Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 6.0, 24 April 2014), May 1873 (t18730505).

Old Bailey Proceedings, 5th May 1873.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

Sessions Paper.

WATERLOW, MAYOR.

SEVENTH SESSION, HELD MAY 5TH, 1873.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND, BY

JAMES DROVER BARNETT

AND

ALEXANDER BUCKLER,

Short-hand Writers to the Court,

ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.

VOL. LXXVIII.

SESSIONS VII. TO XII.

THE POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE

REVISED AND EDITED, BY

EDWARD T. E. BESLEY, ESQ.,

OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW.

LONDON:

STEVENS & SONS, 119, CHANCERY LANE.

THE

WHOLE PROCEEDINGS

On the Queen's Commission of

OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY

FOR

The City of London,

AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY, WITHIN THE JURISDICTION

OF THE

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

Held on Monday, May 5th, 1873, and following days,

BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. SIR SYDNEY HEDLEY WATERLOW , KNT. LORD MAYOR of the City of London; The Hon. Sir WILLIAM ROBERT GROVE , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; The Hon. Sir GEORGE DENMAN , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench; Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEN , Knt., WILLIAM FERNRLEY ALLEN, Esq., ROBERT BESLEY , Esq., WILLIAM JAMES RICHMOND COTTON , Esq., CHARLES WHETHAM, Esq., WILLIAM MCARTHUR , Esq., M.P., and JOHN WHITTAKER ELLIS, Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q.C., M.P., Common Serjeant of the said City (acting as Deputy-Recorder); and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR , Esq., LL.D., Judge of the Sheriffs' Court; Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery of Newgate, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

THOMAS WHITE , Esq., Alderman.

FREDERICK PERKINS , Esq.

Sheriffs.

ARTHUR TURNER HEWETT , Esq.

ALEXANDER CROSLEY , Esq.

Under Sheriffs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

WATERLOW, MAYOR. SEVENTH SESSION.

A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—an obelisk (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters—the figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.

OLD COURT—Monday, May 5th, and Tuesday, May 6th, and

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, May 7th, 1873.

Before Mr. Deputy Recorder.

321. MICHAEL GOLDSMITH (28), LEWIS GOLDSMITH (31), and REBECCA GOLDSMITH (26), were indicted (together with MONTAGUE GOLDSMITH , not in custody), for unlawfully conspiring to obtain from Charles Drayson and others articles of jewellery, to the amount of 15,000l., with intent to defraud. Other Counts—for conspiring to obtain goods from Henry Charman and others, and to steal the same goods, and for conspiracy to forge acceptances to certain bills of exchange, with intent to defraud.

MR. METCALFE, Q.C., with MESSRS. STRAIGHT and GOODMAN conducted the Prosecution; MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS, with MR. CHARLES MATTHEWS, appeared for Michael; MR. F. H. LEWIS, with MR. MEAD, for Lewis; and MR. H. S. GIFFARD, Q.C., with MR. POLAND, for Rebecca Goldsmith.

After MR. METCALFE had opened the case, MR. GIFFARD applied to the Court to call on the Prosecution to elect upon which set of counts they would proceed; there were 14 counts, disclosing different offences, and in respect of each of the prisoners very different questions would arise, which were calculated to embarrass the Defence; in cases of felony there was no doubt the Court had authority to do this, and although this was a misdemeanor the principle was the same.

The DEPUTY RECORDER was of opinion that the counts charging conspiracy to forge and utter (via., the 7th and 8th) might be open to objection on the ground suggested, but that (he other counts were not open to that objection.

MR. METCALFE, therefore, did not propose to proceed upon those two counts.

CHARLES DUPIN DRAYSON . I carry on business with my father and brothers as diamond merchants and manufacturing jewellers, at 15 and 16, Brewer Street, Golden Square, under the style of Drayson & Son—I have known Montague Goldsmith for some considerable time; prior to certain transactions with me I had known him as being in the employ of Mr. Harry Emanuel, and other large jewellers—I first became acquainted with Michael Goldsmith about two years ago—I know nothing of Lewis—I have seen Rebecca twice at 66, Conduit Street-Montague Goldsmith carried on

business there, and Michael assisted him—the first transaction I had with Montague was about two and a half years ago, in October, 1870—down to April, 1872, the transactions between us had not been of a very extensive character—I let him have goods on approbation to show to customers—I would let him have sundry articles to show to customers, and if he sold one or more of them they were charged to him—sometimes they were sold to a specific customer, and sometimes merely on a statement that he wanted goods to show to a, customer—I fixed the price—they were all marked—when a sale was effected I was to be informed of it, and we invoiced it to him; if not sold it was returned—there was no limit within which goods given to him on approbation were to be returned—no limit was absolutely fixed—it was not to pass into his stock except in particular cases—he had no authority from me to sell at a lower price than that which I fixed—in April last year the transactions between us began to increase—up to that time he had paid me by bills and cash—in April, 1872, Montague Goldsmith gave me a reason for increasing the transactions between us—he told me that he was related to Sir Benjamin Phillips, who had promised to give him some introductions to rich people—I have my books here—during the year 1872 I continued letting him have goods on approbation—some portion of those goods were charged to him, as I have described, and other portions were left in his hands—about the 18th or 19th of December last year I received some communication from Messrs. Charman—in consequence of that information I instituted certain inquiries in reference to the property I had handed to Montague—at that time I had let him have articles of jewellery on approbation to the amount of 6, 500l.—those were goods that had been invoiced—he had also a number of goods, still in the approbation book, to the amount of about 10,000l.—this is the ledger (produced)—there is an approbation book as well—when goods were first handed to him they were entered in the approbation book—the approbation book will show when the goods went out of our premises to him—if a sale was effected, and he informed me of it, it would go into the journal first, and then to the ledger—I have the journal here—Montague Goldsmith had already started in business when we first supplied him—the first transaction with him was on the 12th April, when he had eight scarf pins on approbation—I did not make the entry, my clerk did, my cousin, Alfred Drayson—I have no recollection of the transaction—the first transaction that I recollect was on 15th October, 1872; that was a butterfly brooch in brilliants, that he had for 160l.—the entry is not my writing, my cousin made that, and nearly all the entries in this book; it was his duty to make entries both in the approbation book and the ledger, under my instructions—I find in the ledger that that butterfly brooch is charged to Montague on 23rd of that month—at the time he got that he said that he hoped to sell it to Sir Walter Riddell—he made a statement to me, upon which I debited him with the amount—I have not been paid for it—the diamonds of which it was composed have been returned to me by Mr. Whitfield—the next item charged to him is a pearl necklace, worth 3, 500l., on 31st October—he said he thought it would suit a customer he had—he brought it back to me two or three times, and eventually he told me he had sold it to Alderman Truscott—he made a statement which induced me to debit him with it—at first it was brought back to me every evening—I said it was such a valuable article, and it was safer in our house, as we had persons always on the premises—before it was represented to me as being sold, he kept it for three or four days, telling me that he could

only see his customer very early in the morning or late in the evening, when our premises were closed—he then mentioned the customer's name—he had it in his possession for about three days before it was charged to him—it was charged to him on 31st October—it has been returned to me since—I got it from Mr. Hennell, a diamond merchant, of Southampton Street, Bloomsbury—that was after these proceedings—on 6th November Montague Goldsmith came and selected jewellery to the amount of about 9,000l.—some he selected, and some of it was out on approbation elsewhere, and we sent it to him—he said that he was going to show them to Sir Anthony Rothschild, who was about having a wedding in his family—he said the house was at Gunnersbury—of the jewellery that he then selected he afterwards returned to me something like 4,000l. worth—among the articles he returned were a brilliant bracelet, an emerald bracelet, some emerald earrings, a brilliant locket, a brilliant head ornament, a ruby and brilliant earring, an emerald ring, and a sapphire and brilliant ring—they were all obtained within a day or two of the same time; some were delivered to him at the time—the price of the bracelet was 1, 650l.; the emerald bracelet, 650l.; the set of emerald ear-rings, 750l.; a pearl locket, 250l.; a brilliant head ornament, 840l.; the ruby and brilliant ring, 170l.; that was not had at the same time; I sent it in consequence of the statement; I did not send it myself, my cousin did, and also the emerald and brilliant ring, and the sapphire and brilliant ring—in reference to the bracelet for 1, 650l., he mentioned the name of Sir Sills Gibbons, and he showed me two bills of exchange; he handed one to me; these (produced) are them; they are for 975l. each—(these were drawn on 20th November, 1872, by Montague Goldsmith, at six and four months, and purported to be accepted by Sir Sills John Gibbons)—I don't recollect Michael coming to me about any of these articles—they were charged to Montague Goldsmith—among others, the brilliant bracelet—that is the only one out of the lot that was charged—down to the beginning of December Michael often used to come for goods—I could not particularise which—he would come and ask for goods—I understood they were for his brother—I understood that he was assisting his brother in business—he said he was assistant to his brother—about the beginning of December, Montague Goldsmith came to me, and wanted some drawings made for bridesmaids' lockets for a wedding—he said it was a wedding in the Pakenham family; that a Colonel Pakenham and a Captain Pakenham were going to be married, two brothers—he said there would be two or three expensive presents made, and would I let him have a few things to show—in consequence of what he said to me drawings were made—he called, and the drawings were handed to him—he said he would take them and show them to the parties, and he did take them—he brought them back—he said they were approved of, and gave me the order to make the lockets—there was a mistake in one drawing, in one of the initial letters—that order was put in hand—I think eleven lockets were made—this memorandum is in Montague's handwriting, I believe—"Colonel Thomas Pakenham—bride, Jane Louisa Fitzolarence—Captain C. Douglas Pakenham—bride, Mary Helen Scott—bridesmaids' lockets, Henrietta Fitzclarence, Julia Emma and Annie Fitzclarence, Louisa Scott, Elizabeth Scott, Jane Julia and Maria Scott"—that is the paper that relates to the lockets, this other paper he brought with him—I should say it was in the same writing—he said he thought what he had written on this paper was what would be given as presents to each bride—he asked me if I had such

things in stock—this is the second paper: "Head ornament, bracelets, earrings, brooch, about 1200l., head ornament 500l. or 600l., the bracelets 200l. or 300l., the earrings 300l. or 400l., the brooch, pearls, and diamonds"—that was for one bride—then there is "Head ornament with bracelet, earrings, and brooch, all in diamonds, the head ornament 500l. or 700l., the brooch 300l. or 400l., the earrings from 300l. to 400l."—the brooch, head ornament and pearls were to be given by Captain Charles Pakenham, and the diamonds by Colonel Thomas Pakenham—I told him that I had not a suite of diamonds in stock; I had a pearl suite, they were black pearls and diamonds—I showed that suite to him, it consisted of a bracelet, necklace, and a pair of earrings—the price of the bracelet was 330l., the necklace 550l., and the earrings 375l.—he said he thought it was very likely to suit his customer, and they were afterwards sent to him, to the best of my belief—shortly after that he came and told me that the pearl suite was chosen, and he wanted a drawing for a head ornament to match it—I had a drawing made and handed it to him, this (produced) is it—he took it away with him—he said the lady was herself a very good draughtswoman, and might wish to make a design herself or to suggest some alteration in it—he afterwards brought the design back, and said that the lady approved of it—that was about the 17th or 18th December—that head ornament was to be made ensuite with the black pearls—the bracelet, necklace, and earrings were brought back for the pattern to be followed, and a new case was to be made to contain them all—I was not at home when they were fetched away—I had just begun to make the head ornament when I received a communication from Mr. Charman—in consequence of what he told me I gave certain instructions to my cousin, Alfred Drayson, in consequence of which he afterwards produced to me some articles of jewellery to the value of about 5,000l.—I never saw Montague Goldsmith after the day when he brought that design back to me—I do not remember anything about a collet diamond necklace—I know we had one in stock of the value of 680l.—a collet necklace consists of a single row of diamonds, single stones set together—I have seen Michael Goldsmith at our premises dozens of times—I did not personally see him in reference to the black pearl suite—he used to come and ask for goods when they were wanted for customers, I presume for his brother's customers, and he has had those goods—I don't recollect an instance in which I have handed him goods—since the communication from Mr. Charman I have seen a large quantity of our property.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. We have no shop—ours is a wholesale business—we let the retailers have the goods principally on approbation—sometimes they buy, and sometimes they have them on approbation—we have supplied persons like Emanuel's and Streeter's with goods on approbation—ours is principally that kind of trade, and making things to order—we have at this moment jewellery to the amount of 40,000l. out on approbation—sometimes it is paid for by bills; I should say the greater portion—E. and E. Emanuels is a house with which we do a good deal of business—when I send them goods I send an approbation note of them, and if they find customers they are invoiced to them, they are not invoiced to them at first—that is our way of dealing, and they pay us sometimes in bills and sometimes in cash—my father and brother are my partners—I began the dealings with Montague—my father is scarcely ever in the business—I treated Montague as the principal—the goods were entered to him in the ledger account—it was simply put in the approbation book "Goldsmith"—

but I understood it to be Montague, the acceptances were his—as far as I gave any credit at all I gave credit to Montague, and to Montague alone.

Cros-examined by MR. GIFFARD. These things, to whoever they are entered, are all entered in the same way—the terms upon which they are entered are the same to everybody—they are all on the tame system—if Emanuel's, or any one of those gentlemen had 1,000l. worth of jewellery on approbation, and called and said, "Invoice that brooch to me," I should do it as a matter of course—the transactions were opened with Montague Goldsmith on the same system—he was shopman at Emanuel's—he began dealing with me about October, 1870—he was then living at 15, Colville Terrace, and getting a place ready for business in Conduit Street—I did one or two very trifling matters of business with him then—he came and had a few things to show:—if he sold them, well; if not, he returned them—I could not say how long that continued—I think it was in January, 1871, that he first had a place of business of his own—I have only known him in one place of business—no show was made in the window—there was a case in the shop containing jewellery, not in the window—there was simply a wire-blind to the window with his name on it, "Montague Goldsmith, jeweller and diamond merchant, "I think, but I am not quite sure—I knew that he had no stock of his own—he had no authority to sell below my price; if he put them above he would have the profit—when I have used the words price and value, I mean my price for the goods—I have received altogether from Montague about 5,000l.—besides that I have received bills accepted by himself, some of which have been met and some not—I have received back a pearl necklace from Mr. Hennell—I had received 1,000l. in part payment of that from Montague—the first entry of the butterfly brooch would be in the approbation book—the journal and ledger show the same thing entered in the same way—on one or two occasions he has had a thing in a great hurry, and a memorandum has simply been made upon a slate that we keepperhaps he has taken it, and said "I will bring it back in an hour, if it is not sold"—with that exception, the others are all like the entries I am going to show you—the first is on 15th October, at page 283, in the approbation book, a butterfly brooch, that is entered in the journal on 23rd October, at page 391, and on the same day in the ledger, folio 499; you will only be able to find it by a number; it has the folio of the journal in red ink written across it, 391—it is not entered in the name of Goldsmith—the things struck out were returned—there are thirty-one articles—I can tell you by referring to the stock-book what they are—the aggregate value of the whole entry would be about 2,000l., and of the articles returned about 1, 500l.—they are struck out when they are returned—we could not tell on what day they are returned—I don't know over what period the returns of those articles extended, there is nothing by which I could tell you—he had them in his possession from 15th October until the 23rd—the two columns in the journal are in case of there being several articles in one invoice—they are in separate items in the first column, and in one item in the second column; wherever it consisted of one article it would be duplicated, and where it consisted of several articles it would be in one; the second column is the aggregate of the whole order—this is the ledger account—all the transactions were upon the same system, goods-supplied on approbation, returned, and struck out by the red mark—I will put pieces of paper in the different places where the supplies on approbation are marked.

Re-examined, I should not accept a sale from him below my own price—there is only one instance in which I made a slight reduction of price, and that was by special arrangement—if a gentleman of position like Mr. Emanuel sent to me to charge him with goods sent on approbation, I should do it at once, I should do it with anybody if I believed they had sold them, I should not charge them to a person like Goldsmith unless I believed he had actually sold them to a customer—the cash was not paid at the time of charging, it was always a quarterly account; there would be no bills or cash paid while the goods were on approbation only—the goods on approbation would not be included in the quarterly account—the 5,000l. I received from Goldsmith includes all, from the commencement of my dealings with him from October, 1870—the greater part of that 5,000l. consisted of bills which were met—the 5,000l. includes everything that was paid; it does not include the bills that were dishonoured—I received back the necklace from Mr. Hennell some time in January—during this inquiry we threatened him with an action to recover it, and he was also summoned as a witness to the Police Court—he then brought it to us, and gave it up, and said he would not have any more trouble about it.

ALFRED DRAYSON . I am a cousin of the last witness, and assist him in carrying on the business in Brewer Street—I know Montague, Michael, and Rebecca Goldsmith—there were transactions between the firm in Conduit Street and our firm—sometimes Montague gave us orders and sometimes Michael; it was about equal—when I went to their place I more generally saw Michael—they used to enquire for some specific article on approbation—when I have gone to Conduit Street and seen Michael, I have had conversations with him about the things; I used to ask 'about different articles had from us on approbation, and if they were out at a customer's he would say so—I used to call there two or three times a week—Michael was more generally there—I have seen Rebecca there four or five times, perhaps six—when goods were obtained, I frequently took them myself from Brewer Street to Conduit Street, and delivered them either to Michael or Montague, whichever was at home—there was no clerk—in October, by the last witness's direction, I took the 3, 500l. pearl necklace which has been spoken of and three lockets, value 225l., and some other articles to Conduit Street, and saw either Montague or Michael—I went for the pearl necklace again in the evening—sometimes he used to bring it, and sometimes I fetched it; it was taken back and brought again in the morning for about a week—I remember Montague coming and seeing my cousin, but I was not with him—I took it again one morning after that and saw Montague, I believe, but I do not remember sufficiently—the same arrangement was made that he was to return it in the evening, and I left it, as explained by my cousin—I do not think I saw it after that—it was first left on 22nd October, and finally left about October 28th or 29th—I had no conversation with Michael as to whether it was sold or not; it was all with Montague—on 4th November I took the 9,000l. worth of goods selected for the wedding to Conduit Street, and saw Rebecca and her sister; I said that I had brought her brother some things to show, she said that he was out—I said that I would wait, and I would enter them to save time—while I was opening the cases they looked at the different things and admired them; they said that it was a treat to see the ornaments, as their brother never allowed them to look at anything—the conversation was general—I do not know which said that, they both took part in it—the brothers both came in at that time, while I

was entering the goods on a piece of paper which I had brought—they had not to sign that paper—nothing was said to Rebecca, or in her presence, as to what they were brought for—I believe they asked about the price of one of the articles, casually, in the course of conversation—I left the goods when Montague and Michael came in, and among them were the articles stolen—they were left on 4th November, and about two or three days afterwards I went there for two or three articles which I wanted, and I asked him to make a return of the things he had, the brilliant head ornament and the bracelet specifically—he said that they were out at a customer's—I frequently spoke to Michael about them—I enquired for them four or five times, and he always told me that they were out at a customer's—the last enquiry I made was within a day or two of the explosion of the affair, about the middle of December—I also enquired of Michael about other goods which had been left, and he used always to say if he could not give them to me that they were out at some customer's—on 14th November a diamond cross was charged, I believe it was on Michael's statement, but I cannot remember sufficiently; my cousin has that diamond cross in Court—it was sent on 22nd October, and charged on 14th November—either I or my cousin have seen all these other articles—on 7th November a bracelet, value 420l., was had on approbation, and it is charged on the 16th on Montague's statement—I have since seen it in the hands of Richardson, in pawn—I called many times to make enquiries about it, and generally saw Montague; I don't think I saw Michael about that—on 7th December, Montague came to Brewer Street about a diamond star and some earrings—I told him that they had been standing some time, and I desired to clear them—he said "Those two are sold"—I wrote a memorandum at that time in consequence of what he said, namely, that Michael knew to whom they were sold—I addressed the memorandum to the firm, it is, "Dear Sirs; Please give bearer the diamond earrings, "giving the numbers, "as we have a good chance. Alfred Drayson and Sons, "on the back of which Montague wrote, "Dear Mike: I think you will find the earrings are sold to Lady Truscott or somebody else, if so, please say. "That was sent by a messenger, and this answer was returned, which is I believe in Michael's writing, but they write so much alike I cannot say—it says, "Dear Sir: The earrings (giving the numbers) sold, yours truly, Montague Goldsmith"—Montague was not at my place when I went back—I frequently received letters from them both, which, whether they came from one or the other, were signed "Montague Goldsmith"—In consequence of that statement, I charged those earrings—I have since seen them produced by a pawnbroker during this enquiry—on 7th November a pair of brilliant three-drop earrings were had on approbation—I don't remember taking them; I went to enquire after them, and I believe I saw Montague—after the goods had been sent for the wedding, Montague called in Brewer Street—I did not deliver them, I sent them by a porter to Conduit Street—I saw the black pearls when they were brought back again to have a head ornament made to match—Michael came down about them one morning about 9th December, and said that the customer was coming to his place to see them with the lady to whom they were to be given, and he wanted them to show them—I said "We cannot very well spare them, the case is going to be re-lined, "but I let him have them, and never saw them again; that was about a week before the catastrophe—I have since seen those black pearls in pawn—about 27th November, Michael came and I let him have about a dozen rings, which

were all returned but one, which stood open on approbation till the affair exploded, and I hare since seen it in the hands of a pawnbroker—Montague also asked me for a collet necklace, value 680l., and told me he wanted it for a customer in the country—when I gave it to him, he said that that was about the thing, and it was sent in a parcel to Conduit Street—I have since seen it in the hands of the pawnbroker—that is not charged, it is still on approbation—when this affair became known I went and received about 5,000l. Worth of property from Conduit Street—I saw Michael, and said that we were going to take stock, and I should like him to clear up as near as he could all the goods he had had on approbation—I saw one book at that time, but did not see the inside of it to see whether it was a ledger—on 9th October, 1871, a ruby, emerald, and brilliant ring, No.155, was had on approbation; it has never been charged—I conversed with Michael about it about July, 1872, who told me it was with a customer in the City—I have since seen it in the pawnbroker's possession—I did not knew that any of these things were sent to the pawnbroker's, but afterwards I went to Liverpool, and saw Mr. Whitfield, who handed me two duplicates and some diamonds, some of which formed part of the butterfly brooch—he also gave me the centre stone of the diamond, ruby, and emerald ring, which has been spoken of—I can say that this stone formed part of that ring—I have seen the other two stones elsewhere—they constituted the ring—I took the tickets that were handed to me by Whitfield, and have been to the pawnbroker's and seen our goods—one ticket relates to a brilliant French bracelet, value 270l., which was sent on approbation about May, 1872—a brilliant half-hoop ring, sent on approbation on 14th September, 1872, value 63l., is a mistake, it should be a ring of 35l., that is not the one returned by Whitfield—the ring pawned at Rowley's, in Ledbury Road, was a brilliant half-hoop ring, value 35l., which was sent on April 20th, 1871, and was charged later on the same day, on the representation that it was sold.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I do not know exactly whether it was paid for or not, because there were renewals—I will not say that it was not—I am not a partner of Mr. Drayson's, and I have no power to give credit—if Mr. Charles Drayson says that he gave credit to Montague Goldsmith, he would know better than me—Michael did not say that he had been sent by his brother for the pearl ornaments, he said that he had come down for them—that was about 9th December, 1872, and I mean to say that I can recollect very nearly the identical words he used—when I saw Rebecca in Conduit Street she had her bonnet on.

Cross-examined by MR. LEWIS. I was present when Lewis Goldsmith was examined before the Magistrate on the part of the defence—I had seen him before, sitting in the shop in Conduit Street—the prosecution was directed against him at the instance of my cousin, of the firm, and Mr. Charman.

CHARLES STIRRUP . I am porter to Messrs. Drayson—on 7th December I took this piece of paper (produced) from Mr. Alfred Drayson to 66, Conduit Street, and saw Michael Goldsmith write upon it, but not on the back of it—I never saw anybody write on this other piece of paper.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. This paper is the one Alfred Drayson gave me to go for the things, and Michael gave me a pair of earrings and a set of studs, and told me that the others were sold, and I stood there while he wrote this paper: (This was dated December 7th, 1872.

To Messrs, Drayson: "Dear Sirs,—Earrings 47, 300-2, 500 sold. Yours truly,

Montague Goldsmith")—he wrote that in the office—he had the books before him at the time, but he never looked at them—he copied the numbers from this.

Re-examined. I should not know the books again—they were closed.

Tuesday, May 6th, 1873.

SIR WALTER RIDDELL, BART . I know nothing whatever of the Goldsmiths—it is not true that I purchased a butterfly brooch—I never saw or heard anything of it—the signature to this bill is not mine, nor written by my authority—I have no knowledge whatever of it.

SIR GEORGE BELL , Bart This bill of acceptance is not in my handwriting; it is a forgery—it was not written by my authority—I never heard of the Goldsmiths at all.

DR. LOCKHART CLARKE . These two acceptances are not in my handwriting, nor written by my authority—I have never had any dealings with the Goldsmiths, and know nothing of them.

GEORGE SOOVELL . These are not my acceptances nor signatures, nor written by my authority—I never had any dealings with the Goldsmiths, nor ordered any goods from them—I know nothing of them in any way.

GEORGE HARRIS . I am assistant to Messrs. Charman & Sons, of 4, Beak Street, wholesale jewellery manufacturers, and dealers in precious stones—I first made the acquaintance of Montague Goldsmith on the 2nd of May, 1872—he was carrying on business at 66, Conduit Street at that time—on the 2nd May, by Mr. Charman's directions, I went to 66, Conduit Street—I found Michael and Montague there—I had taken with me four bracelets and a brooch, in consequence of Instructions from Mr. Charman—I told them I had brought the goods by the direction of Mr. Charman—Montague said "We will give you an answer in two or three days"—I am sure he said "We"—nothing further was said at that time—a day or so after that Michael came to my master's premises with a bracelet and a brooch—that was one of the bracelets and the brooch that I had left—the value of the bracelet was 460l.—certain instructions were given by Michael in reference to it, for alterations to be made in it—these instructions were carried into effect, and I afterwards took the article to the premises in Conduit Street, and handed it to Montague—it was charged to Montague about the 6th May, on the representation that it was sold—it would not be charged to him unless it had been signed—on 13th May I went again to 66, Conduit Street, and saw Montague Goldsmith—he required a set of half-hoop rings—he said he wanted them to show a customer—I afterwards communicated that matter to my master, and I took some rings to Montague the same day—there were about a dozen, and amongst them was a diamond halfhoop ring, worth 85l.—that was retained, and the remainder were returned—he was charged with that 852. ring a few days afterwards—it was charged on the 4th of June to Montague Goldsmith—he said it was sold to a customer—on 8th July I went to Conduit Street again—Montague said he wanted some head ornaments, bracelets, and brooches for a customer—I supplied him with some—amongst those articles there was a bracelet which Michael brought back to Mr. Charman's to be arranged as a bracelet, the brooch to take away and serve at pleasure; it was a bracelet band with a brooch centre—those instructions were carried into effect—Michael said he wanted it in an hour to deliver to his customer the following morning—it was done in accordance with his request—I took it back and left it at Conduit

Street, with either Montague or Michael, I could not say which—I have seen Michael on the occasions when I went to Conduit Street more frequently than Montague—the bracelet which was altered was charged to Montague on or about the 13th—the head ornament, which had been sent with the bracelet, was charged to Montague on 27th July, one of the lot which had been sent on the 8th—that was worth 270l.—on the 27th Montague required some drawings for earrings, and I had an interview with him at his own premises—I could not say for certain whether Michael was present—Montague said he wanted the drawing of the earrings to show a customer—some drawings were made—at that time he said he wanted a brilliant necklace to show a customer, and that necklace, worth 550l., was taken by me to Conduit Street—that necklace was afterwards charged to him on the 7th August—on the same day that it was charged he had some earrings, some brooches, and some bracelets—he said he wanted them to show a customer—all those articles were returned, except a bracelet, a pair of earrings, and a brooch—the earrings were charged to him on 15th August, at 225l.; the bracelet on the 23rd, at 525l.; and the brooch remained on approbation until the 13th November, when it was charged to him at 140l.—on 3rd August I delivered a large quantity of jewellery at Conduit Street, at the request of Montague; amongst those articles was a pair of earrings worth 185l.—they were charged to Montague on 5th October—on 14th October I delivered to him a necklace worth 300l.; it was charged to him on the 17th—I remember a transaction on the 21st October—I went to Conduit Street, and saw Montague—he mentioned certain things he wanted—they were articles of considerable value, and I told him they were rather more than I could let him have, he had better call and see Mr. Charman—he came round and saw Mr. Charman—he made a selection of a large quantity of valuable things, amongst them was a bracelet worth 200l—he was charged with that on 25th October—there was also a pair of earrings in the shape of bees, worth 100l., and a bracelet worth 220l.; they were also charged to him on the 25th October, and at that time he had some further articles, amongst them was a bracelet worth 525l.—he was charged with that on the 13th November—there was another bracelet worth 150l., and a pair of earrings worth 210l.—he was also charged with those on 13th November—on 26th November he had a bracelet worth 510l., and a head ornament worth 465l.—he was charged with the bracelet on 28th November, and with the head ornament on 2nd December—on 30th November he had a necklace of the value of 750l., which was charged to him three or four days afterwards—on 11th December he was charged with a bracelet worth 375l., which he had on 23rd October; and on 16th December he was charged with a brooch worth 735l., had on 21st October—on 5th December I went to Conduit Street—I saw both Montague and Michael there—Montague asked me in Michael's presence for some diamond ornaments for a double wedding, some pearls, and some diamonds—I told him I could not let him have them, he must come round and see Mr. Charman—I said the amount was too large—he said he would come round, and he told me not to take notice to anyone else in the trade, lest they should find out his customer—later in the day he came round to Mr. Charman's—I was present at the interview which took place—he told Mr. Charman the same that he told me, that he wanted the goods for a double wedding—that is all I recollect—he was allowed to select certain goods, and he took away with him a pearl bracelet worth 450l., a diamond bracelet worth 600l., a

pearl and diamond locket, 210l., and catseye diamond locket, 1, 150l.; a pearl and diamond brooch, 150l.; a diamond brooch, 280l.; diamond earrings, 350l.; a second set of diamond earrings, 575l.; and a diamond aigrette, worth 1, 600l., which is a circle of diamonds with a feather attached to it—a few days afterwards I called at 66, Conduit Street with reference to those articles—I saw Michael—I told him I had called in reference to the goods; I wanted some of them back—I might have asked for some particular ornament, I could not now say which, but it was in reference to those goods that I called—he said, "They are out with a customer, and I can't disturb them"—I called again on several occasions, I should say half a dozen times—I made the same request—sometimes I saw Montague afterwards, not always Michael—the answer I got was that they were still out, and he would give me an answer in two or three days—I saw Michael on the last occasion I called—ultimately I got back the pearl and diamond locket—I should think a week afterwards—I am not certain whether Montague or Michael gave it to me—I got back four of the other articles besides that, ultimately leaving the diamond aigrette, the pearl half-hoop bracelet, the earrings, and the diamond cluster brooch—the pearl bracelet was 450l., and the earrings 575l.—I have seen Rebecca there when I have called in reference to these articles—she had been in the room when I have asked Michael and Montague about them—on 22nd November a diamond star brooch of the value of 145l. was entrusted to Montague on approbation—Michael seemed to be active in the business at Conduit Street as well as Montague—when I have made enquiries of him he has always answered them—I have not charge of the books—I don't know anything of them, I merely take the things out, therefore I cannot speak as to the amount charged—the cash paid, I think, was about 1, 450l. in round figures—the first article that was ordered was paid for by an acceptance, which was met; and there were two cash payments afterwards of 500l. and 450l. each—Michael made those payments.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I believe the bills were acceptances of Montague—when Michael paid me he handed me the money in notes—I am assistant at Messrs. Charman's—my duties are to call on the trade for orders—I have been sixteen years in Messrs. Charman's employ—I try to serve my master as actively as I can—I have nothing to do with the ledger at all—it is in Court—I have got the approbation book—the circles round some of the figures mean when the goods were sold—the goods are represented by certain numbers, and when they are sold the numbers are encircled, and when they are not sold the numbers remain, and the goods are returned—Messrs. Charman do a very large business with the chief west-end jewellers—it is all approbation business—I can't tell how much they have out at the present time, at times to a very large amount—when an article was kept Montague said, "Charge it, and send an invoice"—I never enquired who his customers were—it was not my business to do so—we received cash 1, 450l.—one was on a bill for 460l.—for the balance, 6, 950l., we only hold Montague Goldsmith's acceptances—on the occasion that I saw Michael, he said the goods were at a customer's, and he could not disturb them, he said his brother Montague was out—he has also told me that on other occasions, and it was in consequence of that that I called again and saw Montague, when he was at home.

Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. I could not say how often I have been to the place at Conduit Street—I have called for three or four months,

perhaps five months, every other day—my visits have extended over a twelvemonth—that was the sort of way in which I used to go there—Rebecca has been in the room occasionally when conversations took place—I was examined before the Magistrate—I never said "Rebecca was never present at the discussions between Montague and me"—to the best of my belief I never said that—it is really so long ago I hardly know what took place—I said I could not give any date when she was present.

Re-examined. When I saw Michael he said he could not give me an answer, because his brother was out—he could not give me an answer until he had seen his brother—he did not say who the customer was, a gentleman or a lady—he said his brother had gone to see the customer—in consequence of that I went again to ascertain whether the customer had kept any of the goods—I more frequently saw Michael than Montague—I could not say how many times Michael has told me that goods were with customers—he did not always say so when I called—he often said so.

SIB SILLS JOHN GIBBONS, BART . I know nothing of the Goldsmith family, nor any of these Goldsmith's—until I was summoned to Marlborough Street, I did not know such persons were in existence—it is not true that I bought a brilliant bracelet worth 1, 650l.—I never made a purchase of any kind of them—these two bills for 975l. each are not accepted by me nor by my authority.

HENRY CHARMAN . I am a diamond merchant and jeweller, of 4, Beak Street—I have known Montague Goldsmith for some time as assistant in various jewellers' shops at the West-end, Emanuel's, and one or two others; they were customers of mine, and I knew him in that way—about April, 1872, my son met Michael Goldsmith, and about that time we commenced business with them—the first transaction was through my son; it was a diamond bracelet, 460l.—an acceptance was given for that, which was paid—from that time until 17th December I continually sent them goods through the medium of Mr. Harris, and sometimes myself—I don't recollect the exact amount of goods sent on approbation, and afterwards charged for—it was quite 5,000l., and additional goods sent on approbation, making a total of 9, 600l. with the 5,000l.—during that time I received cash to the amount of 1, 400l., including the bill that was taken up—1,965l., I think, was the exact amount, or probably it may have been less 5 per cent—Mr. Harris, my assistant, supplied the goods—on 5th December Montague Goldsmith said that he wanted a diamond suite and a pearl suite, as there was a double wedding in a family that he was doing business with, and he wanted them to show—he selected the diamonds and pearls that Mr. Harris has mentioned and took them away, to the amount of 5,000l. odd—we afterwards got a portion back, the residue being 3, 300l.—on 18th December I received a communication from Mr. Flower, the assistant to Messrs. Ortner & Houle, jewellers, in St. James's Street—I think my jewellery is pretty well known in the trade, and it was in consequence of that that the communication was made to me—it was with respect to a pearl bracelet, which was one of the articles for the double wedding—in consequence of what Mr. Flower told me I went the following morning to Goldsmith's place, in Conduit Street, and there saw Montague, together with Michael—I said I wished to have some of the goods that he had or they bad on approbation—Montague said he was very sorry he could not let me have them, indeed, I think he commenced the conversation by saying he was sorry he could not let me have the goods that had been applied for, they were out on approbation with his lady customer

—he said he had an appointment at 11.30 to sea the lady for her final decision—he said the appointment was in Portman Square; referring to the Directory, he said it was at 40, Portman Square, and the name was Lady Pakenham—he said she was the customer of whom he had spoken—I told him I should like to go with him to Lady Pakenham's to get the reply, and I did go—he did not seem to know anything about the place—the street was up, and he told the cabman to drive on the other side of the square to No.40—we drove all round the square; ultimately, on finding No.40, it was shut up, the steps were uncleaned, and the place looked entirely as if the family was out of town—he made inquiry for Lady Pakenham, for Colonel Pakenham, and Captain Pakenham, the secretary, and a great many more; but we could not find anybody—I then told him what I thought, that it was a gigantic swindle, and I pushed him into the cab—we went to my office and I sent for my solicitor, and subsequently we went to Conduit Street—I there saw Michael, and in his presence I desired to see the books, and they showed me these (produced); the smaller book is the ledger; it was not then in the state it is now—it called forth a remark from me that I did not think they had ever done a single shilling's worth of genuine business in their lives—and that was the then appearance of the books—this book has been undoubtedly added to since—nothing has been scratched out or taken out that I can see, but it has been added to; something has been written in—at that time there was no appearance of business—I did not then remark any ledger account between me and them; I am not sure that I have seen one since, I think I have—there was an approbation book shown to me, a book with the items in it that were supposed to be with customers, and so on—I think this is it, I don't know—after the books were shown to me I said it was a very unsatisfactory matter as far as the books were concerned—he said he could give an explanation, but he failed to satisfy me, and I asked for security pending the explanation that was to be given—he said he had not anything except the bills he had received in payment for the goods he had sold—I desired to see them, and he then asked Michael to get them out of the safe, and he brought them out in an envelope, and gave me bills representing in amount 9, 600l.—Michael gave them to Montague, and Montague gave them to me—they are the bills that have been produced and pronounced to be forgeries; there was not a single genuine bill among them—there was a bill book, it is here—the bills were called out and checked by the bill book by Michael, here are the ticks; Montague then endorsed them and handed them to me—that was the last I saw of Montague; I have endeavoured to find him, and instructed the officers to do so; I took out a warrant against him directly I discovered that the bills were forgeries—that was on 19th December, I think, the day after I discovered the pearl bracelet—on the 23rd I saw Michael and his father, and Michael then handed me some duplicates and pawnbroker's contract notes affecting my jewellery; there were a good many, some applying to my goods, and some to Drayton's, and some to persons that I don't know—he said his sister had given them to him; he did not specify the sister; I gave the parcel to Drayson's, and they selected what they chose from it—the father said "If you will go to Colville Terrace and see my daughter, she is the only person who can give an explanation regarding this matter"—on the following morning I met the elder Goldsmith at the Great Western Terminus, and ultimately went to Colville Terrace—I there saw Rebecca—Michael was present, and her father and mother—the father introduced

me; he said "My dear, here is Mr. Charman"—I forget now how the conversation took place—I asked her what had become of the jewellery, but not immediately; there was something took place before that; I don't know quite what led up to it; it was that she was willing to give me any explanation—if I would ask her questions, she would answer any questions—I then asked her what had become of the goods—she said she was so confused she could not remember, but if I would specify any particular article, she would endeavour to answer me—I specified the aigrette first—that was the diamond aigrette of 1, 600l., which formed part of the double wedding suite—she said "I sold that to a Mr. Danby, of Wigmore Street, for 220l.—I don't remember how the goods were placed; I wrote this paper at the time—I then asked about a pair of earrings, 575l., that formed part of the double wedding suite—she did not remember the earrings at the moment, and I made a drawing; she said those were not the earrings, but she made another sketch, showing what they were, and said "Those earrings I sold to Maurice Moses, of Oxford Street, for 170l."—she then said "I sold to Mrs. White, of Great Portland Street, a pearl bracelet and a diamond star, for 86l.; a bracelet, also to Danby, of Wigmore Street, for 200l."—I could not remember anything else at the moment to ask her about, but I said "Well, what did you do with the pearl necklace of Drayson's?"—I happened to know that they had had a large pearl necklace of theirs—she said "I sold it to Danby, of Wigmore Street, also, for 650l.—that was the expensive one valued at 3, 500l.—I then asked her who accepted the bilk—she said "I did"—she said that the first transaction she had had of the kind was with a brooch belonging to her brother Montague that she had taken out to sell, having told him that she knew an old gentleman who had a daughter who was going to be married, and she thought she could sell it to him; that she took it to Mr. Mills, of Oxford Street, and took a receipt for it, leaving it with him to dispose of; the price of this brooch it appears was 180l., but not being able to get more than 75l. offered for it, she would not sell it; she took it away from Mr. Mills, and took it elsewhere, and eventually sold it to Attenborough, of Charlotte Street, for 65l.—I said it was very odd that she should sell it for 65l. after having been offered 75l.—she said it was because she had walked about until she was footsore—nothing more passed, except the scene at the end, the dropping down on their knees and asking me for forgiveness, and all that sort of thing—Rebecca did that, and the mother, and I think the father—it was quite a painful scene—after that I came away—I afterwards received some memorandums from the house, 66, Conduit Street; I collected them myself; I went through the house by leave of the landlord.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. In one of the books produced, a cash book, I find an entry, "M G 10l.," entered month by month, and subsequently 15l. entered month by month.

Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. We send goods to retail traders on approbation; if they sell an ornament they say, "I have sold this;" otherwise, of course, it is a bargain, whether I choose to sell to them individually or not—there are many that I would not sell to, yet I would charge to if they had sold—I sell through them to the customers; I do not know who their customers are—I often do know, I can't help knowing, because they blurt it out; but if they are about to tell me, I generally stop them

or say "I won't be troubled with your secrets, because I don't want the responsibility of it"—I should think I have seventy or eighty persons on my books who carry on business with me in that way, in London and in all the provinces, and in Ireland and Scotland, in all parts of the kingdom, there may be more; I don't think there would be more than seventy or eighty, including all; I should think half the number are in London, in the City, and the West-end, none in the suburbs—they are mostly half-yearly payments, but a great many of the transactions are special, and they are drawn for at the time at six months—I have cash or genuine acceptances of Montague Goldsmith's for everything, but about 700l.—that is not including those things that he bad on approbation, that have been found to be pawned since; it does not include those; it is for all the things that have been charged, excepting 735l.—the first bill was met, 460l.—I can't give you the gross sum; there was 1000l. to be paid, but there were two items selected, amounting to 965l. the two, discount was taken for those, to the best of my belief, and I received the money; that was all I had—that makes 1, 400l. actually paid—I have not got Montague's bills here, and I really don't remember the amount of those that have not been met, I think it is something about 5,000l., some of them are matured and not paid—I saw Rebecca for the first time when I went to Colville Terrace—the paper I have been referring to I wrote at the time—it was not written there; those figures I wrote at the time—this was not a memorandum made at the time, only what I have already given as to the whereabouts of the goods—that consists of five items, referring to the names of the persons where they were pledged or sold—no part of the conversation was written down then—the other part was not written afterwards, it was merely what I jotted down before—I had heard, before that interview, from the family that it was alleged that Rebecca had had the goods from Montague under the pretence of selling them, and pretended that she had done so, and handed the proceeds to Montague—I wrote this, it may be, a day or two, or two or three days before the interview, it could not have been very long, because this explosion only took place on the 19th, and it was on the 23rd that I saw Rebecca—I have not the slightest doubt that it was written before that interview—the effect of the conversation was not only to implicate her, but to take the whole blame upon herself, and to exculpate her brother Montague entirely—I think the statement involved the fact that she had handed all the proceeds of everything she had obtained to her brother Montague; I think I so understood it—I don't know whether he is the oldest brother, or whether he is older than her—I can't say how long the interview with her lasted; a long time was taken up by the sobbing, and hysterics, and pulse feeling, and all that sort of thing; I should think a half or three-quarters of an hour must have been taken up, even in that way—I think I must have been there over an hour—the result of the whole was, in effect, that she stated Montague was entirely innocent, and she alone was guilty.

Cross-examined by MR. LEWIS. Lewis Goldsmith, was present at the interview with Rebecca—I heard him examined before the Magistrate—I think he was called on behalf of his sister, and gave evidence in relation to this interview—I presume it was after that evidence that he was charged in relation to this conspiracy, but I do not knew anything of that part of it—I don't know anything of him; I don't know him in business at all—I don't know that this proceeding was taken against him for the purpose of

closing his mouth—I concur in this prosecution; not in prosecuting him, I don't know anything of him—I have given no instructions—I don't know of my own knowledge who is prosecuting him; I presume it is Drayson—I think I heard of his being charged the day after—I did not give instructions to charge him with cheating me of my goods—I am not surprised to hear it; I know there have been transactions with Drayson's goods—I don't know Whitfield—I heard him examined—I was in hopes I should have found some of my goods through him, but I did not—I have not made any inquiry with reference to Lewis's employment at Mr. Constable's—I don't know anything about it.

Re-examined. I only know personally what I have now sworn to; for the rest of the case I am obliged to rely upon other witnesses—the legal part of the matter I have left in the hands of my legal advisers—I should sell goods out and out to such gentlemen as Emanuel's and Hancock's, but to Goldsmith, and persons in his position, I would not sell, unless I believed a customer was actually found—I would not have given him credit at all—I fully believed the goods were going into the hands of bond fide customers, so that he would be supplied by them with money to pay me—the cash and bills I have received do not include the goods out on approbation; I was never paid for any goods that were sent on approbation—I took no lulls until the goods were charged—bills to the amount of 3, 750l. are still outstanding with respect to goods.

JURY. We have not heard under what representations the business with the Goldsmiths was commenced.

Witness. My son will be able to answer that question—I personally knew Montague as assistant at Emanuel's, but I was not asked by him to give him credit—I did not know Michael as assistant; I did not know Michael except in Conduit Street—the representations were made by Michael to my son.

MR. M. WILLIAMS. Q. Do you happen to know that until Montague went into business on his own account, Michael was a stranger to the trade? A. I did not know him at all; I did not know there was such a person.

WILLIAM HENRY CHARMAN . I am in partnership with my father—in April, 1872, I met Michael Goldsmith on the top of an omnibus—I had known him previously; I had been introduced to him by a mutual friend—I don't know what he was before that—at the time I did know him he was with his brother in Conduit Street—he opened the conversation concerning business; he asked me if I would let him show some diamond bracelets to a lady customer—I said I would—he said he wished to show them on the following day, and when I came to town on the following morning I sent our man with them—there were several—I was told when I returned to town, in the course of a fortnight, that he had kept one and paid for it—I remember the goods being sent on 5th December for the double wedding—about 17th December I went to get some of those goods back; it was the day before my father had a communication—I saw Michael—I asked him if he had done with that ornament, the aigrette, as we had a telegram from Manchester, and we wished to send it away—he said it was out at a customer's—I said it was very important that we should have it that evening to send away—he said his brother had been in the course of the day to see the customer, and he could not go again that evening, but he would on the following morning—I don't remember that he mentioned the place his brother had been to; he merely said "the customer, "to the best of my belief; my impression is that he did not name any place—when I

agreed to let him have goods to show to a customer, I knew that his brother had been with Emanuel's and Hancock's, and first-rate firms—while he was assistant to them he has come to us on their business—to a certain extent that inspired me with confidence.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. It was not after we had been doing business with Montague that Michael spoke to me about the bracelets; that was the first transaction—it is correct that he first spoke to me about doing business with the firm of Montague Goldsmith in April, 1872—I had known the brother previously—the bracelet that was kept was paid for by a bill of exchange—it was paid, and handed back to Montague—I believe it was made payable in Conduit Street—as for the aigrette, Michael said that his brother had been for it to a customer, that he must wait till his brother returned, when he would get him to go again—I don't know what Michael was before Montague went into business on his own account.

COLONEL THOMAS HENRY PAKENHAM . My mother, Lady Pakenham, has a house at 40, Portman Square—I do not live there; I am stationed at Aldershott—when I am in town I live in Portman Square—I have a brother, also a colonel, who has just left the Guards, but he is not in London now—I have heard the evidence about this double wedding—there is not the slightest truth in it; it is all fictitious—I never heard of any jewellery being brought to the house or required for any such purpose—I should undoubtedly have known of it—I was to be one of the bridegrooms—I am not unmarried.

MAURICE MOSES . I am a jeweller, of 189, Oxford Street—on 4th July last year I first became acquainted with Rebecca Goldsmith; she came in to my shop to sell a diamond bracelet—I questioned her as to who she was—she said she was a Miss Goldsmith—I asked her address—she said she was living at Ealing—I asked if she was connected with any of the Goldsmith family; she replied in the affirmative, but it was a poor branch of the family, or something tantamount to that, and her residence was at Highfield House, Ealing; she wished to sell the bracelet—I asked her the object of parting with it—she told me she was living with her mother, that they had some law expenses which were rather heavy—she left the bracelet, and I said I would see what offer I could make her—I then took the bracelet to a neighbouring jeweller's, Mr. Waylett, who was better versed in these things than myself, a better calculator, and he offered 110l. for it; it was then sealed up with his seal, that is an understanding in the trade, that if the seal is not broken the person who makes the offer will not revoke—I took the bracelet back sealed up, and I gave her a cheque for 105l.—I afterwards delivered the parcel to Mr. Waylett, and he gave me a cheque for 110l.; I have never seen the bracelet since—about the 9th or 10th she came again, and brought a pair of diamond earrings—I asked her the reason of parting with them—she said she was about to get married, and her mother wished to raise some money, or the earrings were to be parted with to purchase her trousseau—she mentioned the name of Lord something Osborne as the person to whom she was to be married—I asked her if it was one of the Leeds family, and she said "Yes"—knowing she was a Jewess, I said "But he is not of the same persuasion as you"—she said, as nearly as I can recollect, that her mother would waive that, as the opportunity was too good to be lost—I gave her a cheque for 170l. for the earrings—when she brought them she asked 250l. for them—the market fluctuated a good deal in large stones at that time—and I took them to Messrs. Hill and Williams, and Mr. Hill said he would not give more than 160l. for them,

and he is an old practitioner—in coming out of the shop I met Mr. Phillips, and he came to my place and sealed them up for 190l.—and they were afterwards delivered to him—I have not seen them since—(they were produced by Mr. Fisk)—I really could not swear to them, they are something very much like them, I scarcely looked at them; if I had been going to calculate the amount of stuff in them, I should have taken more particular notice—I believe these to be the same as near as I can possibly tell.

Cross-examined MR. GIFFARD. I have been in business 23 years—I am a judge of jewellery to a certain extent, but my business is not confined to jewellery alone, it is a portion of my business, but not heavy diamond goods; the centre-stones are the principal, and what the market price is at present you can hardly get at, for since the discovery of the Cape diamonds they fluctuate very much, particularly at that time; I was not able to give my own opinion, therefore I went to one of the largest houses in London, Messrs. Catchpool, Hill, and Williams, of Oxford Street-Mr. Hill valued the earrings at 160l., so perhaps you may place them down as worth 200l.; or 210l. if you had to replace them in the market—diamonds fluctuate sometimes 10, 15, or 20 per cent.; about that—I cannot retain the value of the bracelet in my memory—Mr. Waylett, I think, gave a very fair price, and I got a very small profit, 5l., with which I was satisfied; the earrings were decidedly not of the value of 575l., that is undoubtedly an extravagant price—the value of these things depends a great deal on the fashion and the water; they fetch more in the height of the season than in the dull time of the year.

RICHARD STBPHBN WAYLETT . I am a jeweller, of 234, Oxford Street—I remember Mr. Moses bringing me the bracelet he has spoken to, and my sealing it up as he has described—I paid 110l. for it; I placed it in the window; a lady came in and offered money for it, and I put it by, and a day or two afterwards she came with her husband and purchased it, and paid for it over the counter, 125l.—I did not take a note of her name and address—she said her name was Whitfield, but gave no address—she looked at it first on 5th July, and she came with her husband on the 9th and offered 125l. for it, which I took; I put it by, and she came for it on the 10th and paid.

Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. I consider I sold it for the value of it—I should not have taken that money if I had thought it had been worth more—the 125l. includes my profit and the wholesale profitr-420l. would be an extravagant price for it; quite out of the way—I am considered a very good judge in the trade—I have been thirty-six years in the trade, in Oxford Street.

BARNBT PHILLIPS . I am a jeweller, and live at 18, Bloomsbury Square—on 10th December I purchased a pair of earrings of Mr. Moses—these are them (produced)—I gave 190l. for them—I sold them to Mr. Walton on 18th December, at ten months' credit, for 220l.

Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. I have been nearly fifty years in the trade—I am a pretty fair judge of jewellery—I think I have shown the value of the earrings by the price I have sold them for—ten months is rather a longish credit—I consider I sold them for their fair value, in my judgment.

WILLIAM FISK . I am manager to Mr. Walton, jeweller, of Ludgate Hill—I have produced a pair of earrrings which I purchased from Mr. Phillips on 18th December.

GEORGE DANBY . I am a jeweller, carrying on business at 8, Wigmore Street—I first saw Rebecca Goldsmith in October last year—the first transaction was in respect of a pair of diamond earrings—she introduced herself as a cousin of Sir Francis Goldsmith, and knowing that family to be a wealthy family, of course I bought them of her—she said that her mother had a great quantity of valuable jewels left her by her father, who was dead, and that she anticipated she should be obliged to dispose of them—I gave her about 50l. for the earrings, as far as my memory serves me—I afterwards sold them to Mr. Attenborough, of Duke Street, Manchester Square, for about 62l. 10s.—about a week or ten days after the transaction with the earrings, she came again, and brought a necklace—there was some conversation then about her being married; it was addressed more to my wife than myself—I said, under the circumstances, I could not think of buying anything more unless she gave me a reference as to her respectability—I asked if she could give me a banker, or any person that knew her, and she said she would write me a note, enclosing a reference; and true enough, on the same evening, a card came with a reference, in consequence of which I went to 199, Portobello Road, and saw Dr. Pickett—on the following day she called with the necklace—she left it for me to show to some persons, better judges than myself, and I purchased it that same day for 200l.—I think it had five stones, and a little ornament, joined together—the stones were diamonds, as near as I can recollect; but I really don't recollect very well—I afterwards sold it to Mr. Hill, of the firm of Catchpool & Williams, Oxford Street—on 9th December I purchased a diamond aigrette of her for 225l., I think—she introduced it as pars of the property belonging to her mother—I sold the brooch portion of that aigrette to Robert Attenborough, of Duke Street, and the remaining portion of it to Richard Attenborough, of Oxford Street, for 195l. and 100l. respectively—I also purchased from her a diamond collet bracelet for 200l., and I sold that to Mr. Hennell, of 4, Southampton Street, for 280l.—I can't recollect her making any statement about that bracelet—I can't say whether it was at that time or not that the name of Truscott was mentioned—she did mention that name to me; she said she was very likely to be married to Sir Francis Truscott—it was merely a casual conversation that was taking place between my wife and her at the time; it had nothing to do with the transaction—I think at the time this bracelet was brought she said it was to help to make up her trousseau; that she was selling jewels to raise money for the trousseau—on 6th November I purchased a pearl necklace of her for 650l., and I sold it to Mr. Hennell for 750l.—it was not in my possession many hours—she left it in the morning and came in the evening—I went and got the price Mr. Hennell would give for it, submitted the price to her; if she did not wish to take it, it would have been returned—there is no record of these trans-actions in any of my books—I have no books for this sort of trade; it was merely being employed to sell things for other persons—this (produced) is the top part of the aigrette that I bought, the plume.

Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. I have been twenty-two years in business where I am—the market fluctuates from time to time—I submitted the goods to Mr. Richard Attenborough and Mr. Hill; they are really good judges of these things, I am not.

WILLIAM OLIVER . I am manager to Robert Attenborough, of Duke Street, Manchester Square—on 10th December I bought a diamond brooch of Mr. Danby for 195l.; I sold it at Messrs. Johnson & Dymond's auction-rooms

for 420l.—those are the City Auction Rooms—they sold it at one of their sales—I have never seen any of the stones of it it since—I should not know them if they were loose.

JOHN NEATE DYMOND . I am a member of the firm of Johnson & Dymond, auctioneers—we keep the City Auction Rooms—on 16th December we received a diamond brooch from the last witness, and sold it for 420l. on, I think, the 16th December—before the 16th we showed it to Mr. Charles Drayson, and we bought it for him—he left me the commission—he gave me a limit to buy it for him at a certain amount.

CHARLBS DUPIN DRAYSON (re-examined). On 16th and 17th December I was staying with Mr. Dymond—he showed me a diamond brooch, and I gave him a reserve price for it, 420l.—I broke it up subsequently, and showed Mr. Charman the stones—he identified them—these are them (pro-duced).

WILLIAM JAMES BENGER . I am manager to Mr. Richard Attenborough, of Oxford Street—I produce a diamond plume, which I bought of Mr. Danby on 12th December for 97l. 10s.

Cross-examined by MR. POLAND. I have been with Mr. Attenborough 25 years—97l. 10s. was a fair value.

EMMA WHITE . I am a widow, and carry on a jeweller's business at 128, Great Portland Street—on 25th October the prisoner Rebecca came to me and wanted to sell a diamond bracelet; she said that it belonged to her mamma, whose ill health and reduced circumstances made her anxious to sell it—I gave her 80l. for it, and afterwards sold it to Messrs. Gilliam, of Serle Street, for 100l.—on 29th October she sold a diamond brooch to me for 160l., she said that it belonged to her mamma—I sold it to Messrs. Gilliam for 200l. the same day—on 10th December she brought a pearl bracelet for sale; she asked 150l. for it, and said that she wanted the money in about two hours; I did not ask why—I did not purchase it then, as it was not convenient—she brought it again on the 13th, and a diamond star with it; I gave her 86l. for the two, and sold them to Messrs. Field & Beer, of Alfred Place, the same day, who gave me 90l. for the bracelet and 40l. for the star—this is the bracelet and this is the star (produced).

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I have not been in the habit of dealing with Messrs. Gilliam recently, but I have known them for many years—I sent my assistant to them with the things to make me an offer for them—I have also dealt with Messrs. Field & Beer—I took them the arti-cles myself, and they gave me receipts for them.

Re-examined. The receipts are all together; it is one receipt; I have not got it now; it was delivered up at Marlborough Street, and I believe it is pinned to my deposition—I wrote the receipt, and Rebecca signed it in my presence.

JOHN GILLIAM . I am a jeweller, of 36, Serle Street, Lincoln's Inn—I know Mrs. White—on 26th October I bought this bracelet (produced) of her for 100l.—a month afterwards I sold it to a private customer on credit for 160l., and since these proceedings I have got it back—on 29th October I bought a diamond brooch of Mrs. White for 200l., and sold it to Messrs. Field for 250l. on 22nd November—that is the brooch produced by Mr. Field.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. There is a pretty good margin between the charge for cash and the charge for credit—I have been 14 years in the trade—I have been in Court during the examination of the

witnesses—I think they charge very extravagantly for jewellery on appro-bation—I have known Mrs. White in business, and have bought of tier as a customer.

Re-examined. I judge of the extravagance both by the price we give and the price we get—considerable latitude is allowed—I gave 100l. and got 160l., but I have kept things by me a great many years—I would not part with it to a customer who was not likely to pay—I should not mind trusting Mr. Field for 50 times the amount.

JOHN FIELD . I am a jeweller—I sold the pearl bracelet that Mr. Beer bought to Ortner & Houle, of St. James's Street, on 18th December, for 40l—on 23rd November I purchased a diamond brooch from Mr. Gilliam for 250l.—I have the cheque; it was paid—I sold it to Mr. Ball, of the Strand, for 350l., about 14th December—I produce it—I bought a star of Mrs. White for 40l., and I broke it up, and sold it to Mr. Child, of Brompton—that was after I received notice from Mr. Charman—I have since got those stones back—at the time I broke it up I knew that Messrs. Charman claimed it as their property, but it was not theirs—I had received a notice from them, and I have had another notice since from somebody else respect-ing the same star—I broke it up after receiving one notice, not both—I afterwards received the other notice—my partner purchased a diamond bracelet from Mrs. White; the stones are here, but there are others with them, and I cannot separate them.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I have known Mrs. White in business many years, and have dealt with her—I have brought everything here which I am able to trace.

EDWARD BEER . I am the partner of the last witness—on 14th December I purchased a diamond bracelet from Mrs. White for 90l., and a star for 40l.—Mr. Houle has the bracelet—these are the receipts (produced), one was signed in my partner's presence on my premises, and the other at Mrs. White's in the Portland Road.

CHARLES SHAPLAND . I am manager to Robert Attenborough, of Char-lotte Street, Fitzroy Square—I produce a pearl bracelet pawned on 15th November by the female prisoner, in the name of Emily Goldsmith, with a diamond ring, for 460l.—this is the contract—there were only two articles, not three—they were pledged, not sold—she gave her address, 15, Colville Terrace, West—I cannot recollect that she said anything particular on that occasion, but from time to time she informed me that she was a member of the Goldsmith family; that her father had accumulated a large fortune in the East Indies, but had lost it, and failed for a very large amount, and the money was required to meet calls that were being made on his estate—after she gave me that address I called and saw her there, and she made a further statement about the jewellery, as to who it belonged to, and upon that I took it in pledge for 460l.—I am speaking of ahead ornament; they are described as a bracelet and tiara on this paper—I have them here (pro-duced)—she came more than once—it is not a pearl bracelet, it is diamonds and emeralds—six months before that she pledged an aigrette, or head ornament, very similar to this (produced), but I cannot swear to it—it was pledged on the 27th July, 1872, and was subsequently redeemed by Mr. Drayson—that was the first time she pledged goods with us—I cannot say whether she made that statement about her father and the West Indies on more than one occasion, but she did it incidentally—I produce a pendant and some earrings, pledged by Miss Goldsmith on 29th October, for 110l.—

this (produced) is the ticket—this other ticket is for a diamond cross and locket, pawned on 7th November, for 45l., by Miss Goldsmith—I issued this memorandum—I produce the articles—they were pledged by the female prisoner—the locket is not identified; this is the cross—on 8th November Rebecca pledged with me these two bracelets and three studs, for 320l. (produced), and on 23rd November a ring was pledged in the name of Miss E. Goldsmith, for 30l.—on 10th December she pledged a brilliant collet necklace for 160l., and on 14th December a pendant and some ear-rings for 170l. (produced)—these are black pearls—nothing else was pledged or sold to me by either of the prisoners—I have handed into Court all I received from them.

HENRY HOULE . I am in partnership with Mr. Ortner, as jeweller, at 3, St. James's Street—on 18th December I purchased a pearl bracelet of Messrs. Field and Beer—I did not pay for it, it was invoiced to me in the ordinary way of business at 140l.—I sent it to Charman's, knowing it to be one of their bracelets—I produce it.

SAMUEL NICHOLLS . I am assistant to Thomas Richardson, pawnbroker, of 11, George Street, Bryanston Square—I first saw Rebecca Goldsmith on 10th October last, when she brought me a diamond locket and a diamond ring, on which I advanced her 35l.—this is the locket, (produced)—the ring I hold; I don't produce it because it has not been identified—on 7th November, she came again and brought a pair of earrings and a sapphire bracelet; I advanced her 303l. on them—I produce them—she said that they were her mother's property, who lived at 15, Colville Terrace, Bayswater, and who wanted the money to assist her brother in business—she came again on the 9th November, and left this pearl bracelet (produced) and other articles—on 19th November, I advanced her 195l—she always gave the name of Rebecca Goldsmith—I have produced all that you have asked me for—I have other things which were pledged by Rebecca Gold-smith—these (produced) are the tickets I gave her at the time; the first is on 10th October, a diamond locket and ring, these you have; November 14th, diamond earrings and bracelet, 303l. those you have; 9th November, a diamond bracelet, a pearl ditto, and a gold hunting watch—this (pro-duced) is the diamond bracelet, the gold watch is not identified—I do not produce a diamond ring, pledged November 9th, for 7l.—there is nothing else.

JAMES MILLS . I am a pawnbroker, of 244, Edgware Road; I have had dealings with the prisoner Rebecca—I advanced her 52l. on 29th October, for a pair of diamond earrings shaped like bees, and a gold watch and chain—they were all pledged together—I produce the earrings, she said that they belonged to her mamma—on 3rd December she pledged with me a brilliant pendant and a ring for 70l.—I have produced the pendant, I also produce a diamond star pledged for 50l. 10s., on 28th November—I have produced everything except the watch and chain, and the ring which was with the pendant, which is not claimed, they have seen all, and I have produced all that they have claimed.

WILLIAM HARRISON . I am manager to Mr. Grant, pawnbroker, of 20, London Wall—I know Michael Goldsmith, he has pledged goods frequently at my place—the first time was on 13th July, 187.1, and also in August and September—the articles he pledged nave all been redeemed by him—in February, 1872, a diamond ring anda diamond and ruby ring were pledged for 30l., and redeemed by him on 7th August—on 11th March 1872, a brilliant

ring was pledged for 16l.; he paid the interest on it once, and then I sent it to a public sale—on 30th December, 1871, a diamond, emerald, and ruby ring was pledged for 60l. by Michael in his own name—he always pledged in his own name—he said that he was pledging for his brother—interest was paid on the advances on July 17th, August 11th, and October 16th, 1872—I received two letters from him in respect to the rings, and am aware that they are attached to the depositions—I remember those rings after-wards being redeemed by a gentleman named Whitfield—these (produced) are the two letters I received in reference to the interest; the writing corresponds to the signature of Michael Goldsmith.

JOHN CORDY SMITH . I am joint manager of a pawnbroker's business, at 199, Edgware Road—on 30th January, I purchased a ring from Mr. Whit-field, with some other goods; I bought the lot for 260l.—I have since received that ring back from him, and sold it to Mr. Dicker—I have since received it back from Mr. Dicker—I have not got it—Mr. Whitfield gave me the money, and I gave him all the goods I got from him.

JOHN ROWLEY . I am one of the firm of John & Henry Rowley, of Ledbury Road, Bayswater—I know Michael and Rebecca Goldsmith—I first knew Michael about eighteen months ago, and Rebecca about six months ago; they both pledged things at our shop—on 16th March, 1872, Michael pledged some turquoise and diamond studs for 18l., in the name of Michael Phillips—they were afterwards redeemed by Mr. Whitfield—I prepared this list (produced) myself from our books; it is correct—I also produce a French bracelet, pledged with me on 23rd May, by the prisoner Michael, in the name of Michael Phillips, for 100l—on 17th October, Rebecca pledged a brilliant butterfly brooch far 50l., I believe—that was redeemed by Mr. Whitfield; the interest was paid in December, but it was taken out in January—a brilliant half-hoop ring, belonging Mr. Drayson, was not put down in the account Mr. Whitfield made out—I recognise the ring (produced), it was pledged about twelve months ago, by Michael Goldsmith, in the name of Michael Phillips, and he paid interest on it—besides the articles mentioned, there were a number of others pledged with us; a brilliant ring for 13l. on 21st February, 1871, which was redeemed on 11th March; a brilliant ring, pledged on 18th March, for 12l., and redeemed on 24th April; three brilliant rings on 9th March for 25l., redeemed August 9th; a half-hoop diamond ring, pledged on 20th April, for 15l., redeemed 9th March, 1872; a brilliant brooch, pawned on 11th July, 1871, for 80l., and redeemed August 24th, 1871; a brilliant star brooch, pawned 9th August, 1871, for 25l., and redeemed 4th September, 1871; a brilliant cross, twelve stones, pawned 4th September, 1871, for 100l., and redeemed 2nd Novem-ber, 1871; brilliant head ornament pawned 2nd October, 1871, for 120l., an redeemed 2nd November, 1871; five brilliant stars, pawned November 2nd, for 70l., redeemed 4th December, 1871; a gold brace-let with locket, pawned 8th December, 1871, for 20l., and redeemed 31st January, 1872; ditto, on the same date, for 15l. redeemed 29th February; a single stone diamond ring, pawned 9th December, 1871, for 17l., redeemed 22nd July; a carbuncle and diamond locket, pawned 9th Deoember, 1871, for 13l., redeemed 23rd November, 1872; a brilliant ring, three stones, pawned 11th Deoember, 1871, for 12l., redeemed 29th October, 1872; a brilliant brooch, pawned 23rd January, 1872, for 80l., redeemed 8th March, 1872; a brilliant and emerald bracelet, pawned 31st January, 1872, for 100l., redeemed 7th June; a diamond locket,

pawned 2nd February, 1872, for 20l., redeemed 2nd March, 1872; a dia-mond and ruby locket, pawned 2nd March, 1872, for 27l., redeemed 23rd November; a brilliant bracelet, pawned 8th March, 1872, for 85l., redeemed 6th May; a set of brilliant and onyx studs, pawned on 16th March, for 18l., redeemed 22nd July, 1872; a brilliant star brooch, pawned 8th May, 1872, for 35l., redeemed 4th December; and a diamond bracelet, pawned 23rd May, 1872, for 100l., unreedemed—I have shown that bracelet—in addition to those which were pledged by Michael, a brooch was taken in from Rebecca Goldsmith.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. All the articles pledged by Michael, except one, have been redeemed.

CHARLES THOMPSON . I am a pawnbroker, of the Bayswater Road—on 17th October the prisoner Rebecca pledged a ring with me in the name of Mrs. Lovell, for 4l.—this (produced) is the locket; she has only come there three times to my knowledge—I have not got the ring with me, I was not subpœnaed to produce it, I have only a subpoena to produce three articles—I produce a diamond bracelet, pledged about 21st November, 1872, for 303l. by Rebecca, in the name of Lovell; a pair of diamond and emerald earrings, pledged for 100l. either on November 21st or 22nd, by the same person in the same name, and two pairs of earrings, one pair diamond and coral; and two rings, diamond and emerald, and diamond and ruby, about two days afterwards in the same name by the same person, for 150l.—I have handed them all in—I have had no notice of a turquoise and ruby ring—I should state that one article has been redeemed—I do not know whether Mr. Drayson has got any ticket—there were one pair of diamond drop earrings; there are three pairs of earrings altogether.

GEORGEHERBERT. I am assistant to Mr. Rawlings of Great Portland Street—I produce a brilliant bracelet, pawned on 14th December, by the prisoner Rebecca, in the name of Rebecca Goldsmith, for 40l.—she said the property belonged to her mother, and it was pledged on behalf of her mother.

HENRY SMITH . I live at 55, Dudley Grove, Harrow Road, and am assistant to William Smith—I produce an onyx and diamond pin, pledged on 24th May, 1872, in the name of Miss Ann Goldsmith, for 8l.—I took it in—the prisoner Rebecca is the woman.

SIR FRANCIS WYATT TRUSCOTT, KNT . I know nothing of the Goldsmiths or any one of them—there is no truth in the statement that I was to be married to this young lady—I had nothing to do with jewellery or buying jewellery from them—I have seen the bills, the signature is not mine or by my authority.

JOHN CORDY SMITH (re-examined). I produce an emerald pin pledged on 4th April, 1872, it was received by our manager, John Harvey, who is still with us.

GEORGE DOBREE . I am manager to a pawnbroker, in Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square—I produce a pair of diamond earrings, pawned in the name of Montague Goldsmith, but not by the prisoners—I advanced 50l. on them—the interest on it was renewed by Montague Goldsmith, and re-renewed by Mr. Whitfield—I have Goldsmith's original signature on 8th May.

ALFRED DRAYSON (re-examined). This is the signature of Montague Goldsmith.

EDMUND CAMDEN WHITFIELD . I am an insurance agent, of Liverpool—I first knew the Goldsmiths about 1855—the first I knew of this matter

was Lewis Goldsmith asking me to take some things out of pledge towards the end of last November—I was in London at the time, aid he came to my hotel—he had not written to me, but I am in business communication with the same firm that he was—he gaye me the tickets the following morning, they were pawn tickets or contract tickets; they are the same thing—there were about twenty of them, I should think, some for large, and some for small amounts; 2l. 10s. was the lowest, and 100l. the highest—the goods have been redeemed—he asked me to advance the money and get them out of pledge—he said that all the goods were paid for; I put the question to him before I would entertain the subject at all, because the large amount struck me—they were all jewellery; Lewis was with Consta-ble & Co., a wine firm in the City, at that time—I asked him where he got them from, he said from his brother; I understood him to say Michael at the time, but afterwards he told me he got them from his brother Montague—I went round to the pawnbroker's with Lewis Goldsmith about six weeks after that day in November—I did nothing on the tickets during those six weeks; I went back to Liverpool the same day, taking the tickets with me—I did not know then that there was an enquiry pending, not till the end of the six weeks, when I came back—that brought it to 15th or 16th January—I did not know by the papers that an enquiry was pending at that time—I received a letter from Mr. Smith, the pawnbroker, of the Edgware Road, who has been called, before I came up to London—I sold the goods to him towards the latter end of January, after I redeemed them—that was before this letter—I paid interest on a portion of them, and redeemed others—I commenced the transaction with Mr. Smith on the day I sold them to him—that was after I had redeemed the whole of those that I sold to him—I went round to the pawnbroker's with Lewis Goldsmith about 15th or 16th January—I did not verify the tickets at all—when I went to the pawnbroker's and paid the interest, Lewis Goldsmith went with me—when I came to London I went to his place—before I went there I did not know from him, or from anybody else, that one of his brothers had gone out of the way—he made no communication whatever to me—I was quite unaware that Rebecca had made a communication to Mr. Charman, and that she was in custody—when I went round I paid the interest—I mentioned it to the pawn-brokers—Lewis Goldsmith gave me a memorandum at the time, which I destroyed; it put forth what the articles were in pledge for, and the origi-nal cost—the names of the persons of whom they had been bought were not mentioned, but it mentioned where they were in pledge—I took out some, and broke some of them up at Liverpool—I broke up a butterfly-brooch, from Rowley's, and a ring; I threw away the setting, and tried to sell it, but got no offer for it—I returned the stones to Mr. Drayson, when I was summoned as a witness—I tried to sell the brooch before breaking it up; it cost, I think, 160l., speaking from memory, and it was pledged for 50l.—no one said anything to me about breaking it up—when I broke it up I had heard of this enquiry, it was before I left London—I came up expressly about it from a letter from Mr. Smith, after I had taken them out and sold them to him, and he wrote to ask me when I was coming to London—I broke up nothing but the butterfly brooch and the ring—I took the ring out of pledge at Grant's, in London Wall—I do not remember what name it was pledged in—I sold it to Mr. Smith, with other things, for 260l., and took it back for the same money, and other goods, and then I

sold it again to a man, who gave me his name, Richard Stewart, and I got it from him again, and after that I broke it up—I was subpœnaed to London as a witness, and I said at the trial that I had sold it, but that I did not know the address of the party I sold it to—when I left the Court a gentleman asked me if I would take the ring back—I said "Yes"—he asked me if I would take it there—I said that I could not, because I had not got the money on me—I returned everything to Mr. Drayson, which has been claimed, the other things I hold—I returned to Mr. Drayson all that I took out of pawn—I sold the stones that I took out of the ring to Mr. Lennie, a jeweller, in Liverpool, who is here to answer to that—I sold a diamond to Mr. Williams, and got it back, and delivered it to Mr. Drayson—that diamond was part of the emerald, ruby, and diamond ring I speak of, and the emerald and ruby were sold to Mr. Lennie—Lewis only went inside Grant's; he went to the other pawnbroker's, but stood outside—he said nothing to me about the business books, but I heard him state something about them in conversation, I forget who it was to—I cannot say from memory where it was, I recollect hearing something about the books being kept by his brother Michael, that was all I heard—he did not say what books, but he was talking about the business at the time—he did not say at that time where the books were—he said that his brother Michael kept the books, but he did not say whether they were posted afterwards or before—I do not know whether Michael was in custody when I heard that conversation—Lewis did not say where the books were, but I thought they were in Lime Street, where Lewis was employed, but he did not say that they were there, or where they were—what I said before is true—I heard Lewis say he had the books after Michael was taken—he said "I have the books"—no one went down to Liverpool with me—Lewis did not go down to Liverpool during the enquiry.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. When he told me he had the books his brother and sister were in custody—I understood him to say that he retained the books by the directions of Mr. Lewis, their solicitor—he did not say until some one was properly appointed to receive them—I under-stood him to say he had received the goods from his brother Michael, to whom he had made an advance, but afterwards he said that he had made the advance to his brother Montague, who told him that the goods had been paid for—I knew he was in the wine trade; he had nothing to do with the jewellery business, to my knowledge—I have known Michael since 1855—I do not know that he had nothing to do with the jewellery trade until his brother went into business for himself—I had not seen him for many years—Montague is the eldest brother; I do not think he is as old as 45—I saw Lewis at his place in Lime Street, City.

[ADJOURNED.]

Wednesday, May 7th, 1873.

JAMES LENNIE . I am a jeweller, and carry on business with my brother at 62, Church Street, Liverpool—I purchased two stones spoken to by Mr. Whitfield, and sold them to Mr. Harris, of Bury Street, Liverpool—they were a ruby and an emerald.

JOSEPH HARRIS . I am a jeweller, of 28, Bury Street, Liverpool—I pur-chased an emerald and a ruby from the last witness, and my brother sold them to Mr. Meyers for 151.

JAMBS WILSON . I am a stationer, at 315, Oxford Street—these books were sold from my place of business, the ledger in September last—I have

an entry in my book September 27th—I can't speak as to the date when the others were sold.

JOHN MOORE . I am manager of Messrs. Jonas, Brothers, of Ely Place, jewellers and diamond merchants—Mr. Jonas purchased the ruby and emerald spoken to by Mr. Meyers, of Mr. Cook, of Long Lane—I have them here.

CHARLES DUPIN DRAYSON (re-called.) I recognise these two stones as coming from a ruby, emerald, and brilliant ring, supplied to Montague Goldsmith—I have the brilliant with me which formed the third stone in the ring.

DANIEL DAVEY (Detective Sergeant). On 13th January I apprehended the prisoner Rebecca—I read the warrant to her—there were two warrants, for forgery and receiving—she was living at that time at Anderson Villa, Maiden, Surrey, in the name of Ward, with her mother and sister—I read the warrant to her, and she said, "I am innocent; what I did I did for my brother, and the warrant has been obtained by lies"—on 21st February I received some information, and sent Detective Marohmont into the City to apprehend Michael, and bring him to me at Marlborough Street—I was three weeks looking for him—I read the warrant to him and he made no answer—I searched him, and found a pocket-book containing various memoranda, and three bills of exchange, two drawn by Montague, and one by Michael, and accepted by three different persons—on 22nd March I apprehended Lewis Goldsmith, at 54, Lime Street, City—I read the warrant to him, and he made no answer—I don't remember his mentioning any name about the pawn tickets—I asked him if the cupboards in the office belonged to him—he said "No; they belong to my master, Mr. Constable, what do You want t"—I said "I want the books connected with the business at 66, Conduit Street"—he said "They are at my lodgings"—we went together in a cab to 11, Charlotte Street, where he opened a cupboard, and pro-duced the books—he said he had received them from his brother Michael—I have not succeeded in apprehending Montague—I have held a warrant for him since December—Mr. Whitfield's name was mentioned by Lewis when I apprehended him—as far as I can remember he said, "I received the tickets from Montague, and I gave them to Mr. Whitfield to take the things out to sell for the benefit of the family."

Cross-examined by MR. LEWIS.—I found Lewis at Mr. Constable's office—I knew he had been there as manager to Mr. Constable for some time, and I ascertained it from Mr. Constable since.

MARY HULBERT . I obtain my living by charring—I know the family of the Goldsmiths—in October and November last they were living at 15, Colville Terrace—I was in the habit of working for them—I did not live there altogether—I went backwards and forwards, night and morning—the whole of the family lived there, father and mother, Mr. Michael, Mr. Mon-tague, Mr. Henry, and Rebecca and the other daughters—Lewis J had not seen there twice all the time, I think—I acted as servant there till they were suited—they were very clean people, indeed, and the house was fur-nished very nice—the living was in a very poor way—Mr. Montague went out of a morning to business—Rebecca and Montague went out together of a morning, and came back in the evening together—Rebecca wore a great deal of jewellery, and likewise a great many rings.

Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. I think it was the beginning of November that I first went there—I advertised for a little work at the end of October, and they answered my advertisement—I probably went there

some time in November—I used generally to be there at 9 in the morning, and leave at 9 or 10—there was one servant when I first went, but she only remained a week, and then I was the only one I went from day to day and I did Mr. Montague's washing—I had a day at home then—I had one day out of the week to do that—I went there on Sundays, so that I was there six days a-week—I was examined before, and I said that I had seen the prisoner Rebecca wear two or three rings—sometimes she wore more than that—I can't tell you the day of the month I left—it was on a Saturday after Christmas—I think it was in January—I was there verv nearly three months—it may have been the end of January that I left—I cooked at times and sometimes the young ladies—Rebecca was very ill indeed at one time—I think it was when this affair took place—she was laid up in bed, she remained in bed some days—I don't rememeber Mr. Charman coming: I remember some gentleman coming, but when any one came the kitchen-door was shut—it was a day or two before he came that she was ill—when they went out in the morning I don't know where they went to—I know nothing of them when they left the house—Montague was the eldest brother.

HENRY MEYERS . I am a jeweller and dealer in diamonds and precious stones, at Eleanor Street, Hackney—I purchased a ruby and an emerald in Liverpool, from Mr. Harris, and I sold them subsequently to Mr. Cook.

ALFRED DRAYSON (re-examined), I have seen the jewellery which has been produced—I have seen the pearl ornaments which were sold for the double wedding—they were supplied on the 5th December, on approbation, and finally delivered on the 9th, and they were all pawned on the 14th December—out of the jewels which were supplied and were to be shown to Sir Anthony Rothschild, I identify the five jewels which ultimately remained out of the large parcel of 9,000l.—they were delivered by us on 4th November, and the brilliant head ornament was pawned on the 5th, aid the rest on the 19th and 21st November—one was a brilliant bracelet whidh formed part of those goods and which was ultimately said to be sold to Sir John Gibbons, and which I find amongst those which have been produced, and that was pawned on the 19th November for 303l.—that was charged to them at 1, 650l.—it was had on approbation on the 4th and charged on 21st—the brilliant butterfly brooch, 160l., was entered on approbation on 15th October and charged on 23rd, I identify that as one produced from Rowleys', pawned for 50l. on 17th October—it was broken up, and the stones pro-duced I recognise as forming a portion of that brooch; one stone was very peculiar—the pearl necklace, 3, 500l., which was said to be sold to Sir Francis Truscott, was entered on approbation on 22nd October, charged on 31st, and is the one that was produced and given back by Hennell—it was sold to Danby for 650l., a day or two after it was charged—there was a brilliant half-hoop ring, 63l., delivered on 14th September; that was the one that was pawned by Michael at Rowleys'—I have seen the ruby and emerald and the diamond which has been returned, they formed the three stones in the ring at 155l., which was pawned in December—I identify all those produced which Mr. Charman does not claim, as belonging to us, and sent by us on approbation—I find by comparing the dates of delivery with the dates which have been given by the various jewellers and pawnbrokers, that they were all pawned a few days after they were delivered, and at prices very considerably below the cost price; the price charged to them—the pearl necklace which was charged at 3, 500l. cost us

2, 700l.—we bought it as it was, about six months before—we hare to keep a valuable thing like that in stock a longtime before we get rid of it, and then take off discount when sold—I believe the entries in this ledger to he in the handwriting of Michael Goldsmith—all the books, apparently, are in his handwriting—since we have got the pearl necklace back, which cost us 2, 700l., we have sold twenty-three of the pearls out of forty-three to Mr. Harry Emanuel forl, 922l.

WILLIAM HARRISON (re-called). I have seen the articles produced by the various jewellers and pawnbrokers—I have seen the diamonds and pearls which were supplied for the purpose of the double wedding of Pakenham's; there are five articles out of the nine which were left—they were supplied on 5th December—the diamond aigrette, charged at 1, 600l., was partly produced by Danby's, of Wigmore Street; the whole has been produced in various ways—that was sold to Danby for 225l. on the 9th, and supplied on the 5th—it has been divided and produced—the brooch centre was sold at Robert Attenborough's for 195l., and the plume at Richard Attenborough's for 97l. 10s.—the loop and chain earrings, which formed a part of that wedding suite, 575l., were delivered on 5th December, and the ones which were sold to Phillips, and were produced by Mr. Walters's assistant yesterday—those are the earrings—575l. is our price for those—I find the five articles all pawned, from the 9th to the 14th of December, which were delivered on the 5th; and, in addition, I find a great number of articles of those produced which were delivered by me—I identify all those which are not claimed by Mr. Drayson—I find that all the articles which are produced were pawned within a few days of the time I delivered them, and for prices considerably under the prices charged; in most of the eases they were pledged before they were charged.

FRANCIS COOK . I am a diamond worker—I bought from Mr. Meyers the two stones, the emerald and ruby, and afterwards sold them to Messrs. Jonas Brothers.

CHARLES DUPIX DRAYSON (re-called). I have seen two rings which were in the possession of Mr. Parr—they are my property—they were supplied on approbation; a diamond and ruby half-hoop, and an emerald and diamond half-hoop.

ALFRED PARR . I am George Parr's brother—I produce two rings, a diamond and ruby half-hoop, and a diamond and sapphire half-hoop—they were pawned on 14th December, 1872, by Emily Goldsmith, 14, Carleton Terrace, W.

ALFRED DRAYSON (re-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS). We did not have several interviews with Michael after Rebecca was in custody, it was before—he did not come after she was in custody—he came on several occasions after we had a warrant for the apprehension of Montague—he did not return 4,000l. or 5,000l. worth of property, about 400l. worth—he did return property—he had two interviews with our firm, and he wrote to say he would come again, but he never came—he had one interview with me and one with my cousin—I suppose the first one was about two days after we got the warrant against Montague—I believe he knew the warrant was out—I don't know that he did—he did not say he knew it, and we had not told him—we had not bills out when he came—he saw me on the second occasion, that was four or five days after the warrant had been applied for.

HENRY CHARMAN (re-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS). I think I instituted this prosecution about twenty-four hours before Mr. Drayson came into it

—it may be that he did not commenoe for some two months after we had commenced—I really don't know about the dates; it was my impression that it was twenty-four hours, and it is my impression still—I don't think Mr. Drayson's case was conoluded before I was called as a witness—I think you are mistaken—I heard Mr. Wontner say that it was possible he might be instructed by Mr. Drayson, but he had not been instructed yet—I don't remember that I saw Michael Goldsmith after Rebecca was in custody—my impression is it was not so—he came to me after we had obtained a warrant against Montague; that was not after Rebecca was in custody—I had not bills printed—I think Michael came with his father once—I think he came once alone, and he may have come once subsequently: I think three times after the warrant had been obtained for the arrest of Montague.

MR. METCALFE. Q. There was one stone in the diamond aigrette which I believe cost a considerable sum of money, can you tell us what it was? A. 400 guineas one stone—that is very nearly double the amount at which the whole thing was sold.

MR. GIFFARD submitted that the Uth and 14th Counts, which cliarged the prisoners with unlawfully receiving the goods obtained by Montague by false pretences, were bad in point of law, inasmuch as they did not disclose any indictable offence; the false pretences were not set out in those Counts, which he contended was necessary in order to make the Counts good Certain false pretences only were made a misdemeanour by the statute, and it must be shown on the face of the record that the false pretences alleged were such as came wühin the meaning of the statute. The term "false pretences" was not a term of art; it was not like a charge of receiving stolen goods, the word "stealing" having a definite meaning attached to it. The misdemeanour, by this statute, was only a misdemeanour if the goods were received under circumstances which made the obtaining of them indictable. (See Reg. v. Mason.) 2 Term Reports, p.681.

MR. POLAND (on same side) called attention to the 95th Section of 24 and 25 Vic, c 96, upon which these Counts were framed, also to Reg. v. Marsh Denison's Crown Cases, p. 505, and contended that they should have alleged the offence to be "against the statute, "the statute defining what mis-demeanours were indictable. The indictment should show what the false pretences were by which the goods were obtained, otherwise there was nothing to show that a misdemeanour had been committed.

MR. METCALFE, in support of the Counts, contended that the indictment was not specially for obtaining goods by false pretences, but for the substantive offence of unlawfully receiving goods which had been obtained by false pretences. It was sufficient that they were received, if it was known that they were obtained by false pretences. The actual false pretence might not be known to the person who received, or even that the goods were obtained by false pretences from the persons to whom they belonged. The gist of the offence was the receiving, and that in itself would be an unlawful act if it be shown that the goods were obtained by false pretences, and that they knew it. He also contended that if there was anything in the objection, it was on the face of the record; and by 14 and 15 Vic, o.100, sec.25, the defendants must proceed by Writ of Error.

THE DEPUTY-RECORDER was of opinion that the objection was a serious one, and would reserve the question for the Court for the consideration of Crown Cases Reserved. The case against Lewis was withdrawn.

LEWIS GOLDSMITH— NOT GUILTY .

MICHAEL GOLDSMITH— GUILTY on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, and 14th Counts.

REBECCA GOLDSMITH— GUILTY on 13th and 14th Counts—The Jury recommended her to mercy, fancying she had been drawn into it by her brothers .— Judgment reserved.

There were other indictments against the prisoners, which were postponed till the next Session.

NEW COURT.—Monday, 5th May, 1873.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

322. ALFRED TRACEY (17), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing one pad of mackerel, the property of Joseph Younghusband.— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

323. JOHN POAD (31) , to stealing a post letter, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General— Five Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

324. ISAAC VINCENT (36) , to stealing whilst employed in the Post-ofice, seven letters, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General. Five Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

325. ROBERT BAKER (15) , to stealing a post packet, containing three pairs of gloves, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.— Judgment Respited. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

326. DAVID SWANSON (37) , to feloniously forging and uttering an acceptance to a bill of exchange for 500l., with intent to defraud.— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment. And [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

327. TRYPHENA FRANCES DYER (25) , to three indictments for feloniously uttering forged orders, with intent to defraud.— Six Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

328. WILLIAM HERRON (31), Embezzling the sums of 15l., 15l. 12s. 6d., and 50l., of Alfred Whichelow, his co-partner, upon which MR. BESLEY. for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

329. WILLIAM HERRON was again indicted for a like offence.

MR. BESLEY offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

330. WILLIAM BARNES (18) , Stealing one watch of Thomas Feacham, from his person.

MR. BESLEY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. HARRIS the Defence.

THOMAS FEACHAM . I am a machine ruler, of 16, Abchurch Lane—on 15th February, just after midnight, I was in Bishopsgate Street, with two friends—the prisoner and two others came up to me—the prisoner pressed against me and wanted to ask me a question; I tried to get away, but they followed me, and I felt his hand at my pocket—I seized him with my watch in his hand, which was passed up—it is my property.

Cross-examined. It was dark—the whole thing only occupied a second or two—I had never seen the prisoner before.

JOHN FLETCHER . I was with Feacham, and heard him say "I hare lost my watch"—he had hold of the prisoner, and I got hold of his other arm, and held him till a policeman came.

Cross-examined. His two fellows got away.

ALFRED GODDARD . (City Policeman 876,). I saw the prosecutor holding the prisoner, and went up and took three of them in custody; I had one in each hand, and one under my arm—I saw the prisoner drop the watch down the left leg of his trousers, he put the heel of his boot on it; I called upon a witness to pick it up—this is it, the glass and hands are completely crushed.

Cross-examined. I had seen the prisoner before—he told me he had only

just come up from Liverpool, and that his father was a dealer—I found that that was quite false.

WILLIAM FOLEY . The constable called me in Bishopsgate Street, and asked me to pick up what was on the pavement, and I picked up this watch; it was near the prisoner.

Cross-examined. He was not in the gutter but on the pavement, the other two were on his right side.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

331. GEORGE DUNN (25) , Stealing a coat and waistcoat, the property of John Antony Rucker.

MR. ST. AUBYN conducted the Prosecution.

ALFRED HASLET . I am a tailor, of 142, Fenchurch Street—on 1st April, about 6 p.m., I was in Star Alley, leading from Mark Lane to Fenchurch Street, and saw the prisoner with several coats on, and a waistcoat tucked under one of them, he crossed over to the Lord Napier, and I gave him in custody; he said that he bought them.

JOSEPH SARNES (City Policeman 747). I took the prisoner, and asked him where he got the coats—he said he bought them; I asked him who of, he made no answer, and I took him to the station.

WILLIAM OSBORNE (City Policeman 711). I was at the station when the prisoner was brought in, I saw two coats taken from under the one he was wearing, and the waistcoat from under one of them—he made no reply to the charge, he gave his address at a friend's, who I found.

JOHN ANTHONY RUTTER . I am clerk to Rugg & Co., of 7, Mark Lane—one of these coats and the waistcoat is mine—I left them on a peg in my office on 1st April, a little after a quarter to six o'clock.

SAMUEL THOMAS WEST . I am housekeeper to Good & Rugg—I saw five coats and two waistcoats safe at ten minutes to six o'clock, and missed them next morning.

Prisoner's Defence. A man was hawking the coats and asked me to buy them; I bought two and a waistcoat, and the gentleman came up and asked me where I got them; I said that I bought them. You will see hawkers selling second-hand clothes in the streets at all times, and a man who buys them is not liable to know that they are got wrongly.

NOT GUILTY .

332. GEORGE DUNN was again indicted for stealing two coats, the property of Joseph Sophus Levin.

MR. ST. AUBYN conducted the Prosecution.

JOSEPH SOPHUSLEVIN . I am a printer, of 59A, Great Tower Street—on 26th March I went home and changed my coat—my errand boy afterwards said something to me, and I missed a great coat, a thin coat, and another coat.

THOMAS DAY . I am twelve years old, and am errand boy to Mr. Levin—on 26th March I saw the prisoner in the middle of Red Cross Square, putting on two coats of my master's—I went back to the office and missed the coats, and told my master.

Prisoner's Defence. I am innocent. Nobody saw me near the place.

GUILTY . He was further charged with a previous conviction in July, 1871, in the name of George Thompson, when lie was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, to which he PLEADED GUILTY.**— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.

333. SUSAN WRIGHT (34) , Stealing an order for the payment of 11l., the property of Margaret Gleeson.

MR. MOODY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. GRIFFITHS the Defence.

MARGARET GLEESON . I am now out of a situation—in May last I was servant to Mr. Wells, at 17, Charing Cross—the prisoner worked there as charwoman, but I did not first become acquainted with her there; my mother knew her first—my mother has married again, and has gone to America—I told the prisoner that I expected money from America from my mother, for me and my brother and sister to go over to her—I did not know how much—I left Mr. Wells' service, and went to live at Bath—I had not then received any letter from my mother containing money—I got a letter from my mother just before Christmas, and then came up to London and saw Mr. Watts—I went with him and Chalkley, the constable, to 5, Tur-ner's Court, and saw the prisoner—she said "What is this for?"—he said "It is for the cheque you have cashed in Margaret Gleeson's name"—she said "Don't take me, because of my children"—I have seen the prisoner write, and have had several letters from her—this signature, "Margaret Gleeson, "on the front and back of this cheque is her writing—I had never seen the cheque.

Cross-examined. I gave evidence before the Magistrate and also here last Session, when the Jury could not agree (see vol. lixvii., page 390)—I said at Bow Street, "It is not my writing; it looks like the prisoner's writing"—I was certain that it was the prisoner's writing—I am living now in Regent Circus with a friend, Mrs. Harley—she is married—she is not in business—I left my situation in Bath when I came up to these Sessions—I could not go back in consequence of this case; my master could not be troubled so many times about my coming backwards and forwards from Bath—Mr. West has not called on me since the trial—I have not seen him—I first became acquainted with the prisoner when I was living in Scotland Yard—I have a sister who is deformed, but she has always earned her living while she was with the prisoner—I have taken her away—she is fifteen now, and she has been with the prisoner three years—she broke her leg while with the prisoner, and went to the hospital; and while she was there my mother was obliged to go to America and leave her there—I do not know that the people at the hospital were about to send my sister to the workhouse—the prisoner had her back for her own use—she was not as kind as a mother to her; she knocked her about shamefully—she was kind to her before my face—I do not remember whether I said last Session that she was as kind as a mother to her—I was in the family way when I was with Mr. Wells, but that has nothing to do with the prisoner thieving my money—the prisoner was sent for to Mr. Wells, but I did not go to her house and be confined there, I went to the Union—when I came out of the Union I went to the prisoner's house with my baby, but I did not sleep there—I did not remain at the house till I got a situation—I remained there about a fortnight; it may have been three weeks—I did not go straight from her house to my situation, I went into the country and stayed there a week, and she wrote me a letter to say that the bed was let to a gentleman, and I could not go back again—I told the Jury I did not sleep with the prisoner, but I slept in the house, up stairs with the landlady—the prisoner was as kind as a mother to me and my baby, but that is no reason why she should rob me—I did not pay her one single farthing, but she pawned my clothes, and my sister's, too; she has got them out now, but I had to go to a Magistrate first—nobody has been speaking to me about this case since last time—you asked me these questions last time, but I said nothing about pawning the clothes

because you would not let me speak; you told me to hold my tongue when I was speaking—my mother used to write to the prisoner from America, and she used to write to my mother—there was no other servant at Mr. Wells's to go away in the family way.

Re-examined. The prisoner did not occupy the whole house, only lodg-ings—I did not sleep in her lodgings, but in another part of the house—I paid the landlady for my bedroom, and boarded with the prisoner—she said that it did not matter till I got a situation—I did not give her any of my clothes to pawn, she took them out of my box—I was not aware of it till I got my box, and then I wrote to her and got no answer, so I went be-fore a Magistrate—the prisoner never made any claim on me for money—I never owed her anything—she said that she would keep my sister, and no one should have her—she has worked for the prisoner as a servant, and I found her clothes, and as fast as I did so the prisoner pawned them—the prisoner had the benefit of her services for her board and lodging—I was confined on 16th May—I had been in Mr. Wells' service a year and eight months—he is here.

JAMES CHALKLEY (Policeman E 402). I went to the prisoner's house in Turner's Court and told her I should take her in charge for stealing and forging a cheque on a bank at Old Broad Street for 11l.—I told her the amount in English money—she said, "It is quite true, but do not take me, for the sake of my poor children; I am guilty."

Cross-examined. I have been nearly twenty years in the police—my deposition was read over to me, and I put my mark to it—I said there that I told her it was a cheque for sixty-two dollars—it was at another conver-sation that I told her it was for 11l.—I forget whether I told the Magis-trate that she said "I am guilty"—Mr. Wells was present when she said it—nothing was said quietly or secretly—I will swear I mentioned last Session that she said she was guilty.

WILLIAM STEBBING WELLS . I am a butcher, of 17, Charing Cross—the prosecutrix was in my service, and the prisoner was occasionally employed there as charwoman—after Gleeson left, in May last, a letter came for her—I cannot say whether I saw one or more—I saw one undoubtedly directed to Margaret Gleeson—I saw an address on it, and the postmark was "Auburn, New York"—I gave it to some of my men to take it to the prisoner—I did not know anything about its containing money—I after-wards received a letter from Mrs. Carr, Margaret Gleeson's mother, and after that I went to the prisoner's lodging and told her that I had received a letter from Ellen Carr, enquiring if a letter was forwarded to Margaret Gleeson at my house, containing a cheque for 11l.—I do not remember whether I showed her the letter or read it to her—she said that she had had the letter, and, acting under advice, she had been to the bank and got the money, as she considered the prosecutrix was in her debt, and she bad appropriated it to her own use—after that I went with the prosecutrix to Montague's bank, Old Broad Street—I also told the prisoner that she had done wrong—she said she was quite justified—she gave me no particulars of what sum Gleeson was indebted to her—I afterwards went with the con-stable and Gleeson to the prisoner's house—I cannot recollect what her words were, but she admitted having had the money, and begged not to be taken in custody—Gleeson had left my house in the family way, and I sent for the prisoner on that occasion, when we suddenly discovered it—I have never been charged with being the cause of the girl's misfortune, nor have

I had to pay a single farthing in respect of the child—it was not imputed to me being the father of the child, only by Mr. Griffiths on the last occa-sion—another servant left in the family way, but not from my house of business, and she had only been in my house two months—I am married—it has never been imputed to me that I was the cause of the girl's ruin; it is not possible—up to the last trial no accusations of the kind had been thrown out against me—I have never been called upon to pay a single farthing for that girl or her child—I said on the last trial that Mr. Griffiths had thrown aspersions upon my character which were entirely undeserved.

Cross-examined. I know that the prisoner is married and lives with her husband, who is a coachman, in Scotland Yard—she has five or six children—they are little things—I do not know the age of the eldest—when I sent for her it was for her to see after Margaret Gleeson—I do not think that was so long as three days before she was confined—she went to the work-house—I do not know where she went with her baby after she came out of the workhouse—I have not heard—I do not know that she went to the prisoner's—I have never lived away from my wife—I was present and heard all that the prisoner beard—I think he said "I charge you with felony"—but I was upset at the painful sight of seeing the children, that I don't know what he did say—the money was sometimes called dollars, and sometimes pounds—he said "pounds" because he would not know anything about dollars—I went to enquire what had become of the cheque, and naturally I stated in some way the contents of the letter—I cannot tell you in what way now.

Re-examined. The letter caused me to go there—I did not know that the prisoner and the girl's mother were intimate friends before—I sent for the prisoner to take care of the girl.

JOSEPH ARTHUR BLACKMAN . I am clerk to Samuel Montague & Co., of Old Broad Street, London.

Q. Do you find an entry in your book of a draft paid to Margaret Gleeson? A. You would not have the book last time, so I did not bring it to-day—I am not the person who actually handed any money over—in the course of business such a draft as that would be sent to our house in Liverpool—it was returned to our house from New York.

Cross-examined. Q. You never saw the prisoner till she was before the Magistrate? A. Never.

MR. WELLS gave the prisoner a good character.

GUILTY.—Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury .— Four Months' Imprisonment.

334. ALFRED GRIMWOOD (15) , Stealing an order for the payment of 18l. 9s., of Richard Nation.

MESSRS. SLADE and AUSTIN METCALFE conducted the Prosecution.

RICHARD NATION . I am a solicitor, and live at 4, Orchard Street, Portman Square—on 29th October last I had occasion to send this cheque to Mr. David Cracklow, 11, Mincing Lane, payable to him or order—there was no endorsement on it then—Mr. Cracklow's name appears on it now—I know his writing, but the endorsement is certainly not his—I sent the cheque in a letter and gave it to my clerk to post.

HENRY GORDON . I am an engineer's clerk at 20, Abingdon Street—on 29th October I was clerk to the last witness—I recollect seeing a letter

addressed to "David Cracklow, "and a gentleman in the office added "Esquire"—the letter was posted in the pillar-box at the comer of Orchard Street and Oxford Street, between 1 and 4 o'clock.

EDWARD POWELL . I am a sub-sorter at the Vere Street Post-office—in the ordinary course of business if a letter was posted in the pillar-box, Orchard Street, between 1 and 4 o'clock, it would be taken to the Vere Street Post-office—and a letter for Mincing Lane would be sorted and sent in a sealed bag to the Eastern Central Office—on 29th October I sealed up the bags between 1 and 6 o'clock, and sent them off.

JOHN SAMPSON . I am inspector of letter-carriers at the General Post-office—a letter coming from the Vere Street Office, addressed to Mincing Lane, between 1 and 4 o'clock would be sent off the same evening—it would depend on the time the letter arrived.

DAVID CRACKLOW . I am a wine merchant, at 11, Mincing Lane—I do business with Mr. Nation—I expected to receive a cheque about 29th or 30th October from him—I did not receive one—the endorsement on this cheque is not in my handwriting—I did not authorise anyone to sign my name there—there is a letter-box at the street door of my office, and also one in my counting house—there was no lock on the box at that time—I think it possible that a person might get inside the passage behind the door where the letter-box was and take the letter out.

THOMAS ALLISTON . I am a clerk to Messrs. Waterlow's, at 24, Birchin Lane—the prisoner was formerly in their employ for about nine months—he left about a twelvemonth ago—he came to the place of business on 31st October last and asked for two 5l. bill stamps—I gave them to him and he gave me this cheque for 15l. 9s.—it was endorsed as it is now—I asked him where he came from—he told me from Mr. Cracklow's—I asked him the address—he said 11, Mincing Lane, which I endorsed on the back—I asked whether he was a customer of ours, and he said "Yes"—I gave him the bill stamps, and the rest in cash, and he went away—we take cheques if we know the people—I had known the lad some time—I did not know Mr. Cracklow.

MATTHEW MOORE . I am a constable in the service of the General Post-office—I was instructed to make inquiries about this letter and Mr. Cracklow's cheque—in November last I called at Messrs. Mutter & Co., in Cannon Street—I found the prisoner there, employed as errand boy—I showed him this cheque and asked him if he knew anything about it—he said "Yes, "that he got it from a man thatt he met in a court, close to Messrs. Waterlow's, in Birchin Lane; he asked him to go into Waterlow's to cash it, to get two 5l. bill stamps, and if any questions were asked to tell them he had come from Mr. Cracklow's, 11, Mincing Lane; he went into Messrs. Waterlow's and got the cheque cashed, and two 5l. bill stamps and the remainder in cash; when he came out he saw the man higher up the court; he beckoned to him and he went to him and handed him the 5l. stamps, and the remainder in cash; he gave him 6d. for his trouble—after that I went with him down to Mr. Cracklow's office and placed him at the door where all the clerks came in, but he failed to identify anyone as the person who had given him the cheque—I gave him a piece of note paper and asked him to sign his own name on it, and also Mr. Cracklow's—this is the paper (produced)—I asked him how he spelt Cracklow—and he spelt it first without the "k, "and then he spelt it properly—I told him to

write it down, which he did—he said he forgot to put the "k" in—I took him into custody afterwards—he was perfectly ready with his explanation.

Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "All I have got to say is that other boys have got me into this trouble. I have not been stealing for myself.

Prisoner's Defence. I had this cheque given me by a man in the court".

NOT GUILTY .

335. ALFRED GRIMWOOD was again indicted for stealing an order for the payment of 6l. 10s., the property of Augustus Reynolds.

WILLIAM ODLING . I am clerk to Mr. Greville, meat salesman, of Charter-house Street—on 31st March I received this crossed cheque from Mr. Greville, it was drawn by him and is payable to Messrs. Sandon—I enclosed it in an envelope, addressed it to Messrs. Sandon, and sent it to the poet—there was no endorsement on the cheque then.

JAMES SWAIN . I am servant to Mr. Greville, of Charterhouse Street—on 31st March I had some letters to post—I put all I have given me in the letter-box about 3 o'clock.

JOHN SAMPSON . I am inspector of letter-carriers at the General Post-office—a letter posted in the St. John's Street, Smithfield, Post-office about 3 o'clock in the afternoon would be brought to the General Post-office and sent by the letter-carrier with his delivery at 4.10 or 4.20—it was 4.20 when he left on that occasion.

JOHN PARKER . I am a letter-carrier in the General Post-office—I was on duty on 31st March last—St Swithin's Lane is in my delivery—I went out about 4.20 or 4.30 to deliver letters that afternoon—I know Mr. Sandon's office—I should be there about 5 o'clock—his office is on the first floor, and when he is gone there is a street-door box—the house closes at various times, sometimes it is closed earlier than others—I don't remember putting a letter in the box; we have so many it is impossible to recollect.

ALFRED GEORGE SANDON . I carry on business as a builder with my brother, under the name of Sandon Brothers, 17, St. Swithin's Lane—we are in the habit of having business transactions with Mr. Greville—we have received a cheque from him every week for the last twelve months—I never received this cheque—the endorsement on it is "William, "that is not my name—it is not written by me or my brother—I gave no one authority to do it for me—there is also an address on the back, "10, Minories"—I never had an office there.

JAMES BRYANT . I am a chemist, and keep the post-office at Alagate, next door to the chemist's shop—on the 1st April last a boy came in for 5l. worth of stamps, and put down this cheque for 6l. 10s.—it was not required to be endorsed, as it was payable to bearer—there was a name on it "W. Sandon, "but no address—I said to the boy, "Where do you come from?"—he said "10, Minories"—I know the house is let out in offices, the upper part, and I said "Put down the address, "and he wrote it—I gave him the stamps, and 1l. 10s. in gold, and he went away—I saw the prisoner afterwards at the post-office, but he was much smarter dressed than he is now—he said before the Magistrate, "I was the boy that went to his shop with the cheque."

WILLIAM HOBBS . I live with my parents at 29, Rutland Street—I have known the prisoner about twelve months—I made his acquaintance at a

Sunday-school—on 1st April I met him in Rutland Street—he said he was going in the City, and asked me whether I would go with him, and I went with him—I asked him what he was going for—he told me to wait presently and I should see what he was going: for—I found he went in Aldgate, to Mr. Bryant's place, and there I saw Mr. Bryant give him some stamps—the prisoner told me to wait outside—he put the stamps underneath his coat—I went to another post-office afterwards with the prisoner, in Aldgate—he told me to go in and change some stamps for him, and I went in—he gave me some stamps to change—I sold them for 4s. 10 1/2 d.—I gave that to the prisoner—after that I went into another post-office in the Commercial Road—the prisoner gave me the rest of the stamps and said I was to receive 5l. all but 2d. for them—the person in the shop asked me who I came from and I told him, and afterwards he sent me to the post-master—he put me in a private room, and put questions to me—when I came out the prisoner was gone, without the stamps or the money that he sent me for—I never had done anything of that kind before for the prisoner—I gave the prisoner's address to the officer.

SAMUEL GREGORY COLE . I am a clerk in the Eastern District office in the Commercial Road—on 1st April the last witness came into the office with some stamps to sell—he stated there was 5l. worth, but I found only 4l. 15s.—I asked him where he came from—he gave me his address, and he said his father had bought them, and he wanted them changed—I asked him why his father did not take them back to the office, as I should charge him 2s. 6d. commission for them—he said his father had bought them, and he did not require them—I took possession of the stamps, and the inquiries not being satisfactory, I took the boy up stairs to the postmaster.

JOHN BARTLETT . I am inspector of letter-carriers in the Eastern District post-office—on 1st April I saw the boy Hobbs—in consequenoe of what he said I went outside, to see if there was anyone with him—I saw someone; I believe it was the prisoner—I asked him if he was connected with the boy that was inside—he said "No, I am not; I am waiting for someone"—he gave his address as living in the Minories—that was contrary to what Hobbs had stated, and I went inside, to make inquiries of the boy, and when I went out again the prisoner was gone, and I saw no more of him till he was in custody—I am not quite sure that it was the prisoner; I believe it to be him—he had not got the scarf on he has now.

MATTHEW MOORE . On 10th April I met the prisoner in Philpot Street Commercial Road—I had seen Hobbs before, and he gave me the prisoner's address as 21, John Street, Sidney Square—I took him to the solicitor's office—Hobbs was there—the prisoner was asked if he had been to St. Swithin's Lane—he said "No," he had not—I asked him if he had not seen me there about the 3rd or 4th of April—he said "No," he had not; he had not been through St. Swithin's Lane for a fortnight—I had seen him inside the street-door of No.17, Mr. Sandon's office—he gave me his address, 21, John Street, Sidney Square—I have been to No.10, Minories, but the prisoner was not known there—he was then taken into custody—it was about 3 o'clock in the afternoon I saw him at No.17.

Prisoner. I was not there for stealing, or doing anything of that kind; that I never thought of doing.

JOHN GARDNER . I am one of the senior clerks in the Post Office—I was present on the 10th April, when the prisoner was brought in, and I heard what was said to him—he was asked where he got the cheque for 6l. 10s.—

he said two boys had given it to him at Fenohurch Street, between 5 and 6 o'clock the day before he changed it; that an arrangement had been made to meet the boys in the Commercial Road the next day, between 3 and 4 o'clock—the boys had asked him to get the cheque cashed—the next day he met Hobbs, and took him to the post-office in Aldgate, and purchased 5l. worth of postage-stamps; that he was asked there where he came from; he said No.10, Minories; he was asked to write that address on the cheque, and he did so—he afterwards gave Hobbs some of the stamps to sell at the post-office in the Commercial Road, and as Hobbs did not come out again, he went to look after the two boys who had given him the cheque in the Commercial Road, but he could not find them—he was asked the names and addresses of the two boys; he gave them as William Francis and Thomas James, and he said he did not know where they lived.

Prisoner's Defence. I went down the Commercial Road to see the two boys, and when I did see them I gave them 35s., and they gave me 2s. for my trouble, and called me a fool for sending the boy to get the stamps, and I told them to be off. The gentleman came and asked me if I knew anything about the stamps, and I said "No, "to get myself out of the trouble. I have known the boys for the last twelve months; I knew a little where they lived, and I know them well. I am very sorry for what I have done; I hope this will be a lesson to me.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT, Tuesday, May 6th, 1873.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, ksq.

336. HENRY COOMBER (17) , unlawfully assaulting James Dyer, Thomas Dengate, Edward Hart, James Barnes, and Herbert Russell, officers, in the execution of their duty.

See "Reg v. Houlihan," vol Ixxvii., page 349.

MR. SIMS conducted the Prosecution.

JAMES JOYCE . (Policeman B 261). On Sunday night, 2nd March, about 1 o'clock, I was on duty in Victoria Street, Westminster, and heard cries of "Stop thief!"—I went in the direction in which the cries proceeded, and saw a soldier and Houlihan running, and the prisoner running alter them—I took Houlihan in custody, and he was so violent that we were obliged to take him face downwards—the prisoner put his foot between Dengate's legs and threw him down on one side—he also kicked Barnes, but I could not pay much attention in the struggle.

THOMAS DENGATE . (Policeman B 232). On Sunday evening, 2nd March, I went to Pye Street and saw Joyce taking Houlihan into custody, when we got to Strutton Ground I saw the prisoner trying to get Houlihan away—he put his foot before me on purpose, and said "You old b----, I will give you something, "and I fell down—it was an accident.

EDWARD HART . (Policeman B 416). On 2nd March, at 1 o'clock, a.m., I was assisting Joyce and Dengate to take Houlihan—I saw the prisoner in Rochester Row, he pushed me twice by the shoulders and attempted to lay hold of Houlihan; he obstructed us all the way to the station.

JAMES BARNES . (Policeman B R 23). I assisted Joyce, Dengate, and Russell in taking Houlihan—the prisoner got hold of Houlihan and tried to get him away—he said "You old b----s, you are killing him"—I did not see him strike the other constables.

HERBERT RUSSELL . (Policeman B 49). I assisted the other constables in

taking Houlihan, and saw the prisoner put his foot in front of Dengate and throw him to the ground—I took him in custody.

Prisoners Defence. I am innocent—I never threw anybody down, my hands were occupied all the while.

NOT GUILTY .

337. GEORGE ROGERS (17) . Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Donald Webb, and stealing therein a waterproof cloak, three coats and other articles, his property.

MR. LANQFORD conducted the Prosecution.

ARTHUR HUNT (Policeman V 125). On Saturday, 12th April, about 3 o'clock, a.m.—I was in Lower Richmond Road, Mortlake, about five miles from Mr. Webb's house at Teddington, and saw the prisoner with this bundle (produced)—I asked him what he had in the bundle—he said a water proof cloak and dress belonging to his mother, which she had left at his house at Kingston the previous week—he looked very bulky and I asked him to unbutton his mackintosh, under which I found three coats; he said that two of them belonged to his father—he has one of them on now—he gave his aunt's address near the railway station—but he said that he could not exactly recollect the name as she had not been there long—I told him that his account was not satisfactory, and took him to Richmond Station, and found on him a pocket-book, a hymn-book, two pairs of gloves, a whistle, a punch, two knives, and a pair of studs—he did not appear to have been drinking.

MARY STELL . I am cook to Donald Webb, of Teddington—on Good Friday, 11th April, I went to bed, at 10.15—having fastened the kitchen window with the catch—next morning at 7.15 I found it unfastened, and the window open—these two cotton dresses are mine—the cloak and dress were safe at the kitchen fire the night before—there was also a waterproof cloak, and black cloth jacket, a black skirt, and the two cotton dresses, all my property.

DONALD WEBB . I live at Leamington House, Teddington—on the morning of 12th April, my cook spoke to me; I went into the kitchen, and found the window and back-door open—some goods had been taken away, and I missed a great coat, containing a pocket-boook and gloves, also a mackintosh, a knife, and some studs; they were safe on Good Friday even ing—this is my great coat (produced).

WILLIAM TREADAWAY . I live at Teddington—on Good Friday night, about 10 o'clock, I met the prisoner just at the back of the house where I lodge, about a stone's throw from Mr. Wells's house—I met him first about 6 o'clock, and was with him till 10.30—he had a tidy drop of drink with me, and he was pretty tight when I left him—I saw him to the train.

ARTHUR HUNT (re-examined). He had a return ticket from Richmond on him.

GUILTY—Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury**— Judgment respited.

338. JOSEPH EDWARD HARRIS (38) , Stealing three photographic lenses and one camera, the property of Thomas John Barnes.

MR. LYONS conducted the Prosecution.

THOMAS JOHN BARNES . I am a photographer, of 422, Mile End Road—about 20th August I entrusted the prisoner with a photographic apparatus the arrangement I made was that he was to go through the country to the cathedral towns of England and photograph a series of views—I was to

pay the whole of the expenses of the journey, and when any profit was made the prisoner was to have a share, but that share has never been divided—when the work was finished the apparatus was to be returned; I gave him no authority to dispose of it, he was to act as my servant—I made inquiries of the prisoner from time to time as to the condition of the lens, and he assured me that it was perfectly safe, and gave me the address of an hotel or coffee-house at Ramsgate, where he said that he had left it—in consequence of what I heard I went to a photographer named Wright, 99, East India Road—I had previously been to Archbutt's, a pawnbroker in Westminster Bridge Road, and had written to the place at Ramsgate—there were three lenses, a camera, and tent—two of the lenses were stereo-doublets, numbered, and I can identify them.

Prisoner. Q. Was the camera ever your property at all? A. Yes, I was responsible to the maker for the payment, although you bought it; but it is not the camera at all, it is the lenses which are my property—towards the end of August you sold me some property which was in pledge, part of which was the subject of the present charge—it was afterwards redelivered to you outside my place—you were to work for me, all the business was done in the name of my firm, your name never appeared—I produced an account at the Police Court of the cash transactions between us, but I have not got it here—here is my receipt for the lens (produced) there is an item of 2l. 10s. in the accounts, it is not for a dress suit—I made advances to you with a view to profit afterwards—I have no knowledge what you did with the money—you may have gone to Rochester in March and brought an order for 12l.—it has never been executed; you did no photographing there—you went to Rochester and Canterbury and brought me orders, but they have never been verified—the verification was to be in writing, but I have never seen it—I have not tried to verify it—I hold seventy plates.

COURT. Q. Is there at this moment an open account between the prisoner and you? A. No—I have advanced money to him and have not been recouped—I charge him with these lenses because he has pawned them and sold the tickets—he bought the camera and I supplied the lenses, and he has taken the whole—the seventy plates in my possession have been produced jointly by his camera and my lens—I have kept an account against him of everything I have spent and everything I received—the lenses are put down at what they cost, not to him but to the special account—these things are my property, and would not have been taken into account in dividing profits at all—I put them in the book because I was putting down all the money I spent—I have charged him with the lenses.

THE COURT considered that there was no case against the prisoner.

NOT GUILTY .

339. FREDERICK ANSELL (43) , Feloniously cutting and wounding Caroline Ansell, with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm.

MR. PLATT conducted the Prosecution.

CAROLINE ANSELL . I am the prisoner's wife; we live at 15, Marlborough Square, Chelsea—on the evening of 7th April, about 6.30 p.m., we had a few words—I did not say a great deal to him; he said that I was always talking about him, and I said that his name was not worth mentioning—I think that vexed him.—he took up the poker from the fire and knocked me

on the left side of the head; I fell on my knees, and received two very heavy blows on the back of my head; I put my hand up and got a third blow on my hand—Mrs. Ford came and took me into her room, and Dr. Roach saw me—I kept my bed ten days; I am very much better, but have not got the use of my hand yet and my head is not well—I was in first and then he came in—I do not think he had been drinking.

MARY FORD . I am the wife of James Ford, and live in the same house—I heard screams of "Murder!" and saw the prosecutrix on the landing, bleeding from her head—the prisoner was on the stairs, with a poker in his hand—I put something round her head—the prisoner was not drunk.

DR. GEORGE HENBY RECKZALL . I live at Alexander Square, Brompton—the prosecutrix was brought to my surgery, suffering from a wound on the top of her head, another on the side of her face, and another at the back—one wound was three inches, and another two and a half, they went down to the bone—they must have been done with some force; a poker would be a likely instrument to produce them, the blunt part of it—she was almost insensible, and I did not think it advisable for her to be taken to the hospital—I attended her at her residence some time.

THEODORE COPUS (Policeman B 168). I was called, and saw Mrs. Ansell in the street—I took her to a doctor—I said to the prisoner "Ansell, I must take you for seriously assaulting your wife"—he said, "Oh, let me see her!"—I took him up into the room where she was in bed, and she said "Oh, Ansell, you have killed me!"—he made no reply—he was sober.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I did it in the heat of passion. I have not long returned from America. I had a sun-stroke while I was in America, and I hardly knew what I was doing."

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.

340. GEORGE PRIOR (25) , Stealing a gelding, the property of Andrew George Imrie.

MR. SIMS conducted the Prosecution.

EDWARD CULPIT . I am a licensed victualler—on 6th March, 1872, I had a grey gelding in a meadow adjoining my house at Harlington, Middlesex—it had been twenty weeks at grass—Mr. Imrie sent it to me—I saw it on 6th March, and missed it on the 8th—I know of no one having permission to take it away—it was worth about 20l.—it was brought to me by a con stable on the 16th—I have never seen the prisoner.

HENRY BASHALL . I am ostler at the Reindeer, Chigwell—on the 9th March, 1872, the prisoner offered me a grey gelding pony which he had with him for 5l.—I bought it of him next morning for 4l. 10s.—I knew him before, not as a dealer in horses, but he sold one now and then—I sold the pony to Frank Gibson for 6l. 17s. 6d—I saw the same pony produced by Gashon in March, 1872—the prisoner was coming past at the time, and I called him, and told him he was wanted—he came up to the stable, and the constable said "Did not you sell this young man a grey pony?"—he said "Yes"—I said "Should you know it if you were to see the grey horse?"—he said "Yes"—I fetched the pony to the door, and he said that it was the same—the constable asked him where he got it—he said that he bought it in Smithfield market—I saw the pony at Uxbridge last Thursday week—it was the same that I bought.

Prisoner. Q. Can you swear that I am the man? A. Yes.

ANDREW GEORGE IMRIE . I am a dealer in human hair—in March, 1872,

I had a grey gelding which I turned out to grass at Mr. Culpit's—I went down about it the next evening—I saw it next on the 19th, when one of Mr. Culpit'a assistants brought it—I have the pony now.

HENRY GASHON (Policeman T 80). I received information, and took the prisoner on 15th March, 1872, at the Reindeer public-house, Epping Forest—I charged him with stealing the horse, and said "You will have to go with me"—he said "Not for me, "meaning that he would not go with me—we had a severe struggle, he assaulted me very much, slipped out of his coat, and escaped—I found the pony at Mr. Payne's, at Peckham, and took it to Mr. Culpit, who identified it.

Prisoner. Q. How do you know me? A. You are the man I took in custody.

GEORGE TAYLOR . I took the prisoner on 16th April, as an escaped prisoner, on a charge of stealing a horse—I had a description of him before, and had been looking for him—he said that he would go with me.

Prisoner's Defence. I don't know anything of the crime whatever.

GUILTY . He was further charged with having been before convicted.

GEORGE TAYLOR . I produce a certificate (Read: Thomas Churchhill, convicted at Chelmsford, June 30, 32nd Victoria, of stealing hay of his master, four months' imprisonment), I was present; the prisoner is the man. I have known him ever since.

GUILTY— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

341. TIMOTHY LINAHAN (49) , Unlawfully attempting maliciously to wound James Hartnell.

MR. MORTON SMITH conducted the Prosecution. Upon the evidence of JOHN ROWLAND GIBSON, the Surgeon of the Gaol, the Jury found the prisoner insane, and unfit to plead. Ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.

342. CHARLES BAILEY (16), JAMES GALVIN (17), and FREDERICK EWEN (14) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Daniel Hebditch, and stealing a quantity of wearing apparel, his property.

BAILEY and GALVIN PLEADED GUILTY.— Judgment respited.

MR. DE MICHELE conducted the Prosecution.

GEORGE CARPENTER (Police Sergeant). I was on duty on 17th April, at 4 o'clock in the morning, in Dudley Street, Soho—I passed No.85, and tried the door—I found it open, and the three boys in the act of coming out—they all said they had been sleeping there—I took them to the station—I searched the premises, and in the kitchen I found a basket full of pigeons, two hats, and a quantity of calico, packed up in a basket—I found a housewife in Ewen's pocket—I saw Bailey drop a key, which I found fitted the door of the house.

Ewen. Bailey gave me the buttons.

Witness. The housewife contained buttons.

LOUISA HEBDITCH . I live in the kitchen, at 85, Dudley Street, and have the parlour and other rooms—I identify this housewife—the things in the basket are mine; they were on the line when I left them, and the basket was empty—the place was fastened up the night before—I don't know Ewen—he had no right in the house—I know nothing of any of them.

DANIEL HEBDITCH . I am the husband of the last witness, and live at 85, Dudley Street—I fastened up the house on 16th April at 10.30.

Witnesses for Ewen.

FREDERICK SHAW . I am Ewen's father—the boy belongs to the Shoeblacks—he left the Home on Tuesday night, I believe—he said he had not brought enough money home, and he wanted to go to a place—his name is Frederick Shaw—he did not tell me he was coming out of the Home.

WILLIAM HENRY PARRY . I am superintendent of the News Boys' Home, 80, Gray's Inn Road—this lad came to the Home; it is a lodging-house, where we charge the lads 2d. a night—he came there on 10th January, and gave the name of Frederick Ewen—he lodged there till Thursday, April 15th—he was well conducted, and we had no fault to find with him during that time.

Ewen. I was asleep in the passage, and Bailey gave me the things.

EWEN— NOT GUILTY .

343. JAMES HAMILTON (18), and WILLIAM HEYWOOD (15), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing 393 pairs of boots, the property of Reuben Oakeshott .

HAMILTON— Five Years' Penal Servitude. HEYWOOD Three Months' Imprisonment, and Three Years' in a Reformatory.

344. JOSEPH SAVINE (17), and GEORGE DIXON (16) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Horace Poole, and stealing a rifle, two coats, two books, and 4s., his property.

MR. BROMBY conducted the Prosecution.

MARTIN KEOGH (Policeman E 485). On the morning of 3rd April I was on duty in Chandos Street—I saw Dixon standing there, in front of the shop that was broken open—Savine was standing on the pavement, with another boy—I asked Dixon what he was doing there—he said he was waiting for his master, who was coming from the country—I asked him if he knew the other two, and he said "No"—I went round my beat, and came back in about twenty-five minutes, and I saw the three in conversation in front of the shop—they ran away—I could not swear to Savine, but I am quite clear as to Dixon.

JAMES HARE (Policeman E 337). I was on duty in Lincoln's Inn Fields on the morning of 3rd April—about 5 o'clock I saw the two prisoners and another man, not in custody, pass along the west side of Lincoln's Inn Fields—I followed them, on account of their appearance and what they were carrying—as I got near to them, Dixon, who was walking in front, started and ran away—I walked quickly, and Savine, who was carrying a sack with this deed-box inside, and other articles, threw the sack down, and ran away also—the man who was not apprehended was carrying a rifle, with two coats folded round it—he threw that down as I came near him, kicked me in the knee, which stopped my running—I pursued them to Red Lion Square, where I lost them—I afterwards took the things to New Street Station—I was sent for on the morning of the 14th, when I saw the two prisoners amongst six or eight others, and immediately identified them—from what I found inside the sack I found where the things came from, and I went to Mr. Poole's place, and examined it—I found a constable in charge of the front door—the back door was broken open, and this instrument lying close by—it corresponded with the marks on the wood—the hasp and lock were broken off.

Dixon. Q. Did you see me carrying any thing? A. No, you were walking in front, with your hands in front.

HORACE POOLE . I own these premises in Chandos Street—the shop and back parlour are mine; I let the top part—I left about 6 or 7 o'clock on 2nd April, and left my man in charge—when I came back I found it had been broken into—this property is mine, but the rifle belongs to Govern ment—I usually keep the rent-money in the box, but I had taken the gold out the day before—I know Dixon by his selling fusees and papers in the neighbourhood; that is all.

ROBERT HOARE . I was left in charge of these premises—I went out at 9 o'clock on 2nd April, and left the place all secure—I was woke up about 7.20 in the morning, and found they had been broken into.

Savine's Defence. I know nothing about it I was took up in the court for begging with this boy, and I was discharged.

NOT GUILTY .

345. DAVID BURBOROUGH (20) , Unlawfully and maliciously wounding Ellen Spinks, and occasioning her actual bodily harm.

MR. A.B. KELLY conducted the Prosecution.

ELLEN SPINKS . I am the wife of John Spinks, a railway porter—I live with a man named John Ransom—on Saturday night, 26th April, I was in a public-house on Tower Hill, with him—I asked him if he was coming home; he said "Not yet"—I said "You had better come home, and have some food indoors, instead of spending your money here, "and he gave me 4s. 6d. to pay the rent—the prisoner was standing at the counter at the time—he said if I did not hold my tongue he would smack me across the jaw—I turned round and said "It won't pay you"—he laid hold of me by the wrist, and was going to chuck me outside the door—he had a knife in his right hand, and struck me, outside of the door—the blood flowed, and I said "You have stabbed me"—I had seen the knife in his hand before—he had been cutting tobacco—I went outside, and called "Police!" and gave him into custody.

WILLIAM WALES . I am a private in the Coldstream Guards—I was in this public-house on Tower Hill on the Saturday night; the woman came in and got talking to the man she was living with; they got to very high words indeed, and the landlord told her he should have to have her turned out if she did not keep order—she went away and came back in about an hour, using very bad language—the prisoner is in the Coldstreams—they had very high words, but I did not see him strike her—she ran at him and scratched his face, and he took hold of her and shoved her out of the door, but I am sure he did not have a knife in his hand—I saw the woman when she was outside—she was bleeding a little—the prisoner shoved the woman out—I could not say whether she fell down.

CHARLOTTE CARTER . I was in the public-house on the night of the 26th when the quarrelling was going on—I saw Mrs. Spinks and the prisoner there—she was using very bad language, and the prisoner said "If you don't hold your noise, I will hit you across the mouth"—she took her shawl off and abused the prisoner, and scratched him down the face—the man she lived with said "Throw her out, "and the prisoner took her by the shoulder and put her out—she came in again, and he put her out; she fell on the stones, and I picked her up; she was bleeding—there was no knife used at all—if the prisoner had had a knife I should have seen it—I was at the door when the struggle took place—he had no knife whatever.

CATHARINE SMITH . I was at this public-house when the row was going on—Mrs. Spinks was there, having a row with her husband—she went out

and came in again, and the language she used was not fit for anyone to hear—the man she was living with wanted to hit her, and the prisoner said "Don't hit her"—he put her out and she came in again; he shoved her out again, and she fell on the flat of her back outside the door—I helped to pick her up—her head was bleeding.

GEORGE PETTMAN (Policeman H R 17). I came up when this woman was bleeding, and took the prisoner into custody—he was drunk, and his belt was lying on the tap-room table—he had his coat off—I told him to put it on, and that he was charged with striking the woman—I found a knife in his pocket, with his name on—it was closed—he said he never struck the woman with a knife.

Prisoners Statement before the Magistrate: "I was in the beer-house; the prosecutrix came in and got abusing the man. I told her to use better language, and she scratched my face. I caught hold of her arm to put her out, and she came in again. I put her out, and directly afterwards the constable came and charged me with stabbing her."

NOT GUILTY .

OLD COURT.—Wednesday, May 7, 1873.

Before Mr. Justice Grove.

346. GEORGE WEBB (44), was indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with, feloniously killing and slaying Harriet Ann Webb.

MR. MEAD conducted the Prosecution.

JAMES WEBB . I am the son of the prisoner and the deceased Harriet Ann Webb—the prisoner is a marker in the East India Stores—his wages were 24s. a week—my mother worked as a needlewoman, and sometimes earned 5s. or 6s. a week, and sometimes 10s.—my sister lived with them; she is 15 years old—she earned something—she used to work with my mother—it is five months since I lived at home—five or six months ago my mother was prevented from working by illness—she occasionally had pains in her hip, and a cough—she was confined to her bed for about three months—I frequently visited her since I left home—sometimes I took her a little piece of meat—she was very ill—I have seen the prisoner there since I left home; I can't say that I have seen him give her money—I have been there when he ought to have come home and given her money—I believe he was paid about 2 o'clock on Saturday—he was sometimes intoxicated when I have been there.

COURT. Q. Had persons access to your mother generally?—could her friends go and see her? A. Yes; they did not take her any food, but they sometimes provided a little brandy and milk—I supplied her with as much food as I possibly could—I am earning 1l. a-week—I am married—she died on 17th April.

ANNIE WEBB . I am the daughter of the prisoner and the deceased—my mother worked up to Christmas time, and then was so ill she could not use her needle—I did very little, because I had to wait upon her; sometimes I did not earn more than 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week—father earned 24s. a week—he would sometimes bring home 1s. 6d., sometimes 2s., and sometimes nothing—he did not supply us with food, my brother did, but it was not enough for us both; he kept me and assisted mother as much as he could—she took to her bed and became worse—I believe it was through utter want—I don't know what father did with his wages—he used to drink part of it—he was intoxicated very nearly every night—sometimes mother did not have

anything at all to eat during the day, because she could not take common food—she had been out since Christmas, she was removed from one house to another; she was not able to walk—she was carried down stairs to a cab, and carried up stairs again; that was about ten weeks ago—some days in the cold weather we had no fire up to 3 or 4 o'clock in the after noon—we had not sufficient bed-clothing—the relieving officer came about three or four weeks before she died, and he allowed her brandy and beef, but no money—my aunt went for him—I don't know why we did not send for him before; I suppose it was because we did not like to interfere—I did not know what to do—my aunt is 33 years of age—mother would not let her go—she attended to mother sometimes, but she has to work and keep a sick husband and five little children—after the relieving officer called, father gave us 12s. the last week, 8s. the week before, and 1s. 6d., the week before that.

GEORGE MUMMERY . I am relieving officer of St. Leonard, Shoreditch—I first received notice of this case on the 18th March—I visited the house at once—I valued the furniture there at about 15s.; I think a broker would give about that for all that was there—the deceased was in bed, and there was a fire—she did not say anything to me about being cold—I thought she was dying when I went into the room; it was three or four minutes before she could speak to me—I gave her relief at once, and up to her death—I saw the prisoner at his work three days after I went to the house—I asked how he could explain his wife being in that state; that she told me he had not provided her a doctor; that she had been nine weeks in bed, and had not had sufficient food—he said "I may as well speak the truth; it is the drink that is the cause of this"—he said he had earned 24s. a week for sixteen years.

THOMAS LEONARD . M.R.C.S. I am one of the medical officers of St. Leonard, Shoreditch—I visited the prisoner's house by order of the relieving overseer, on 18th March—I saw the deceased; she was in a state of great exhaustion; in fact, I almost thought she would have died while I was there—the cause of the exhaustion was want of proper nourishment—I continued to visit her till her death, on 17th April—the cause of death was the actual wearing out of the powers of nature, simply because she had not had nourishment in time to save her from exhaustion—I made a post mortem examination, and that confirmed my view—there was no organic disease, but extreme emaciation and absence of fat, indicating that she wanted nourishment, and she might have lived if she had had it at an earlier period.

MR. JUSTICE GROVE was of opinion, upon these facts, that there was no case to go to the Jury. (The case of Reg. v. Smith, "Lee and Cave, "607, to as referred to.) To constitute a case of manslaughter there must be constraint and control, and there was an absence of anything of that kind; it was not like the case of a child, here was an adult woman, with, friends about her, any of whom might have communicated with the parish authorities and obtained relief from them, or compelled the husband to afford it. The prisoner's conduct might be blameable, but it could not be left to the Jury as a case of manslaughter.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, May 7th, 1873.

Before Mr. Justice Denman.

347. EMMA MASLIN (20) , was charged, on the Coroners Inquisition only, with the wilful murder of her new-born child.

MR. GLYN, for the Prosecution, stated that the Grand Jury having thrown out the Bill, he would offer no evidence on the Inquisition.

NOT GUILTY .

348. The said EMMA MASLIN was indicted for unlawfully concealing the birth of her child.

MR. GLYN conducted the Prosecution.

NOT GUILTY .

349. GEORGE FITCH (28) , Feloniously cutting and wounding Caroline Jane Morgan, with intent to murder her.

MR. COLE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. COOPER the Defence.

The prisoner having stated in the hearing of the Jury that he wounded the prosecutrix, but did not intend to murder, they found him GUILTY of unlawfully wounding . His sister stated that he had had sun-stroke, and was subject to fits.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

350. ROBERT WRIGHT (19) , Feloniously killing and slaying Jeremiah MacNamara. He was also charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with the like offence.

MR. MOODY, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

351. ROBERT WRIGHT was again indicted for unlawfully assaulting Jeremiah MacNamara.

MR. MOODY offered no evidence.— NOT GUILTY .

352. JAMES PALMER (22), and WILLIAM PALMER (18) , Stealing one gelding, the property of Henry Good.

MR. MEAD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. COOPER the Defence.

HENRY GOOD . I am a licensed victualler, and keep the Compasses, Sidney Street, Mile End—I had a light chestnut cob, a gelding, a little under 14 hands high, with a white star on his forehead—I sent him in October to Mr. Bush's Farm, Stone Hall, Barking Side, for the winter—I saw him there a week previous to 23rd December, and have not seen him since—his value was 30l.

Cross-examined. Chestnut is not an uncommon colour, and those horses generally have a white star on their forehead—he had a silvery sort of mane and tale; I have part of the tail now.

JOHN STEVENS . I live at Barking Side, Essex, and am a labourer in Mr. Bush's employ—I saw Mr. Good's chesnut cob on 23rd December, at 5 o'clock, and missed him next morning on going to the yard.

JOHN LAWRENCE . I live at 7, Edward Street, Stepney; the prisoners lodged with me—there is a yard attached to the house, but they had not the use of it—on the evening of 23rd December, about 6.45, William Palmer rode a light chestnut horse with a star on his forehead into the yard—it was about 13 or 14 hands high, and had a saddle and bridle about 11.45 at night, I saw them take the horse out of the yard in Mr. Bootle's cart, my opposite neighbour—James Palmer was driving, and William was leading the horse by a halter—I don't know what the prisoners are; they have been living with me seven weeks or two months.

Cross-examined. I do not know where Mr. Bush's yard is—I do not know that it is eight miles off—I do not know how far off Barking side is—it was winter time and dark, but there was a lamp and I could see that the horse was thirteen or fourteen hands high, and had rather a light coloured mane—I did not notice the tail—it was my busy time.

COURT. Q. Had they ever a pony or a horse there before? A. Yes, one, a bay horse, a fortnight or three weeks before—it was not their own, but they brought it in—I do not know whether it was their own—I did not talk to them when they came in with the pony—I saw them tie it up—I was at work in my workshop—I did not talk to them about it—I did not know but what some friend had come to see them—on the first occasion when they brought the bay horse home they put it in my cart and brought it home next morning with a donkey—I did not talk to them about it, and did not know who it belonged to—they did not put the chestnut in the stable—it was in my yard, tied to the wheel of Mr. Bootle's cart—they drove it away about 11.45, and I never saw the pony or cart again.

Re-examined. Their sister did not come with them when he came riding into the yard, nor any woman at all.

JOHN LAWRENCE . I live with my father at 7, Edward Street, Stepney—the prisoner James lodged there—on the night of 23rd December I saw both the prisoners go out about 11.45 with Mr. Bootle's cart, and alight chestnut horse with a mark on the chest.

Cross-examined. Q. Did James' sister lodge with you at the same time? A. He said it was his wife—there was another female besides, but she was not his sister—I do not know Hope Street, and do not know whether she is his wife—I do not know whether her husband lets out horses—the roads are not quiet at 6 or 7 o'clock, where we live, and you cannot go far without seeing policemen.

COURT. Q. Did anyone go away with the cart besides the prisoners? A. No; those two alone—I had seen the pony in the yard about 9 o'clock, tied up to one of my father's cart wheels—I know that their mother had a horse, but a darker one than this—she lives at Leytonstone—I never saw them have a bay horse there.

JOSEPH BOOTLE . I am a wheelwright, of 76, Edward Street, Stepney—on 23rd December I lent a cart to James Palmer—he said that he wanted to hire it for the day—he paid me 2s. when he took it—he did not return it—I never saw it again till Good Friday, when he was at the station—I went to Lawrence's to look after it, and the cart was gone, and he too—I tried to find him—William was with him when he hired the cart.

JAMES BRIDON (Detective Officer). The prisoner James was brought to the station on another charge, which was abandoned—he was then charged with stealing Mr. Bootle's cart—he said that he lent the cart to a man in Grove Road, and had never seen it since, nor the man—he was not charged that day, as Mr. Bootle was not come-at-able, it being Good Friday—the charge was read over to James; he said that he knew nothing about it, and he never had a chestnut horse—they both said that.

Cross-examined. I charged him with stealing a chestnut horse—he did not say that he had lent the cart to a man whose cart had broken down on the road.

Witness for the Defence.

HOPE STREET . I am the wife of Thomas Street, of Loughton, who works in the forest and keeps horses and donkeys—my sister Charity is James Palmer's wife—they live at the witness Lawrence's—On 23rd December I came to London with three donkeys and a chestnut horse, to let out on hire, on Christmas Day and Boxing Day, in Brick Lane and other places—I took them to the Bell and Mackerel, in Mile End Road, left them there, and went to call on my sister, at James Palmer's, and wish her good-bye before

she went to the North—I saw my sister and the prisoners there—James Palmer asked me what I had—I said "Three donkeys and a horse"—he asked me to lend him the horse for three hours, to take some goods to Strafford—I went with Bill about 6 o'clock to the Bell and Mackerel and fetched the horse, he rode it into Lawrence's yard close upon 7 o'clock, and I walked in—my sister got something ready to eat, and then they put the horse in a cart and went away—it was then dark, it was between 8 and 9 o'clock—I am sure it was not so late as 10 or 11 or 12 o'clock—I saw them drive away—my sister, and James and William went in the cart—I went after that to the Bell and Mackerel after my donkeys—I stopped there a good while, they did not return, and it must have been past 10 o'clock when they returned to Lawrence's—when the horse got into the stable he had chucked a shoe, and was lame—my mother's stable is, I think, three miles from the Bell and Mackerel—I found the horse in my mother's stable next morning; of course my saddle, which was on the horse, was left at Lawrence's—I know nothing about the cart breaking down on the road, I was not there—I took James's donkey to Leytonstone on Christmas morning.

COURT. Q. Was there a name on the cart? A. I did not look to see—it must have been between 8 and 9 o'clock when my horse went away in the cart—I did not see the cart again, but I saw the donkey, which they say dragged the cart home in consequence of the lameness of the horse—I only noticed one donkey in my mother's stable—I stayed at Lawrence's till Christmas morning—my horse was a chestnut with white down the forehead—I have not got him now, my husband sold him just before Easter—he had him ten months.

Cross-examined by MR. MEAD. There was not a deal of difference between the colour of the mare and the colour of the horse, they were both chestnut—I do not know whether they tied the horse to the wheel of a cart, I did not stop to see—they were going to take a parcel in the cart, and a little boy's bed—they had been talking of going away ever since they were married, which is about six months—I don't know where they were married, I was not there, but it was in London—I was not before the Magistrate, because I only heard last Monday that the prisoners were accused.

GUILTY .—They were both further charged with having been before convicted at Ilford, of stealing straw, in January, 1869, to which they PLEADED GUILTY**— Five Years' each in Penal Servitude.

353. HENRY TAYLOR (20) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Ann Halliford, and stealing therein two suits of clothes and other articles, her property.

MR. A.B. KELLY conducted the Prosecution.

ARTHUR COX . I am barman at the Hand-in-Hand, Holborn, kept by Ann Halliford—on Saturday night, 12th April, about 9 o'clock or 9.30 I shut up the front door, I am sure it was past 9 o'clock—I came out as I heard a noise of glass breaking—I went up stairs to the leads over the parlour, and saw the staircase window open—I went down and called in a constable from the street, took him up on the leads, and saw the prisoner getting out at the window, which is over the water-closet, with a bundle in his hand—as soon as he saw the constable he threw the bundle down on the leads, which forms the water-closet roof, against the window—these clothes (produced) dropped out of the bundle—it contained women's clothing—I had seen my mistress fasten the window at 4 or 5 o'clock—there are two

fastenings on it—three panes of glass were broken and the fastenings were undone.

Prisoner. Q. How could anybody get to the water-closet roof? A. The bar door is always open for customers, and a person going up stairs to the water-closet, could go four stairs higher to the leads, and then break into the house again by the window; that is the only way it could be done—the water-closet is not outside the house, but the roof of it is—the leads door is always open for airing the place—anybody could get on the stairs without being seen—I was about three minutes going for a constable—you did not seem to come down in a hurry, and the constable told you, that if you did not, he would force you down—if he had not pulled the stuff out, you could not have been frightened at it—I did not hear you say anything about Easter—no one caught hold of your throat—no man in a high hat was there.

GEORGE GEORGE (Policeman E 86). Cox called to the Hand-in-hand, at about 9.15 on this night—I went up stairs with him to the first floor landing, and saw the prisoner on the second floor, outside on the water-closet roof, with a bundle in his hand, and a scarf tied round it—as soon as I got outside he dropped the bundle—I told him to come down, but he stopped there some time, I said that I should have to force him dowm, and took my truncheon out—he then came down, and when he got to the bar the landlady gave him in custody—he said "You might have let me get over the Easter holidays, and then I should have given up all robberies and gone to work"—I searched him and found 3s. all but a penny.

Prisoner. Q. Did not you say that there was a chap with a brown coat with me? A. Nothing of the kind—it was on the leads, when I took hold of you, that you said that about the Easter holidays; no one else was present I believe, as the potman had gone down in front with the bundle, and you were left there alone with me—you came down a little way, and I pulled you down the rest.

Re-examined. Cox carried the bundle, and I took the prisoner down stairs—when we got to the station, the prisoner's hands were bleeding.

ANN HANFORD . I am landlord of the Hand-in-hand—these clothes are mine, some of them lay on a table in my bedroom, which is close to the staircase window—this suit of clothes and petticoats, were in one of the top drawers—the room was in a very disordered state.

Prisoner. Q. Did not you see another young man with the constable bring me down stairs? A. No, I did not see You brought down, I saw you on the water-closet roof, and you made use of foul words—I had shut and fastened the window myself at 5 o'clock, and locked the staircase door.

COURT. Are you quite sure you were on the leads? Yes, I was not there when he came down off the roof, I only saw him there and I said "If you do not come down I will unlock the staircase door and send some one to make you"—I did not hear the glass break, it was a little after 9 when I went out on to the leads.

Prisoner's Defence. About 8.30 I was in the Hand-in-Hand, having a pint of stout, I went out the backway to the water-closet and heard glass breaking. Knowing that there was a bagatelle-room up stairs, I went up, saw the door open and a little flat place; I went out there, looked up and saw some clothes lying all about the tiles; I looked up higher and saw the window open and three or four panes of glass broken, while I was getting up I out my finger with the glass. I tied the clothes up, intending to take

them to the landlady, and was turning round to come down and was met by the constable, and given in charge. It is a got up thing altogether for me.

GUILTY .—He was further charged with a previous conviction at this Court in February, 1872, in the name of Thomas Taylor, of a robbery with violence, when he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment and forty strokes with the cat; to this he PLEADED GUILTY.— Twelve Years' Penal Servitude.

FOURTH COURT.—Wednesday, May 7th, 1873.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

354. HENRY THURLING (26) , Stealing eighteen silk ties, of the London and North-Western Railway Company, his masters.

MR. STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; and MR. HARRIS the Defence.

ELIJAH COPPING . I am a detective officer in the employ of the railway company—the prisoner was chief checker at Broad Street Station—his duties were at No.6 arch principally—on 14th April, in consequence of a communication I received, I went after the prisoner to No.4, Dalston Place, Stepney—I searched his place, and found a number of pawn tickets, among ethers a ticket for a shawl, pledged for 4s. 6d., at Mr. Dickers', Commercial Road—I obtained the shawl—I also found this shawl (produced) in the drawers of the room—I laid the things on the table, and asked the prisoner what he had to say about them—he made no reply, but his wife, who was present, said "I bought them on the waste ground in Whitechapel."

Cross-examined. I do not know whether she meant the shawls exactly; there were a number of other things besides.

WELHAM DICKER . I manage the pawnbroking business for my father, at No.1, Upton Place, Commercial Road—on 4th March this grey shawl was pledged at his shop—I gave a ticket for it to the person who pledged it in the name of Thurling.

DAVID MCLACHLAN . I am a warehouseman, in the employ of Lipman &Co., of Glasgow—in the month of December I executed an order for shawls, for a Mr. Gray, of Basinghall Street—I had the shawls made up into a truss, and I checked them with an invoice before I sent them off—the truss was marked "J G 3315"—I saw it delivered on 10th December—I afterwards received a complaint from Mr. Gray—this grey shawl is the pattern of No.12—these are sample shawls—there was a ticket on it, but it has been taken off.

GEORGE COATES . I am a carman, in the employ of the Caledonian Railway Company—on 10th December I received a truss from Lipman & Co., at Glasgow—I gave a receipt for the truss, and I took it to Buchanan Street Station.

THOMAS PAGE . I am a checker at the Buchanan Street Station of the Caledonian Railway—this is the consignment-note which I received from Coates, and with it I received a truss—I entered the weight of the truss, and all particulars of this note, and the number of the waggon—the note was kept at Buchanan Street—the truss was in 8663 waggon.

WILLIAM CATTELL . I live at 67, Howard Street, Kentish Town, and am a checker at Broad Street Station—the prisoner was formerly employed there—I remember the waggon 8663 coming to Broad Street—I received this invoice showing what it contained—the truss marked J.G.3315 was in the waggon, and it was forwarded to No.6 arch for delivery.

EDWARD CLARKE . I live at Kentish Town, and am a checker of the London and North Western Railway Company—I remember receiving this delivery bill on the 13th December—there is an entry of a truss upon it rom Lipman, J.G.3315—I looked for the truss, but could not find it.

Cross-examined. I do not know that the truss ever went to No.6 arch at all.

GEORGE HORAM —I live at 18, Albert Buildings, Mile End—T am timekeeper at Broad Street Station—I produce the time book for the 13th December of last year—the prisoner was at work that morning—I checked him on the work, "Henry Thurling, Friday, 13th December, at 1 o'clock in the morning"—he went off at 3·15—included in that there were two hours and a quarter overtime—his time was from 1 to 1.

JOSEPH BURTENSHAW . I am a searcher at Broad Street Station—I have searched for the truss, and have never been able to find it.

JAMES GRAY . I gave this order to Lipman & Co.—I have never received the parcel sample of shawls.

COLIN CAMPBELL . I am in the employ of Robert Mackie, warehouseman, Glasgow—in January we had an order from Foster, Porter, & Co., of Wood Street, London, for some mauds; they were intended for India—on the 5th February I handed twenty-four mauds, made to this special order, to my packer—I delivered the goods to the packer, and saw him put them in the package—it was the only order we had from Foster, Porter & Co.—this is one of the mauds—I can swear to it from its particular make and pattern.

Cross-examined. There were twelve of this pattern for the Indian market—the only ones we have made—I am sure this is one that was packed in the truss.

ROBERT LOCKHEAD . I am a carter in the employ of the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company—on the 5th February, I signed for this truss and delivered it to a man named Brierton.

ROBERT BRIERTON . I am a clerk in the employ of the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company—I received the truss and consignment note from Lockhead on the 5th February—it was for Foster, Porter, & Co., London—it was loaded into truck 1229, and the truck was labelled, "Broad Street, London, London and North Western."

GEORGE RIDGWAY . I am a checker in the employ of the London and North Western Railway Company at Broad Street—on the 7th February I was on duty—I remember the van 1229, from Glasgow, coming to be unloaded—I found in it the truss for Foster, Porter, and Co., and checked it by the invoice—it was then sound and in good condition, only the wrapper was a little dirty—it was 5 o'clock in the morning when I saw it—it was sent to No.6 arch for delivery.

JOSEPH JOHN DODLEY . I live at 22, Lower Chapman Street, Camden Street—on the 7th February, about 9 o'clock in the morning, I made a search for this truss at Broad Street, and could not find it.

JOHN BROWN . I am a checker in the employ of the London and North Western Railway Company at Broad Street—I made a search for the truss, and could not find it anywhere—I made an entry to that effect on the rail way bill at 11·35.

GEORGE HORAM (re-examined.) On the 7th February, Thurling was on duty at 4 a.m., and he went off at 5 p.m.

JOSEPH BURTENSHAW (re-examined.) I have made a search for these, but have never been able to find them.

EDWARD SUTTON . I am manager for Foster, Porter, and Co.—I never received the package of mauds from Scotland that we ordered.

JOHN WADE . I am a silk manufacturer, at Macclesfield—on the 12th April, I placed in a box fifteen dozen ties, and addressed it to Mr. Spall, of Cheapside—there were two boxes, one contained black neckties and the other coloured ties—they were delivered to the carrier at Macclesfield to be conveyed by the London and North Western Railway—we have been shown eighteen ties, which were part of those put in the box—I valued them at 18s. a dozen.

WILLIAM THOMAS . I am in the employ of Mr. Spall, of Cheapside—Sergeant Copping brought me these two boxes—these goods had been ordered by my master from Mr. Wade.

RALPH HERRON . I am a private constable in the employ of the London and North Western Railway Company—on the 14th April, in consequence of instructions, I was watching the prisoner—he was the head checker of a gang—I saw him leave his gang and go into No.6 arch—this parcel was in No.6 arch, and I saw him go to it, take it up, and take out all of these pocket handkerchiefs and put one in each trowsers pocket—I think he saw some one coming—he dropped one by the side of him—I called him back, and asked him what he had been doing with the package—he said "Nothing"—I asked him if he had got anything about him that did not belong to him?—he said, no, he had not; he had got nothing—I took him to the policeman's box, and then told him to take the things out of his pocket—he took these two neckties out of his pocket, and laid them on the table—I told him I was surprised he should do that sort of thing—he said "he should not have done it, but he had got a small family of children, and he expected his wife would be confined soon"—I then told him I should take him into custody on the charge of stealing things belonging to the London and North Western Railway Company—I afterwards accompanied Copping to the prisoner's house, and we found a quantity of other goods—these ties completed the quantity there was in the invoice.

GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

355. EDWARD MANSELL (48) , Unlawfully obtaining from Richard William Fleming 3l. 19s. 3d., by false pretences; also obtaining 3l. 3s. 9d. from Alfred Bernard Mitchell; and 3l. 11s. 6d. from Henry Evans, by false pretences.

MR. COOK conducted the Prosecution; and MR. WARMER SLEIGH the Defence. RICHARD WILLIAM FLEMING. I am manager to Messrs. Waterlow and Sons, of Parliament-street—the prisoner had transactions with our firm—we had refused to supply him with any goods without he made some deposit in advance, because we had had some difficulty in recovering from him payment of back debts—I said that I could no longer give him credit, and I suggested to him that he should deposit with us a given sum of money, say 5l. or 10l., and work it out in that way—on one or two occasions he gave me some money for that purpose—in August, 1870, he was indebted to our firm, having overdrawn his account—on 10th August, 1870, he called upon us—he purchased goods on that day to the amount of 1l. 0s. 9d.—he gave me this cheque on Glyn's, dated 6th August, signed by him—I paid it into our bankers—it has been returned to me, marked "N.S."—I have seen the prisoner since then, and have asked him for the money.

Cross-examined. The prisoner had dealt with us about ten yean from time to time—in some of those years his account might have amounted to 50l. and some less, speaking roughly—we had no difficulty about his money payments before 10th August—we have done lithographing for him—that would not be done for him in the capacity of an estate agent or auctioneer, but as the promoter of an undertaking—the "N.S." on the cheque means not sufficient.

RICHARD WARNE . I am clerk to Messrs, Glyn & Co., bankers,. and was there in 1870—the prisoner at that time kept an account at our house—on 6th August, 1870, he had overdrawn his account to the extent of 15l. or 16l.

Cross-examined. The last payment prisoner made as in October.

ALFRED BERNARD MITCHELL . I am assistant to my father, who carries on business as a bookseller at 52, Parliament-street—on 4th January, 1872, the prisoner came and ordered some books, "The Idle of the Duke of Wellington, "and six others—he gave me a card with an address on it, and "Mr. Edward Mansell, auctioneer and valuer"—I sent the books and the account to the address, and they were never returned to us—he called at our place again on 20th March, 1872, and said he wished to pay his account—I did not recognise him at the time, and I asked him is name—he said "Edward Mansell"—I brought the ledger forward and told him the amount—he said he thought it was more than that—he gave me a cheque for 5l. drawn on the Union Bank of London—it says, "Pay to Mrs. Mansell, "and is signed, "Edward Mansell"—there is a mark across it, "Not provided for."

Cross-examined. He did not write out the cheque in our office—when he gave it me, I gave him the difference in cash between the 9l. and 1l. 15s.

ROBERT JOSIAH MITCHELL . I went to 27, Great George-street, upon the cheque being returned from my bankers, to find the prisoner, but I did not find him there—there was no name upon the door, and I could get no information about him—the hallkeeper there told me he had left, but I got such information as led to his being apprehended.

Cross-examined. He had had an office there—I saw one of the managers at the Union Bank, and he told me the only address they had got was the same as that upon the card he had given to my son (27, Croat George Street), and they could not assist me to any other—I never knew, as a matter of fact, that he was up and down in London every day of his life, and going backwards and forwards to Chiswick—I had heard of it.

THOMAS DAVID JONES . I am one of the cashiers at the Union Bank, Charing Cross branch—on March 20th, 1873, the prisoner had an account there, and there was a balance owing to him of 17s. 4d.—on 14th February he had paid in 100l., and on 18th February 10l.

Cross-examined. I am not aware that we wrote a letter of advice to Mr. Mansell on 7th March, and that on receipt of it he immediately paid into the bank 100l.

By THE COURT. I did not write to him when any cheques were dishonoured—the cheques that were dishonoured were, one for 10l. on 7th March; an acceptance or bill of exchange for 28l. 17s. at three months was presented on the 8th; on 10th March a cheque for 10l.; on 15th March an acceptance for 50l.; on 22nd March there was a cheque for 5l.; on 25th March a cheque for 5l., and on diet March a cheque for 4l.—his account was opened on 22nd November last year, with 75l., and it went on quite regularly till 7th March—there was then a balance standing to

the credit of the prisoner of 17s. 4d.—there was never a deposit account; merely a current account—the address we had was, "surveyor, 27, Great George Street, Westminster"—the account is still open.

HENRY EVANS . On 26th March last the prisoner came to my shop, at 248, Westminster Bridge Road, and purchased some tins of preserved meat—they came to 8s. 6d.—I heard him ask my young man if he could take it out of a cheque, and knowing that he could not I went out of the counting-house myself, took his cheque, and handed him 3l. 11s. 6d. change—I paid the cheque into our bankers, the London and County, Lambeth branch; it was payable to Mrs. Mausell—it has been returned to me.

NOT GUILTY .

356. JOHN ROVERSTON (23) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of James Robert Spriggs, and stealing therein a cruet stand, a coat, and a pair of boots, his property.

MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. M. GRIFFITH the Defence.

GEORGE WARN (Policeman Y 368). About 5.30 on the morning of 1st April, I saw the prisoner near the Prince Edward public-house, Park Road, Holloway—he had a bundle at his feet, and he put it on his shoulder when he saw me, and walked away—I looked at the house and saw the window open, and I ran after him and stopped him—he had this cruet-stand and skeleton dock in the bundle, and this pair of boots and coat—he said he had not come out of the public-house—I took the prisoner into custody and rang the landlord up afterwards—I found a mark upon the window, near the catch, and the prisoner pulled out of his pocket a chisel that corresponded with the mark—he said he had got in with it—he had the pendulum of the dock in his pocket at the time.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was on the pavement outside when I saw him—he shewed me the chisel whilst I was in the house waiting for the landlord to put on his clothes.

JAMES EDWARD SPRIGGS . I keep the Prince Edward public-house, in Park Road, Holloway—I went to bed about 12.30 on the evening of 1st April, having seen that the windows and shutters were all fast—about 5.30 in the morning the constable called me up, and produced the articles he found upon the prisoner, which I identified as my property—they were safe the night before.

Cross-examined. I was the last one up—I noticed the bar of the window that had been opened was across the shutter, inside the room, and I am certain the window was closed.

WILLIAM ODELL (Police Inspector Y). I took charge of the prisoner—he declined to give his address—afterwards, in the cell, he told me that he lodged at 17, Harvest Road, on the first floor—I went there, and searched the place, and found a great quantity of property, including two gold watches, three gold chains, seven earrings, a cigar case, and three pistols, &c.—the property is connected, I believe, with other burglaries at public-houses and at a jeweller's shop—about 500l. worth of property has been stolen—a great deal of it has been recovered, and the prisoner says he will give information as to where the remainder has been pawned—on the 25th of last month I recovered some property that he had pledged, which had been stolen from the house of a Mr. Henry Rawson, which was nearly burnt down, Mr. Rawson's wife and several of the children having to escape

through the windows—there was little doubt, from what has been found, that it was an act of incendiarism.

Cross-examined. The prisoner has never been convicted before, that I am aware of.

COURT. Q. How much of the property has been recovered? A. About 200l. worth; there is 400l. or 500l. worth altogether.

GUILTY.— Judgment respited . There were six other indictments against the Prisoner.

357. ALFRED STEVENS (22) , Stealing a watch, the goods of William Wickens, from his person.

MR. COOK conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM WICKENS . I am a carter, living at 51, Copenhagen Street, Islington—last Saturday, at 7.30 in the evening, I was On Tower Hill, watching some volunteers—while there, I felt someone at my pocket—I looked round, and saw the prisoner with my watch in his hand—the chain was out full length—I said to him "Hold on!" but he did not; he snatched it off, and pulled my waistcoat all unbuttoned—I ran after him, through the volunteers three times, and I had a narrow escape of getting run over by an officer's horse—I caught the prisoner, and a police constable came up—I said "He has got my watch, "and I asked the prisoner not to throw it down—he stooped down, and said he had not got it, at the same time throwing the watch between his legs among the crowd—someone else picked it up—I lost it—it was valued at 5l. 6s.

FREDERICK QUANTRALL (Policeman H 185). I was on duty on Tower Hill on Saturday last—I saw the prisoner-snatch Wickens's watch, and run through the crowd—they struggled together, and prosecutor tried to get it, but it was picked up by somebody.

Prisoner. I know nothing about the watch whatever.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

358. RICHARD LAW (18), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a case of drawing instruments and other articles, the goods of William Ford Hanley.— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

Before Mr. Justice Denman.

359. WILLIAM ALEXANDER ROBERTS (28) , Feloniously forging and uttering an order for the payment of 11, 500l., with intent to defrau.

MR. H.S. GIFFARD, Q.C., with MESSRS. POLAND and WINCH, conducted the Prosecution; and MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE, with MR. F.H. LEWIS, the Defence.

WILLIAM COPPING . I am clerk to Messrs Humphreys and Morgan, the solicitors for the prosecution—I personally served on the prisoner in Newgate, on Monday the 5th, a notice to produce, a copy of which I have here—I also served the solicitors, Messrs. Lewis and Lewis.

SIDNEY MERTON . I live at 68, Russell Square—in March last I was a member of the firm of Merton, Hart & Co., 62, Piccadilly, bankers and exchange brokers—I had formerly been on the Stock Exchange—I have known the prisoner as a stock broker for about four months—I saw him at his office in Threadneedle Street, on a Wednesday about March 26th—but previous to that my partner had made a communication to me—the 15th

and the 31st are the account days—I said "You hare been speaking to my partner about making you an advance on the account day"—he asked me whether I could take in any stock on the account day—I said "To what extent?"—he replied "About 10,000l."—there was a little conversation, which I do not exactly remember, the result of which was that I asked him to put his proposal in writing, so that I might consult my partner—he said that the stock was Turks, Eries, and Varna obligations, which are securities well known on the Stock Exchange—"to take in stock "means to make advances on stock—it is a technical term used on the Stock Exchange—we received this letter from him late on the afternoon of the 26th—(Read: "51, Threadneedle Street, March 26th, 1873, Messrs. Merton, Hart & Co.,—Dear Sirs, I shall want for a client on the account day about 10,000l.—say 10,000l.; can you advance me the amount till the following account day on Erie and foreign stocks? and what will be your terms? W.A. Roberts.")—This is a copy of my answer, which was sent by poet in the ordinary way; "62, Piccadilly, 26th March, 1873; W.A. Roberts, Esq. Dear Sir,—We beg to inform you that we shall be prepared to advance you on the account day, till 17th April, 10,000l. on Erie and foreign stocks, with a margin of ten per cent. Terms on foreign securities same rate of interest as charged by your bankers, with one quarter per cent, commission; Eries, 1s. per share, and one quarter commission; the loan renewable upon terms subject to arrangement."—After having sent that answer, I went to the prisoner's office next day and saw him—he objected to pay the quarter per cent commission, and said that he thought one-sixteenth was sufficient; and we ultimately arranged to make the advance at one-eighth commission—it was arranged that payment was to be made in the City by cash on an open cheque on the account day—on the same afternoon I received this letter from the prisoner: (Read: "51, Threadneedle Street, March 27th; Messrs. Merton, Hart & Co. Dear Sirs,—As it is in your way, a friend of mine requires 3,000l. of French notes on Saturday or Monday; will you please get them for him, and I will pay you. Yours, W.A. Roberts.")—I understood that as a separate transaction from the other—next day, Friday the 28th, I saw the prisoner, I think it was in Threadneedle Street, and told him it was impossible to get the notes by Saturday—he said "If you cannot get them to-morrow, Monday will do—I did not see him on the Saturday, but I did obtain the French notes, 3,000l. worth, in different amounts—he asked me to buy them, and I got them as I could—I went to the prisoner's office on Monday, the 31st, about 12 o'clock or 12.30, and he told me that if I would call about 1.30 he would give me the securities, but previous to that I had shown him a letter of hypothecation which he would have to sign—he looked at it, and made no demur to it—I called again about 1.30 or 2 o'clock for the securities, and the prisoner gave me 400 Erie shares, 3,000 Turks, of 1871, 3,000 Turks of 1868, 6l. per cents., 2,040 Spanish, and 15,000 Atlantics, Third Preferential, that means 15,000 of the shares, 15,000 dollars—each Erie share also represents a dollar—the value of the whole was 10, 800l.,—I did not give him any money then—I returned to his office at 3.30 or 3.45, and requested he would go with me to my solicitor, in the Old Jewry, that he might witness the transaction—he went with me to Messrs. Abrahams & Roffey, solicitors, in the Old Jewry, and signed the agreement, which we call the hypothecation—I then gave him two open cheques, one for 6,000l., on the West End Branch of the National Provincial Bank, but payable in the City to Mr. W.A. Roberts, a cheque of

my firm; and another for 1,000, dated 31st March, payable to W.A. Roberts, Esq., at the West End Branch of the National Provincial Bank, Waterloo Place—both were payable to order, and both are endorsed by the prisoner "W.A. Roberts"—at the same time I handed him 75, 750 francs, which is 3,000l. in English money, corrected according to the rate of Exchange, that made up the advance of 10,000l. (The Utter of hypothecation enumerating the shares deposited for the advance, and giving Messrs. Merton Hart & Co. permission to sell them in case of default of repayment, was here put in, dated 31st March, 1873, and signed "W.A. Robert.") The value of the securities, according to the market value that day, was about 10, 800l., so that there was 800l. margin—I then left with the agreement—on the same evening the prisoner called at my house, 68, Russell Square, about 10 or 10.15, and said that he was in some difficulty or difficulties; my impression is, that he said "some difficulty" and would I object to giving him a cheque for the margin, that he might put it in the bank in the morning—I asked him what the difficulty was, he said "My clerk has by mistake, paid a cheque into my credit at the bank, which will be returned"—I said "There cannot be any difficulty about that, "and refused to give him the margin—he pressed me, and I said "I don't understand what you mean by this difficulty,"—he said "The fact of it is, my clerk has, made some mistake, and paid in a cheque which he had no business to do, and there will be some trouble about it"—that was the substance of it—I said "I don't understand you, "and he turned the matter off by referring to something else, and said "Oh, I will make it all right in the morning"—he also asked me to give him 500l., but I declined, and that ended the interview—on Thursday night, 3rd April, he called again at my house, about 11 o'clock—I was sitting up for my son, and opened the door and saw the prisoner at the door—I did not see any cab there—I said "I shall give you in charge, "and rushed in to get my boots and hat, and when I got to the door he had gone, I could not see him at all—I went to the Old Jewry that night—I knew that bills were out, offering a reward—that was the last time I saw him till he was in custody—the two cheques for 6,000l. and 1,000l. have gone through my bankers, and have been paid; I am debited with the amount—the prisoner gave me a receipt for the cheques, on the back of the letter of hypothecation.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. I paid this sum by open cheques—I cannot say that on the night of the 31st he said in substance that the reason he left the cheque about was that he wished it to appear to his clerk that he had a good balance, and had no intention whatever that the cheque should be paid in to his bankers—I do not recollect his saying that he had the cheque drawn to give an appearance of solvency to his clerk, and that his clerk had paid it in to the bankers—I understood that his clerk had paid it in by mistake—he said something about why he had left it out, but I cannot exactly say what it was—I understood him to say that the cheque was left on his desk for some purpose, and that his clerk had paid it in—he told me for what purpose he had left it out, but I cannot remember the words exactly—he told me in substance that he had left it there for some purpose; I know he told me the cheque had been left on the desk for some object—he said that he was in difficulties.

Q. I am speaking from instructions, did he not say that he was in difficulties, that a cheque had been left on his table so that his clerk might

not know it, and that the clerk had paid it in without authority? A. In substance he did—it conveyed to my mind that it was left for the purpose of some deception of some one in his office.

He-examined. I say a cheque—nothing was said about the amount of it or about whether it was genuine—nothing was said about how 800l. would get him out of the dizfficulty; the only thing he said was, as far as I can remember, that a cheque had been paid in by his clerk by mistake, which he never intended to be paid in, and he said something about leaving it on his desk for some purpose—I do not know by whom it was left there; as far as I can remember, he said that a cheque had been left on his desk—the substance of it was that he did convey to my mind that he had used the cheque to convey to his clerk what his position was.

ELIZA SCHRIBER . I have known the prisoner about two years—I was under an engagement to be married to him, and have lived with him as his wife—on Saturday, 29th March, he called at my apartments, 8, Bolton Street, Picadilly, at about 11.30 a.m., or not quite so late—he told me that he was going to the boat-race, and asked me to go—he gave me a 10l. note, and asked me to buy some things for him, and I did so—afterwards, between 5 and 6 p.m., I met him when I was driving in a cab, and we went together to his lodging, 1, Powis Place, Great Ormond Street—it was then about 6.30—I assisted him in packing up his portmanteau—that was in consequence of his telling me that he was going abroad—he told me that he would see me probably the next day, and he came on the Sunday, about 4.30 or 5 o'clock—I had been writing, and there were writing materials on the table—he took up a piece of paper which was lying on the table and said, "Just write what I tell you, "and I did so—this (produced) is the paper I wrote, but before writing that he asked me to write the name "Spiller, "or "J. Spiller, "on another piece of paper—he did not tell me what that was for—I then wrote the whole of this (the cheque) at his dictation, with the exception of the signature and "1873"—while I was writing it he stood over me and pointed out where I was to begin a new line—he not only dictated, but pointed where I was to write—he told me to write it in a bold, round hand, like a clerk's hand—when I bad finished writing it he put it in his pocket—he said that I had put the date too much in the corner—I had brought the "31st" too near the edge—the "73" is not my writing—I said, "What is it for?"—he said "It is no use, only to keep it"—that is the substance, it may not be the exact words—there was no stamp on it—he stayed about three or five minutes after I had completed that writing for him—when he left he said that he should probably see me the next day—he called next day (Monday) about 3.30 or 4 o'clock—he appeared to be in a hurry—he said, "I am going away; you shall hear from me in a short time," and threw some money, tied up in something, on the table, saying, "There is some money; you may want it while I am away"—he then left, and after he had gone I found in it 100 sovereigns in gold—I afterwards saw an advertisement in the paper, in consequence of which I handed that bag to a solicitor, who handed it over to the police—that was on the Thursday, as soon as I heard there was anything wrong about the matter—this note (produced by Sergeant Brett) is in the prisoner's writing.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. The interview on Monday was about 3.30 or 4 o'clock, at Bolton Street—I did not ask him any questions about where he was going—he had not been in the habit of

leaving me in the same way before—he had told me on Saturday that he should have to leave for five or six weeks—he had conveyed to me that he was in difficulties, and at the time I wrote that I knew that he was in difficulties, but I did not know the nature of his difficulties—I did not know that this was a cheque; he never mentioned the word "cheque"—I had no idea where he was going.

COURT. Q. Do you mean that you really did not know that this was a cheque? A. I never drew a cheque in my life—I might have had an idea that it was a cheque; I wrote, but I never thought about it—it did not occur to me that it was anything dishonest—I swear that.

STEPHEN LEEMAN . I was the prisoner's clerk; I was in his service about six months—there was another clerk, named Bainton—on Monday, 31st March, the prisoner had an account at the Consolidated Bank—I was in the habit of filling up cheques for him to sign and of paying in money for him—this paying in slip (produced) is my writing, I took it to the banker's on the day it bears date, 31st March, with the three cheques mentioned on it, one of which was this cheque for 11, 500l., and the other two for the amounts mentioned here; they had been brought to the office that day, I do not know where they came from—I made out this slip at the bank, having taken the three cheques there with me—I cannot remember where I got them from, but I am sure they came from the prisoner's office—my practice was to get one of the printed slips at the bank and fill it up there—it was about 3.30—I left the cheques with the slip—I had on that day filled up some cheques for the prisoner—these (produced) are all the prisoner's cheques on the Consolidated Bank, and signed by him—here are fourteen, the body of three of them is filled up by me in course of business at the office for the purpose of being signed—one is for 400l. 12s. 6d., payable to Mr. Campion; one for 235l., payable to Mr. Hardy; and one for 612l. 10s., payable to Mr. Phillips; these are stock-brokers—the other cheques which are not drawn up by me are drawn to pay for securities—the total amount of the cheques is 14, 743l.—during the day securities were brought by the different stock-brokers; I received some of them and gave cheques in exchange—the securities were put in the iron safe.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. These cheques were not all left with me to pay for the securities when delivered; when the stock was delivered, whoever drew out the stock took the cheque—I knew the amount practically of my master's engagements—I knew nothing about the state of his account at the banker's—I knew pretty well that it was not a very large one—I am not sure whether I knew that there was not money to meet such an amount as this—I thought this cheque was in my master's writing at first; I corrected myself after hearing the lady's evidence—I thought at first that my master had handed it to me—I cannot tell you at what period of the day I first saw this cheque, or where I saw it—I had on previous days paid in cheques to his account during the whole of the period I was with him—sometimes the cheques were handed to me with a slip made out, and sometimes I took the cheques and paid them in—I can give you no idea whether I got the other two cheques from my master leaving them out, or whether I got them from a customer—I had not had so large a cheque before as this for 11,000l., and it attracted my attention when I put it on the slip—that does not help me to say where I got it—I cannot say whether my master gave me directions to pay it in—I have on former occasions taken cheques, finding them lying on the desk, and

hare pat them on a slip and paid them in—I made out this slip—I consider the slip a direction to pay a cheque in, but I have paid cheques in without a slip left with them when I have found them, and have made out a slip myself—I cannot say whether my master returned to the office before 4 o'clock and found that this cheque had been paid in—he was there before 4, and it may have been after I had paid in the cheques—when I returned from the bank he sent me for some sandwiches, and when I gave them to him he asked me had I paid in, and I said "Yes"—he did not blame me for it, no remark was made—I do not know that he made any observation—I left the office about 4.30—I cannot say that my master was in the office after 2.30—the other clerk, Bain ton, has not been there so long as me; we are about the same age—he was there the whole of the day—I do not think he saw this cheque—after I had been to the banker's I had a conversation with him about it, but none that I recollect previously.

COURT. Q. Can you remember what time you went to the bank that day? A. About 3.30—I may have been mistaken about having seen my master after I had been to the bank that day.

MR. GIFFARD. Q. What was the conversation you had? A. "Have you paid in?" and I said "Yes"—that was true—I think I had paid in—the conversation took place close to the bank, next door to our office, but outside.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Did you and all the persons in your office know when the bankers cleared, the clearance time? A. No, we knew that we had to pay in before 4—I did not know that cheques were cleared the same night—I may have paid in other cheques that day; we kept taking cheques from time to time, so that when I was asked if I had paid in I might have paid in, although I had not paid in these cheques.

COURT. Q. On the occasions when you took the cheques with a slip, where did you find them, all over the office, or in a particular place? A. As a rule in one particular place, and that was on the desk, either on the office desk, or the desk in the private room—if I found a cheque which had come in, even without a slip, I used to pay it in, and I don't think I have been blamed for it on any occasion—I supposed I had authority to do it—it happened two or three times during the six months I was there, and I have not been blamed for it—I did not see the prisoner after the 31st, he was not there on 1st April—with that on my mind, I cannot say for certain that I saw him after I paid the money into the bank; it may be that when I say that he asked whether the cheques were paid in, he may have asked about other cheques and not this.

COURT. Q. It is suggested that you are not correct in what you said just now, and that you have been actually scolded for paying in cheques without directions; has your master ever scolded you for paying in cheques without authority or without a slip? Do you recollect any such occasion? A. No, my memory fails me—I have been rather unwell, my memory was shaken by my illness, and it may be that.

BENJAMIN FISHER CLAPHAM . I am a member of the firm of Clapham Brothers, stock brokers, of 54, Threadneedle Street—on 31st March, I sent a clerk named Mangoli, to the prisoner's office, he is very ill—he took with him 3,000 Turkish, of 1865, and brought back this cheque (this was for 2, 275l.), it was about 1.25 or 1.30—the cheque was dishonoured—I had sold those securities to the prisoner, and had to deliver them in the market.

WILLIAM HENRY COLDEN . I am clerk to Moore & Greatorex, stock brokers—on settling day, 31st March, I had to deliver 3,000 Turks, of 1871, to the prisoner—I took them to his office, delivered them to a clerk there at 12 o'clock, and received from the clerk a crossed cheque, for 2, 220l., which was dishonoured.

HENRY HORATIUS HORLEY . I am clerk to Phillips Ellison, & Co., stock jobbers, of 39, Throgmorton Street—on 31st March, I took 100 Erie shares to the clerk in the prisoner's office, and got in return an unsigned cheque for 1, 164l. 7s. 6d., I afterwards took it back and obtained another cheque which was crossed; I paid it into the bank, and it came back dishonoured.

ROBERT HOWSE . I am a commissionaire on 31st March, between 12 and 1 o'clock, I took, 100 Erie shares from Mr. Goldschmidt, a stock broker, to the prisoner's office, and received in exchange this cheque for 1, 164l. 7s.6d., which I took back to my employers.

EDWARD SLAUGHTER . I am clerk to Mr. Strahan, a stock broker, of 37, Throgmorton Street—on 31st March, about 1.30, I took some Erie shares to the prisoner's office, and received this, cheque (produced) in return—it was afterwards returned dishonoured.

EDWARD BAKER . On 31st March, between 12 and 1 o'clock, I took to the prisoner's office 100 Erie shares, and delivered them to the clerk—I received in exchange a cheque for 1, 164l. 7s. 6d., payable to a number—it was afterwards returned dishonoured.

EDWIN CHARLES CONRAD . I am clerk to Foster and Braithwaite, of Austin Friars—on 31st March, about 2.30, I took 10,000 Atlantic Third Mortgage Bonds to the prisoner's office, and received for them 1,012l. 12s. by a cheque, which was afterwards returned dishonoured.

CHARLES DANIEL THORNTON .—I am clerk to Messrs. Sheriff, stock brokers—on 31st March, about 12.45, I delivered to the prisoner's order 10,000 Atlantic Third Mortgage Bonds, and received a cheque for 1,012l. 10s.—my number is 81—I took the cheque to my employers and it was paid into the bank and returned about 5.30 the same day, not paid.

FREDERICK WILLIAM TREW . I am clerk to Mr. Trew, a stock broker, of Bartholomew House—on 31st March I took 100 Erie shares to the prisoner's office, between 12 and, 2.30, and received in return this cheque for 1, 150l. (produced)—it was afterwards returned dishonoured.

ALFRED SCOTT . I am clerk to G.R. Scott—on 31st March, about 12.45, I took to the prisoner's office 3,060 Spanish and delivered them to, the clerk—I received in exchange this cheque for 699l. 19s. 6d.—I paid it into the bank, and it was afterwards returned dishonoured.

THOMAS LLOYD . I am clerk to Mr. Richardson, a broker, of 3, Copthall Court—on 31st March I took 3,040 Spanish to the prisoner's office and received a cheque for 468l. 2s. 6d.—it was some time before 1 o'clock I paid it into the bank, and it was returned dishonoured.

THOMAS BODGER . I am clerk to Champion, Paul & Co., stock brokers—on 31st March, between 1 and 2 o'clock, I took to the prisoner's office 500 Austrian silver bonds, and received in payment a cheque for 400l. 12s. 6d., which was paid into my employers' account and returned dishonoured.

WILLIAM HOLLAND . I am clerk to Philip Morris & Co., stock jobbers—on 31st March I took to the prisoner's office 100 Varna obligations and received a cheque for 612l. 10s., which I afterwards paid into the banker's, and it was returned dishonoured.

THOMAS SHORE . I am clerk to Messrs; Hardy, stock brokers—on 31st

March I delivered to a clerk at the prisoner's office, about 1 o'clock, 1,020 Spanish 3 per cent, bonds, and received in exchange this cheque for 235l—it was paid into my employers' account in the ordinary way, and was afterwards returned dishonoured.

JAMES VENTRESS —I am a cashier in the Consolidated Bank, Limited, 52, Threadneedle Street—the prisoner kept an account there, and on 31st March we received to his credit the three cheques mentioned on this credit slip—one for 11, 500l., another for 1,003l. 8s. 9d., and another for 549l. 0s. 9d.; total 13,053l. 0s. 6d.—they were paid in about 3.20 or 3.30—cheques paid in are in the ordinary course credited at once, but the cheque for 11, 500l. being on plain paper and for a large amount, I sent it by a messenger to the London and County Bank, Covent Garden branch, who brought it back marked as it now appears, "No account"—I do not know the state of the prisoner's account, but I believe there to have been about 168l. balance in his favour—somebody was sent from the bank to the prisoner's office when we found that the cheque was not paid—we should not have heard of it but for that till the following morning.

Cross-examined by MR. LEWIS. We credit on the credit day of the account, but we should not have paid against it—if it had been a smaller cheque he might have overdrawn his account, but being so large we thought proper to enquire—no drawings are allowed on a cheque on a branch bank on a week account—this was a week account.

Re-examined. This (produced) is his pass-book—it was opened on 20th March—13,000l. odd is credited as paid in on 31st March.

THOMAS BONNER . I am a messenger at the Consolidated Bank, 52, Threadneedle Street—on 31st March I took the cheque for 11, 500l. from that bank to the Covent Garden branch and handed it to one of the cashiers, he took it aside and afterwards returned it to me with the words "No account" written across it—I took it back and gave it to the chief cashier at our bank—if it had been all right and funds had been there I should have received a clearing-cheque and paid that into the clearing-house, which closed that day at 4.15—I should have been in time to have paid it in if it had been all right.

THOMAS FRENCH LAWRENCE . I am cashier at the Covent Garden branch of the London and County Bank—we had no account open in the name of J. Spiller, on 31st March, nor have we had such an account opened since—this cheque was presented to me by the last witness, on 31st March, and I wrote on it "No account."

ARTHUR EDWARD PEDDER . I am cashier at the Consolidated Bank—I have been shown these fourteen cheques, signed by the prisoner—I saw them at the Mansion House—they came to me from the clearing house, with the exception of one for 699l. 19s. 6d.—altogether twenty-nine cheques of Roberts' were presented on that day, out of which six were paid—the balance in the prisoner's favour that morning was 168l. 12s. 9d.—eight good cheques were paid in, amounting to 2,074l. 2s. 10d., and cheques were paid to the amount of 1, 762l. 6s. 10d—one cheque presented was not paid by accident—that left 480l. 5s. 7d. in our hands—all the other cheques were dishonoured—cheques were paid in during the day, and at the end of the day 2, 242l. 15s. 7d. stood to the prisoner's credit—at the time the clearing took place more cheques than could possibly be met were coming in, and therefore I stopped it—the total drawn was 16, 685l. 2s., and the amount dishonoured was 14, 9222.9d.

FRANCIS LAVINE . I am the secretary of the Stock Exchange.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. By the rules of the Stock Exchange, in the purchase of securities the vendor can, under certain conditions, insist on cash; that is if he gives notice before 11.30; otherwise he must take a crossed cheque.

Re-examined. It is almost the universal practice to take crossed cheques.

FRANCIS GEORGE BOOTE . I am a cashier at the National Provincial Bank, Threadneedle Street—on Monday, 31st March, I cashed a cheque of Messrs. Merton & Hart for 6,000l.—it was an open cheque presented over the counter—I gave in payment six 1,000l. notes—I have entered the dates and numbers here—I do not know to whom I paid them—I do not know the prisoner—I cannot say within three hours at what time it was; I should say about the middle of the day, but of course it is guess, because I have nothing upon which to base my opinion—this (produced) is the cheque I paid—it was endorsed, I think, when it was handed to me for payment.

JAKES NOBBS . I am cashier at the Waterloo Branch of the National Provincial Bank—on 31st March, this cheque (produced) was presented for payment, with this endorsement on it, between 3 and 4 o'clock, as near as I recollect—it was all paid in gold—I should say that the prisoner is not the person who presented it, but I am not certain—I see a great many faces in the course of a day.

JOHN WILLIAM TREW . I am a clerk to J.W. Trew, of Bartholomew House—this cheque for 1, 150l. was returned dishonoured on the day it bears date—in consequence of that I went to Waterloo Station to watch for the prisoner, and other persons went to the other railway stations.

JESSIE HAMMOND . I live at 5, Lawrence Road, Notting Hill—on Monday, 31st March some gentleman came and took lodgings at my house, between 12 and 1 o'clock, and about 5 o'clock the prisoner came—I did not ask his name, but the lodgings were taken for Mr. Coope—it was the drawing-room floor—he stayed till the following Friday—that was when he was taken in custody—the same gentleman afterwards visited him when he was staying there.

JAMES BRETT (Detective Sergeant). I produce a warrant for the prisoner's apprehension—in consequence of information I went on 4th April to 5, Lawrence Road, Notting Hill, and took with mo a gentleman of the Stock Exchange—he knew the prisoner personally—we saw the prisoner on the drawing-room floor, and I said "lama detective officer, you must consider yourself in custody on a charge of forgery; I hold a warrant for your apprehension, signed by the Lord Mayor"—he made no reply—I said "Be good enough to give me the money you have?"—he gave me ten 1,000 franc notes, seventeen sovereigns, seventeen shillings, and some odd halfpence, makiug 17l. 17s. 9 1/2 d., and said "That is all I have"—I said "Give me the six 1,000l. bank notes, and 1,000l. sovereigns, and the remainder of the French money"—he said "That is all I have; I have nothing further to give you"—I searched him and found some papers and this letter—(Read:"My dear George, I am going to make a bolt of it, and intend to cross the water to-night, Thursday; I leave this letter for you in case you call; I shall write soon—I remain, W. Coope")—I then called the landlady up stairs and said to the prisoner, in her presence, "What name are you living in here?"—he said "I decline to answer"—I asked the landlady, and before she answered he said "Coope," and then she said "Coope"—I took him to the station—I had ascertained his previous address on 1st April, and made

enquiry there, but did not find him at Powis Place—I also went to 5 Threadneedle Street, but could not find him—I received 100 sovereign from Mrs. Schriber's solicitor, four or five days afterwards—the prisons had a loaded revolver.

GUILTY .— Twelve Years' Penal Servitude.

FOURTH COURT, Thursday, May 8th, 1873.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

360. CATHERINE RENNIE (27) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of John Henry Glen, and stealing one clock, two pairs of boots, and a table-cover, his property.

MR. MOODY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. HARRIS the Defence.

WILLIAM MANTON (Policeman E 48). I was on duty about 1 o'clock a.m. on 4th March, in the Euston Road—I saw the prisoner and two men who are not in custody standing together on the path between 155 and 153—they seemed to be conversing, but I was some distance away—the woman had a large bundle, which appeared at first to be a child under her shawl—I watched them for several minutes, and then went towards them—the prisoner walked round Euston Crescent, and into the road again—I showed my light in the faces of the two men, but as I did not know them I turned and followed the prisoner into Duke's Road—I stopped her, and asked her what she had got under her shawl—she said she did not know—I said "Where did you get it from?"—she said "One of those two men gave it me round the corner"—I said "Will you come back and show me which it was gave it to you?"—she said "No; I am going the other way"—I went on until I met another constable, and then I went back to try and apprehend the two men, but they had gone—I went to the station and found these articles, the time-piece and two pair of boots, one pair not finished, tied up in the table-cloth—I asked the prisoner if she knew the men, and she said she did not.

Cross-examined. The things were all in a bundle together—the two men got away, and left her with the bundle—she said before the Magistrate that one of the men gave her the things to carry to No.4.

Re-examined. She was going away from the direction of No.4.

JOHN HENRY GLEN . I live at 153, Euston Road, and am a boot manufacturer—I was the last up on the night of 3rd March—I went to bed at 11 o'clock, leaving the house secure—the shutters of the drawing window were up, and a bar across—in the morning the servant came to me, and I went down stairs—I discovered the clock on the drawing mantelshelf had been moved, and was standing on the top of the stairs—the drawing window and shutter had been forced open, the clock and several articles were gone from the adjoining room, and the boxes and drawers forced open—I went to the station and saw the property there—access had been gained to the drawing-room window from the area railings—this crowbar was found in the dining-room; it is not mine—there were marks on the window which corresponded with it.

Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate.—"I know nothing about it being stolen property. A man offered me 6d. to carry it, and I thought it no harm; that is all I know about it."

GUILTY OF RECEIVING †— Two Years' Imprisonment.

361. HENRY MINTON (33) , Unlawfully forging counterfeiting a certificate, partly written and partly printed, and purporting to be signed by John Axill and others, with intent to deceive and defraud.

MR. M. WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. A.B. KELLY the Defence.

ALFRED WILLIAMS . I live at 19, Wellington Street—I am secretary to the Oxford Lodge of the Friendly Society of Stonemasons, the defendant was the former secretary about three months before the 23rd December—on the 23rd December he ceased to be secretary, and left Oxford on that day—he, as secretary, would have cards similar to this in his possession—(Read: "Friendly Society of Stonemasons: Received at Oxford. This is to certify that Brother Henry Minton is a legal member of our Friendly Society of Stonemasons. G.U. As witness our hands, 3rd March, 1873. Signed, John Axill, President; Thomas Tegel, Vice-President; Alfred Williams, Secretary.")—The signature "Alfred Williams" is not mine—I can't say when I received the card exactly, it would be about the middle of March or the early part of April—I received it from Mr. James Edward Dyer, Secretary of the Manchester Lodge—the signatures of John Axill and Thomas Tegel, president and vice-president, on this card, are not their signatures—when the prisoner left on 23rd December he applied to me for a card, and I made this card out up to that date.

Cross-examined. It is customary for the secretary to write the president's and vice-president's names on the cards—I have done it myself—it would give us a deal of trouble to find the president and vice-president when we had to make a card out; and the secretary is also allowed to put the seal to the card when he draws it—I am not aware that secretaries have stamped several cards at the same time—When the prisoner was leaving Oxford, and applied for his card, he was going up to London to work, and I made the card up to 23rd December—I don't recollect his commencing to make a card out for himself—at the time I furnished him with the card on 23rd December, I attached the president's and vice-president's names to it—if the prisoner lost his card, I think he would get another by applying to the Oxford Lodge, where he took it from—there are two descriptions of cards, there is a trade card find a sick card—I made out a sick card for the prisoner first, but I put my pen through "sick, "and made it a trade card—that card would have expired in fourteen weeks from the date the 23rd December.

Re-examined. The secretary signs the name of the president and vicepresident—I was secretary on 3rd March, but I did not sign them on this card, nor were they signed by my authority—I was the proper person to sign, not only my own name but theirs—his subscription up to the 3rd March would 5s. 5d., it was 6 1/2 d. a week—the production of this card would show that he had paid his subscription up to 3rd March.

JOSEPH PRICE (Oxford City Policeman.) I took the prisoner on a warrant in Ross, Herefordshire—I read it to him, and he said "I know nothing about it"—I conveyed him to Oxford by the train—he was taken before the Magistrate, brought to London, and committed from Westminster Police Court.

Cross-examined. I accompanied him in the train to London—Mr. Kirkpatrick was in the carriage, and I knew he was the secretary of one of these lodges—I heard the prisoner say to him, "I gave a card to Mrs. Place, the landlady of the lodge, and had you been there I should have paid you the money."

CATHERINE PLACE . I live at the Surprise Tavern, Chelsea, and am the wife of John Place—the Friendly Society of Stonemasons has a lodge at our house—I remember receiving a card similar to this, but I don't know who I received it from.

Cross-examined. I don't recollect the prisoner—the secretary was not present—I afterwards handed the card to Mr. Kirkpatrick.

JOHN KIRKPATRICK . I am the secretary of the Friendly Society of Stonemasons, at the lodge held at the Surprise Tavern—I live at Union Place, Pimlico—on 22nd March I received a card from Mrs. Place—this card would show that the prisoner had paid his subscription at Oxford, up to the 3rd March—it would save him 5s. 5d.—I should enter his membership in the book, and continue his subscription on from that time—I was with the prisoner and the officer from Oxford in the train coming up to London—I heard the prisoner say if I had been there this bother would not have occurred, as he should have paid me—but there was no money to pay—it was paid up to the date on this card, the 22nd March—if I had been there when he came to Mrs. Place, and he had said, "Here is 5s. 5d." I should have taken it—I should have taken his subscription due from 3rd March, but I believed it was paid up to the date of this card.

Cross-examined. If the prisoner had handed me this card with 5s. 5d. I should have said he did not owe 5s. 5d.—if he had said, "I have lost my card, I was secretary down at Oxford, and here is a card down to 22nd March, and I owe you 5s. 5d." I should have taken his money and then have written to Oxford; but it would have been more than 5s. 5d. up to 22nd March, it would be 21 days more at 6 1/2 d. a week, and 6d. for his wife's registration—I did not see him on 3rd March.

Re-examined. This card shows that he paid at Oxford up to 3rd March—the card represents the money up to that date.

JAMES EDWARD DYER . I live at 5, North Terrace, Westminster Road, and am secretary to the Friendly Society of Stonemasons—the prisoner was formerly secretary of the Oxford lodge, which he left on 23rd December—he drew his card upon that date, and came to London—this card was sent to me from Manchester—to the best of my belief it is in the prisoner's handwriting.

Cross-examined. I never saw him write in my life; but, as secretary, I received letters from him.

NOT GUILTY .

362. GEORGE FAULKNER (25) , Unlawfully and indecently assaulting Elizabeth Bonny. Second Count—Unlawfully taking her out of the possession of her father, against his will.

MR. LILLEY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. A. B. KELLY the Defend.

GUILTY .— Two Years' Imprisonment.

363. ELIZABETH ISRAEL (55), Was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. CROOME conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS the Defence.

NOT GUILTY .

ESSEX CASES.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

364. ELLEN NORRIS (17) , Feloniously wounding Mary Norris, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

MR. WARNER SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution; and MR. A. B. KELLY the Defence.

MARY NORRIS . I live at High Street, Ilford, and am mother of the prisoner—on the 23rd of April I and the prisoner were in the front room, we were talking together, and she got much excited—she pulled me down and cut me with a razor on the throat—she then went to the back door and told Mr. Smith of the injury she had done me, and I was at once attended to.

Cross-examined. I do not think my daughter, from what I have observed of her, has always been collected in her senses—she gives way to paroxysms of passion, which subside immediately—her general conduct to me has been good—I do not wish to press the charge—she is sixteen years of age.

EDWARD SULLIVAN . I am a surgeon, practising at Ilford—on 23rd April I was called to see Mrs. Norris—I found a wound upon her neck; a very Severe wound, as far as length went, but not extreme in depth—it was such a wound as might have been inflicted by a razor.

ADAM WATT (Policeman A R 163). I took the prisoner into custody on 23rd April, about 10.45 in the morning—her mother was bleeding in the house at the time, and was being supported by her husband.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding — Judgment respited.

365. ANDREW FENDT (22) , Stealing one watch, the property of John Salmon, from his person.

MR. WARNER SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN SALMON . I am a zinc worker, of Lisson Grove—on Easter Monday I was at the Woolwich Gardens—I was in the concert hall at 7 o'clock—I had my watch on and looked at the time on entering the hall—all at once there came a rush and a pushing, and I heard a slight noise like a click; I looked down, caught hold of the prisoner's hand, and saw my chain drop from it—I said "Halloa, my man, I shall accuse you of taking my watch—he said "You are doing a very wrong thing, taking my character away"—he wanted me to go outside and settle the case, and have a glass of something to drink, but I gave him into custody—I have not seen my watch since.

Prisoner. Q. How lately had you seen it? A. Half an hour previously—I can swear it was not stolen before you came near me—I swear that you stole it, I saw the chain in your hand—you stood talking to me ten minutes or a quarter of an hour before the constable came—you did not attempt to get away, quite the reverse—I think there were two more of you—you said that you were the son of a respectable greengrocer—I did not say that before, because I did not think of it.

JOHN HAINES . I am a zinc worker—I was at this concert hall—the prosecutor is a friend of mine—all at once he said, "Halloa, my man, "and I looked round and saw the chain drop from the prisoner's hand.

Prisoner. Q. Where was the prosecutor? A. Just behind you—you were in front of him—the chain did not drop to the ground because it was fastened to his waistcoat.

JESSE MOORE (Policeman K 209). I took the prisoner—he turned round to the prosecutor and asked him to come outside and have something to drink and settle the case, and not go any further with it—he said that he was a cabinet maker—I have not been able to find out anything about him.

Prisoner. Q. Did not I say that it would ruin me for life? A. No, but you said it would show your character up.

Prisoner's Defence. There were 1,000 people there. I was trying to get nearer to the singer and this man accused me of stealing his watch. I have been three weeks in prison. The chain must have caught against my hand as I passed, if it was hanging down. I am quite innocent.

NOT GUILTY .

Before Mr. Justice Denman.

366. MARY ATTRIDGE (50) , Feloniously setting fire to a shed, the property of Joseph Hitchcock.

MR. RIBTON conducted the Prosecution; and MR. W. SLMGH the Defence.

MARY STRUTTON . I live in Well Street, Stratford, and am a charwoman—the prisoner and I had apartments in the same house—I do not know whether her husband is dead; I believe she left him in Ireland—on 18th April I saw her in the middle of the day, when she came home very much the worse for liquor. Mr. Hitchcock's shed is at the back of our house, about 8 feet from the back-door—about 3 o'clock in the afternoon I saw the prisoner in the yard, coming from the corner of the shed near the end—she came into the house and ran up stairs, and directly afterwards I saw the shed in a flame—it is a wooden shed, and there are gaps in it that I could put my finger in—about a quarter of an hour before I saw the flame the prisoner said that she would set fire to the bed and the house, and to Mr. Hitchcock's shed, and Shamus should not have a place to lie his head down—Mr. Hitchcock is the landlord of the house—the prisoner had not gone up stairs five minutes when she came down into my room and said, "Mary, you did not see me in the yard, did you?"—I said, "Yes, Mary, I did; I have seen quite enough; go but of my room"—she then appeared to me very much soberer than when she came into the house—she had been lying down asleep—she was looking for her lucifers when she said that she would set fire to the bed and the house—she was not sober, and she was not very drunk, but she went and lay down on the bed—I went down and called Mr. Hitchcock.

Cross-examined. There are children who play in the yard—she was in her room and complained that she could not find her matches, and somebody had taken them—that was about a quarter of an hour before the fire—she remained in her room till she went to the shed—I saw no matches in her hand, when she came from the shed; you cannot see the shed door from our house—I believe the shed has been a refuge for outcasts, and Shamus used to go there—I don't know whether she was in the habit of going there to see him—he was living with her—I do not think she knew what she was saying or doing, but if thought it was spite—she seemed very much excited; that was before she laid down to go to sleep—Shamus was not in the shed, he was in the house, he was in her own room before this occurred—he was in a beer-shop at the time of the fire, I saw him come out as I stood at the street door, before I saw the flames—I did not go and tell Mrs. Hitchcock that the prisoner had threatened this, but I said that she had done it after I saw the flames—when I saw the flames I said "Oh my God, she has set the stable on fire!" but I did not accuse the prisoner of setting fire to the shed—as I saw the prisoner come away, I saw the shed flame; I was then standing at the back of the house, by the kitchen—it was about five

minutes before that that I was standing outside the front of the house, and saw Shamus come out of the beer-shop at the bottom of the street.

Re-examined. I am sure Shamus was not in the shed at the time the fire broke out—I did not see any children in the yard at the time—there was only me and the prisoner in the house—it was after I had been to Mrs. Hitchcock's, that the prisoner said "You did not see me in the yard, did you?"

WILLIAM JONES . I am superintendent of the Fire Brigade at Stratford—on 18th April, about 3.30, from information, I went with a fire engine to this shed, and found it on fire, the straw in it was on fire, and the wood work as well—I found two lucifers hardly a foot from the shed, between the shed and the prisoner's house—some portion of the shed is open, and there is no door to it.

Cross-examined. The shed was not burnt down, but most of it was destroyed on the side where the prisoner lives—a piece of timber work about 4 feet square was burnt.

EDWIN THURSTON (Policeman K 171). I went to this shed about 3.30, and found it on fire—from information I received I went to the prisoner's lodging, and said that she would have to go to the station with me—she said "What for?"—I said "For setting fire to Mr. Hitchcock's shed"—she said "I have not seen any fire"—I took her to the station—she was charged, and said "I did not do it."

JOSEPH HITCHCOCK . I live in Windmill Street, and have a shed at the back of my house—on April 18th I came home at night, and found it partly burnt down—there was a load of straw and a quarter of a load of hay in it—most of the straw was burnt, but not all, because it had been trampled upon.

Cross-examined. The prisoner owed me no grudge—Shamus was not in my employment—I know him—children do not play in my shed, that I know of—my boy does not play there, to my knowledge; he may, but I am not much at home—I said before the Magistrate, "My boys play about there, but they have no lucifers."

MR. W. SLEIGH contended that, by the evidence then was no intention to injure Mr. Hitchcock. THE COURT considered that the Jury might infer from the fact of setting fire to the property an intension to injure the person to whom the property belonged, and that the words "with intent to injure or defraud** really meant "not accidentallyf and not with permission."

MR. W. SLEIGH to J. HITCHCOCK. Q. Is there a water-closet near this shed, at the end of the yard? A. Yes, as far from it as that window; it is close to the house she lives in, close to the shed.

MR. RIBTON to MARY SUTTON. Q. Is there a water-closet in the, yard? A. Yes, for our use—when I saw the prisoner she was not coming from the water-closet, nor from near it.

COURT. Q. When did she complain that someone had taken her matches? A. About a quarter of an hour before the fire, and at the same time she said "I will set fire to the bed, and the house, and the shed"—it was part of the same conversation—she was then in her own room, and I expert she was looking for the matches, and she was breaking her crockery—she had recovered herself from the liquor then—she said that she would do for this Shamus she lived with, and he should not have a place to sleep in—he had slept in the same house as she did; he lived with her—she complained about the matches a quarter of an hour before the fire.

The Prisoner. I asked for the matches, but I never intended to do any injury to anybody.

GUILTY . Nine Month Imprisonment.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

367. RICHARD HUNTER (57) , Unlawfully marrying Clara Wells, his former wife being alive.

MR. COOPER conducted the Prosecution; and MR. A.B. KELLY the Defence.

CLARA WELLS . I live at 8, Ward's Terrace, Forty Acre Lane, and am a single woman, save and except my marriage to the prisoner—I was married to him on 14th June, 1870, in the Parish of St. Mary, Stratford-le-Bow—when he married me he told me he had had a wife that had been in a lunatic asylum, but he had written a letter to her, and believed her to be dead—we went and got married—our banns were published in the church, and he was described as a bachelor—he first told me that his wife was living about fifteen months ago; he said she was in Axminster Lunatic Asylum.

COURT. Q. You continued to live with him although you knew his wife was alive? A. Yes—he has been a sailor—he has treated me well, excepting lately—I went as his sister to receive his pay, by his orders—I had only known him a month before I married him.

Cross-examined. I concluded with the prisoner that his wife was dead, without making inquiries—I gave him into custody—he stripped me one day of everything.

JOHN TAFFE (Policeman K 317). On 4th April, about 11.30, I went to No.8, Ward's Terrace, Plaistow Marsh, and apprehended the prisoner—I charged him with bigamy, and he said "What's that?"—on 10th April I went to Stoke Dameral church, in the County of Devon, and the clergyman copied, in my presence, this certificate, showing that prisoner was married there to Mary Oliver on 1st July, 1841—a woman was afterwards pointed out to me as Mary Hunter, in Axminster Lunatic Asylum—she was received into the Asylum in 1864.

GEORGE BOXALL . I am staff sergeant to the pensioners at Star Hill—I know the prisoner—on 1st February I received an order from the Guardians of the Devonport Union to stop part of his pension, 1l. per quarter, for the support of his wife—he did not refuse that the deduction should be madeit has always been stopped since.

Cross-examined. I do not know how long he has been entitled to his pension, but he was transferred to the district in which he is paid in 1869.

SAMUEL CHAPPELL . I am a relieving-officer, in the Parish of Stoke, Devon—Mrs. Hunter became chargeable on 9th February, 1864, and she was removed by me on the following day.

JANE WILLIAMS . I live at 72, James Street, Devonport—I have known Mary Hunter from a girl—I remember her going to the asylum—she and her husband lived in the same house in Prospect Row.

NOT GUILTY .

KENT CASE.

Before Mr. Justice Grove.

368. JOSEPH CHILD (21), and CHARLES SHEPHERD (22) , Feloniously killing and slaying Sarah Haines Snashall.

MR. DAVIS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. LILLEY the Defence.

JONATHAN SNASHALL . I am a greengrocer, at 26, Church Street, Greenwich, and am the husband of the deceased—on Saturday night, 19th April, I came in about 12.30, and found my wife standing in great agony in the shop—she complained of great agony with her sides, with her hands on her hips—she said "They said they would do for me, and they have done for

me"—the prisoners were standing inside the shop—Child was a lodger in my house—they said nothing—I shut the shop up, and we went to bed—she was very poorly next day, and complained of her stomach—she got worse, and on the Monday night I sent for a doctor—she died the following Wednesday morning, at 2.30—her age was forty-one—there had been no ill-feeling between her and the prisoners, nor any quarrelling, that I know of.

Cross-examined. The prisoner and Mrs. Child were in the shop when I went in at 12.30—my wife was standing up, apparently in pain—she had not complained to me some days before of pain—I recollect her moving a heavy basket of periwinkles, but she did not complain at all—she seemed excited on the Saturday, from the blow—I did not see the blow—I don't think I said before the Magistrate that she said they had threatened they would do for her, and they had done it—I have got such a shallow memory—there was a large crowd outside the shop-door, and I was confused myself—my wife was rather an excitable person at times.

AMELIA ELIZABETH SNASHALL . I am the daughter of the last witness—on Saturday evening, 19th April, I went into the shop about 8 o'clock—Shepherd was dancing in the shop, and Mrs. Child was standing in the doorway—somebody went for my mother—she came in and said she would not have a ball room made of her shop—Shepherd and Child's wife then left the shop and went across the road, and my mother went away—she returned about 12 o'clock—Child came in with his wife—Shepherd was in the shop—I did not see my sister there—Child asked for his rent-book—my mother said she would give it to him as soon as she had had her supper—then Mrs. Child said she would not wait, and she flew at mother and mother flew at her—they struggled into the shop and Mr. Child hit mother on the nose, and Charley Shepherd struck her in the left ear—she fell down and both of them kicked her in the stomach—they only kicked her once—she went into the back room then—father came home while they were still in the shop—my mother did not come back at all, she stopped in the back room—the door of the back parlour is just opposite the street door—mother ran into the back room and sat down on a chair by the fire.

Cross-examined. I was there all the time—Child and his wife, Shepherd, and mother, and myself were there—there was no one else—Mrs. Child did not ask for the rent-book, it was Mr. Child—mother was having her supper in the back room—I heard Mrs. Child say, "I shan't pay you the 10s. until you give me the rent-book"—I don't know which struck the other first; they both flew together—they struggled in the room, and then they fought in the shop—I daresay the fighting lasted twenty minutes—my mother did not fall down; she was not on the ground at all, I am sure of that—she was on the ground at the last, when they kicked her—she was not on the ground during the time she was fighting with Mrs. Child; she was when they struck her and knocked her down—some policeman came up at the last—mother took up a weight and threw it at Shepherd—it did not hit him—I only saw her throw one, the 4lb. weight—I did not see her throw the 2lb. one—there was a great deal of confusion and disturbance during the time that Mrs. Child and mother were struggling together, and a number of persons standing outside the shop—the second weight might have been thrown, but I did not see it—I did not see her take up a poker—there was a poker in the back parlour—I was in the back room when they went up stairs—Mrs. Child stopped there, when she was not fighting, all the while; she stopped until the prisoner and her went up stairs together

—Mrs. Child and my mother had hold of each other's hair while they were fighting—before—they went up stairs a pen and ink was brought and mother gave a receipt—a young man wrote it and she signed it—he borrowed the pen and ink next door—my mother signed the receipt—that was for rent—that was after she came to a little—I helped my mother into the back room, but I did not take any part in the struggle.

CAROLINE LOUISA SNASHALL . I am the daughter of the deceased—I am not 14 yet—on Saturday evening, 19th April, I came home with my father; I was in the shop in the evening, and saw Charley Shepherd and Mrs. Child dancing in the shop—I went and fetched my mother, and she came home—mother went back, and I stayed at the market—mother came back and I went home with her about 12 o'clock—she went into the back room to her supper—only my mother—my sister and me were in the room Mr. Child and Mrs. Child and Charley Shepherd came in—Mr. Child asked for the rent-book; mother said "I will give it you when I have done my supper"—Mr. Child said "I want it now"—Mr. Child said "I will give you 10s. when you give me the rent-book"—I did not hear mother say any more—she came into the shop to go to the door, and Mr. Child hit mother in the ear—Mrs. Child was in the shop along with him—I did not hear her say anything, or do anything—Charley Shepherd hit mother on the nose, and then she fell down, and then they kicked her in the stomach, here—they kicked her once—Mrs. Child went up stairs—she was in the shop when the kick was given—I did not see any fighting between mother and Mrs. Child—mother sent me in doors; but, that was some time after the talk about the rent, and after I saw them strike her on the ear—I did not see my mother throw anything at anybody—I did not see her take up a poker—after they kicked her my sister pulled them away from her, she got up and my sister took her indoors—the prisoners went up stairs, and was there when my father came home—I did not hear either of the prisoners using bad language.

Cross-examined. When I came back at 12 o'clock, from the market, with my mother, I went into the back room; the prisoners and Mrs. Child were out at the door then, in front of the shop—I did not see mother fly at Mrs. Child, and Mrs. Child fly at mother, and I did not see mother throw a four pound weight nor a two pound weight—I did not see her take up the poker at all—Mrs. Child had not got a baby in her arms—Child hit mother in the ear without saying anything to her; and I did not hear Shepherd say anything—there were four constables there, they were not inside the shop—the shop is an open shop, standing in front they could see in—I heard mother ask the policeman to take the prisoners into custody, and the police told father to shut the shop up—I did not hear them say they would not because mother struck the first blow—mother was lying on her back when they kicked her.

Re-examined. If my mother had thrown a weight, I think I should have seen it, but I did not see it.

HERBERT WILSON SOUTH STURTON . I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and live at Burney Street, Greenwich—on Monday night, 21st April, about 11 o'clock, I was called to see the deceased—she was in great pain all over the abdomen, with her legs drawn up, the stomach was slightly swollen and the whole of the belly, and tender on pressure—there were no external marks of violence—she was in a cold sweat—I did not examine her that night, I did not understand that she had received any

injury—I treated her for peritonitis—I saw her again the next morning, she was in about the same state—I went again about 6 in the evening; she was worse then, and again at 11, when she was a great deal worse; I was not there when she died—I thought when I saw her last she was dying—I made a post-mortem examination on the 23rd—I made a careful examination of the body externally—there was a bruise on the bridge of the nose—the brain and membranes were quite healthy—there was a slight adhesion of the lungs, but that had nothing to do with death—there was extensive inflammation of the whole of the peritoneum, that is the membrane which surrounds the bowels; in the peritoneum cavity there were flakes of lymph floating in the serum, with patches of lymph adhering to the intestines—the stomach, liver and other organs Were healthy—the inflammation was all over the peritoneum—the conclusion I came to was, that she died from acute peritonitis, but how it was caused I could not say; it might have been caused by a blow—kicks in the stomach would have caused such inflammation, death generally takes place, if it is fatal, in three to five days from the commencement—I have been a number of years in the profession.

Cross-examined. I gave her opiates when I saw her, and I afterwards ordered an injection—the inflammation may have been the result of natural causes—and there was nothing within or without the subject to lead me to a different conclusion—if a kick was administered at a particular part you might have the inflammation at that spot, but in this instance it extended over the whole.

COURT. Q. A kick administered to a woman who had a good amount of clothing on, would that affect the bowels without leaving a particular mark? A. I think so—a kick on the hip or bone part would be likely to leave a bruise, but a kick on the soft part, like the bowels, might not—the inflammation would then commence locally and spread, and you might or might not find a mark.

THOMAS KITTNER (Police Sergeant R 4). On the 23rd April, about 9: 30.I went to Blissett Street and apprehended Child—he worked there—I charged him with having caused the death of Sarah Snashall by kicking her in the abdomen—he said "Oh dear, I never heard of such a thing, I never kicked her at all"—he repeated that several times.

HENRY GOODWIN (Policeman R 289). I apprehended Shepherd about 2 or 2.30 on the 23rd—he was at work at Mr. Tickers, the wheelwright's, in the Old Kent Road—I told him he was charged, with another man in custody of the name of Child, for causing the death of a woman of the name of Snashall, at Church Street, Greenwich—he said "I did not do it, it is all through drink; I saw two neighbours fighting and went to part them.

The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Child says: "On Saturday night, at 12 o'clock, I went into Mrs. Shashall's house, and I was standing by her room door, and I says 'Mrs. Snashall, if you will give me my rent book I will give you 10s.' She said 'I can't give it you now, you will have to wait for it;' and I said 'I can't give you the 10s. till I have the book.' She was then sitting by the fire, with a plate on her knees, eating fish, then she gets up and comes towards me, missis walks into the room and meets her against the fireplace; she struck my missis in the eye, and said my missis had called her a b----thing. She said 'Get out of my, room or I shall put you out.' I pulled ray missis into the shop, and Mrs. Snashall came out and saw Shepherd in the shop, and said 'You b----, I will kill you.' She then pitched on to my missis, we got hold of her and

Mrs. Snashall also, and me and Shepherd pulled them away. I took my missis out of the shop, and then she turned on Shepherd, and him and her fought with the poker. After that she came to a bit, and sent for a pen and ink to receipt my rent-book, and a man brought some ink and pen from the opposite house." Shepherd says: "She aimed a 4lb. weight at me, and got a poker out of the parlour and struck me across the finger with it, and her daughter rushes at me and tears two pieces out of my neck, and two constables came up, and he picked up a 2lb. weight and hit me on the forehead with it, and I smacked her in the face. Mr. Snashall told the constables to lock me up and they refused, as she had hit me first, and told us to go up stairs, and I went up."

Witnesses for the Defence.

WILLIAM SMITH . I am a bricklayer, and live at 5, Thames Street—I was near Snashall's shop on the night of Saturday, 19th April, shortly after 12—I was outside the shop door, on the pavement, and I saw what was passing in the shop—there was a light in the shop—I saw what passed between the deceased, the prisoners, and Mrs. Child—I was there about ten minutes, and went up the street for a constable—the first I saw was Mr. Child, holding money in his hand, and saying 10s. to pay for his rent, or part of his rent, and asking for the book—Mr. Snashall said "I shall not give you the book; your wife owes me more than 10s. for rent and goods she has had out of the shop"—after those words were spoken they were wrangling with each other, and I saw Mrs. Snashall strike Mrs. Child, and they scuffled together—I did not see that they fell—I did not see anything done during the first part by either of the two prisoners to Mrs. Snashall—I was within a yard of the step of the door, on the pavement—I left after I saw Mrs. Snashall make a "strike" at Shepherd, and then at Mr. Child—they were scuffling when I left the door—I did not see anything thrown by Mrs. Snashall—she made a blow at Shepherd and then at Child—I then went and fetched a constable—I found one about 100 yards from the shop, and another one crossed the road as we were going to the shop—they returned with me, and both went in—I taw Shepherd had a 4 pound weight in his hand, which he showed to the constable—they were not quarrelling when I came back with the policemen—the deceased and the two prisoners, and a little girl were in the shop then—Mrs. Snashall was standing against the door-post with a poker in her hand—I did not stop three minutes afterwards—I went home—I did not notice whether Shepherd had a mark on his forehead.

Cross-examined. I was about a yard from the shop door—I could hear what was said inside the shop; they spoke out loud, so that anyone in the middle of the street might hear them—I say that Mrs. Snashall struck Mrs. Child—if Mrs. Child had struck Mrs. Snashall first, I should have seen it—I heard no particular words spoken—Mrs. Snashall struck Mrs. Child without a word that I heard—when the deceased was standing by the door-post with the poker, the prisoners were not threatening her—the polioemen were in the house then—I did not see Child strike her nor yet kick her—as far as I saw, neither of the prisoners struck her—I did not see anyone fall down, nor hear any bad language—I was not there when the husband came home—I did not see any mark on Shepherd, nor on Mrs. Snashall, if there had been a mark on her I might have seen it, but I did not—I only saw the little girl there in the shop.

Re-examined. Mr. Child asked for the rent-book before Mrs. Snashall

struck Mrs. Child—there were some persons standing on the pavement, and that first attracted my attention, and induced me to look into the shop.

MARIA RAY . I live in the neighbourhood—on the Monday following this disturbance I saw Mrs. Snashall, about 9.30 or 10.0 in the morning—I had a pint of ale with her at the Dover Castle, close against her shop—she was very excited—we were talking a little bit, and I went with her from the Dover Castle, through the shop into the sitting-room.

CHILDS received a good character.

GUILTY.—Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of the great provocation they received.

Two Years' Imprisonment each.

SURREY CASES.

Before Mr. Justice Grove.

369. MARY SHIRLEY (23), was indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with, the wilful murder of a female child, lately before born of her body, and not named.

MR. LANGFORD conducted the Prosecution; and MESSRS. BBSLIY and D. MICHELE the Defence.

JOHN HORT . I lodge at Mr. Simpson's, 4, Atalanta Terrace, Brixton—the prisoner was general servant there—on 9th April, about 8 o'clock in the evening, I went down to the sink in the front kitchen, and there found this small table knife (produced) covered with blood—I also saw blood on the floor—I went up stairs, and spoke to Mr. Simpson, and then went for a doctor and a constable—I afterwards went with them into the back kitchen, and in the copper-hole found the body of a female child—I had lived in the house four years—the prisoner had been there about eighteen months—I did not know that she was with child.

Cross-examined. My going down on this evening was quite accidental—the copper was not in use at the time—the body, when taken out, was covered with coal-dust—there was a shopman of the Simpson's living on the premises—the prisoner was the only female servant—she has a sister in service at Mile End Old Town; I believe she is her only relative in London.

ROBERT GARDNER (Policeman If 93). On the evening of 9th April I went to the house, and saw the prisoner in her mistress's room, standing by the side of the bed—she said she had been delivered of a child, and began to cry, and said "Pray don't lock me up"—I assisted her up to her bedroom—Dr. Pope then came, and ordered her into bed—Mrs. Lazarus remained with her, and Dr. Pope, and I, and Mr. Hort went down stairs, and found the body of the child in the hole of the copper, where the fire is made—Mr. Pope gave it to constable Tee to take to the station—the prisoner remained in the house ten days, and was then taken to the workhouse.

Cross-examined The prisoner looked very ill—Mrs. Lazarus asked her in my presence what she had done with the child; she first said it was in the copper, and afterwards in the copper-hole.

FRANCIS TEE (Policeman W 123). I received the body of the child from Mr. Pope—I took it to the station, and afterwards returned it to Mr. Pope.

EMMA LAZARUS . I am a widow, and live at 81, Nelson Street, Commercial Road—on 9th April I was on a visit to Mrs. Simpson—about 8 o'clock that evening, in consequence of what Mr. Simpson said to me, I went into

the front kitchen—I saw marks of blood about the sink, on the coals, and on the seat of the water-closet—I then went up to the prisoner's room—she was standing there, changing her linen—I said to her "You have had a baby"—she at first said "I have not"—I said "Tell me where it is, and I will see to it"—she said "It is in the copper"—she afterwards said it was in the copper-hole—the doctor asked her where the after-birth was—I said there was something under the bed, and he looked there, and found it—she told me that she was getting some coals, and the child came from her—she said she thought she had three weeks longer to go—I asked her how she came to use the knife—she said she had no recollection of it, she never saw the baby—I asked her if she had any baby linen—she said No, but she had money to purchase it.

Cross-examined. I have been in the habit of attending females in their confinement—I think there is no doubt this was her first child—she said the father was a person in the house—women are often in a semi-unconscious state at the time of their confinement, especially with a first child.

EDMUND POPE . I am a surgeon at Brixton—on 9th April, about 8.45 in the evening, I was called to Mr. Simpson's house—I went there with constable Tee—I found the prisoner sitting by the side of her bed, dressed—I told her to get into bed—I then went down to the back kitchen, with the other witnesses—I found this knife, and saw spots of blood on the floor—I found the body of a female child in the copper-hole—it was perfectly black—there was no fire in the copper-hole—I did not notice that it was heated—I examined the child very cursorily, and gave it to Tee—I afterwards examined it at the station—I, should say it had not long been delivered—I found a jagged incised wound at the back of its neck, extending three parts of the surface of the neck; not externally, but internally—I consider it could have been done with this knife—it was dug in, and out; forced—the spinal cord was divided between the second and third bones of the neck, and the muscles of the back of the neck all divided—that was the cause of death—there was scarcely any blood in the body; about a teaspoonful—that was from the sudden drain on the body, caused by the wound—from my examination I considered the child had been born alive—the wound could have been given after its death—I considered it to have been born alive, from its healthy appearance, and the condition of the head upon opening it—the organs were perfectly healthy; the lungs floated when I placed them in water; that is a test—they were inflated as they might be if the child had breathed.

Cross-examined. I am acquainted with Dr. Taylor's work; I am not acquainted with Balfour's—in a great number of cases the umbilical cord is coiled round the neck—it may be so in the majority of cases—it varies in length from 54 inches to 7 1/2; I have seen it coiled round the neck three times—in this case the cord had been torn away, about 2 inches from the body, and not tied—the effusion of blood would be likely to be greater the closer to the body the cord is torn—I found fractures on the top of the head—I examined the bones of the head, ossification was not more defective than is usual—I should think it would require a lengthened and strong labour to fracture the bones of the head; it may occur—I don't think it would be more likely in a first and concealed confinement—delivery sometimes occurs in a standing posture—I did not examine the prisoner's clothes—the fractures spoken of are occasioned before the child comes into the world—they prove fatal at once, or after the

child has respired a few times—both the lungs floated; they only half filled the chest; they did not indicate imperfect respiration—there was no blood in the lungs—I could not say that there was any positive proof that the child was born alive—I could not say it had really a separate existence; that it was wholly born alive—it had breathed—the wound I saw would cause death—I can't positively say that it was alive when that injury was given—I can scarcely understand how it could be done before it was completely born—I cannot give an opinion—I don't think such a severe wound could have been done before the child was separated from the mother; I should think it almost impossible—it might have been done after the child was actually dead.

Re-examined. In the majority of cases I should say the lungs are gradually inflated; they could not be completely inflated before complete birth, there would not be room.

THE COURT. I have known instances of children crying out before complete delivery, not very loudly; they may cry and make a noise, but I should not say the lungs were completely inflated before birth.

JOHN HART (re-examined). When I went into the kitchen I saw the prisoner going towards the water-closet.

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY of concealing the birth only. Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury, on account of her age and good character.— Two Years' Imprisonment.

Before Mr. Deputy Recorder.

370. JONATHAN NEVE ELSEY (46), was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury before James T. Ingham, Esq., at the Police Court, Wandsworth.

MESSRS. BESLEY and STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; and MESSRS. PALMER and CROOME the Defence.

The circumstances out of which this case arose are fully reported in the case of "Condy and Others, "vol. lxxvi, p.495.

NOT GUILTY .

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

371. GEORGE STEPHENS (30), PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously marrying Louisa Pattey, his wife being then alive. Four Months' Imprisonment.

372. WILLIAM HENRY BOUCHER (20) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Nathaniel Bliss, and stealing two opera-glasses, and 5l. 1s.7d. to his property.

MR. MOODY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. STRAIGHT the Defence.

NATHANIEL BLISS . I keep the Pheasant public-house, 35, Stangate Street, Lambeth—on 1st April I was called up by my barman, about 5.45 o'clock in the morning—I went into the bar parlour and found the cheffonier all opened, papers thrown about, and a little writing-desk wrenched open, and the papers thrown out of that—the window was broken—I had gone to bed about 12.30 the night before, and left all safe—I left 2l. in silver and 5s. in copper in the bar, and about 2l. 13s. in copper money, done up in 5s. packets, in the cheffonier—the opera-glasses were on the cheffonier—I found my property had been disturbed and moved—I saw the prisoner in the bar—he seemed stupid, as if he had just woke up—my barman

saw him first—I saw the copper money, and my watch, and my operar glasses found upon him at the station—he lived two or three doors off me for some time, and I have seen him at the bar once or twice—access had been gained by getting over the wall on to a ledge at the back of the house—the window was broken and pushed open—any one getting into the house would be able to help themselves to liquor—he could draw anything he liked.

Cross-examined. I knew the prisoner when he was potman to Mr. Vickes—I have heard he is a respectable man.

JAMES ACRES . I am barman to the last witness—on the 1st April I came down about 5.50 or 5.45 o'clock—I found the prisoner lying on the sofa in the bar parlour asleep—his necktie, collar, and boots were off—I woke him, and asked him how he came there—he said he did not know—I found the window had been opened, and the cheffonier and desk, the copper and silver, and the opera-glasses moved—I was sent for a constable.

Cross-examined. I knew the prisoner as a barman in the neighbourhood—he appeared as if he had been drinking—he seemed to be rather stupid when I woke him—I did not see him in the house the night before.

GEORGE PLIMM (Policeman L 250). I was called to the Pheasant and found the prisoner there—I examined to see in what way the house had been entered—I found three distinct marks of footsteps up to the wall, and the brickwork was scraped—that is the wall which divides the yard from a pas-sage where the tramway horses draw up—the wall is about 6 feet high—the window, which had been opened, was on the ground floor, and could be easily got at—I took the prisoner to the station, and searched him—I found these packets of money, a bag of money, a cigar case, and the opera-glasses in his coat pocket—he said he did not know how he had got there—he went to Drury Lane Theatre the night before, and had gone to the Pheasant about 11.45, as near as he could remember—he seemed a little confused, and appeared as if he had been drinking.

Cross-examined. He seemed muggy from drink—the wall is not 8 or 10 feet high; you can reach the top with your hand—he had his coat on, and the things were found in his coat pocket—I had not known him before.

WILLIAM WINN (Policeman L 61). I was on duty in the Westminster Bridge Road on the night of 31st March and the morning of 1st April—I saw the prisoner about 12.10, inside the Crown public-house—he was assisting one of the barmen there with a man who was drunk and creating a dis-turbance—he came out with the man, and they had some words together—I told him to go inside, and I would get the man away—he went in, and the door was shut—I saw him again about 12.25, when he came out of the same public-house—he walked down the road, and I saw no more of him for a quarter of an hour, when I found him through some iron rails, attached to the Crown, sitting under a tree—I turned my light on him, and asked him how he got in there—he said John, the potman, put him there—I said "It is a queer place; why did he put you there?"—he said he did not know; he put him there out of the way, so that he would not be locked up—I said "You had better come out"—he got over the railing, and went down towards the Lambeth Road—I said "Are you not going in to-night? '—he said "No, I won't go in to-night; I have got some friends, and I will go to them"—he had been drinking, but he walked quite steady, and knew very well what he was about.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I have not the slightest recollection of anything that took place after I left the Crown. I don't recollect leaving the Crown. I remember having a row with a man there, and coming out with him, and going back again; but I don't remember leaving the house after that."

The Prisoner received a good character.

NOT GUILTY .

373. RICHARD COLLWICK (37), and ROBERT LINSTEAD (25) , Stealing 69 lbs. of leather, of George Almond and another.

LINSTEAD PLEADED GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

MR. DOUGLAS, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence against COLLWICK.

NOT GUILTY .

374. ALICE WILLIAMS (24), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing, on 6th April, a watch of Margaret Banks; also, on 14th April, one blanket, six feathers, and one book, of Frederick Young; and on 13th April, one coat and waistcoat of George Bingham.— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, JUNE 9TH, 1873.