, he having absconded from his bail. His previous good character and the fact that he had fallen into bad company were urged on his behalf.
Sentence: Nine months' imprisonment, second division; the Recorder stating that he was not taking into account the warrant now out against prisoner.
Prisoner had stated that he was the husband of Florence Cole, who had been arrested for soliciting, and that she was a respectable woman. On this statement the woman was remanded on bail from which she had absconded. Six previous convictions dating from 1897 were proved.
Sentence: Twelve months' hard labour.
Mr. Lawrie prosecuted.
ELIZABETH NICE , charwoman, 17, Lamb Street. About 8.30 p.m. on July 15 I was turning a corner in Trafalgar Road, Greenwich, when prisoner, who was a stranger to me, came across the road, and, addressing me by name, asked me to have a drink. I went and had two glasses of ale with him, coming out at about nine. I left him outside and went to do my shopping. I had reached four turnings before the new police station when prisoner, who I did not know had been following me, struck me twice on the head and knocked me down. He snatched my purse out of my hand and ran away. I ran after him. He stopped where the lights of the shops were. I never lost sight of him. I gave him into custody. I had a half-crown and a shilling in my purse. My eye had to be stitched up.
Cross-examined by prisoner. I was going by Greenwich College when you spoke to me and we went into the public-house down by a side turning. I was alone with you all the time. I only had two glasses.
Police-constable HENRY HEATH, 639 R. About 9.45 p.m. on July 15 I was on duty in Trafalgar Road when prisoner walked towards me, followed slightly behind by prosecutrix. When I came up to them she said, "This man has stolen my purse and has assaulted me round that dark turning, "pointing in the direction of Creed Place. She exclaimed, "Look at my eye I" It was bleeding. I said to prisoner, "Do you hear what this woman says?" He said, "Yes, but I know nothing about it. I have never seen her before. "I told him I should take him to the station. He said, "All right; I will come with you. "On the way he said, "This is all right" When charged, he said, "Do you mean to say you are going to charge me with robbery?" In his inside right jacket pocket I found a half-crown and a shilling and in his right trousers' pocket 5d. Prosecutrix, who was present at the searching, had previously said she had lost a purse and that it had contained 3s. 6d. In my opinion she was sober. To prisoner. I saw you at the corner of Park Street, and the place she indicated where she had been robbed was three yards away, the next turning. Creed Place is four turnings from the police station to which you were walking. You did not first speak to me and say, "Listen to what this woman has got to say about me." I do not remember your telling me what was on you before I searched you. I found no purse.
THOMAS SULLIVAN (prisoner, on oath), labourer, 13, Eastney Street, Greenwich. About 7 p.m. on this night I left my sister's house, where I live, with 7s. 8d. in my pocket, and met William Bennett, a man who lives two doors from me. We went to a public-house, where we had one drink and, as we passed by a place called "The Crane," near by the waterside, prosecutrix asked him to treat her. He had no money and asked me to do so as he said he knew her. We all went and had five or six drinks at the "Yacht Tavern," occupied by a Mr. Turner. Her behaviour caused Mr. Turner to ask her to leave and she was put outside; I do not say she was drunk, but she wanted to dance; Bennett went out with her, but I stopped inside. After about 10 minutes the landlord said that she had come back again and that I must go out as she had said my mate wanted me. I went out and saw them. Bennett said she would not be served there, so we all went to the "Queen" She became drunk and started using bad language. I went out and she followed me. I left Bennett in the "Queen" She made a suggestion to me and wanted me to give her 2s. I got away from her; this was about 8.50. I saw no more of her until at the corner of Park Street she accused me of knocking her about; this was about half an hour afterwards. She' showed me her eye, which was black. On meeting the constable, I said to him, "Listen to what this woman has got to say. "I do not believe I said to him that I had never seen her before; it was a fact I had not seen her before that evening. She mentioned nothing about being robbed; the first time she mentioned the purse was
just before I was searched. I told the constable what I had on me before I was searched. I did not make any statement at the police court because I did not realise how serious the case was. I Have been through the Boer war as a soldier and bear a good character.
Cross-examined. I have known Bennett several years. It never came into my head to tell the constable what the true facts were. I said nothing about them when charged, as I did not realise how serious it was, although I knew I was being charged with robbery. I do not know how much I spent altogether, but I had 5s. or 6s. when I left; I lent Bennett sixpence. I have not asked the landlord of the "Yacht" to be here, but I have written to my sister to bring Bennett. Prosecutrix appeared more sober at the station than when I left her.
WILLIAM TURNER , labourer, 21, Eastney Street, Greenwich. (To the Court.) I met prisoner at 8 p.m. on July 15 when he asked me to have a drink with him. Going down the street prosecutrix asked us to treat her; I did not know her before. I said nothing. We walked to the "Yacht" and she followed us in. Prisoner treated us to two glasses of beer. We were in there about 25 minutes and the man refused to serve the woman any more because she started dancing; she was a bit "elevated." We went out and she followed us. Prisoner asked me to have another drink, and we went into the "Queen" She followed us in and we had three glasses each. She asked prisoner to go out with her. They went out and left me. I saw nothing more of them.
To prisoner. Mr. Turner put her out of the "Yacht" once and I went with her and she came back again and the man would not serve her. Then you came out to us.
Cross-examined. Prisoner paid for all the drinks. He asked me to come here in a letter he wrote to his sister. We have been boys together and we were soldiers together.
Prisoner here stated that he would have called Alfred Turner had he thought it was necessary.
ELIZABETH NICE (recalled, further examined). I do not know Bennett; he was in the "Yacht" when prisoner and I went in, and he came up and spoke to me; I told him to go about his business, and to go and look after his wife and children; he used to live at the top of our street; I did not know his name. I only had drinks with prisoner. The landlord did not request me to leave; I did not. misbehave myself. I walked out myself and left prisoner outside and went to do my shopping; I did not go to the "Queen" I was perfectly sober all the evening. I am a married woman with five children, and have lived in my present house with my husband seven years. My husband has worked for the Greenwich Board of Works 11 years.
Police-constable HEATH (recalled, further examined). Prisoner told the magistrate that he thought prosecutrix was drunk. He was
quite sober when I met him. I am sure prisoner never suggested to me she was drunk; I do not know her at all.
The Recorder postponed the case, instructing the police to subpoena Alfred Turner.
(Tuesday, July 23.)
ALFRED TURNER , licensee "Yacht" public-house, Craven Street, Greenwich. I know prisoner as an occasional customer. On July 15, at about 8 p.m., he was in my bar with Welsh and Bennett, when prosecutrix, whom I had not seen before, came in, and called for a glass of ale. My son served her. She asked him for a penny in exchange for two halfpennies to put in the automatic piano. It played a tune; she began dancing. I said, "You cannot do that," and locked the piano and stopped it. Sullivan then called for three glasses of ale for her, Bennett, and himself. She began to use bad language; I told her to clear out, and all three left at about 8.25. The prosecutrix was sober. I afterwards refused to allow the prosecutrix to re-enter.
Detective-sergeant ALBERT CHATT, R Division. I have made enquiries as to the general reputation of prosecutrix; it is very bad both as regards drink and immorality. She is a married woman with five children; her husband is a very hard-working man, who has been 13 years in one situation, and has had a great deal of trouble with her. I have made enquiries with regard to the prisoner. He was working at Angerstein Wharf on July 14, and on July 15 drew 7s. 8d. He has been working in the neighbourhood for the past 14 years' and bears an excellent character for sobriety and honesty.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Monday, July 22.)
Prisoner was stated to be of excellent character.
(July 26) Prisoner was released on her own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
SMITH, William, otherwise William Pickering (21, shoe finisher) pleaded guilty , of stealing one parcel and 79 tapestry squares, the goods of Pickford's, Limited; stealing 17 pairs of shoes, the goods of Alfred Whitaker.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at Clerkenwell Sessions on September 10, 1907, receiving 15 months' hard labour, for larceny by a trick. Four other convictions for similar offences were proved.
Sentence: Fifteen months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH. (Monday, July 22.)
SOWINSKI, Johann Ladislaus , being a trustee, within four months next before the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him did unlawfully pawn certain property which he had obtained on credit, to wit, a quantity of skins, the goods of John Bromberg, and one sable tie and muff, the goods of Harry Oswald Ince. (Debtors' Act, 1869, s 11, subs. 11.) Being entrusted with certain property, to wit, a quantity of skins, the goods of John Bromberg, a quantity of skins, the goods of Hans Herzog, and 1 sable tie and muff, the goods of Harry Oswald Ince, did unlawfully convert the same to his own use and benefit. (Larceny Act, 1901.)
Prisoner pleaded guilty of the offences under the Debtors' Act.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins appeared for prisoner.
Prisoner, a naturalised British subject, carried on business as a furrier at 22, Great Portland Street. He was adjudicated bankrupt in February last, and in the course of his examination there came to light seven instances in which (within four months of his bankruptcy) he had obtained goods on credit, and forthwith pawned them.
Mr. Huntly Jenkins urged on prisoner's behalf that the money obtained by pawning the goods had gone in the discharge of trade debts, prisoner hoping to get over what he believed were temporary difficulties. Medical evidence was called to show that he was suffering from a definite form of paralysis of the brain. Several witnesses to character were called.
Sentence: One month's imprisonment, second division.
Sentence had been postponed to give an opportunity to prisoner, through his friends, of making some reparation to the persons who suffered by his fraud. It was now stated that efforts in this direction had failed. While in gaol, on the 8th inst., prisoner was the subject of an unprovoked and savage assault by another prisoner; he sustained severe injuries to the head, and had since been under medical treatment. A previous conviction, with a sentence of 12 months' hard labour, was proved.
Judge Lumley Smith, in sentencing prisoner to Six months' hard labour, remarked that it had been laid down by the authorities that second division treatment was not intended to apply to a prisoner against whom there was a previous conviction. In this case, although the sentence was one of hard labour, prisoner would no doubt be properly taken care of.
Sentence (prisoner having already been in prison a fortnight): Three weeks' hard labour.
Sentence: Twelve months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, July 23.)
Prisoner was released on his own recognizances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon.
Prisoner was convicted on October 7, 1908, at Lambeth Police Court, and fined £20 and three guineas cost, or six weeks' hard labour, for keeping a brothel.
Sentence: Eighteen months' hard labour.
THOMPSON, Robert James, otherwise Thomas Macdonald (44, agent) pleaded guilty , of obtaining by false pretences from William Walton £100, from Harry Cochran Cottrell a banker's cheque for £25, from Henry Fawkes Perry £20, from Alfred Ives £10, and from Edgar Tibbitt a banker's cheque for £25, in each case with intent to defraud; being entrusted with a banker's cheque for the payment of £25 in order that he might apply the same for a certain purpose, unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at this court on July 22, 1907, of obtaining a valuable security by false pretences, receiving three years' penal servitude. He had been convicted of similar offences in April, 1902 receiving six months' imprisonment, and in March, 1904, receiving 20 months' hard labour.
Sentence: Eighteen months' hard labour.
Mr. Travers Humphreys (for the defence) stated that prisoner was the son of respectable parents, but was a degenerate; he did not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the charge made against him. He had never been able to do any work. A Bill which has just passed the second reading before the House of Commons would provide for special treatment of such feeble-minded persons. As the law now stood he could
only ask the Court to pass sentence of Imprisonment so that prisoner could be put under special care.
Sentence: Fifteen months' imprisonment.
Sentence: Two days' imprisonment, entitling prisoner to be immediately discharged.
THOMPSON, George (36, labourer), and MAIDMENT, John (18, newsvendor), pleaded guilty , Thompson of committing an act of gross indecency with Maidment; Maidment of committing an act of gross indecency with Thompson.
Sentences: Thompson, Nine months' hard labour; Maidment, Six months' hard labour.
WARD, Charles Wilson (55, builder) , being an undischarged bankrupt did unlawfully obtain credit to the extent of £20 and upwards from the Charing Cross, West End and City Electric Supply Company, Limited, without informing the said company that he was an undischarged bankrupt; being an undischarged bankrupt did unlawfully obtain credit to the extent of £20 and upwards from the East London Clearance and Cartage Company, Limited, from Hammond and Champness, Limited, and from the British Challenge Glazing Company, Limited, without informing the said companies that he was an undischarged bankrupt.
Prisoner pleaded guilty to the first charge. He was stated to be a man of very good character, who since his bankruptcy in 1892 (for which he might have obtained his discharge on application) had been conducting large building operations; these offences were committed in 1910, and prisoner had recently become bankrupt again.
Prisoner was released on his own recognizances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, July 23.)
Prisoner, who had previously borne a good character, was released on his own recognizances and on those of his mother in £20 each to be of good behaviour for six months, and to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH. (Tuesday, July 23.)
Verdict, Not guilty.
Verdict, Not guilty.
PAIN, William (18, cook) , breaking and entering the shop of the Wilson Engineering Company, Limited, and stealing therein certain money and stamps and one cheque form, their goods; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of £10, with intent to defraud. Mr. F. J. E. Warburton prosecuted.
ALLENBY DAUBKNY , secretary, Wilson Engineering Company, Limited, 259, High Holborn. I arrived at the offices on July 15, about 9.30 a.m. I found them in a state of disorder, the desks and drawers broken open, and the contents lying about the floor. An unsuccessful attempt had been made to open one of the safes. As I found a cheque had been taken from a cheque-book I went to the bank and gave information. I afterwards went to the police station, where I saw prisoner. The cheque had been signed by two directors, but not countersigned by me. I do not know the signature which appears on the cheque as to that of the secretary.
KENNETH GORDON SMITH , cashier, Kingsway Branch, Capital and Counties Bank. On July 15, about 1.40, prisoner presented this cheque for payment. I asked if he wanted cash for it. He said, "Yes" I asked him to write his name and address on the back, which he did. I asked him who his employer was. He said Mr. Daubeny. I asked his employer's address. He said he did not know. I then sent for the police.
Police-constable FREDERICK CLARE, 193 E. On July 15, about 1.45 p.m., I saw prisoner detained at the Kingsway Branch of the Capital and Counties Bank. I told him I should take him into custody for uttering a stolen cheque. He replied, "I picked it up outside Vincent Brooks, Day and Son, Parker Street, at 10 o'clock this morning." He was subsequently charged at Bow Street. In answer to the charge he made no reply.
On being asked if he wished to go into the witness-box or. say any thing to the jury, prisoner replied, "No, give me one chance and I will turn over a new leaf."
Mr. DAUBENY, recalled. I was away on a holiday, and the cheque was prepared for the following week's wages. It was post-dated July 20.
Verdict, Guilty of uttering.
Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction. Other convictions were proved.
Sentence: Two years' imprisonment under the Borstal system.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE COLERIDGE.
(Wednesday, July 24.)
Mr. Muir and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. George Elliot, K. C., and Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.
At the conclusion of Mr. Muir's opening, Mr. Justice Coleridge asked whether, under the circumstances, the jury could be asked to find a verdict of wilful murder.
Mr. Muir stated that in consideration of the fact that the Grand Jury had rejected the bill for wilful murder, he agreed that no useful purpose could be served by that issue being left to the jury.
Upon this, prisoner withdrew her plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty of manslaughter, and the jury returned a formal verdict to this effect.
Mr. George Elliott urged in mitigation of the offence that prisoner was in an over-mastering fear of the deceased man, having regard to his antecedent conduct. Prisoner, an unfortunate, had been persecuted by the deceased, who had for some time been living on her earnings, but who had lately left her to live with another woman.
Sentence: Six weeks' hard labour.
Prisoner pleaded guilty to the second indictment, and the plea was. accepted by the prosecution. A formal verdict of Not guilty on the first indictment was taken.
Prisoner, who it was stated was in very distressed circumstances (her husband being in prison), was found standing in Regent's Canal with her baby boy George in her arms.
Mr. Scott-France, the Court Missionary, promised that he and his wife would do all they could for prisoner, but he stated that the ordinary Home available for such cases would not be open to her, as she had children under the care of the Guardians.
Prisoner was released on her own recognizances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon within the next twelve months.
Prisoner pleaded guilty to the second indictment, and this plea was accepted by the prosecution.
It was stated that prisoner, a respectable woman, had in the course of a quarrel struck the face of deceased, an old woman suffering from a weak heart; in consequence of the blow she had sunk and died.
Prisoner was released on her own recognizances in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon within the next twelve months.
Prisoner, haying been in the Army since 1873, retired as Coloursergeant in 1898 with many medals. He was an attendant at a private asylum till 1901, when he was dismissed for drunkenness.
Sentence: Three years' penal servitude.
AMELIA EMILY TURNER , forewoman, 5, Harvey Road, Camberwell. I have known prisoner, who was employed also at my factory, 10 years; we had been keeping company two years, and I believed we were going to be married. Some time in May it was broken off. Since then he has been continuously seeing me. About 8.30 p.m. on June 24 was with him till 11 p.m., walking about. I said, "Good night," and he said, "It is not 'Good night,' it is 'Good bye.'" He threw his arm over my shoulder and drew something across my throat. There was a lot of blood. I do not remember any more.
Cross-examined by prisoner. You said on this night that you were going away never to return; you had said previously it would be "Good bye." During the day you asked me, and I told you that I was with another gentleman on the day before. You did not ask me if I had told him what went on between you and me the same as I had told you what went on between me and him.
Re-examined. This letter bears prisoner's signature. (Read. Dated June 24, addressed "Dear mother and father," saying that when the letter had reached them he hoped he would have gone to a better place than this which had been up to the last month such a happy place, and complaining of the conduct of prosecutrix with another man.) I knew nothing of the letter.
ALFRED GEORGE HOLLIDAY , clerk. On the evening of June 24 I was passing by Brunswick Square when I heard screams. I saw a young woman staggering on the footpath, and was going towards her when I met a man running; I am not sure whether he was prisoner. I asked him what was the matter with her, but he did not say anything, and went from me. On my reaching the woman she said, "He has stabbed me; take it out" I took her towards the station, when the constable took her from me. Her throat was cut, and there was blood on her blouse.
Infirmary. At 11.20 p.m. on June 24 prosecutrix was brought in suffering from a wound five inches long across the throat, which had divided ail the structures of the neck down to the muscles; at one part it was within a quarter of an inch of the main vessels, which if it had penetrated death would have ensued. She is still under my care, suffering from the effects of the haemorrhage. The wound was in an extremely dangerous position, and could have been inflicted by this razor (produced).
Detective-sergeant JAMES MCBEAN, P Division. At 11 p.m. on June 24, having seen prosecutrix at the Camberwell Police Station, I went to Cannon Row Police Station, where I saw prisoner. I said I should arrest him for attempted murder, and cautioned him. He replied, "Right." On the way to Camberwell he said, "The razor I did it with you will find about 20 yards up in a garden from where I did it" On the charge being read over to him he said, "All right." I found this razor (produced) in the garden he had indicated; it was blood stained, and had the point freshly broken. On being searched an empty razor-case and a bottle containing whiskey were found. On searching his room at Brunswick Square I found 13 postcards and this letter (Exhibit A). One of the postcards is addressed to a man in India, and it states that he hoped he would be gone by the time it had arrived, and advising him to remain a bachelor.
Police-constable WILLIAM POWELL, 55 AR. I was on duty at the Cannon Row Police Station when prisoner came and said, "I have come to give myself up for cutting a girl's throat at Camberwell" I said, "Do you know what you are talking about?" He said, "Yes, I am quite sensible. "He was sober and sensible as far as I could judge. I took him into custody.
GEORGE FRANCIS LUNN (prisoner, on oath), stated that he had known prosecutrix 10 years, and had courted her for two years, and had been engaged to her for five months. He described the quarrels they had had owing to her going out with another man and the subsequent reconciliations. In the week previous to the crime there had been immoral intercourse between them. On the afternoon of June 24, having concluded from what she had said that she had been out with this other man again he went home with the intention of committing suicide. He wrote several postcards, and taking a razor, met prosecutrix subsequently with the intention of either coming to terms with her or committing suicide. He continued: "Just before I left her I said, 'You have told me what goes on between you and this other gentleman, why not tell him what goes on between you and me?' She replied, 'Oh, but it is all over between you and me!' After that I do not remember what happened. I went hot from head to foot, and had a nasty swimming sensation in my head. I had already got the razor in my hand to cut my own throat, and somehow or other I cut her throat instead. Not realising what I had done for a few minutes I walked
away and fell over. Finding the razor in my hand I realised what I had done, and I threw away the razor and decided to run."
Verdict, Guilty of attempted murder, but in a fit of passion without premeditation.
Sentence: Eighteen months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, July 24.)
RUST, William (42, carman), and PHILLIPS, Martha (30) pleaded guilty , of conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from the Central Unemployed Body for London certain money, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from the said Central Unemployed Body for London, £1 13s. 10d., with intent to defraud.
Sentences: Rust, Three months' hard labour; Phillips, Three days' imprisonment.
Mr. Curtis Bennett and Mr. Ivan Snell prosecuted; Mr. Penry Oliver defended Bennett and Ransom; Mr. Forrest Fulton appeared for Spearing. Spearing pleaded guilty.
Detective-sergeant BENJAMIN ALLEETON, T Division on July 12, at 12 noon, I went with sergeant Hall and police-constable Marchmont to 218, Westbourne Grove, where Bennett and Ransom were carrying on business as cycle and motor repairers; No. 216 is occupied by Ransom's father, and Ransom lives there. I told the two prisoners that we had a search warrant, and had information that there was stolen property upon the premises belonging to D. Napier and son, of Acton Vale. In the front shop, on a lathe, I found 72 lathe tools, marked "D. Napier and son "; on some of them the name had been partly filed out. In a drawer under a Son. "I said to Bennett, "How do you account for the possession of this property?" He said, Some I bought and some I found on the scrap heap when I was working at Napier's In the basement I found a quantity of other tools marked "D. Napier and son." Bennet came down with me; he said, "I will tell you all know about the property you have found. Some of it I stole from Napier's, and a man named Spearing who works for Napier brought me all the rest at various times. I paid him nothing for it I knew it was stolen. He has been bringing stuff here since last Christ-mas. Some of the spanners and bolts we bought." I wrote down what he said in his presence. Sergeant Hall had in the meantime been to 216 with Ransom. Both prisoners were taken to the station and charged. They said, "All right." The property was all identified
by Mr. Morgan, superintendent at Napier's works. I afterwards arrested Spearing, who has pleaded guilty.
Sergeant THOMAS HALL, T Division. On July 12 I went with the last witness to 218, Westbourne Grove, and proceeded to 216, where Ransom lives. In the cellar I found a quantity of lubricators, gear wheels, part of a brake, a number of spanners and chisels in two boxes under a carpenter's bench; the boxes were covered with shavings. The articles have been identified by Napier's; they are perfectly new. As I was taking them out of the box there were a few unmarked, and Ransom said, "They come from Napier's as well. "I then returned to 218 where I found 80 files, all marked "D. Napier and Son" I told Ransom how we had entered with a search warrant, and asked if he desired to give me any explanation how lie came in possession of the articles. He said, "The man who brought these things is G. A. Spearing, Bracewell Road, Wormwood Scrubbs; he is working at Napier's as a fitter, and has been coming here at week-ends to help us. I have not given anything for them, but we made use of them although we knew they were stolen. I worked at Napier's and brought some of the stuff here myself over 12 months ago. We are all as bad as one another, I suppose."
Mr. Oliver said that he had advised Bennett and Ransom to plead guilty, and a verdict was returned accordingly. Evidence of previous good character as to all the prisoners was given.
Sentences: Bennett and Ransom (each), Eighteen months' hard labour; Spearing, Twelve months' hard labour.
Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. J. E. D. Radcliffe defended.
LILIAN SAWLEY , 119, Stamford Street. I shall be 12 years old on August 12 next. I go to a higher grade school, for which I obtained a scholarship. My father is a fireman at the Lyceum Theatre. On Friday, June 21, at 9.15 p.m., I went with my mother to the Lyceum Theatre to take my father's supper. Soon after 10 my mother gave me me key to go home. I was going over Waterloo Bridge when the prisoner, whom I had never seen before, said, "Hullo, you are out late, are you not?" I said, "Yes, I am." He said, "Where have you been—to the theatre?" I said, "No, with my father and mother. "He walked on with me, and said. "How old are you?" I said, "11—12 in August." He said, "What class are you in at school?" I said, "We do not go by classes at our school, we go by years. "He said, "Oh, you go to a private school?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Are you accustomed to come out for walks?" I said, "No, I never hardly go out." He said, "Well, I was just thinking, would not you like to go for a walk with me to-morrow?" I said, "No, I have got some things to do to-morrow." He said, "Well, will you try. "I said, "Yes" I wanted to get away from him. As I was leaving him
he caught me by the arm, and said, "You have not said what time tomorrow?" I said, "I will try at three o'clock" He said, "If you do, meet me at Salmon and Gluckstein's tobacco shop over the bridge, and we will enjoy our little selves, but you must not tell your mother." I said, "Good night, sir," and ran home. Before I left he said, "Where do you live?" I said, "The first turning that side" He said, "I am going just the opposite way—to York Road" I went to bed, my mother and father came home later, and I told my mother what had happened. Under her directions I went to Salmon and Gluckstein's the next day at 3 p.m.; she was on the opposite side of the street. Prisoner came up, put his hand on my shoulder, and said, "Hullo, you are here then; would you like to go to the Park?" I said, "No—towards Trafalgar Square" He said, "That is not down the side turning" I said, No—straight on" We walked on. He said, "How do you like the shops in the Strand?" I said, "They are all right. "My mother and a constable then came up; prisoner was arrested, and we all went to Bow Street Police Station, where I made a statement, which was taken down in writing.
Cross-examined. Prisoner made no improper suggestion; he was kind all through. I um sure he mentioned the words "Side turning. "He asked how long I would be out, and I said I could only stay for half an hour. We had got to Adam Street when the policeman came up.
ELIZA SAWLEY . I live with my husband at 119, Stamford Street. Prosecutrix is my daughter, and will be 12 on August 12 next. On June 21 she went with me to the Lyceum to take my husband's supper. As I should be home late I gave her the latch key and told her to go home and go to bed. I got home at 11.30 p.m., went into the bedroom, and found my daughter very nervous and restless. She made a statement to me and I told her to keep the appointment with the prisoner, which she did, I being on the other side of the street. Prisoner put his hand on her arm and spoke to her. They walked on to Adam Street; I spoke to a constable, who stopped prisoner, and said, "Where are you going with this little girl?" He said, "I am going to take her for a walk; it is a nice day, a walk will do her good. The officer said, "Where are you going to take her?" Prisoner said, "I do not know exactly where to go. I will leave it to the little girl to say where she would like to go" I told the constable a man like that ought to be charged, because I read such terrible things in the papers. Prisoner was then taken to Bow Street. I had never seen prisoner before.
Cross-examined. I kept him in sight the whole time. Prisoner begged me not to charge him.
Police-constable HENRY ADAMS, 114 E, corroborated. When charged prisoner said, "Good God, why do you want to prefer this charge against me?"
Detective-sergeant JOSEPH GILLARD, A Division. I was at Bow Street on June 22 when prisoner was brought in. I took statements from prosecutrix and her mother, which I read to prisoner He said to the mother, "Did you not say to me in the presence of the constable that unless I compensated the little girl you would give me in
Charge?" She said, "No, I did not say anything of the kind." Prisoner said to Adams, "Did you hear it?" Adams said, "No." Then he aid, "There was a sergeant there, perhaps he heard it. "The sergeant was there, and replied "No," to his question. In reply to the charge he said, "Good God, why do you want to prefer this charge against me. Do not sign the charge-sheet, do leave it. You cannot bear me any ill will?" Prisoner was cautioned before any statements were made.
Mr. Radcliffe submitted that there was no case to go to the jury; there must be an intention on the part of the prisoner proven to take the girl permanently out of the possession of the parents. (R. v. Timmins, Bell, 276, 30 L.J.M.C, 45, 8 Cox 401; R. v. Jones, Sess. P. CLIV, 404, 75 J.P., 272.)
The Recorder. In my opinion it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the intention of the prisoner was to take the child permanently away. R v Jones was a case of child stealing.
THOMAS CLARKE (prisoner, on oath). On June 21 I was living at Moor Lane Chambers, Moor Lane, E. C. At 10.30 p.m. I was going for a walk when I met the prosecutrix on Waterloo Bridge. Her evidence is correct except that I did not say, "You must not tell your mother," and I said nothing about "side turning" I thought it unusual for a well-dressed child to be going over Waterloo Bridge at that late hour alone, and spoke to her. In asking her to go for a walk the next day my intention was simply to take her for a walk and return home afterwards; the child's company would have afforded me infinite pleasure. I am 54 years of age. I was taken with the child's personality and the manner in which she spoke; her whole deportment was correct, and above the average of the ordinary child, and I thought I should like to make her acquaintance. I had not the slightest intention of taking her out of her parents' custody. (The Recorder: That is for the jury to say.)
Cross-examined. It did not occur to me to ask her parents' permission, though I knew she lived 150 yards away. I wished to, do what the child wished; I did not want to force myself upon her; I left it to her to say whether she would like to walk with me and where she would like to go. I am married. I am occupying a room as a bachelor at Moor Lane Chambers. I am employed as a traveller for a house in the City. I suffer from insomnia and frequently go for a walk to tire myself out and get to sleep.
Conviction proved: May 12, 1909, Bucks Assizes, two years' hard labour and three years' penal servitude, concurrent, for attempted carnal knowledge of a girl under 13, and attempted unnatural offence with boys. Previous to that conviction prisoner had held a high character, and been storekeeper at Eton College, after service in the Royal Marines, with a good discharge. Sentence: Two years' imprisonment.
DANIEL THOMAS DAVIES , 23, Connaught Street, Victoria Park, labourer. On June 21 I went to work at Batavia Wharf as a nonunionist; there was a strike of union labourers. At 2 p.m. I went to dinner at Morley's coffee-shop in Beer Lane. As I came out a man asked me if I was going back to work; I told him I must go back. Then another man came from behind, struck me in the face with his fist, and knocked me down. I remember no more until I found myself at Guy's Hospital lying on a couch. I am deaf, have pain in my head, and giddiness. My teeth are loose, and I am unable to go to work.
Cross-examined. I never saw prisoner; I do not know who struck me.
JOSEPH CASS BLAKE , 38, Great Tower Street, merchant salesman and traveller. On June 21, at 2.15 p.m., I was in Beer Lane, when I saw a number of men accosting one or two others, including prosecutor. In the space of one or two minutes they appeared to smash prosecutor, and he was lying on the ground insensible; six or more men assaulted him. I saw many blows given. Prisoner was one of those who struck the blows; he accosted prosecutor with other men. I called for the police and ran after prisoner. Other men formed a cordon across the pavement to obstruct me. I got through, keeping prisoner in view. He went round a van in Lower Thames Street, got into the van and, as the street cleared, got out. I followed him to within 200 feet of the Tower, pointed prisoner out to a constable, and he was taken into custody.
Cross-examined. It all happened in a moment. I am sure prisoner struck a blow. I only lost sight of him while he was in the van.
Police-constable FRANK CONROY, 146 C, City. On June 21, at 2 p.m., I was on duty in Beer Lane when I saw a large crowd running and shouting "Blackleg. "I went through the Crowd, and I saw prisoner, whom I have seen before in Beer Lane, running away. I had seen him waiting about acting as a picked. He went between several vans, got into one, and got out again. I had another man in custody, and I called to another officer to follow prisoner. He was afterwards given into my custody. I took him up to prosecutor, who was lying on the ground bleeding, and asked him who had struck him. Prosecutor pointed to prisoner and said, "That is the man" Prisoner made no reply.
Police-constable EDWARD WARD, 266 C, City. Prisoner was pointed out to me and I took him into custody. I had not seen him running.
THOMAS SCOTT PHILLIPS , chief stevedore to Batavia Line. Prosecutor started work for me at 8 a.m. on June 21 Prisoner had been working regularly for me a few years ago and casually up to the time. of the strike.
cut, with considerable bruising on the back of the head. He was bleeding slightly from the nose and mouth, and was in a very dazed condition. He was quite able to answer questions. He remained in hospital till July 2 as an in-patient. The injuries were consistent with blows with the fist. It is quite consistent with my experience that a patient may be able to answer questions at the time of the injury, and afterwards lose his memory of what has happened. There is probably an injury to some of the membranes surrounding the brain. I saw him again on July 5. I do not think the injury at the back of the head is consistent with a blow of the fist; it might have been caused by falling oil the pavement. Prosecutor is not fit to work; I think his condition will improve; I cannot say whether he will remain permanently deaf.
Cross-examined. I was with the prosecutor. I did not see who struck him. I said at the police court that prisoner was standing behind that man. It was all done in about two seconds. I did no; see him strike the blow. Prisoner was behind the prosecutor. Prosecutor and I came out together from the coffee shop. I followed him down the lane.
Re-examined. Prosecutor and I were between thirty or forty men. I flew for my life.
(Thursday, July 25.)
JOHN MACNAMARA , recalled. Further cross-examined. I signed a statement at the police station (produced). (Statement put in and read as follows): "I am out of employment but am casually employed as waterside labourer at Batavia and Fresh Wharves, Lower Thames Street. On Friday, 21st instant, I was working on the Batavia Wharf. I started work at 8 a.m. At 2 p.m. I came out to dinner with three other men. The four of us went into Morley's coffee shop in Beer Lane. We all had our dinner. The two other men left before myself and Davies. I and Davies walked down Beer Lane, and when opposite a jeweller's shop someone said: 'There go some blacklegs. 'At that time a dark complexioned man got in front of Davies. Sheen got behind Davies at that time: without Davies having had any opportunty to speak the dark man struck Davies in the face, knocking him over. As Davies fell Sheen appeared to strike him. I could not say if Sheen bit him. At that time I was chased by a number of other men—about five. I rushed up Beer Lane into Great Tower Street, Eastcheap, and over London Bridge. I then went home. When I was called to go back I did not know what had happened to Davies until I went to the Batavia Wharf on Saturday, 22nd instant, at 3 p.m. for my money. There were about twenty to thirty men standing in Beer Lane when we were starting to work. I have known Sheen for about four years. He is a waterside labourer. I could identify
the other man who struck Davies. Sheen knows the man who struck Davies; I only know him by working at Batavia Wharf."
PETER SHEEN (prisoner, on oath). I live at 77, Cable Street, St. George's, and am a dock labourer. On June 21 at 3 p.m. there was a crowd of strikers in Beer Lane; I was one of them waiting there; I was not a picket. All of a sudden I saw a scrimmage. Prosecutor fell down. There were a couple of men between me and him. There were several blows struck by the strikers around me. I took no part in it. I did not strike Davies at all. I did not know what was the matter. The crowd walked away and I walked away. Some walked and some ran. I was not going to get in a row and I went with the others. I was walking down Lower Thames Street when Blake came running down Beer Lane and said to the constable, "That is one of them" I was not behind the van; I never got into the van. I was brought back to prosecutor; he was lying against the beer shop; he was out of the world, his eyes closed, and his nose bleeding. Conroy was trying to shake the man up. He had got me in front of him and said, "Is he one of them" Prosecutor could not speak; he said nothing. At the police court I said I was innocent. I struck no blow.
Cross-examined. I have been nine weeks on strike. I do not know whether non-unionists were employed at Batavia Wharf. I do not know what "blackleg" means. I am not a member of the union now. I was when the strike commenced. I came out with the others. I saw prosecutor walking down Beer Lane; some of the men seized on him, and then I saw him lying on the ground with the crowd round him. I have no idea who struck the blows. Conroy is telling a falsehood. Blake's statement is untrue.
A conviction on November 23, 1908, of two months for assault was proved.
Sentence: Twelve months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, July 24.)
Last Session (see page 389) this prisoner was convicted of libel; he was released on his own recognizances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon, and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution.
The Common Serjeant, at the sitting of the Court this day, said: In this case it has been pointed out to me that there is a question whether an order that the defendant pay the costs of the prosecution can be made where no sentence is passed and also whether this was a proper case in which to make the order, having regard to the fact that the defendant is a bankrupt. With regard to the power of the Court to make the order where the prisoner is only bound over, I am of opinion that the Court has that power. The Statute says that the Court may "in addition to any other lawful punishment" order the person convicted to pay the costs. (Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1908, s. 6.) 'That, I am satisfied, does not mean that the Court should only make such an order where there is punishment. Those words are put in merely to prevent the possibility of its being thought that the order to pay costs is in lieu of punishment; they do not mean that you can only do it when or after you pass sentence. Therefore, the order which I said I intended to make will stand, as to that point. I consider that it is quite valid. Then as to the question whether, where a man is bankrupt, it is a proper case in which to make the order. There are different circumstances in which a man may become bankrupt; there are cases in which a man, after his bankruptcy, may properly be made to pay a reasonable amount of costs. The old law was absolute that the defendant who unsuccessfully pleaded justification to an indictment for libel, say, must pay the costs; and, although it is now left to the discretion of the Court, I think in such a matter the principle of the old law ought to be followed, and it should be almost a matter of course that a defendant who has failed on such a plea should pay the costs which by that plea he has caused the prosecutor to incur. This is a case in which, in my judgment, it is quite proper that the prosecutor should have at least as much right as other creditors. Therefore, as matter of discretion, I think it is right that the order should stand. In addition, I understand that now it is taken as the general order of the Court that in all prosecutions the ordinary costs are paid out of public funds; therefore no order is necessary for that. I have said that some reasonable Counsel's fee ought to be allowed in addition to the expenses of witnesses; that I think has been done; if not, it will be done.
Mr. D. J. Lewis prosecuted.
ROBERT ASHBURNHAM , carman to Thompson, McKay an I Co., contractors to the Great Central Railway Company. On July 5, about 5.30 p.m., I was driving a two-horse van down Bridge Street, near Limehouse Docks. Just as I was going to start from Bridge Street into West India Dock Road prisoner stepped off the pavement and stabbed one of the horses on the loin. I got down and a policeman came along and took from prisoner the clasp-knife (produced); there was fresh blood on it.
Cross-examined by prisoner. When I turned and said, "I want you. for stabbing my horse," you said, "Do you want any? You did not run away; you walked away.
Police-constable ALBERT ANDREWS, 238 K. About 5.30 p.m. on July 5 I saw a crowd at the corner of Bridge Street. On going up there Ashburnham said, "This man has stabbed my horse. "Prisoner had in his hand the knife (produced), which had blood upon it. Upon my arresting him he said, "They can't kill me for it. "He had been drinking, but was quite capable of taking care of himself.
ALEXANDER A. WILSON , M. R. C. V. S., 773, Commercial Street, E. About 6 p.m. on July 5 I saw outside the police station a grey gelding. It had a wound on the near side flank, three inches deep and two inches wide. The wound must have involved considerable force. Such a wound could not have been inflicted by a man having a knife accidentally slipping and falling upon the horse.
GEORGE BROOKS (prisoner, on oath), said that he fell against the horse accidentally, and that in recovering himself he must have struck the horse with his knife. He had done honourable service in the Army, and had the seven-bar medal in respect of the South African campaign.
Cross-examined. The knife I had was one that I carried to pare my nails. If I had wished to escape I could have thrown the knife away. The veterinary surgeon says that the wound in the flank of the horse was three inches deep; the blade of the knife produced is not three inches long.
Prisoner was released on his own recognizances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.
(Wednesday, July 24.)
Croucher pleaded guilty.
Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. E. C. P. Boyd prosecuted; Mr. Arthur May defended Ellis.
ELLEN GOODEN , 61, Muriel Street, Islington. On Tuesday, June 18, the automatic gas meter in my kitchen was broken open. The box was taken right away. I reported the matter to the Gas Company. An official came the same afternoon. I did not know how much money had been taken from the meter. I know prisoner. I saw him the same day. He lives next door to me at No. 63.
Cross-examined. I was there when the official came to check the meter. He told me there should have been 7s. 8d. in it. Ada Haines also told me on the same day after the gas man had told me the amount was 7s. 8d., and that prisoners had counted it out at her feet on the bed. I told my husband about it, and the policeman when he was. outside the door. Between half-past five and six I saw Ellis. I heard him and Ada Haines rowing and went to the door to listen. I thought she was his wife. After he had gone away she told me he had robbed my meter. We then discussed the matter together, and she then told me that 7s. 8d. was the amount that had been taken. I knew before that that was the amount.
ADA HAINES , 63, Muriel Street, Islington. I am a widow. Up till June 18 I had been living with prisoner at 63, Muriel Street. On that Morning, about 4.0 or 4.30 I woke up and found prisoners at my bedside turning some money out out of a box. I left Ellis the night before and went home. He did not come home with me that night. The box
was like a square tin. When they counted it they said there was 7s. 8d. They jumped on the tin and said they were going to throw it over the cut, as dead men tell no tales. The cut is a kind of water place just beside where we live. I said to Ellis, "Where did you get that money from" He said, "We have just jumped over the wall and we have done a 'Peter.'" I said, "Who did it" He said, "I did." They then went out. About 8 a.m. I went out to get some tea and sugar and met Ellis a the "Queen's" He said, "Come and have a drink" I had a pony of stout. Croucher was there. "Nosey" is the name I know him by. I have only seen him twice. I said nothing about The robbery then. In the afternoon I told Ellis if he did not go and give the woman back her money I would tell her, and I did so). He. started knocking me about and swore he would cut my head off within an hour if I dared to speak. Croucher was there then. He said if Ellis didn't do it he would. In the afternoon I spoke to a policeman in Ellis's presence. Ellis ran away. He came back later, and started knocking me about. Croucher kicked me. No one except prisoner told me about the 7s. 8d. before I gave evidence at the police court.
Cross-examined. I knew about the time this trial was coming on that Croucher, who had not been charged with this offence, had confessed that he alone had taken the gas meter. I had been living with Ellis about five weeks. I did not see Ellis from 11.30 p.m. on the 17th till 4 a.m. on the 18th. I do not think he would have done such a thing if it hid not been for Croucher. It is not true that I was at a coffee stall in Caledonian Road with Ellis and a Mrs. Bishop till three in the morning. I went to bed just before 12. I left Ellis with Croucher at 11.30 outside the "Salmon and Compasses" in Chapel Street. I undressed and lay in the bed. When I woke up Ellis was not there. I had no cause to look through the window, the Two were sitting on my bed counting out the money. I did not say to Ellis, Look, there is Croucher getting over the wall" I did not see Croucher get over the wall. I do not know whether the back door was open or shut. It is not locked at night. They were both counting the money. They did not make a noise when they were smashing up the box. They put it in my blouse, which they took off the bed. Nosey did not go out by himself with the tin, they both went out together. They returned in about an hour. They asked me what I would take to drink. They fetched a half-quartern of gin. It was drunk in my room. Ellis had some of it. Then they went out together. I did not follow. I went out to get the tea and sugar about 7.40. I was not in their company all that day. I met them in the afternoon. I had several quarrels with Elles is that day. The final quarrel was in the "Compasses" in the evening. It was getting dusk. Mrs. Smith, my mother, and Croucher were there. I was not smoking a cigarette. Ellis did not object to my smoking the cigarette. Ellis aggravated me; he went to throw a glass of beer over me and I threw mine over him. We were all turned out of the public-house by the two barmen. I had resolved to make (his accusation agains, Ellis. He had no right to have done such a thing. He had good work to go to. I don't know who paid
for the half-quartern of gin. Croucher paid for my pony of stout. Mrs. Smith paid for one drink in the "Salmon and Compasses. "I was nil tipsy when the row took place there. Ellis and Croucher were both drunk. I told Mrs. Gooden before I told the policeman about the robbery. I believe someone in the "Queen's" mentioned about the robbery. Mrs. James certainly did say something. I do not remember exactly the words she said. I did not then say I knew who did it. I said it was a shame that people broke meters open, and they would be fetched to justice. I said our own meter had been broken open the week previous and we found the tin outside the door. Mrs. James knew our meter had been broken open. I did not tell her the details.
MARIAN SMITH , 63, Muriel Street, Islington. Ellis lodged at my house with the woman Haines. On June 18, in the evening, I saw Ada Haines speaking to a policeman at my door. Ellis and Croucher were in the road, three yards away. Haines said, "I will put you away, because you took the gas meter from over the wall next door. Ellis hollaed at her, and he and Croucher ran away together. They came back again in about two seconds, and saw her talking to a policeman. I have only seen Crucher once. I know him as "Nosey." The policeman had gone when they came back. Ellis said to Haines that he would cut her head off, and if he didn't do it Nosey would do it in lees than an hour.
Cross-examined. These people had been jangling all the afternoon. I saw one of the rows at the corner of Chapel Street, outside "Salmon and Compasses. "There was no bad language used. There was a violent quarrel.
RICHARD JOHN READ . I am in the employment of the Gas Light and Coke Company. I examined the gas meter at 61, Muriel Street. The box and lock were missing and 7s. 8d. in money. I did not. Tell anyone connected with the house how much had been taken from the meter. I first mentioned that to the police.
Cross-examined. I did not see Mrs. Gooden till I gave evidence. She was not there when I examined the meter. Her boy was there.
Police-sergeant FREDRICK OXLEY, G Division. I arrested Ellis on June 18 at midnight. He was sitting on the doorway of the "Compasses." I said to him, "I am a police officer; is your name Ellis?" He said, "No. "I said, "I know you are the man I am looking for, for breaking open a gas meter at 61, Muriel Street. "He said, "You are quite right. I did not do it by myself."
Cross-examined. Ada Haines made a statement to me and another officer. When I arrested Croucher I told him he would be charged with stealing 7s. 8d. from a gas meter. I did not mention the amount when I arrested Ellis. The woman told me the amount was 7s. 8d. Ellis did not say he knew something about it, or that he knew the money had been stolen, or that he knew the gas-meter had been broken into. He only said, "I did not do it by myself." He said that in Penton Street, a few yards from where I arrested him. He did not say, "I did not do it myself."
WILLIAM HENRY CROUCHKR (prisoner, on oath). I got into trouble the other day over a plate-glass window, and was committed for trial. When Ellis was arrested I was there. While I was waiting at Brixton Prison I made a statement. In consequence of that on July 3 I was taken to the Clerk's office in Brixton Prison. I made a statement to the Home Secretary because the police refused to take that statement. Exhibit 1 is my writing and signature. A policeman stood beside me while I signed it. I was taken in a cab from Brixton to Clerkenwell, and charged at the London Sessions with stealing the money from the gas meter. I was committed here for trial, and have pleaded guilty. I got over the wall and took it by myself. I went into 65. Muriel Street; I tried the door with a key; I found the key turned the lock, but it would not open. I got over the wall to No. 61, tried the key, anl it opened. I went upstairs, came down, went in one or two rooms. I saw a gas-meter in the corner, got a nail, broke it open, took the box, put it in my pocket. As I went to get over the wall I saw Ada Haines looking through a window. Her real name is Bird. She was fully dressed. I then saw Ellis come to the window and have a look at me. I said, "Tom, it is only me, don't shove me away. He said, "You know I might fall into this. "She came to the back door and let me in. She said, "You know Nosey Tom might fall into this." I said, "If he gets into any trouble I will give myself up. Nobody will know it is me because I will take the box and jump on it. "With that I got the box, emptied the money into my pocket. I then got hold of the box and threw it on the ground. I saw a blouse. said, "Is this yours?" She said, "Yes." I said, "Lend me that; it will deaden the sound." I then broke it up and said, "Dead men tell no tales. "I then threw it in the cut.
Cross-examined. I have been convicted 12 times since 1900. I confessed 13 or 14 days after the arrest of Ellis. I said nothing when Ellis was arrested. I said nothing until I was arrested on another charge. I was not with Ellis on the night I broke into the house and took the money from the gas meter. I did not see him till the morning, when I got over the wall, about 5.30 or 5.45. We were all, three in Ada Haines's bedroom. I did not count out the money there. I was not going to let other people know what money I had, or let Ellis or Haines have a share. I told them an hour and half afterwards that I had got 7s. 8d. I did not go to Ellis's place to buy their silence. By giving them a drink I knew they would not put me away. I have not been about with Ellis. I use the same pub, but not the same bar. It is very seldom we use the same bar. I have known the woman longest. When I saw Ellis saw me the only thing to do was to ask them not to put me away. It was no good running away, they both knew me, and where I lived. When I went in I cast the money on the bed. Mrs. Haines said nothing to Ellis. She did not say. "Where did you get that money from?" He did not say he had been over the wall or "We have just done a Peter." I always thought a "Peter was a safe.
THOMAS ELLIS (prisoner, on oath). I was in work at the time this gas meter was broken into. I am a painter and paperhanger. I had been living with Ada Haines four or five weeks. I was out with her on the evening of June 17. She came home with me at 3 a.m. We had been to the coffee stall in Caledonian Road along with a man named Bishop. When we got home I said, "It ain't worth while me undressing now. I have to go to work in the morning. I shall lay on the bed in my clothes." She said, "All right, I will sit in the chair for a while. "I went to sleep with my boots on. All of a sudden she pulled me and said, "Look at this, Nosey getting over." She was looking through the window. I went off the bed and saw Nosey getting over the wall. He saw us looking through the window. He said, "Tom and Ada, do not put me away, I am a man with children, and a wife just going to bed." He said that as he came to the door. Ada Haines opened the door. When he came in he had the tin box. He put it on the floor and was going to jump on it. Ada Haines said, "Take my blouse off the bed or else you will wake the son up who sleeps in the parlour." With that he jumps on it and said, "Dead men tell no tales; I am going to throw this into the cut. "He went out and came back an hour afterwards. He asked us both to have a drink. I said, "No, I have to go to work. "Ada Haines said, "Nosey, will have half-quartern of gin." He said, "You had better come along with me to get it. "We went to the "White Conduit," and got a half-quartern bottle; I put it on the table and said, "I am going to work now," and went out. I did not go to work. I met Nosey on the corner. He said, "You had better come and have a drink before you go to work." We had hardly got into the public-house before she walked in. He says, "What are you going to have." She said, "Three ha'porth o' rum." Mrs. James came in and said, "Have you heard about the gas meter being broken open next door. "Ada Haines said, "No, what swines to do a thing like that. Only last week we had our own gas meter broken open and Tom found the tin box as he was going to work in his passage, and he called the landlady down." Mrs. James lef:. to go to work. I was drinking during the day with Ada Haines, Nosey, and two or three women. I was quarrelling with Haines. The last quarrel was in the evening at the "Compasses." Ada Haines was smoking a cigarette. I said, "Don't smoke that cigarette in this house or you will show me up. "She said, "Go and f—ourself." And with that I tried to knock it out of her mouth. If I struck her it was accidental. She threw a glass of ale over my collar. The two barmen jumped over the counter and put her out, as they have done many a time. I was arrested the same night. I said to the sergeant, "You have made a mistake; I'm a working man." I told him I was working at Sharp's, Goswell Road. He said he had seen me working at the back of Percy Circus. Nothing was said about the gas meter. I did not say, "You are quite right," or "I done it by myself." I told him my name was not Ellis.
Cross-examined. I have not been good friends with Ada Haines all the four or five weeks. I was friendly towards her but she was not to me. I told her I should leave her if she did not leave the drink
off. She wanted to go and live with another man. I was not particularly close friends with Croucher. He was a casual acquaintance. I allowed him to come in: the house to hear what he was going to say. I knew he had robbed some meters. I stood by while the tin was smashed. I do not often stop at the coffee stall till 3 o'clock in the morning. The reason I did that night was to keep her from going with other men. She spoke to a constable about me at night-time. I was in the passage. She said, "I want them two men sent away because they are threatening me." She said nothing about the meter. We did not run away. The reason I said my name was not Ellis when I was arrested was because the officer knew my name was Clark. I go in the name of Clark. When the officer charged me on suspicion of having done the gas meter I knew, and she knew, that Croucher had done it. A dozen people knew I should think. I did not say, "You are quite right. I did not do it myself. "I did not use any words like that. I had not told anybody Croucher did it. I knew he had broken a meter open but did not know whose meter it was. I had nothing to do with robbing the meter. I suppose Croucher allowed me to be charged for something he had done. Up to the time Croucher made his confession I had said nothing against him because I knew I was innocent and my life would have been a misery round Islington.
MARY ELLIS , 60, Charlotte Street, N. Thomas Ellis is my son. He left me in order to live with Haines. On the day of the robbery she came to my house in an intoxicated condition with her hair down her back, no hat or bonnet, and a mob of people following her. She came with another woman. She said my son was going to leave her and she would get him taken before the night was out; what for she never said. A constable dispersed the crowd. She went away. I heard no more till next evening when I heard he was in prison.
Cross-examined. I know nothing of my son's movements on the 17th or 18th.
Verdict (Ellis), Not guilty.
Sentence (Croucher): Three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE MR. JUDGE COLERIDGE.
(Thursday, July 25.)
PARSONS, George Edward (33, labourer) , attempting by means of certain false representations to procure Esther Myer, she not being a common prostitute or of known immoral character, to have carnal connection with himself, the said G. E. Parsons.
Eight previous convictions (one for assault on a policeman, the remainder for larceny) were proved.
Sentence: Nine months' imprisonment.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Thursday, July 25.)
DONALLON, Edward (48, share dealer), and BECK, Eugene , both conspiring and agreeing together and with divers persons unknown to cheat and defraud such persons as should deal with the firm of Brown, Saville and Brother in the purchase and sale of stocks and shares; both obtaining by false pretences from Gustav Bender German bank notes for 1,000 marks and two share certificates, from Emilie Kraiss £10 and German bank notes for 410 marks, and from Moriz Willfort £42, £40 13s. 2d. and £199 14s. 7d., in each case with intent to defraud.
EMILIE KRAISS , chemical instrument manufacturer, Stuttgart, About December, 1910, I received this document, headed "Brown, Saviile and Brother, Bank and Stock Exchange Business, 83, New Oxford Street, London, W. C. "(Read. Urging her, if she had any spare capital at her disposal, to operate in Canadian Pacifies, quoted now at 195, by applying their cover system; explaining how, as the result before Christmas, "heaps of money could be earned, and how they were in a specially advantageous position to deal in this stock; stating that no commission or brokerage would be charged (her obligation being limited to the deposits) and that they were one of the oldest and bestknown firms in the business.) I believed all the statements contained in the letter, and that the firm were carrying on an honest business. Towards the end of 1910 I received this handbook, headed "The Art of Speculation Handbook for 1911. A. B. C. Guide to Speculator," with the name of the firm as before. (Exhibit 1. A voluminous pamphlet, setting out that it was an easy matter for persons even with a small capital of, say, £5, to make large profits by means of speculation if skills fully conducted; those who had the necessary knowledge were invited to speculate on their own judgment, and those who had not the necessary knowledge they were prepared to advise, relying for their profit upon differences; their clientele was so great that they were enabled to sell stock from one client to another; failing this, suggesting they dealt on the Stock Exchange and could control the prices; cover of 1 per cent, was asked for but stating that the greater the cover the less liable was the stock to be closed.) I read it and sent this letter dated January 20, 1911, enclosing two £5 notes (Exhibit 99. Instructing them to speculate with same at their discretion, and if first operation closed favourably to retain the £10 for a new investment; asking whether they were in relation with a bank in Stuttgart in order that future payments might be made through that channel by cheques.) On January 24, 1911, 1 received this letter (stating that they had engaged her on £50 Canadian Pacifies at the official opening price at 1 per cent.
cover, advising her, should the price become lower, to support it by further cover and to apply the averaging system, stating that they would wire her should further cover bi necessary, and that they had no bank at Stuttgart. Enclosed in the letter was a contract note showing that fifty Canadian Pacifics had been bought at 214 318.) On January 25 I received tins letter (Exhibit 101, regretting that the security had fallen to 213 318, thereby her cover had been exhausted; as the fall was only a temporary one, urging her to maintain her purchase by a further cover of £10, which sum they requested her to wire, thus obviating the necessity of closing her account with a loss). On January 26 I wired that a further cover was on the way, and on the same day I wrote enclosing M. 410 and stating that I preferred in future to buy with a cover of 3 per cent. On January 29 they wrote me this letter (Exhibit 105), stating that they had covered her purchase up to 212 3/4, that Canadian Pacifies had risen to 214 1/2, and asking her to wire them as to whether she wished them to keep her shares for a profit of 200 per cent., which they hoped would accrue very shortly.) On the 28th they wrote me, acknowledging this letter (Exhibit 106, stating that they had applied the £10 received as further 2 per cent, cover, so that same were row protected to 211 318 that the stock had risen to 215 3/4 that they only asked for further cover when they were convinced that the fall was only a temporary one, and that they expected shortly a rapid rise, urging her to invest her full balance after the realisation of her present shares, and to send a further £40, enabling them to take up 500 shares at 1 per cent, cover, by which means they hoped by February to raise her balance to about £2,000) I wrote them on the 30th, saying I could not agree to their proposal, and instructing them if they closed my first purchase at 218 318 to send me back £30 and to purchase again with 3 per cent, cover, but not higher than 218, and if this were not possible to send me my complete account. I wrote them on the 1ST. I wrote them, pointing out an error they had made in the calculation of my profit. They wrote me on that day, acknowledging mine of the 28th, and stating they would carry out my instructions. On the 3rd they wrote that the Canadians had fallen, and urging me to buy a further 50 shares to average, as a splendid recovery could be reckoned on. On the 9th they wrote, urging me in view of the information they had received that the stock would reach at least 230 in a few days, to invest my full balance, and send a further sum to raise my interest. On the 10th they wired me that they had closed my 50 Canadians at 217, and had opened a further 90 shares at 217.25. I had previously wired them on the same day to close at 2 per cent, or better. On that day they wrote confirming their wire, enclosing a contract note for the 90 Canadians, which they had opened with my balance at 3 per cent, cover, and stating the 2 £ per cent, dividend had been declared, which would presumably be paid at the end of the month. Exhibit 115 shows the opening of a new account for 90 Canadian Pacifies at 217 1/4, with a cover of 3 per cent., £391 10s. On February 11 I received this letter (Exhibit 117, pointing out the enormous profit that had been made owing to the care they had taken of her interests, advising that a sufficient deposit should be always
with them to support her engagements with a further cover in order to avoid loss, and requesting her to telegraph whether she desired her full balance should be operated in Canadian Pacifies, as in a few days the price of 230 was expected). On the 13th they wired me (Exhibit 118, stating that according to secret important cable just received Canadian Pacifies were rising to 230, and requesting her to wire at once whether I would send a further £50 in order to raise the number of shares to 180 for about £200 profit. On the 12th I wrote them Exhibit 119 (stating that they appeared to have misunderstood her telegram of the 10th and that she awaited first their approval for new investment). On the 13th I wired them to close my shares and to keep the balance as deposit. On February 13 they wrote me Exhibit 121 (stating that they understood they were to close her shares at 220 1/4 and enter into a new engagement while her balance would remain with them, but advising her to apply this balance as 2 per cent, cover, for which they could acquire 250 shares). On the same day I received another letter from them (Exhibit 122, stating that they had just received a special cable showing that the rise in price would continue, and urgently advising her to send them a further sum to open at least 250 shares, and immediately after the close of that purchase to invest with the full limit of profit the full balance). On the 14th I received their letter acknowledging mine of the 12th, advising me to operate further in Canadians and reque sting. me to wire instructions. On the 15th I wrote them Exhibit 124 instructing them to buy 100 Canadians with 3 per cent, cover, when they had closed my present engagement with 3 per cent, profit or better, and that the profit on the 100 Canadian would completely satisfy me. On the 16th they wrote me Exhibit 125 (stating that Canadians had risen to 219 and hoping they would soon be able to close her 90 shares at a profit of £44). I wrote them on the 17th requesting them if they had closed my present engagement with 90 Canadians to enter in addition to the 100 Canadian 100 Chartered if to be got at 1 3/4, and to retain the balance of my profit on deposit. On the 17th they wrote me acknowledging mine of the 15th (stating that Canadians, owing to high realisations of profit, had dropped to 216, whereby the realisation of her purchase had been delayed, but it was beyond all doubt that the stock would soon recover; advising her, therefore, to make an additional purchase at 1 per cent, cover at the present cheap price; and that they would carry out her instructions as to the 100 Canadians). On the 24th I wired them to close at 2 per cent., or better. On the same day they acknowledged my wire (stating that the stock had fallen to 215 and giving the reasons therefore, but anticipating that a sharp rise would set in; advising her, should the shares fall still lower, to close her account with a loss, and to average). On March 1 they wrote me stating that Canadians had risen to 218 £ and that they anticipated that they would soon be able to close my account with a profit of 3 per cent. On the 3rd I wrote acknowledging this letter, confirming my instructions in my letter of February 17 and instructing them to take up the new purchase of Canadians with at most 1/4 per cent, higher than the sale. On the 6th they wrote acknowledging and on the 11th they wrote me saying they had closed my 90
Canadians at a 3 per cent, profit and had opened a further 100 with 3 per cent, cover, although they were not able to do so at 1/4 per cent. over the old sale price. Exhibit 134 is the contract note which they enclosed showing this price to be 221 1/2 and Exhibit 135 a sale note showing they had sold at 220 1/4 On the 23rd I wrote asking how long my engagement would have to last in order to profit by the 2 1/2 per cent, quarter's dividend and whether after payment of this dividend the shares would fall. On the 27th they informed me as to the first point, and that in the event of a fall the dividend could be accredited as additional cover. On the 28th they wired me that Canadians would, according to cable, reach 235 that week and urgently advising me to wire a further £100 for a really high profit and on the same day they wrote me fully as to this. On the 29th they wrote me (enlarging on how the present state of the market showed the reliability of their information and advising her co invest her full balance at 1 per cent. cover, and stating that" if by Friday morning we receive no contrary telegram from you we will presume that you agree with our proposal and that they would at once engage at an advantageous price). On the 30: h I wrote them acknowledging their letter of the 28th, but regretting I was unable to send a further amount and requesting them to close my 100 Canadians if 233 1/2 could be obtained. On the 31st I wired, "No 1 per cent, purchase. Close my 100 Canadians now existing. Buy 150 a: 3 per cent. "On that day they wrote me stating that they had closed at 230 718 and had engaged a new 250 (not 150, as I had instructed) at 231 718 and that they were extremely sorry I had not taken their advice to engage any balance (£130) in at least 300 or 400 Canadas at 1 per cent, cover, and asking me to wire instructions as to this, as Canadas would go to 250 before the middle of April. On April 1 they acknowledged my letter of the 30th (regretting that Canadians had fallen to 227 and that £250 of her balance had been applied in further cover, the remainder being applied to the 100 Chartered, leaving her "no amount free "; advising her to average by re-investing in a further 250 Canadians at 227). On the 3rd I wrote them repeating the terms of my wire of March 31 and that in the event of a mistake on the part of the Post Office in transmitting the wire I should make a complaint to them; I was surprised at their advice in I the letter of March 31 that I should re-invest all my capital at 1 per cent, cover, and requested a new purchase note since they had quoted the sale of my new purchase at a higher price than the sale of my 100 Canadians; I enclosed an account showing a profit of £131 and which was sufficient for any further cover in Chartereds and Canadians. On the 6th they wrote me acknowledging this letter, enclosing an account, showing my profit to be £278 3s. 1d., but that on the fresh engagements they had opened for me £166 5s. would be required as cover; calling my attention to the fact that my telegram of March 31 last said 250 and not 150 Canadians, and that as a result of this transaction £75 had accrued to me as profit. On the 15th I wrote them saying I had laid the matter of my telegram before the Post Office and requesting them to "remit to me £100 from my free balance. On the 19th they wrote advising me in view of the further fall that was
expected to let my full balance remain as they were very anxious that I should avoid a loss. On the 26th I wrote them enclosing copy of a letter I had received from the Royal Telegraph office showing that my telegram of March 31 had been correctly sent off, again requesting them to send me my free balance, and asking why they had not credited me with the dividend of 2 1/2 per cent, declared in April as increased cover. They wrote me on the 29th saying they had altered my engagement to 150 Canadians and advising me urgently, in view of the fact that the shares might shoot up, to invest my balance in the highest possible number and that should the market move, in such a sharply rising direction (they gave details) "we will invest at the right moment your full balance at 1 per cent, cover." On May 1 I wrote them saying that I desired no further purchase and again requesting them to send me my free balance; remarking again that they were not to purchase for me at 1 per cent, cover. On May. 4 they wrote me stating that they were closing at 242 1/2, and as a further sharp advance was expected, they had, according to the proposal made in their last letter, engaged my full balance in 1, 500 Canadians at 242 3/4 they enclosed sale and purchase notes. On the 5th they wrote me that the stock had fallen to 238 1/2 and they would require £600 cover to secure the shares; advising me, however, to close my engagement with a loss and average, for which £300 would be necessary. On the 6th I wrote them repudiating the sale and purchase as unauthorized by me, returning the notes, and requesting them to send me my free balance £171 18s. and the amended purchase note of March 31, failing which I should have to put the matter in other hands; I registered the letter and sent it by... express post. On the 8th they wrote me stating that they could not annul my engagement, as they had dealt according to the proposal in their letter of the 29th ult., not having received any contrary instructions they thought I had expressed my approval, and they would on receipt of £300 renew my 1, 500 Canadians. They had previously returned me the bought and sale notes which I had sent back to them; they show a loss of £300 on the transaction. I had sent my letter of May 1 (Exhibit 153) by express delivery; they never acknowledged it in a direct manner, but later they wrote me saying they got it too late. (Donallon called upon stated he did not produce this letter, and the witness produced and proved a press copy.) On the 10th I wrote again returning the notes and calling their attention to my letter of May 1 and again threatening proceedings; I registered that letter and sent it express. On the 11th they wrote me that, not having had any news from me, they had been compelled to close my engagement with a loss of my deposit and enclosing the sale note; stating that this loss could nave been avoided by my sending further cover, and urging me to secure a new interest at the present cheap price. On the 12th they wrote acknowledging mine of the 10th and stating that my letter of May 1 had arrived too late to enable them to alter my engagement in the 1, 500 Canadian Pacifies, and that by their letter of April 29 it was quite clear that they would open at the right moment the highest possible number of shares and asking me why I had not wired'. I then placed we matter in the hands of a Trade Protection Society, and afterwards
through Mr. Schuler, their representative, I instructed Oppenheim, Blandford, and Co., solicitors, in London, who commenced an action for me in the English Courts. I had to give security for costs. The action has not yet been tried.
Cross-examined by Donallon. I first came into communication with your firm by answering an advertisement in a German newspaper, offering a book called the "Science of Speculation." I wrote, and you sent me the book, which I read right through, and I commenced business with you on the rules and conditions contained therein, and in the contracts I received. I have only this to say against the firm, that they carried out the sale and purchase of May 4 contrary to my instructions. I cannot call to mind your breaking any of the rules. You explained in your book that I stood as big a chance to lose as to win. I do not understand the difference between a broker and a man who deals on his own account. I knew from Rule 11 that I was dealing with you direct, speculating for a rise in shares. Whenever you proposed any important business to me I wired you; all our business was conducted by correspondence. I and two apprentices attend to my correspondence, and as a rule they post the letters, but I sometimes do it myself. When I asked you if you were in relations with a bank at our place I did not at first intend to part with much money; it would depend upon results. The advice you offered me in your letter of January 24 turned out to be to my benefit. You pointed out to me that the slightest delay in sending cover was dangerous. I sent you in my letter of January 26 M410 for cover, although according to the rules I should have wired all sums for cover, but you accepted the payment and there was an end of it. I cannot say who posted my letter of February 17 (Exhibit 126). It was surely sent off because the order in it was executed. There is no letter from you acknowledging it; but at a later date I repeated the order, and it was acknowledged. (Prisoner here remarked that the object of his cross-examination was to show that witness had been negligent in her correspondence, and that he was not to blame therefore for the subsequent losses. The Common Serjeant said that was not the question.) I received your letter of April 29 early on the morning of May 1, and I myself posted a letter in reply after 12 o'clock. I did not wire because I did not want a repetition of the telegraphic muddle. I agree that in my letter of May 6 I do not refer to mine of the 1ST. I did not think there was any necessity for it. I did not tell Carl Shuler to instruct you to sell the 1, 500 Canadians, and I do not know that he did so. Where he tells you in his letter (Exhibit 165) to sell the 1, 500 Canadians, it must be a clerical error for 150.
(Friday, July 26.)
EMILIE KRAISS (recalled, re-examined). When the firm wrote me that they had opened Canadian Pacifies for me I understood they had bought them for me with such cover as I had provided; Donallon wrote me that he had bought a large number of shares, and I believed he had
transferred some of them to me. I did not understand that by the shares rising anyone would lose; I did not understand by the green book (Exhibit 1) that the firm would lose money to the extent I gained it, but if I had understood that I would still have acted on their advice. I understood that all they would gain would be the interest on the non-covered part of my engagement, and the differences between the sale and purchase prices.
SIDNEY HARPER , 258, Holloway Road, managing director, Harper's Electric Company, Limited. On August 27, 1910, my company entered into an agreement with Donallon for the letting of two rooms on the first floor at 83, New Oxford Street, for three years, and I produce the agreement of that date. The rental was £75 for the first year, £80 for the second, and £85 for the third, payable monthly. Donallon is described as "trading as Brown, Saville and Co." A good portion of the rent was paid. He remained in occupation till the time of the prosecution.
MORITZ WILPORT , D. L., Imperial Royal District Commissioner, Lower Austria, resident near Vienna, stated that, having received a circular (Exhibit 188) and Exhibit 1, he upon the faith of them embarked upon similar transactions as those detailed by the last witness. In the course of his evidence he produced and proved Exhibits 189 to 264 He eventually placed the matter in the hands of Messrs. Oppenheim, Blandford and Co., and an action was commenced on his behalf, but had not yet been tried.
At the close of the day, after witness had been cross-examined at length by Donallon on the correspondence, Beck withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the first count of the indictment charging him with conspiracy.
(Saturday, July 27.)
MORITZ WILFORT was recalled, and was being re-examined, when Donallon withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the conspiracy under Counts 1, 5 and 7 (the conspiracy and the Kraiss and Wilfort's counts). A formal verdict was taken from the jury in accordance with the prisoners' pleas.
Donallon confessed to a previous conviction of obtaining a valuable security by false pretences on February 25, 1907, when he was sentenced at this court to 20 months' hard labour. The business he was then engaged in was, as in this case, that of a fraudulent stock and share dealer. On his release he was engaged for 18 months as a teacher of languages, in which capacity he met Beck, a German. He engaged in this business at the end of 1909, and until recently his transactions had been confined to people in France and Germany, from which latter country a great many complaints had been received. He had an office in Paris. Beck, who had been in this country five years, had been associated with him in this business as a clerk, latterly in receipt of £5 per week, and in January last he became a partner. (Donallon stated that the agreements found as to this had not been
made effective, and that Beck at no time had been a partner.) Before joining Donallon he had been associated as a clerk for three weeks with the Equitable Exchange; the person who had conducted that business had three years after been sentenced at this court to penal servitude. All Donallon's available resources was a sum of £140, found upon him. Sentences: Donallon, Two years hard labour, and ordered to pay £70 towards the costs of the prosecution; Beck, Six months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Friday, July 26.)
BONNER, Ernest (32, clerk), and SMITH, John (62, mason) , both assaulting George Surman, thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm; Smith breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Arthur Henry Parker and stealing therein one watch and other articles, his goods.
(Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted; Mr. Sidney E. Williams defended. Prisoners were tried for the assault.
Detective GEORGE SURMAN, New Scotland Yard. On July 2 I was on duty in plain clothes with Detectives Gray and Gimblett in Caledonian Road. About 5.30 p.m. I saw the two prisoners 10 to 20 yards behind me running after me. I stopped; Bonner said, "What the b—h—are you doing here?" I said, "I am a police officer. "He then struck me with his fists on the side of the face. I closed with him, Smith joined in, and both struck me with their fists, knocking me to the ground. I held Bonner by his clothing and pulled him down. He kicked me on the right side, Smith then kicked me on the left knee, and the back of the head. I struggled to my feet, still holding Bonner; we staggered to the railings, my back to the roadway. Smith then gave me several blows with has fist on the head, knocking me down, and causing me to let go of Bonner. Smith then kicked me again on the left knee. Detective Gimblett then came up and helped me to the, I station in a cab. I was seen by the divisional surgeon, Dr. Wilson, and next morning seen by Dr. Evans. I am still upon the sick list.
Cross-examined. Bonner did not say, "What is the idea of your following us?" I was dressed as a workman with a muffler. I had been keeping observation on a number of men, including prisoners. I cannot say whether Bonner accidentally kicked me while on the ground. I did not strike Bonner first. I had not my back to the railings when struck by Smith.
Detective JOHN GRAY, New Scotland Yard. On July 2 at 5.30 p.m. I saw prosecutor assaulted by the prisoners. He was on the ground. There were a crowd of people. I saw Smith kick him three or four times about the head and body. Bonner struck him with his fist. The crowd obstructed me, and the prisoners got away. I followed Bonner to Copenhagen Street about 200 yards and caught him. I said, "I am
a police officer, I am going to arrest you for assaulting Detective Surman". He said, "Are you another one of them, then?" I took him into custody; he became very violent. I forced him to the ground, blew my whistle, two other officers came, and we conveyed him to the station, where he was charged with assaulting Surman and doing him grievous bodily harm. He said, "How can it be grievous bodily harm? I was not the one who kicked him, I only punched him."
Cross-examined. I did not see the beginning of the fight—prosecutor and Bonner were struggling on the ground. Prosecutor wore a muffler and would not be necessarily known to be a detective. The crowd was very excited. I do not say they were. wilfully keeping me back. Detective EDWARD GIMBLEPTT, New Scotland Yard, corroborated. Detective JOSEPH REED, Y Division. On July 2 at 12 p.m. I went with another officer to 37, Winford Road, Caledonian Road, where I found Smith in bed. I told him I was a police officer and should arrest him for being concerned with a man named Bonner, already in custody, in causing grievous bodily harm to Detective Surman. He said, "All right." I took him to the station, he was charged, and made no reply.
JOSEPH WILSON , divisional surgeon, Y Division. On July 2 at 10.15 p.m. I examined prosecutor. I found a severe contusion on the right side of the head, a contusion on the right thigh, abrasion on the left knee, and a flesh wound on the right wrist; he complained of pain in the right side of the chest, which he attributed to being kicked. He was suffering from severe shock. I placed ham on the sick list. I examined him again two days afterwards and found that he had evidently had concussion of the brain. He was unable to stand without a stick. The injuries were quite consistent with his having been kicked and punched. He may be able to go on duty again in about six weeks.
Cross-examined. The injury to the head might have been caused by kicks or by a fall; some of the bruises might have been caused by falling against railings or against the kerb.
JOHN SMITH (prisoner, on oath). On July 2 I was with Bonner and prosecutor in Caledonian Road. Bonner spoke to him, when. prosecutor struck him in the face. They closed, fell to the ground, and were struggling with each other. They got up, and went against the railings. I went up and struck prosecutor. He let go of Bonner, stepped into the road, stumbled on the kerb, and fell to the ground. Neither I nor Bonner kicked him. I did not know he was a police officer. That is the whole truth of the matter; it did not last more than two minutes from beginning to end.
Cross-examined. Prosecutor hit Bonner first. I was on the other side of the road. Bonner was quietly walking across the road, when prosecutor went up and struck him. It is not true that I kicked him. He blew his whistle, fell down, got up, and ran after Bonner about
80 yards from Winford Road to Caledonian Road Bridge. There was no one else that I saw who could have kicked him. I said nothing at all to the charge; I did not say, "All right."
ERNEST BONNER (prisoner, on oath). I live at 51, Edward Square, Caledonian Road. On July 2 at 5.30 p.m. I was with Smith in Caledonian Road. Prosecutor (whom I did not know as a police officer) was standing by the fountain. I said, "What is the idea of your following us?" With that he shaped up with his fists, and struck me on the nose. I could not. say whether he did it on purpose. We closed together, fell to the ground, got up, and he had me against the railings with his arm round my neck. Smith ran across the road and hit the prosecutor once, on which he let go of me. I ran up Caledonian Road. Prosecutor fell on the kerb, got up again, and ran after me blowing his whistle. I was arrested twenty minutes after by Gray.
Cross-examined. I said at the police court that Smith hit prosecutor behind the right ear; that is true. When charged I said I had punched him once, out I was not the one who kicked him.
Verdict (both), Guilty.
Six previous convictions, commencing in 1900, were proved against Bonner, including 18, 20, and 12 months' hard labour, and three years' penal servitude. A number of convictions, commencing in 1880, including three sentences of penal servitude, were proved against Smith, who wax liberated on licence in February, 1912, with a remanet of a year and a quarter to serve.
Sentence (each prisoner): Five years' penal servitude.
BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.
(Friday, July 26.)
Mr. Hurrell prosecuted; Mr. W. Scobell Armstrong defended (at the request of the Court).
ALICE JANE MILLAR , 5, Fairholme Road, Fulham, widow. About April 10, prisoner came to me as a tenant of a furnished bed-sitting room; she stayed until May 28. In June I was handed by Colonel Purcell a letter, which is in prisoner's writing, dated June 7, in which she says: "Mrs. Millar, although she was specially warned as to the criminal and dangerous character of Policeman Taylor and his wife and friends, herself admitted them to her own rooms night after night. Taylor introduced her to Mr. Clarke, an American, the destroyer of my brother. Venality resulted; Mrs. Millar showing herself expensively dressed. She to leave town. This policeman, Taylor and party, including desperate prostitutes, to be admitted to the house. Sequel, police court, Mrs. Millar would then re-appear posed as an elegantly attired angel to rescue her trusted servant whom I had victimised. I to be put away as Sarah Leggatt while the real
sarah Leggatt, who has been introduced as Miss Metcalfe, stand in my place and take my share in the inheritance of my aunt. It is a query why Sir Melville Macnaghten allows the poisoning of my brother and the concealment of his death to pass unquestioned while the profiters thereof attempt the perpetration of further crimes."
Cross-examined. Prisoner was a rather nervous lodger; she asked me not to let the rooms next to her's. Colonel Purcell and Major King were in the habit of giving lessons to their pupils in rooms in my house. I only remember one occasion during prisoner's tenancy when I had a few friends visiting me.
Colonel MATTHEW HENRY PURCELL. I occupied rooms at Mrs. Millar's house for the purpose of coaching pupils. I received the letter produced and sent it on to Major King, who worked with me.
Major THOMAS FRASER KING deposed that he received the letter from Colonel Purcell and handed it to prosecutrix. Detective-sergeant THOMAS TAYLOR proved service of the summons upon prisoner; (he was not the "Taylor" referred to in the incriminating letter).
GEORGINA CECILIA METCALFE (prisoner, on oath), made a long, rambling statement, in which she, in effect, repeated the libellous story as to prosecutrix allowing undesirable persons in her rooms and assisting in the persecution of prisoner by the man "Taylor."
Judge Lumley Smith, expressing his belief that the poor lady was out of her mind (although she could not be certified as insane) sentenced prisoner to one month's imprisonment; intimating that an inquiry would doubtless be held as to her mental condition.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Saturday, July 27.)
A married sister of prisoner undertaking to look after him, he was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.
A witness (name not given) having stated that he, a greaser, could immediately take prisoner away to sea, prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Monday, July 22.)
Mr. Eustace Fulton and Mr. Scobell Armstrong prosecuted; Mr. F. St. John Morrow defended.
ALFRED HOLFORD . For the last 13 months I have been a delegate of the Sailors' and Firemen's Union. At about 7.30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 25, I was at Woolwich collecting subscriptions for the union from sailors on board any ships coming in when I met prisoner and a man named Stanley in the Albert Road. I knew them both by sight. Stanley asked me how he stood for his strike pay. I told him to go to the offices of the union and he would be told. I then said to Stanley, "Are you going to work?" Stanley said, "No, I am not going to work." Prisoner then went into the road and a scuffle began between him and a man whom I do not know, who had then come up. I turned round and saw prisoner across the road standing in a doorway. A man was fighting him. Prisoner had a revolver in his hand. I saw a flash and a bullet went through a door near me. Prisoner then fired again and hit me in the ankle. I fell down in the road. Prisoner walked towards the police station and met a police constable who was coming from the station. I was taken on a stretcher to the police station where the divisional surgeon extracted a bullet from my foot. I was afterwards taken to the hospital. I have no doubt at all that it was the prisoner who fired the revolver. I did not from first to last offer any violence of any kind towards the prisoner. He fired straight across the road at me.
Cross-examined. I was not on strike. My union was not on strike then. I swear I am not at all interested in the strike. Two men named Legge and Laing were with me. They were not on strike. They belong to my union. This morning Legge, Laing, and I were charged at East Ham Police Court with intimidating conduct on June 25. Legge and Laing were sentenced to a month's hard labour. My case was remanded till October 22. Sentence was not postponed. I did not know Stanley by name before. I did not speak to prisoner on this occasion. I did not start the conversation by saying to Stanley
in an intimidating way, "Are you going to work?" I think the prisoner intended to shoot me. I do not know why he should do such a thing. I never struck him on the face. I did not hear him say he was going to work. He was wearing his working clothes with a sweater round his neck. We were also wearing our working clothes. It would be wrong to say that prisoner was the only man wearing working clothes. (The witness's deposition taken, before the magistrate was read, in which he said, "Prisoner was the only man dressed in working clothes. ") I was not on picket. There were pickets there. It is not true to say that six men, including myself, beat prisoner down into a doorway. I did not want to stop prisoner from going to work. There were not five men there. I did not fee prisoner hit or kicked. I did not hear prisoner threaten to fire if they did not stop hitting him. The bullet which hit my foot did not rebound from the ground.
CHARLES STANLEY , 48, Greenwich. Road, Greenwich, ship's storekeeper. On June 25 at about 7.15 a.m. I was walking towards the docks with prisoner, when we met the last witness. I had been engaged in friendly conversation with prisoner. Prisoner told me he was going to work; I said I was also going to work. He drew my attention to a revolver he had under his coat. He said if anybody interfered with him he would use it on them. He wore working clothes. I know Hoiford as a delegate of the union. When we met Holford I asked him respecting strike pay. He referred me to the office, and told me I should get all the information I required there. Prisoner then said he was going to work. I looked round at two men who had come up with Holford. Prisoner jumped into the middle of the road and drew his revolver. Some men who were passing began arguing with prisoner on account of his having a revolver. Prisoner jumped back into a doorway. A man then went up to. prisoner in an attitude of striking. Prisoner pointed the reviver at the man's breast and said, "If you hit me I will shoot you." The man then hit prisoner and jumped aside. Prisoner fired; the bullet hit a door on the opposite side of the road, where Holford was standing. Prisoner said, "If anyone else attempts to interfere with me I will shoot him." He then flourished his revolver with the nozzle pointed towards the ground. Holford walked across. Prisoner fired again; I saw Holford limp, and then fall down in the road. Somebody blew a whistle, and a police-constable came up. Prisoner said, "If anybody else comes I will do the same." He then walked towards the police-constable. The shot which hit Holford might have been fired at random. Only the one man offered any violence to prisoner. Holford did not speak to prisoner, nor threaten him by any act.
(Tuesday, July 23.)
seeing it, and he did not do so. I cannot say what made prisoner jump into the middle of the road; I put it down, to his thinking he was going to be threatened. I saw no fists used in the road; the men were only talking to him. They pressed him into a doorway. A man went up to him in a threatening attitude and prisoner held up his revolver and said, "If you hit me I will shoot you." The man hit him and jumped sideways. Then prisoner fired. I did not go to his assistance because there was a policeman coming. The first shot went downwards; I am positive it was not that shot that hit Holford. Prisoner was standing when he fired both shots. I did not see men hitting and kicking him in the doorway. I saw prisoner hand the revolver to the policeman; I saw no one attempt to arrest him. When I said before the magistrate that "the prisoner was attacked by a crowd passing," I meant by their tongues blackguarding him. I only saw one man hit him. I did not, on the inspector asking me if I had told him everything, say to him, "What do you think, guv'nor? It would not pay me to tell you all the truth. I shall get murdered." I said, "I am doing just the very same as you would do in my place. You would not say the delegate hit him if he did not, and I say he did not."
Re-examined. When we met these three men I spoke first. No one was within six yards of prisoner when he fired the second shot. A delegate is not a man who works; he only collects our money. I have heard since that prisoner was not a member of our union, but he did the same sort of work as men in our union did.
EDWARD GURDON FREDERICK , acting divisional surgeon, 48, North Woolwich Road, Silvertown. At 8.15 a.m. on June 25 I extracted this revolver bullet (produced) from the right foot of the prosecutor at the station; from its condition it must have struck some very hard substance before entering the wound horizontally. Prisoner, whom I examined at the same time, had a bruise behind the right ear and a redness of the tissues round the right eye; they were only slight injuries.
Cross-examined. The bullet had reached the bone but not touched it; I think it must have struck the ground first. Prisoner was in a very nervous and excited state.
PETER LAING , ship's storekeeper, 73, Brent Road, Custom House. I am a member of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union. About 6 a.m. on June 25 I met Holford outside the Custom House. He asked me if I would have a walk with him down to Woolwich. I was, in fact, going down there myself and we took the train and walked to the dock and saw the Demosthenes leave; it was Holford's duty, as delegate, to see the ships out and in; he takes the contributions from the men as they are paid. As he, Legge, and myself were coming along the road on our way to the North Woolwich station we met prisoner and Stanley coming from that direction. Stanley asked Holford where he should go and register his name and Holford told him to go to the office in Victoria Dock Road. Prisoner passed into the middle of the road and I saw a scuffle; he and three or four men seemed to be fighting. I did not know him before. I stood on the
pavement. Prisoner backed into a doorway and drew a revolver. Some man must have struck him and prisoner pointed it at his heart. He stepped to one side and prisoner fired. I ran across the road to get it away from him. I was about three feet away when he fired the second shot. He walked down the road. I followed him and told a constable who took the revolver from him. The second shot must have passed through my trousers about nine inches above the ankle; it then struck Holford. I went to the station.
Cross-examined. Our union was on strike in sympathy with the "dockies." The reason I went to the dock with Holford was to see if the Gothic was coming in; I had friends oh board. I was not picketing; there was no need for our union to do that. I cannot say what Legge went for. I swear that Stanley spoke to Holford first. When I saw the scuffle I cannot say the four men were all fighting prisoner. Holford never struck him before he stepped off the path; if he had done so I could not have helped seeing it. I went with Holford to the dock, as I said in my statement, "purely and simply for company "; I also went to see "Stephens," a fireman on the Gothic, which arrived the day after. Prisoner did not hand the revolver to the policeman; the policeman took it from him. I had not the faintest idea of what the scuffle in the middle of the road was about; it did not interest me. I heard prisoner say he would shoot, but nothing about if he was further assaulted, and he shot almost as soon as he spoke.
Re-examined. I went with Holford and Legge just for company. (To the Court.) Although there was a strike on, men were coming in from the ships, and Holford had to report to the secretary and to collect their contributions. We did no picketing, and there had been no trouble with the non-strikers in our department. I was convicted of assaulting prisoner, but I never did so. I have not heard of any trouble in that neighbourhood between strikers and non-strikers.
GEORGE LEGGE , boiler scaler. About 6.30 a.m. on June 25 I was outside the Custom House when I met Holford and Laing, and at Holford's invitation I accompanied them to outside the docks, and saw the Demosthenes start away. We left, and were walking along Albert Road when we saw Stanley and prisoner, whom I, did not know before. Stanley asked Holford where he should register as regards receiving his strike pay, and Holford referred him to the office. I heard no more conversation till I saw prisoner in the middle of the road with two or three men talking to him. The next I saw was prisoner standing with his back in a doorway, with two or three men round him. I heard a report, and then a second shot. I looked round and Holford said, "I'm shot!"and fell on the pavement. I stopped by him, and prisoner made his way towards the police station. I did not see what Laing did. At the constable's request I went to the station.
Cross-examined. We had then been about five weeks on strike. We did not go down to prevent men boarding the Demosthenes; I went with them purely for company; it was too far to walk, so we took a train. I never hit or kicked prisoner. I did not know he was going to work, although he looked to me as if he was going to do so, because
he was wearing a "sweat" rag, and, as far as I could see, he was the only man in working clothes. I was sent to gaol for a month for assaulting him, but I never did so. I am quite sure Holford did not strike prisoner; I cannot suggest why he should have gone into the middle of the road. I did not see the men in the road hit and kick him at any time; he retreated into the doorway because he might have been threatened. I did not hear him threaten to shoot. I did not see him crouching; he may have been in a dangerous position. I did not know what the dispute was about; it may have been over something that happened the night before. I did not see Holford make across the road for him. Laing did cross the road towards prisoner before the second shot was fired; I do not know what he did it for. I went over after the second shot; Holford followed me. I am sure that it was not the first shot that hit Holford. On both shots the revolver was pointing downwards, not pointing at any person in particular.
Re-examined. I never saw Holford offer violence to prisoner or encourage anybody else to do so.
HARRY BROWN , labourer, 48, Albert Road, N. Woolwich. About 7.30 a.m. I was on my bicycle in Albert Road, when I heard a shot. I dismounted, turned and saw prisoner fire another shot at a man who had his back turned towards me. There was nobody nearer to him than six yards. I saw nobody offer violence to him.
Cross-examined. I am at work now. All the witnesses and prisoner are strangers to me. I was about 50 yards away when the first shot was fired, but I could see what was going on. I saw nothing whatever until the first shot was fired. When he fired the second shot his arm was straight out. The policeman went up and took the revolver from him. I was convicted of intimidation and violence.
Police-constable ERNEST WHITE. At 7.35 a.m. on June 25, I was stationed in Albert Road, North Woolwich, when I heard a police whistle blow. I went in the direction and saw prisoner coming towards mo with a revolver in his waistband. I said, "What's this?" and he said, "That is my shooter. About four or five stopped me. I shot one of them in the foot. I fired twice. They punched me about." I took him to the station. On returning I saw Holford lying on the footway, and we conveyed him to the station. The revolver on prisoner had five chambers containing three live cartridges and two discharged. When charged he made no reply. He told me that he had bought the revolver in America early in the year and that the captain of the ship would not allow him to leave until he had got a license for it. Holford, Laing, and Legge were subsequently convicted of intimidation and assault.
Cross-examined. Sentence on Holford has been postponed. Prisoner practically surrendered. He was very agitated and had a slight mark under his right eye, and a bad bruise at the back of his right ear. I should think he had had a good pummelling. (To the Court.) There had not been violence between strikers and nonstrikers before in that neighbourhood, but there had been picketing. Police-sergeant JOHN BROWN, 438K. At 7.30 a.m. on June 25 I
was at the police station when I heard a police whittle. I went out and saw Police-constable White with prisoner. Further along the road I saw Holford sitting on the footway bleeding from a wound in his foot. Laing and Legge gave me his boot and sock. I bandaged his foot and sent for the ambulance.
Cross-examined. On Laing, Legge, and Holford arriving at the station prisoner said those were the three men that set about him, that Holford had struck him in the mouth, and Laing had shaken him.
Detective-inspector WILLIAM BURRELL, K. Division. At 11 a.m. on June 25 I saw prisoner at Woolwich Police Station. I read over the charge to him, and he made no reply. I took statements from him and Stanley. Laing and Legge's statements were taken according to my instructions.
Cross-examined. There had been several cases of violence in this neighbourhood before. When I told prisoner the charge he said, "Yes, I fired the revolver twice, but I did not intend to shoot him or anyone else. I pointed the revolver to the ground. I was hit in the face by Holford and the other men knocked me about. I was afraid I was going to be seriously assaulted, and I fired the revolve to frighten them." There would be danger to a non-Union man if he were surrounded by strikers. He complained of having been kicked and struck. After Stanley had made his statement to me I asked him if that was all he could tell me, and he said, "What do you think, guv'nor. If I was to tell you all I should get murdered. I am doing just the very same as you would do if you were in my place."
CHARLES WILLIAM DOVE (prisoner on oath), ship's fireman, 19, Paradise Place, Woolwich. At about 7.30 a.m. I was going to the Cambrian, where I was employed, and crossing the Woolwich ferry I met Stanley. Going along the Albert Road we met Holford, Laing, and Legge. Holford asked Stanley if he was going to work. I replied, "Yes, I am going to work. "Holford struck me across the mouth and I went into the road where there were three more men—to clear them. I had had stones thrown at me by strikers several times previously. They all surrounded me and got me into the doorway. Laings Book me, Legge kicked me, and two other men punched me. I was pressed down on to my knees. I shouted, "If you don't clear off I'll fire," and drew my revolver and pointed it down. I believed I was in serious danger and fired the revolver to the ground to frighten them. I should say it was the first shot that struck Holford. I fired twice and said I was going to the police station. I met a policeman and handed him the revolver. I was struck by something hard behind my right ear and my ear has been discharging ever since and I am still an out-patient.
Cross-examined. I loaded the revolver that morning on leaving
home for protection, not intending to use it unless I had great cause to. I did not say to Stanley, "I've got a mate with me. If anyone attempts to interfere with me I shall use it "; I said, "I have a good mate." I did not shout for help, although I knew there was a police station close by. Holford was quite close to me when I fired both shots.
EDGAR WILLIAM BARFOOT , clerk. About 7.30 a.m. on June 25 I was walking along Albert Road when I saw five or six men stop prisoner and Stanley, who were just in front of me. The question was asked, "Where are you going?" and prisoner replied, "Work." I had proceeded about ten yards when I heard a scuffle. I saw prisoner struck in the mouth and kicked by the man who had spoken to him; I had the impression that it was Holford, but as I see him now I do not know him. I went on a little way and on turning round again I saw prisoner in the roadway trying to edge his way out of five or six men who were hemming him in. One of them sparred up to him and prisoner produced a revolver and waved it. The man sparring ducked and rushed at him. The men had rushed him into a doorway. They then started hitting him as he was crouching to the ground. Prisoner then fired a shot in the direction of a man standing in the road; the revolver was pointed to the ground. As the men were scattering he fired another shot in the direction of a man standing on the footpath. Prisoner then went to a policeman and gave his revolver up. When at the station he was dazed and trembling. It was the first shot that wounded Holford.
Cross-examined. I thought when I saw the first scuffle that prisoner was in immediate danger, but I did not go to his assistance as I was thunderstruck. The man who was wounded drew back before the first shot was fired. Prisoner was standing when he fired and the nearest man was about six yards from him.
EDWARD STAFFORD NORTHCOTT , assistant superintendent engineer to Atlantic Transport Company. Prior to June 25 prisoner had been working on our ship, the Cambrian. On June 25 he was expected to be at work at 6.45 a.m.
Verdict, Not guilty.
Verdict (July 25), Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, July 24.)
Mr. J. P. Grain prosecuted; (Mir. Curtis Bennett and Mr. Forrest Fulton defended.
At the conclusion of Mr. Grain's opening.
Mr. Fulton said, acting upon his advice, prisoner would withdraw his plea of not guilty and plead guilty. A verdict of Guilty was entered accordingly.
Evidence was called to character, and to the effect that prisoner was a careful driver; he held a clean license.
Sentence: Two month' imprisonment, second division.; particulars of this conviction and sentence to be endorsed upon prisoner's license.
CASE POSTPONED: WHITE, R., AND SONS, LIMITED. BILL IGNORED: KLOMPS, GERRIT, J.