Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 6.0, 30 October 2014), August 1875 (t18750816).

Old Bailey Proceedings, 16th August 1875.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

Sessions Paper.

STONE, MAYOR.

TENTH SESSION, HELD AUGUST 16TH, 1875.

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.

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, August 16th, 1875, and following days,

BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. DAVID HENRY STONE, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; The Hon. Sir WILLIAM BALIOL BRETT , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas; Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEN , Knt., ROBERT BESLEY , Esq., and Sir THOMAS DAKIN , Knt., Aldermen of the said City; the Right Hon. RUSSELL GURNEY , Q.C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; THOMAS SCAMBLER OWDEN , Esq., Sir THOMAS WHITE , Knt., and JAMES FIGGINS , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q.C., M.P., Common Serjeant of the said City; and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR , Esq., 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.

JOHN WHITTAKER ELLIS Esq., Alderman.

JAMES SHAW , Esq.

Sheriffs

WILLIAM TIMBRELL ELLIOTT , Esq.

GEORGE ALFRED SEDGWICK , Esq.

Under-Sheriff

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

STONE, MAYOR. TENTH 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, August 16th, and Tuesday 17th, 1875.

Before Mr. Recorder.

407. KENYON GEORGE AULT (43), Was indicted for feloniously forging and uttering an original document of a Court of Record. Other Counts varying the description of the document.

MESSRS. POLAND and MEAD conducted the Prosecution; MR. SERJEANT SLEIGH, and Mr. Besley the Defence.

CHARLES COULTHERY . I am clerk to Mr. Hoare, the Registrar of the Bow County Court—I know the defendant as manager of the London Creditors' Agency, of 40a, King William Street; before 25th February I had known him as acting for suitor's at the County Court—I knew a clerk of his who came to the office on 25th of February—I am not sure of the time, Mr. Tijou took the affidavits marked A and B; one affidavait purports to be sworn by Mr. Guerrin, before Mr. Lovett—I noticed on that affidavit some alterations which were not initialled; the other affidavit was sworn by Mr. Bennett, before Mr. Gover—there were some irregularities on that, but I did not notice them myself—I did not examine it; they were afterwards returned to the defendant by post—I reported what occurred the same afternoon, and on the 26th I saw these affidavits, A and B—I did not see them till about 3 o'clock—the affidavit A purports to be sworn by J. C. Bennett, before H. A. Lovett, on 26th February; B is the one that was sent back; A was sent in substitution for one of the other two that were returned—I noticed on B some initials, which were not there when I sent it back—Mr. Tijou spoke to Mr. Hoare about it—on the 1st March, a letter was written to Mr. Ault, and before he could have received it, he called and saw Mr. Hoare in my presence—the affidavits were there, and this letter D, dated 26th February, signed with the prisoner's initials—I think Mr. Hoare first spoke; he said "I have just written to you." Mr. Ault said "I have called in consequence of something I have heard from Mr. Lovett, about some affidavits; it is a serious business for me." Mr. Hoare replied that it was a serious business. Mr. Ault then said, "Perhaps you would allow me to give my version of the affair," or words to that affect—Mr. Hoare said "Certainly, sit down"—he then sat down,

and said that on the affidavits being returned from the Court to him, and knowing that one of them was sworn before Mr. Gover, who objected to initial alterations without have the affidavit re-sworn, he had prepared a fresh one himself in its place, that was the affidavit marked A—he said "I prepared this affidavit and gave it with the one marked B, to a clerk or canvasser in my employ, of the name of Shown"—he stated that Shown had also drawn his journey money to go to Millwall, to bring the deponent to the City, and that he had brought them back to him the following morning, apparently correct, and he then at once enclosed them in a letter to Mr. Hoare—the letter marked D was then shown to him, and he said "Oh, that is the very letter"—Mr. Hoare then said "Do you know anything about this man Shown, what sort of character has he"—he said "Well, he was recommended to me as a good canvasser, and I employed him in canvassing in my business in making inquiries as to addresses, but I was told by the person from whom I had his character, that whilst he was a very good man of business, it was just as well if he did not have too much to do with money matters"—Mr. Hoare then indicated that the other affidavit, B was also a forgery, and Mr. Ault said "Yes, no doubt," he also said that the "J. C. Bennett," and "H. A. Lovett" on the affidavit A he recognised as Shown's handwriting, and he believed the initials to B were also Shown's—as he was leaving, he asked Mr. Hoare whether he should send Shown down, and Mr. Hoare said "Oh, no, I don't want him, I can do no good with him," or something of that sort.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT SLEIGH. I have known Mr. Ault nearly ten years engaged in debt collecting, and employed by Messrs. Simpson, and some other persons in the neighbourhood, he has always borne a very respectable character—this conversation lasted about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes—it was on the Friday night that some one called at Mr. Lovett's office, and it was not till the Monday that Mr. Ault came—Mr. Hoare does not attend on the Saturday.

CHARLES FREDERICK HOARE . I am Registrar of the Bow County Court—about the end of February my attention was called to some affidavits—I afterwards saw these affidavits, A and B—I was informed by my clerk that he had already made inquiries about them—I wrote a letter to the defendant, more particularly about another matter; but before it could have reached him, he came to THE COURT. on the 1st of March—I was in my own room there, and Mr. T. Couthery, and Mr. Tijou—I knew him before—I Bad some conversation with him about these affidavits—I reported the matter to the Judge of the County Court—under a recent Act of Parliament, a summons at once issues upon these affidavits—judgment is obtained without a hearing, unless there is a defence upon the merits—they are filed in the regular way, and then summons and process issues.

Cross-examined. When he proposed to send Shown down, I said I did not want to see him—both the affidavits were referred to—I believe made a mistake at the police-court in thinking that A was B or B was A.

CHARLES JAMES RICHARD TIJOU . I am a clerk in the Bow County Court—on the 25th February I saw two affidavite, one of them was that marked B, the other was an affidavit sworn by Bennett—the two affidavits were given to a boy, about 15 or 16 years of age, named Ault, I believe the prisoner's clerk—they were returned on Thursday afternoon the 25th, they were irregular; afterwards the affidavit B and a fresh affidavit A were sent to the Court in a letter—I was present part of the

time when the conversation took place on the 1st of March about these affidavits—two fresh affidavits were sent in substitution of those that were found to be irregular, F and G, they came with this letter, marked E—it appears to be the same handwriting as the body of the affidavit A—F is an affidavit by Bennett, and G by Guerrin—A and B were shown to Mr. Lovett by me, on Friday, 27th February.

Cross-examined. On the Thursday when I saw young Ault I pointed his attention to the B affidavit, which was then uninitialled—it was arranged that the initials of the commissioner should be supplied, and that that affidavit and the other should be returned by post next day—the alterations were in the Christian name, Joshua, and in the description of the trade, nothing else; the plaint could be issued without the affidavit being filed.

JOHN COMFORT BENNETT . I am clerk to Simpson, Payne & Co., of Mill-trail, candle manufacturers—In February last, Joshua W. Kent, of Station Road, Stratford, owed my employers 7l. 16s.—on the 24th or 25th February I made an affidavit with reference to that debt before Mr. Gover—the defendant went with me, I believe I was written to to come up—I do not remember afterwards going to Mr. Lovett, and making an affidavit with reference to the same debt, on the 26th February—this signature to affidavit A is not my writing—the signature to F is mine—I attended before the Commissioner and swore to it on the 1st March.

Cross-examined. Our firm is in a large way of business—it was our custom to issue several summonses at a time—I can't say on what day it was I first swore an affidavit about the 7l. 16s.—the money was paid into Court after the summons, and we received it in the usual way—we have continued to employ the prisoner since his committal.

FREDERICK BLONDEL GUERRIN . I am clerk to William Goodman—I swore this affidavit B, on 19th February, before Mr. Lovett—I did not attend on 26th February to reswear it.

Cross-examined. We have continued to employ the prisoner since his committal.

HENRY ALBERT LOVETT . I am an attorney and solicitor of 48, King William Street, City—I am a commissioner for administering oaths for the three Common Law Courts, I have known the defendant, between two and three years, as connected with the London Creditors' Agency, almost immediately opposite my office—I have been in the habit of swearing a large number of affidavits for him—I keep a monthly account, and when an affidavit is sworn I make an entry in my book as nearly as possible, sometimes I swear twenty a month—sometimes I charge 18d., and sometimes less, it depends upon circumstances—I never initial an alteration without the affidavit being resworn—I think I know the defendants writing—I should think the body of the affidavit marked A is filled up in his writing—I have some little doubt about it—I am rather inclined to think it is his—the signature "H. A. Lovett" I should say is not mine—it is such a close imitation that it is really almost difficult to say whether it is or not—I have no entry in my book of an affidavit sworn by Bennett, on 26th October—the signature "H. A. Lovett" to affidavit B is undoubtedly mine, also my initials—I cannot say from memory whether Mr. Guerrin reswore that affidavit—I never charge any fee for reswearing—this is my genuine signature to the affidavit F—some of these affidavits (looking at several) are signed by me.

Cross-examined. I have discovered many instances in which I have not

made entries in my book—sometimes when in a hurry I may not enter it till the next morning, and probably I might not enter it at all—I have known Mr. Ault, between two and three years—I have some knowledge of his handwriting—I have seen him write—I am inclined to think that the signature Bennett, to this affidavit A, is not his writing—my signature is a very excellent imitation if it is one—if I had an entry in my book of such an affidavit I should have had no doubt whatever about it being my writing—I have a doubt about it even now.

Re-examined. I am inclined to think the body of the affidavit is in the defendant's writing; I would not swear positively that it is—it appears to me that some of the letters in the word Bennett, in the body are somewhat like those in the signature, and some are very different—I could not give any opinion about the word Bennett in the body.

HUBERT CHARLES HOLLAND . I am a member of the firm of Marshall & Holland, merchants and manufacturers—I have done business with the prisoner in connection with the London Creditors' Agency to collect debts for which we paid a percentage on the amount collected, and if not collected we pay the money out of pocket—I have seen the defendant write and have had communication with him—to the best of my belief these two letters addressed to me are his writing, also these marked D and C—I should not like to say that the body of the affidavit A was his writing—it is very unlike his ordinary handwriting if it is—it is very much like it.

Cross-examined. I should say that the signature Bennett, is decidedly not his writing—in my opinion the signature of the commissioner is not his writing—our firm has employed him for two years, as far as I know he has borne a very respectable character—we still continue to employ him.

CHARLES CHABOT . I have made handwriting a study for a great many years—I have examined the documents marked A a and B b, also the two letters D and E—they are all in the same handwriting, and appear to be in an ordinary undisguised hand—the body of the affidavit A is in the same handwriting, it appoars to be an undisguised hand—the signature of John Comfort Bennett, to the affidavit F is not the same handwriting as the J. C. Bennett in A, that is in the same hand as the body of the affidavit, and the same as the four letters; I am confident of that. (Mr. Chabot pointed out various similarities on the different documents as to which he was examined in detail.)

MICHAEL HAYDON (City Detective). I had no address given to me with reference to Shown—the neighbourhood of Basinghall Street, was mentioned by the defendant, but no address—I made inquiries there; I did not see Shown; I know nothing of him—I did not trace him at all.

The prisoner received a good character.

NOT GUILTY .

There were two other indictments against the prisoner upon which no evidence was offered.

408. JOHN CUBITT GOSTLING was indicted for that he, being director of a public company, called "J. C. Gostling & Co., Limited," unlawfully and fraudulently did apply a bill of exchange for 84l. 11s. 6d. to his own use, with intent to defraud. Other counts for applying to his own use, or for purposes other than for the use of the company, certain other securities, with intent to defraud.

MR. SERJEANT PARRY, with MESSRS. F. H. LEWIS and SOULSBY, conducted the Prosecution; and MR. METCALFE, Q.C., with Messrs. Straight and Gill, the Defence.

WILLIAM WILSON TICKELL . I am a merchant, carrying on business at Billiter Street, City—in 1874 I transacted business with J. C. Gostling & Co., Limited, and was indebted to them in the sum of 200l., and on the 24th November I accepted a bill for 200l., due on 9th February, 1874—I also accepted a draft for 84l. 11s. 6d. marked C, dated 23rd February, 1874, due on 26th April, 1874, and a draft of the company for 150l., marked B, on 21st August, 1874, due 24th November—on 29th September, 1874, I paid to the company a cheque for 45l. 4s. 1d. in settlement of the balance of the account.

Cross-examined by Mr. Metcalfe. I had done business with the defendant for some three years, I think, before the company was formed—he was the" only responsible person that I knew connected with the business; he was the only person whose signature I would accept as final—the 200l. bill was not given directly as an advance on goods—the company, as I understood, was in need of money—Mr. Gostling came to me, and having done business with him for so many years I made this advance in relief of the company; I understood that from the prisoner—the state of the accounts I can only explain in this way, we had made certain advances to Gostling & Co. against goods, and there the matter ended, and we should be entitled to hold those goods, and when the returns came I gave him a cheque for the balance, if the goods covered a balance—there were balances continually accruing from time to time—I made the advance to him because I had done business with him so long, and I was anxious to help him—I advanced them as a loan, always bearing in mind that I had the possible surplus returns to come—I took the risk of that—that 200l. bill was afterwards honoured—the advance was increased to 300l.; the bill for 200l. determined on 27th February, 1874; it was then increased to 300l., and there were renewals from time to time—the final bill was dishonoured; I have that in my pocket—the 100l. was also, as I understood, advanced to the company for the company's funds—I was doing a current business with them, and of course the monies I advanced would come from their account to get them settled—we made advances on shipments, and they have been completed during the last month; the returns have been determined since the prosecution has been going on—at the time I was at the Mansion House they were not returned; some of them at least—those transactions were not to a very large amount; a few hundreds—it is a very great point that a new firm should be known abroad, and until it is known the business can't be pushed at all—it was pushed for the purpose of establishing it abroad—this being comparatively a young company, in my judgment there was a necessity for pressing it rather beyond what would ordinarily be done by an older company.

Re-examined. I knew nothing about how Mr. Gostling stood with the company—all I knew was that he was the representative of the company, and whatever statement he made I took it as the company's ipse did it.

WILLIAM BRIDGE COLLINS . I am a merchant, at 5, East India Avenue—in August, 1874, I was indebted to the company in the sum of 240l. 14s. 2d.—I paid that amount by cheque on 21st August, 1874—that cheque has come back through my bankers—this is it, marked A—I paid it to Mr. Gostling.

Cross-examined by Mr. Metcalfe. When the cheque came back it was crossed with the name of John Browd & Co., and also the stamp of the London and County Bank—one crossing is above the other—I should

surmise that it had been to both banks—I have no doubt that the London and County Bank were the bankers of the company—I have often seen my cheques from the company crossed by the London and County Bank, and I presume they bank with John Brown & Co. as well—the cheque came to me from my bankers—I can't say whether it went to the London and County Bank first and was refused, and then went to John Brown—I have exchanged acceptances for the company, I think, since, November, 1873, about the time of their commencement—I lent him 250l. cash on interest—the 240l. was payment for goods I had bought and paid cash for—subsequently Mr. Goatling, the managing director, and the only man I knew in the concern, applied to me for a further loan—I told him I could not do it—he pressed me, and proposed that I should give him my acceptance and he would give me the company's acceptance in return—I told him I would do so if he gave me security, and he gave me a fully paid-up scrip of the company—it was not paid; it was renewed continually up to the present time or until the disruption of the company—I hold it against them now—I endorsed the bill away, and the company were sued upon it afterwards and paid it.

Re-examined. I saw Mr. Gostling in all my transactions—the 250l. loan was made in November, 1873—that was a cash loan—it was arranged in this way, he said that he had formed a company, he had got other directors to join him and he was rather short of his portion of capital, they had to make up 5,000l. each, and if I would lend him 250l. it would oblige him, and as I had been doing business with him since 1871, and I was anxious to assist him—he gave me as security the fully paid-up scrip of the company, which was in his own name—I still hold the scrip, and the 250l. is not paid—I consider the company liable to me for the 250l., they have not been sued upon that—I consider both the company and Mr. Gostling aw. liable—I considered it a personal loan and a loan to the company as well, because I think he gave me a sale note for 500 casks of cement, or a letter to that effect at any rate—I have not lost it; I have got it somewhere—I lent him the 250l. on a sale note or a letter to that effect, it was not positively a sale note, it was not stamped.

HENRY BENJAMIN TAYLOR . I am a ship-broker and merchant carrying on business in the City—in July 1874 I was indebted to this Company in the sum of 73l. 10s.—I accepted this bill of exchange marked D at three months for that amount and have paid it—I can't say to whom I gave the bill, I suppose it was called for at the office in the ordinary way—it was left for me to accept and my clerk would give it up.

JOSEPH POWER . In May, 1874, I was in the service of Messrs. Capper, Sons & Co., drapers, in Gracechurch Street—the defendant was indebted to them in the sum of 55l. 10s. 11d. for goods supplied to him—they were paid for by a bill at three months, drawn upon J. C. Gostling, Esq.—it is accepted payable at the London and County Bank, Lambeth branch, "for J. C. Gostling & Co., Limited, J. C. Gostling," in the prisoner's handwriting—the goods were for ladies wear supplied to his wife.

WILLIAM EDGECUMBE RENDELL . I am a horticultural engineer—in May, 1874, the prisoner was indebted to me 81l. for plant and frames supplied at his private residence at Northfleet—I drew this bill upon him marked "G," and received it accepted in this letter marked H—this is the acceptance "three months after date, pay to my order the sum of 81 pounds for value received, J. C. Gostling & Co., Limited, Gracechurch Street, London"—I addressed it to the Company because I was desired to do so by a letter

he wrote to me marked F, and I sent it to him at Greenhithe; it was drawn 29th May, 1874, at three months, and is accepted payable at the London and County Bank, Lambeth branch, "for J. C. Gostling & Co., Limited, J. C. Gostling director"—it passed through the bankers and was paid.

RICHARD LOCKYER . I am a builder at Greenhithe—in June last year the prisoner was indebted to me in the sum of 100l. for a vinery erected at his private residence at Greenhithe—I drew this bill of exchange marked J on the first July at three months on J. C. Gostling and Co., Limited, Northfleet, which is accepted payable at the London and County Bank, "J. C. Gostling & Co., Limited, J. C. Gostling."

WILLIAM MAITLAND . I am an accountant at 30, Mark Lane—I have known Mr. Gostling since 1872—he was then carrying on business on his own account—I have acted since then as accountant to the business until now—the business is now being carried on—there is no pretence for saying there is any disruption—I remember Mr. Miller coming into partnership, with Mr. Gostling and his brother in May 1873—I have all the accounts and books, and abstracts of them—they were to subscribe 5,000l. each—Mr. Miller paid his 5,000l.—Mr. William Gostling did not pay his at the time—Mr. J. C. Gostling did not pay his 5,000l.—he was to collect assets out of which he was to-pay—the assets exceeded the liabilities by 5,158l. 16s. 11d.—the assets were 11,722l. 15s. 6d., and the liabilities 6,5481. 18s. 7d. that partnership continued until 31st October, 1873, when the company was established—this (produced) is a printed copy of the articles of association) showing a capital of 30,000l. in 600 shares of 50l. each—in May, 1874, it was resolved to increase it to 50,000l.—the whole of those shares were paid-up with the exception of the prisoner's—at the formation of the company the prisoner and his brother William were appointed managing directors—the trading between May and the end of October showed a profit of 300l.—at first it—was believed that there was a profit of 1,300l., but in the end it was found to be only 324l.—whatever the profits were they were placed' to the prisoner's account; they were not taken in by the new Company in any "way—they only amounted to 300l. ultimately—William Miller was the chairman of the Company—an account was opened in reference to the old business in the new books—it was called "J. C. Gostling & Co. liquidation account"—that account was ultimately balanced in June 1874—there was a balance of 4,024l.—the balance arose in this way, on 31st October, 1873, the termination of the partnership, there was 4,062l. 6s. 8d. due by Mr. Gostling to the liquidation of his old affairs, during the existence of the Company he further payed off old liabilities of his 1,471l. 8s. and he realised old assets to the amount of 509l. 10s. 7d., that made the deficiency 5,024l. 4s. 1d., on account of which he raised. a loan and paid the company 1,000l., reducing it to 4,024l. 4s. 1d.—he gave promissory notes for the balance at long, dates, some are due but are not paid—that was in June, 1874, and the matters with reference to the old business were closed—the new company did not take over the old business in any way—in the minute-book of the company under the date of January, 1874, there is a resolution that J. C. Gostling and William Gostling be allowed to draw upon the company in anticipation of profits during the current six months at the rate of 60l. a month each, and five per cent, to be charged on the respective accounts—the minute book represents that the prisoner was present—on the 24th of February there was a resolution that

the prisoner and his brother should be allowed to draw in anticipation of profits a sum not exceeding 200l. each during the current half-year for the payment of certain sums falling due for interest on private loan, interest to be charged at the rate of ten per cent—they were present when that was resolved; the prisoner resigned as managing director and director on the 3rd December and his resignation was accepted on the 9th—at that meeting the prisoner was present—this letter was written by the prisoner. (Read: "14th September; I beg to place in your hands my resignation as managing director of J. C. Gostling & Co., which please communicate to the shareholders.") The resolution was carried on that date and he ceased to be managing director or director—he did not act—he was present at the meeting—I was aware of his subsequent appointment as manager of the cement works at Northfleet—he wrote this letter to Mr. Miller on 11th September "I will accept the offer made by the shareholders to execute works as hitherto on the same terras offered to and accepted by Mr. William Gostling"—that appointment did not in any way involve any financial dealings on his part—the prisoner's letter was answered by this letter marked I from Mr. Miller. (Read-: "I am in receipt of yours of yesterday's date the contents of which I will submit to my directors; it will however be needful to define exactly what your duties are in the future to be, so as to prevent any misunderstanding; one of the stipulations that we make is that you cease to have anything to do with the management of the City office but leave that entirely in the hands of your brother and myself; that being so, your duties would be solely confined to the works at Northfleet; also that you hand over to the company the lease of the office in Gracechurch Street. There are several other matters which it may be needful to have set forth.") Another letter dated 14th December from Mr. Miller to the prisoner, was read which was to the same effect. The prisoner continued to manage those works until 30th October and he was then suspended and finally dismissed—on 13th November and since then he has never taken any part in the management of the company or of the business at Northfleet—at that time there was an investigation going on into the accounts—this resolution was passed on 30th October. (This was the resolution suspending the prisoner from any further connection with the works, a copy of which was sent to him.) At the time he ceased to be managing. Director and, director, the amount of his overdrawn account was 1,686l. 10s.—he was—entitled to draw 60l. a month for the current six months, and the sum of 200l., that is 560l., and he had overdrawn that to the amount of 1,686l. 10s.—that was the whole amount; in order to get at the overdraft you would have to deduct the 560l.—I investigated these accounts myself; I have gone through them; there is an account of goods consigned to Mr. Tickell to the amount of 479l. 15s. 7d.—on 24th November, 1873, Tickell gave a bill for 200l.; he has had credit for that amount in settling that transaction; it had nothing to do with any loan to the company that I know of—the bill of 84l. 11s. 6d. on 23rd February, 1874, is in exactly the same position—it is credited in the same way, also the 150l. on 21st August, 1874, and the cheque for 45l. 4s. of 29th September, that makes 479l. 15s. 7d.—Mr. Tickell has received credit from the company for all those amounts—the company has no claim against him as far as they arconcerned—the 14l. 11s. 6d. bill is not passed through the books in any way—the company has never received that amount nor the 150l. or the 45l.—it was the prisoner's duty to have entered the 84l. in the bill-book as money received from Mr.

Tickell, the book is here, it is not so entered—after the prisoner left, Mr. Tickell rendered an account in which he claimed credit for this, and the company although they had never received the money, gave him credit for it—the 150l. does not appear in the bill-book—the 45l. cheque ought to appear in the cash-book, it does not—there are no entries in the books of those three amounts—there is no entry of Mr. Collins' cheque of 240l. 14s. 2d. on 21st August, 1874, that ought to have appeared in the cash-book; it does not appear in any book of the company—on 20th August Mr. Taylor's bill of 73l. 10s. is entered as having been sent to the bank, but it was not; the entry is "August 21st, bill received, No. 46, 73l. 10s."—all sums entered ought to be sent to the bank—the printed heading to the column is "Amount sent to the bank"—the entry is in the handwriting of Mr. Mabbs who was book-keeper and cashier at that time—Mr. Capper's bill ought to appear in the bills-payable book, it does not—Mr. Rendell's bill of 81l. due 1st September is not entered, nor Lockyer's 100l. drawn 1st July—those three bilk have been paid out of the company's assets—they would in the ordinary course be presented at the bank and unless there was any countermand they would be paid without remark.

Cross-examined. These three bills have been placed by the cashier to the prisoner's own drawing account; Capper's on 2nd September, Rendell's on 14th September, and Lockyer's on 31st October—they did not form part of the 1,680l.—the moment the nature of the transactions was discovered they were transferred to what is called, rightly or wrongly, a defalcation account; that does not include the liquidation account—it would be Mabbs' duty to enter those bills in the bill-book if he knew of them—the bill-book is generally in his writing, or that of another clerk named Pollcok; he was the book-keeper—the company's account was overdrawn at times; the 27th December, 1873, was the first date—I have no note about the other dates—I think from 100l. to 200l. would be the largest amount overdrawn—it was not so much as 600l. that I remember—to the best of my belief the London and County Bank frequently refused to discount the bills of the company—I cannot from personal knowledge say that they were then sent to John Brown & Co.—there is nothing in the books to show it; the banker's book would not show it—I was at the police-court, and heard Mr. Stanton, from John Brown & Co., examined—after that I asked for a copy of Mr. Gostling's private account there, and it was refused, so I made no further inquiry—there is nothing in the books to indicate John Brown's account at all, or any connection with it—I find that there are five or six sums paid in by the prisoner to the credit of the company, not to the amount of Borne thousands—I am not able to say that bills were refused to be discounted by the London and County Bank, and then taken by him to Brown's and there discounted and placed to his account, and afterwards transferred to the credit of the company—I am not in a position to say whether he did not continually pay large sums for the company in that way; I cannot find. anything to that effect on the face of the books—he paid into the County Bank to the credit of his own drawing account 250l. on 22nd November, 1873, 200l. on 24th November, 113l. 19s. 6d. on 27th December, and 500l. on 2nd January, 1874; that is all I have got a note of—there is no entry of 400l. on 21st August, 1874—on 21st November there is 400l. received by the company, paid into the bank to the credit of "exchange cheque account"—that was in this way, a few days before this he took two cheques of 200l. each; I don't know what he did with them, the name of the

account is misleading, it would have been more accurately called an irregular part of Mr. Goatling's own drawings ; there were two sums belonging to the company which he took, and he paid in 400l. afterwards to replace them—the book is almost all in Mabb's writing—I was aware of the prisoner going to America; after he had gone, I saw a letter stating that he had gone on the service of the company—it is not here I think—here is a printed copy of it; it was produced at the police-court—I saw it before the prisoner was arrested—a general meeting of the shareholders was called to have these matters investigated; that was before his arrest—I am not aware that he had given notice that he was coming to attend that meeting—I was not present at that meeting; there is a minute in the book about it—I don't know whether this printed circular was sent round to the shareholder before his arrest—I saw a copy of it before his arrest—Mr. Miller received one before the meeting was held, and before the prisoner was arrested—I think he was arrested the day before the meeting—he was kept in custody at Liverpool, not exactly till after the meeting—he was brought to town—he did not attend the meeting—he was at the Mansion House—the meeting was held after the hearing at the Mansion House—I only went into the meeting occasionally; I did not stay to hear the proceedings, and can't say what passed—Mr. Miller was there—the books were produced—I swear I did not know that the prisoner was coming to the meeting expressly to explain matters if he had not been arrested; I really believe the other way—I believe a bill in Chancery has been filed about this matter—there are various charges for accountant and lawyers in the defalcation account—I Can't tell you the exact amount, 450l. is the estimated amount of the legal costs that is including the lawyers and accountant; it is so in the books—it is merely a matter of book-keeping—a bad debt of Gostling & Wilson of 2,000l. has gone into the account—I do not know whether that is right or wrong—I do not put against him all the debts of the old firm—he brought in 1,000l. cash on account of his own affairs, part of the liquidation account—he was credited with that in the liquidation account—the defalcation account has only reference to these irregularities; the liquidation account has only reference to his old affairs—the debt of Gostling & Wilson, of New York, was taken over by the company upon certain representations of the prisoner—there were no debts to be collected in New York; there was one small sum of 5l., I think—Mr. George Peel is one of the directors, and Mr. Barkgate another—I believe both their bills were refused by the London and County Bank for special reasons, but what came of them 1 can't say—to the best of my belief they were discounted at Brown's; but I do not learn that from the books—I only learnt it recently—one was drawn by Mr. Miller on Mr. Peel.

Re-examined. The defalcation account was made up after the investigation of all these affairs, in endeavouring to estimate the loss which the company had sustained by the prisoner's irregularities—the account of Brown & Co. has never been brought to my notice; there is no such account among the company's books in any shape or way—I know that the prisoner had at one time an account with Brown & Co., and at the same time with the Lambeth branch of the London and County Bank—when the partnership with Mr. Miller began the account with Brown & Co. was altogether done away with, as far as the partnership was concerned—I was a party to that—the London and County was to be the only bank both of the partnership and the company—Mr. Gostling, of New York, is. a brother of

the prisoner—the 2,000l. was for goods supplied to him a long time back, before the partnership began—it was about 1,800l., I think—the 400l. cheque about which I have been asked was paid in to meet the two sums of 200l. that had been previously taken out; the company got no benefit from that—the 250l. in November, 1873, was paid to his drawing account; the company got the benefit of that to the extent of its being paid into the bank account—that was Collins' bill that the prisoner discounted—there was nothing in the books to indicate it, but that was the explanation he gave—the company did not in any way get the benefit of that 250l., except that his previous drafts were replaced—it was the same with Tickells bill of 200l. of 24th November—I can't find where he got the 113l. 19s. 6d.—the 500l. he got from Mr. Tickell—the company had to pay that—they got the benefit of it simply by its replacing former drafts of the prisoner's; they are all the same, the 400l., the 500l., the 113l., and the 250l.—that reduced the over draft to 1,686l.—it would have been so many hundred pounds more but for that—the prisoner was dismissed on 13th November, and I believe he left London for America that evening—he returned, I think, about the end of February this year, and he was then arrested—the meeting of shareholders was being held about the time of his return it; so happened, he could not know of it.

By MR. METCALFE. After he got to America, I received a letter stating his reasons for going, and his intention to return.

FREDERICK WILLIAM LEWIS . I am a clerk in the Companies' Office—I produce a register of J. C.—Gosling & Co., Limited, dated 4th November, 1873—the articles of the association were filed at the same time.

WILLIAM MILLER . I was residing at the Cedars, Upper Tooting—I have since removed—I have retired from business for some time—in May, 1873, I became partner with the prisoner and his brother William, as cement dealers—that partnership continued till October, 1873, and then the company was formed on 1st November—I advanced 5,000l. for the partnership, and William Gosling, and the prisoner were to advance 5,000l. each—the prisoner's 5,000l. was to be represented by the assets of the old firm, which did not turn out so fruitful as was expected—I hold 140 shares in the company, amounting to 7,000l.—the capital of the company was at first 30,000l., it was afterwards increased to 50,000l.—the whole of that was paid-up—there are only 10 or 12 shareholders—they are wholly my personal friends who I induced to join the company—I also advanced 9,000l., which was afterwards paid off—the prisoner was managing director of the company until September, 1874—after that he was appointed manager of the cement works, Northfleet—he had nothing to do with the commercial affairs of the company—nearly 40,000l. was laid out on the buildings at North fleet—the prisoner had an account with Brown & Co., bankers, that account was not in any way authorised by the directors—I did not sanction or know of any payments that he made in to Brown & Co.—if he received any monies on behalf of the company, it was his duty to pay them in to the banking account of the company, and have them duly entered in the company's books—if he received a bill from a customer, it would be entered in the bill-book, and if he received cash it should be entered in the cash-book—it would be his duty to do that or order it to be done—Mabbs acted under his direction; he is not now in the company's employ; I think he left in December, 1874—the prisoner had no authority to appropriate any monies that he received from customers or in any way in the course of the

business, to his own use, either for a short or a long time—until the investigation of the accounts I was not aware that he had made use of Tickell's bills, of 84l. 11s. 6d. and 150l., or the 45l. cheque, nor was I aware of the three bills of 55l. 10s. 1d., 81l., and 100l., or of Collins' cheque for 240l., or Taylor's bill of 73l. 10s.—I received this letter from the prisoner, dated 27th January, 1874, in reference to Brown & Co.'s account—my attention was first called to that letter the day prior to the last examination before the Lord Mayor—the letter was not produced then, it was attempted to be produced, but there was some difficulty made—he says in this letter "I have however discounted to-day at Messrs. Brown & Co.'s, who have at times done a good deal for us at 5 per cent, which amounts to 6l. 5s."—I am not aware that I answered that letter—I must have noticed that passage at the time, but it had entirely escaped me, and until I accidentally found the letter I was not aware of its existence—bills that were accepted by the company required the signature of two directors—the articles of association state "that the directors shall have power to draw, accept, or endorse any promissory note, or to empower and authorise any one of the directors so to do on behalf of the company, all such documents being signed by two directors, or in such other manner as the board may direct"—the practice was in accepting bills that they should be signed by two directors—the prisoner had no authority to accept bills in the name of the company on his own private account, and until the three bills mentioned were discovered I was not aware that he had ever done so.

Cross-examined. When this company commenced I was residing at Whitehaven, in Cumberland—I did not often come up to town—early in May, 1874, I removed to the Cedars, at Tooting—Mr. George Peel, one of the other directors, lived in the county of Durham, and still does—Mr. Bargate lives in Lancashire—we took no part in the management of the business of the company—William Goatling, the prisoner's brother was the other director—I have given you the names of all the directors at that time—the prisoner and his brother, who were the original owners of the business, attended to it—William Gostling was residing, in London—the two Gostlings signed bills; I signed at times—blank bills were not sent down to me, blank cheques were occasionally—I can't say whether they were altogether in blank, they might have the names of the parties to whom they were payable, or they might not; I cannot remember—until I was shown a letter, I was under the impression that I had not signed cheques in blank; it was a letter that I found in my own possession—I then made the admission; that brought to my mind that I had done so—I at first declared that I had never heard of Brown & Co., until the letter was produced which brought it to my notice, I had forgotten it. (Letter read: "27th January, 1874. Dear Sir,—your letters are to hand—the London and County Bank flatly decline to discount your draft, and nothing I could say would lead them to believe other than that it was an accommodation bill." (That was a draft of mine on Mr. Alfred Peel, not the director, but his brother.) "I certainly felt much disposed to move our account, and if you could get us a good introduction to Barclay's, through your own bankers, we would go to them. I have, however, discounted it to-day, at Messrs. Brown & Co., who have at times done a good deal for us, at oh per cent, which amounts to 6l. 5s. We have not a large balance left in hand, as I have paid all bills due in January, and a variety of amounts which were due, principally upon works account. My drawing account up

to to-day, from the 1st of November, is about 170l. I now enclose you a letter, which I trust will meet with your consideration, and I think, you will agree with me, that what I ask is fairly chargeable to the limited company. William writes that he will see you tomorrow, when, perhaps you will discuss the matter.") I have not got the letter that was enclosed, I don't know that I made any inquiry where the prisoner was getting the funds to pay things, or why he went to Brown's—the complaint is not that the bills were taken to. Brown's, but that the money was left there—we had no account open with Brown & Co.—I presume if we had got the money we should have had no ground of complaint—I do not know of my own knowledge that large sums have been paid by him from Brown & Co. to our company; I do not know it from the books, I have nothing whatever to do with the books, and never examined them—Mabbs was taken to the police-court on the part of the prosecution and gave evidence; I can't say whether I was present—Pollock. succeeded him as cashier; I do not think he was examined on the part of the prosecution—I suppose the funds the prisoner paid came from the capital, 50,000l., which was paid up by the shareholders—I can't say how long it was before Mr. Peel's was paid up, the books show—the bill I have spoken of was not for the purpose of paying Mr. George Peel's shares, it was for the payment of Mr. Alfred Peel's own shares—Mr. Bargate gave a bill for 1,000l. for a portion of his shares—I have heard that was refused by the London and County Bank; I made no inquiry; I know it now—I can't say of my own actual knowledge that was taken to Brown & Co. to be discounted, I have heard that it was—my own actual knowledge, does not extend to much, because I was paying no attention it—it was discounted somewhere—that was in June or July, 1874:—the 30,000l. was not all paid up at once, but in a very short period—I can't say from memory what period, the books will show—I know that the company was occasionally short of money, I can't say continually; it was short of money, and for good reasons—applications were made to me continually for money, and I sent up very large sums—I did not direct the prisoner and his brother to get money wherever they could, to protect the interests of the company—I suppose the bills were to be met partly by the payments for their own shares, which had not been fully paid up—the prisoner was to realise his assets, but they never were realised; it was his business to collect the assets, and they were to form the 5,000l. for the shares that were allotted him—the assets were supposed to be good when the company was formed, and as they were realised. they were to go in payment of the 5,000l. worth of shares that were allotted him; if the assets turned out bad he would have to pay for his shares; that is not in writing, but it was understood, and was recognised by him—his original 5,000l. of shares have not been paid up to this date"; his brother's have been paid up—something like 4,000l. odd of the prisoner's shares has not been paid—I can't say whether that corresponds with the liquidation account—I can't say whether he paid off 1,000l. on the liquidation account, I corresponded with him—I am sorry to say I have not kept a great number of the letters—the prisoner paid something on his shares undoubtedly, I can't say what amount—I can't form an opinion of the present value of the property, I have not estimated it; I suppose at a rough guess it is worth some 30,000l. at the present moment—my interest is represented by 7,000l.—I had a mortgage of 9,000l. besides; that has been

paid off, with 10 per cent. interest—I have not had 10 per cent. for my 7,000l.; no dividend has been declared; I have not stipulated for 10 per cent.—the prisoner's brother's shares stand at 1,500l. I think in the books of the company at present—the prisoner and his brother are not represented at 1,600l. in the books—they have not forfeited them, they have been transferred by them—I think the registry is here—I believe the amount standing in their names at present is 1,500l.; 1,000l. in the name of William Gostling, and 500l. in the prisoner's—there are ten or twelve shareholders, including the five directors (referring to the register)—there are twenty shares (1,000l.), standing in the name of J. C. Gostling, and thirty shares (1,500l.), in the name of William Gostling—the shares deposited with Mr. Tickell must form part of the 1,000l., because there was no transfer to Mr. Tickell; they form part of the shares that he still holds, part of the 1,000l., they have not been transferred—I may have known as early as the 12th November, 1873, that the company was very short of money, and may have directed the prisoner on no account to let the bills be returned—I did not give him directions how the money was to be raised; I assumed that money would be coming in for payment of his shares—I have no recollection of any letters passing then—I was up in town in November, and no doubt I should have verbal communication; shares were being taken up by Mr. Peel and others; I was only making efforts to raise money by the issue of the shares; I offered shares to my friends—I am not aware that there was any difficulty with Mr. Peel; he paid for his shares as they were allotted him, according to an arrangement made—I believe there is a letter of mine in Court, to the effect, that I suggested to the prisoner to have recourse to all kinds of expedients in order to meet the acceptances and the weekly payments—I did not recommend him to raise money in any way it could be raised, or by discounting the bills of the company—of course he would have to discount the bills of the company—he would do that with the London and County Bank—I gave him no directions if they refused—I did not tell him not to discount with John Brown & Co.—a gentleman from Brown's was examined at the police-court, I don't know whether he is here; Mr. Peel is not here, or Mr. Bargate, or any other director or shareholder that I am aware of, except the prisoner's brother.

Re-examined. This letter is the prisoner's writing. (Read, from the prisoner to the manager of the London and County Bank, 12th March. "Dear Sir,—Please note that in future our acceptances will be signed by one director, only instead of two as formerly, and we beg you will pay drafts so signed—J. C. Gostling, William Gostling, pro. John C. Gostling & Co. Limited, John C. Gostling." I was not aware of the existence of that letter until April this year—he never told me that he had written such a letter, nor had I ever authorised his writing it—this (produced) is a list of the present shareholders up to March 1875—I think there are two names that are not shareholders, Charlton, and Theobalds name occur twice, there is only one Theoabld a shareholder now; Mr. Peel holds 50 shares, the shares are 50l. each—there are two Peels, one holding 70 and the other 50l.; they are friends of mine, Mr. Prothero Smith holds 100; he is not a friend of mine, Mr. Maddox holds 170, he is a friend; Mr. Bargate forty, and Mr. Rawlinson 120, they are my friends; Mr. Abrahams holds eight—I know him slightly all the shares are paid up—the 9,000l. which I advanced was I presume expended for the benefit of the company; the prisoner would have to deal with that

as well as with the other funds; that sum was advanced shortly before the formation of the company, and was taken over by the company at its formation—it was repaid I think in January last, out of the funds of the company—I never gave the prisoner any authority directly to get bills discounted by Brown & Co.—the directors had no control over any account of Brown & Co.—I never saw it—I believe there is no entry in any of the books relating to it—if the prisoner had been able to pay up his shares that would not have entirely sufficed for the purposes of the Company; it would have prevented the difficulties that appear to have arisen at the time the money was needed—since this accusation has been made an accountant on the prisoner's behalf has had complete access to all the books and every document belonging to the Company.

CHARLES EDWARD STOWELL . I am manager of the Lambeth branch of of the London and County Bank—J. C. Gostling & Co., Limited, have an account there—these (produced) are two paying in slips from the Company to their account—on the slip dated 17th August, 1874, there is a bill of 73l. 10s. of Mr. Taylor; that with other bills was paid in for discount—the whole of the bills were returned to the company for the signature of Mr. Miller the chairman; they were returned by the cashier, but were submitted to me—they were brought back with Mr. Miller's signature on 21st August, with the exception of the 73l. 10s. bill, and discounted—I don't know what became of that bill—if it had had Mr. Miller's signature I should not have refused to discount it, but it was never brought back to me—I remember receiving this letter of 12th March; that was acted upon by me up to the date of the resolution of 10th July.

Cross-examined. I have not the company's account with me—here is the pass-book—the first entry here is on 1st November, 1873, the amount then paid in was 175l. 5s.—on 12th Nov. there was about 1,000l. in hand, and on 13th 60l. was drawn out; at the end of the month there was 350l. in—on 12th December 1,687l.; at the end, 54l.—on 5th January, 800l.; on the 15th, 2,700l.; at the end, 200l.—on 13th February it was overdrawn. 130l., but I see on the next day they paid in 500l. to cover, that; that might probably have been paid in the same night, and not passed to the credit—on 4th December, 1873, the account was overdrawn 270l.; and I see 1,000l. was paid in on the 5th—on 25th March it was overdrawn 90l., and on 2nd April, 544l., but nest day bills were passed to the credit of the account, and in all probability they were in the house at the time, pending inquiries; bills are frequently left a day or two before in order that inquiry may be made as to the responsibility of the acceptors, and we should not pass them until that was ascertained—the amount of those bills was 926l.—on 21st April the account was overdrawn about 40l.—on 13th May the balance was about even—the account was frequently "overdrawn—I should think about 500l. was the largest amount'—there is no absolute limit—I should not allow an account to be overdrawn except under special circumstances—we had bills in all probability in the house at the time—I cannot tell how often bills of the company were refused to be discounted; it did not happen frequently—I remember the bill of Mr. Peel's, but I cannot give you the date—we never returned the company acceptances that I am aware of; we have refused to discount drafts upon them—I beg to distinguish' between drafts and acceptances, their own acceptances were never returned I believe; they were never offered—I cannot tell you whether cheques of Brown &

Co. came in to meet the overdrafts—we have no register of the drawers of cheques, it would simply appear as "cash."

Re-examined. It would be impossible for us to name the drawer of cheques paid in—the person who paid them in would of course be able to prove it—during the existence of the company, we have refused very few bills, perhaps half a dozen—we certainly prefer trade bills—Mr. Peel's bill was refused because it appeared on the face of it to be an accommodation bill—the bill was held by us and paid at maturity—when a cheque is paid in by a customer to his account, we always stamp it, and we stamp a bill that is brought for discount—this cheque of Collins for 240l. 14s. was never passed through our bank, nor this bill of Tickells for 84l. 11s. 6d., or 150l., or this cheque for 45l. 4s. 1d.,—about 92,000l. has gone through our hands on behalf of the company during its existence.

GUILTY—Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of the difficult position in which he had been placed from time to time. He was also recommended to mercy by the prosecutor. — Four Months' Imprisonment.

409. JAMES HOULIHAN (17) , Robbery with violence on Bridget Louisa Grange, and stealing 1s., the property of George Grange.

MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution.

BRIDGET LOUISA GRANGE . I live at 35, Charles Street, Oakley Street, 'with my husband—about 2 o'clock on the morning of 11th July, I was passing through Victoria Street, it was raining very heavily—there was a coffee stall there, and several people standing there out of the rain—I went to have a cup, and as I was passing a lamp-post I took 1s. out of my pocket and held it in my hand—the prisoner came up behind me and said "Let me have it"—he turned me right round and whilst he held me with his hand; he beat me in the face with the other like a hammer very cruelly; he cut me in the eye and blinded me with the blood and knocked a false tooth into my mouth—I clenched my hand tightly, but he succeeded in getting the shilling and then ran away down a little turning—I afterwards saw a policeman and gave a description to him and also at the station, and on my way back from the station I saw the prisoner in Peter Street, with a young woman without any bonnet or shawl on, just in the same direction as he had run—I pointed him out to a policeman and he was taken—I have not the least doubt of his being the man—I had never seen him before.

JOHN DAVIES (Policeman B 52). About 2.20 on this morning, the prosecutrix came to me in Orchard Street, she was bleeding from the face, she made a complaint and gave a description—after-, wards about 2.50, I was walking down Peter Street, with her and saw the prisoner walking with a female—on seeing him the prosecutrix whispered to me "I think that is the lad who done it"—I took him into custody—he denied the charge—she said she was quite positive he was the person.

Witness for the Defence.

ELLEN MARNER . I have known the prisoner about four months—he is no relation—I was with him on the morning he was taken into custody—I had been with him from 10 o'clock the night before, we had been all round the place for a walk to the top of Victoria Street, and up Horseferry Road, and then we came back into New Peter Street, and stood in a doorway because it was raining—we remained there about an hour, and when we came out he was taken into custody, that was near 3 o'clock—I was with

him all that time except for a quarter of an hour, when he left me about 10.45, he went home and I met him again at 11 o'clock, and we walked about till he was taken, except the time we were standing in the doorway—I live at 2, Blue Anchor Court, Great Peter Street, and he lives in Bull's Head Court, Great Peter Street.

Cross-examined. That is the next court to ours—I had never been out with him before in this way—he does not go about at night that I know—of—we were in Great Peter Street, about 11.30—we were not doing anything except walking about—I live near—I said I would wait till the rain left off, and then I would go home—I was examined before the Magistrate—I told the policeman he could not have done it for he was with me at the time.

JOHN DAVIS (re-examined). This is the girl who was with him when I took him—she told me he had been with her.

NOT GUILTY .

410. JOHN McCREADY (56) , Feloniously forging and uttering an order for the payment of 8l. 5s. with intent to defraud.

MR. STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution.

FREDERICK SEATON . I am a licensed victualler, in London Street, Fen-church Street—on Tuesday, 15th July, the prisoner came to my bar, and asked me to cash this cheque for him—I had known him before—it is a cheque for 8l. 5s. on the London and Westminster Bank, dated 15th July, purporting to be drawn by George Webb & Co.—I refused at first, but on his saying it would be a convenience to. give him a small portion, and the remainder when it was passed through the bank, I gave him 3l. 5s.—before giving it to him I asked who the-drawer was—he said George Webb & Co., of Commercial Street, I arranged for him to come on Saturday for the balance—I paid the cheque in to my bankers, the London and South Western next morning—on the Friday evening, the prisoner came again and asked me for the balance or a crossed cheque of my own as he wanted to send it into the country—I did not give it him—on the Saturday morning I received back the cheque marked "No account"—I saw the prisoner on the Saturday evening, in a public-house, nearly opposite mine, and I gave him in custody for obtaining 3l. 5s. from me by false pretences—he said he did not wish me to lose the money—I had seen him fifty times before this, and knew him well.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You stated at the station that you had received the cheque from Messrs. Peters, of Seething Lane, for commission.

GEORGE WEBB . I am an egg merchant, in Commercial Street, Spitalfields—I kept an account with the London and Westminster Bank fifteen years ago, but not since—this cheque is not signed by me or by my authority—it is a very good imitation of my writing—I have known the prisoner for years—I knew him in business in Shoreditch as a tobacco manufacturer—I have not seen him for years—there was not much acquaintance between us—he knew me and my business, which was carried on as George Webb & Co.—I do not know a person named Peters.

JAMES PICE HALL . I am a clerk in the London and Westminster Bank, Lothbury—no such persons as Webb & Co. have any account with us—I wrote "No account" on this cheque—it was originally issued with others to Henry Roe & Co., in 1867—they have no account with us now, and have not had for years.

WILLIAM BURR (City Policeman 701). I took the prisoner into custody

—he said he did not know there was anything wrong with the cheque—there was a man sitting next to him, and he said "That is the man I got the cheque from"—I told them both they had better come to the station—the prisoner came; the other man did not, and I did not think I was justified in bringing him—the prisoner said at the station that he got the cheque from Mr. Peters, of 34, Seething Lane, in payment for business he had done for him.

WILLIAM FARLEY . I am a corn factor, of 34, Seething Lane—in March last I let a back office there to a person named Alfred Peters—he disappeared at the end of May, with his furniture, without paying his rent—the prisoner had the entre to his office, and had the key—I have seen him passing up and down the staircase very often—T never saw him in the office—I can't say what Mr. Peters' business was—he was a tall man, nearly six feet high, a bulky sort of man, about forty-five years of age.

WILLIAM BURR (re-examined). That description does not correspond with the man the prisoner pointed out—he was a tall, thin man, with sandy whiskers.

Prisoner's Defence. I can only say, as I said before the Magistrate, that I believed the cheque to be truthful, or I should not have returned for the balance, as I did.

NOT GUILTY .

411. JOHN SMITH (18) , Unlawfully attempting to steal a watch and chain from the person of Thomas Rouse.

MR. THORNE COLE conducted the Prosecution.

THOMAS ROUSE . I live at 2, Gould Square, City—on the evening of 12th August, about 5.30, I was in Crutched friars—there was a crowd there, and a drunken woman in custody of the police, who were placing her on a stretcher—I was standing looking on; my coat was unbuttoned—I felt a tug at my chain—I noticed an arm stuck up very close to me and a hand on the chain, and before he had time to take it away I caught it, and said "You are trying to steal my watch"—it was the prisoner's hand—he said "No, it is not me; I have only just come out of the hospital," at the same time producing a small bottle of cod liver oil—he began to cry, and I was about to let him go when a gentleman standing by said he saw his hand take hold of my coat—the prisoner then turned round and hit him violently twice, and then I gave him in charge.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. There were no persons shoving—there were very few persons there; not more than twenty—you said your hand caught my chain accidentally, but I caught your hand upon it.

ROBERT TAYLOR (City Policeman 713). The prosecutor gave the prisoner into my custody—he said he was innocent—in going along he said "If you will pardon me I will own to having my hand on your chain."

Prisoner's Defence. I would not attempt to steal a gent's watch with a bottle of cod liver oil in my pocket; I have a diseased heart—it was accidentally done—I beg your pardon a hundred times.

GUILTY **— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

NEW COURT.—Monday, August 16th, 1875. '

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

412. JOHN HARGREAVES (41), PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully having counterfeit coin in his possession, with intent to utter it— Twelve Months' Imprisonment. And

413. JAMES HEDGES (31), to three indictments for

feloniously forging and uttering receipts for money, with intent to defraud— Twelve Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

414. JOHN HANNINGTON (39) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. DE MICHELE conducted the Prosecution.

THOMAS HENRY COLES . I keep the Kemble's Head, Bow Street-Sophia Checkland, my barmaid, is ill and unable to attend to-day—on Saturday, July 17th, between 11.15 and 11.30 p.m., I saw her put a bad shilling on the counter, and the prisoner was standing in front of the bar—I asked him, how many more he had of them—he said "It is my shilling; I want my change"—he had to pay 1 1/2 d.—I sent the potman for a policeman, and the prisoner rushed out—I ran and caught him, and gave the shilling to the constable—I compared it with five others which I had taken the day before, and two of them were of the same date—the prisoner said at the station that he would pay what there was to pay.

JAMES SMITH (Policeman E 392). I took the prisoner outside the Kemble's Head—I searched him at the station, and found two bad shillings in his left trousers pocket, 8s. in good silver, and 1 1/2 d. in bronze—I received this shilling from the landlord.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to the Mint—these three shillings are bad.

GUILTY .

He was further charged with a conviction of a like offence in June, 1873, to which he

PLEADED GUILTY**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

415. MARY ROGERS (40), was indicted for a like offence. MR. DE. MICHELE conducted the Prosecution.

JAMES GEORGE NEALE . I am a greengrocer, of 30, Stephen Street, Tottenham Court Road—on the 17th July, between 3 and 4 p.m., the prisoner ordered 1cwt. of coals and 41bs. of potatoes, which came to 2s. 2d.) to be sent to 15, Rathbone Place, and she tendered a bad sovereign—I told her it was bad, and asked her if she had any more, she said that she had not, and she would go back to her mistress—I kept the coin and sent a boy after her; I afterwards marked it, and gave it to the prisoner.

Prisoner. I never had a sovereign that day. either bad or good.

EDWARD NEALE . I am salesman to Mr. Kelsey, a bootmaker, of Tottenham Court Road—on Saturday, the 17th July, between 3.30 and 4 o'clock, the prisoner came in and asked for a pair of boots, about 4s. 6d.—I told her I had none at that price, but I had some at 5s. 6d., she tried a pair on and agreed to take them—she gave me an imitation sovereign, which I passed to Mr. Kelsey's son, and then gave it back to her; she said that her husband gave it to her—I noticed the boots she had on, and afterwards identified them on her—her right boot has a piece of leather put on very roughly.

WILLIAM HENRY COLEMAN . I am clerk to Mr. Lewis, a cheese and butter factor, of 24, Tottenham Court Road, close to No. 15—on Saturday, 17th July, about 3.30 the prisoner came in for 1lb. of butter, and then asked for some eggs, they came to 2s.—she tendered a counterfeit sovereign; I did not like the ring of it; I detected it by the edge and threw it on the counter—I asked her several questions, but she did not give me any answer, except that she must take it back to the lady—the shop is three or four minutes' walk from Stephen Street.

THOMAS PELLATT (Policeman E 385). The prisoner was given into my custody, and James Neale gave me this coin (produced).

CHARLES FOYLE . I serve in Mr. Neal's shop, and he sent me after the prisoner—she went into Rathbone Place, and into a cake shop; she came out and went into a public-house, then came out and looked into a few shops, and then crossed Oxford Street into Soho Square, towards Charles Street, and into the Fish and Bell public-house—I pointed her out to a constable.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . This a bad sovereign.

Prisoner's Defence. I never was in Tottenham Court Road that day.

GUILTY .

She was further charged with a former conviction of a like offence in March, 1874, having then been before convicted of felony, to which she

PLEADED GUILTY**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

416. JOHN HAYDON (44), was indicted for a like offence.

MR. DE MICHELE, conducted the Prosecution.

MATHEW REVELL LEE . I serve in the bar at the Crown and Cushion, 63, London Wall—on the 6th July, about 12 o'clock, I served the prisoner with half a pint of porter—he tendered a bad 6d., the barmaid pinched it, when he said "Give it to me back "and she put it on the counter—I was just going to take it up, and the prisoner snatched it up and went out of the house—I followed him to the Red Lion, London Wall, where he spoke to another man, who held his hand out, and the prisoner took something out of it and went into the Red Lion—I went in after him and he tendered the same sixpence to Isabella Mellish—I told her to give it to me, as it was counterfeit—he pushed me on one side and said "What do you mean," he took the coin up and shot it off the counter, and I did not see it again—I detained him and he was given in charge—the sixpence tendered to Dunster had a brassy look about it, and two black spots in the middle, and round the head the silver was off; the sixpence he put down on the second occasion was a similar one.

CHARLOTTE DUNSTER . I am barmaid at the Crown and Cushion—on the 6th July I served the prisoner with half-pint of porter—he tendered a bad sixpence—I passed it to the young master to look at, and the prisoner picked it up and went out—it had a brassy look—I told the prisoner he had passed one about a fortnight previous, but he made no answer—I have no doubt he is the man who came in a fortnight before.

ISABELLA MELLISH . I am barmaid at the Red Lion, on the 6th July, about 12 o'clock, I served the prisoner "with half-pint of half-and-half, he put down a bad 6d., Mr. Lee then came in and said "Don't take it it is bad," he said something to the prisoner, who snatched up the coin, which had a brassy look round the edge—he was detained; he had tendered a bad 6d. fortnight before, and I told him it was bad, and he took it away.

FREDERICK LAWLEY (City Detective). The prisoner was given into my custody at the Red Lion—I found no sixpence upon him, only a halfpenny—I said "Where is the sixpence?"—he said "Two men have picked it up, it was a good one; I had earned it by doing a job"—I asked for his address, he said that he had no fixed residence.

The prisoner in his defence stated that he received the sixpence for holding a gentleman's horse.

GUILTY .

He was further charged with a previous conviction of a like offence in May, 1872, to which he

PLEADED GUILTY**— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

417. RICHARD SMITH (18), was indicted for a like offence.

MR. DE MICHELE conducted the Prosecution.

ANNIE CLAPP . I am the wife of Henry Clapp of the Grosvenor Arms, Buckingham Palace Road—on 3rd July about 11 p.m. I served the prisoner with a glass of ale—he gave me a shilling which I put into the till and gave him the change—shortly afterwards he came in again and gave me another shilling which I put near the other and gave him the change—he went out and returned in less than five minutes for a penny cigar, he gave me another shilling and I gave him the change, two 3d. pieces and the rest in copper—I tried the shilling and found it bent easily—I then took the second shilling from there—I had put it with the farthings, tried it and it bent easily—I gave one of the shillings to my husband who went outside and brought the prisoner in, who said he was not aware it was bad—I gave the other shilling to the constable.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not say that if you gave me is 10s? I would let you go.

HENRY CLAPP . I keep the Grosvenor Arms—my wife handed me a shilling, and in consequence of what she said the prisoner was stopped, and I accused him of passing two bad shillings—he said that he was not aware of it—I gave him in charge—I found these three bad shillings (produced) in my till.

ALBERT SIMMS (Policeman B 400). I was called and took the prisoner, he said that he went in for two penny smokes and did not know he had passed bad money—I found on him nine sixpences, three threepenny pieces, add some bronze—the landlord and his wife each gave me a coin.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These coins are bad and from the same mould, and one of the two found in the till is from the same mould.

Prisoner's Defence. If I had known that it was bad money I should have given the lady the 1s. 10d. not to be taken.

GUILTY — Fifteen Months' Imprisonment.

418. JAMES FOSTER (23), was indicted for a like offence.

MR. DE MICHELE conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN FISHER . I am landlord of the Swan Tavern, Fulham—on 14th July about 2 p.m. I served the prisoner with a glass of stout which came to 1 1/2 d.—he gave me a bad florin—I asked him if he was aware what he had given me—he said "Yes, a two shilling piece"—I said "It is counterfeit, can you give information where you obtained it"—he said "At the Cricketers public-house, Hammersmith"—I said "I shall have to detain you"—he ran away and I called to a customer to stop him—he then put down a half-crown for me to take the 1 1/2 d.—I gave the florin to the inspector.

CHARLES GOLDFINCH . I am booking clerk at West Brompton station—on 17th June about 9.55 at night the prisoner asked for two tickets for South Kensington which came to 8d.—he gave me a bad florin—I gave him the change and then tried it—I spoke to Wadsworth who brought the prisoner back, and I asked him whether he was aware what he gave me—he said "A two shilling piece"—I said "It is a bad one"—he pulled out a lot of silver and said "Try this one and see if that is good"—. that was good—he took up the broken pieces and put them in his pocket.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I said at first that it was on the 11th, and afterwards on the 17th—a short man was with you with a bag in his hand.

Re-examined. I fixed the date as the 17th, by an accident which happened at Victoria Station on Saturday night the 20th.

ARTHUR WADSWORTH . I live at 83, Tachbrook Street, Pimlico, and am a lamp man on the District line—on 17th June the prisoner was at that station—I know the date by a man being knocked down on the platform on the 20th—Goldfinch spoke to me and I brought the prisoner back to the ticket office—Goldfinch asked him if he was aware what he had given—he said "A two shilling piece"—the clerk broke it up and gave it back to him—he put the pieces in his pocket and paid with a bad florin—I followed him to the platform and saw him in a third class carriage—I asked him if he had got any more of the same kind, he said that he had not—I asked him what he ad done with the pieces; he said that he had thrown them out of the carriage window—I asked him where he got it—he said "At the races"—he went on by the train.

Cross-examined. I remember your face perfectly well by seeing you at the booking office—you had a little whiskers.

WILLIAM HOUGHTON . I am barman at the Richmond Arms, West Brompton, opposite the station—on 17tb June I served the prisoner with 2d. worth of spruce; he put a florin into my hand—I bit it and found it was bad—I showed it to my employer and then gave it back to the prisoner, who gave me a good half-crown, and I gave him the change.

ROBERT WESTON . I am a smith, of 20, Bayham Street, Camden Town—on 1st June I was at the Regalia public-house, Augustus Street, Regent's Park, when the prisoner came in and, asked for 2d. worth of shrub—the barman served him, he tendered a florin and the barmam gave him 1s. 10d. change and put the coin in his mouth and it bent—the prisoner was then going out at the door—I followed him through Cumberland Market to Marylebone church where I met a constable who took him and brought him back.

Cross-examined. I am sure the barman did not put it into the till, because he had had three previously in the same week—I gave evidence against you at Marylebone.

JAMES LOGAN (Policeman G 63). On 1st June in consequence of what Weston told me I took the prisoner—took him to Albany Street station and fetched the barman who charged him and gave me this bad florin (produced)—Richards has now left the Regalia public-house and I cannot find him—I found on the prisoner about 4s. 6d. in silver and 5d. in bronze all good.

THOMAS KNIGHT (Policeman I 430). On 14th July I saw the prisoner at Walham Green running from Mr. Fisher's house—I took him, and Mr. Fisher charged him with uttering a bad sixpence—I found 1 1/2 d. on him on him—I saw a florin given to the inspector at the station who gave it to me—this is it (produced).

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These two coins are bad.

Prisoner's Defence. There were several other florins in the till on the first occasion, and on the second the man who gave me the florin was outside and I saw him turning the corner; if the policeman had let me run I could have caught him.

GUILTY **— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

419. JOHN FINLAYSON (17) , Stealing one purse, six postage labels, and a railway ticket, of George Leaworthy, from the person of Ann Leaworthy.

MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution.

ANN LEAWORTHY . I am the wife of George Leawort by, of 13, Finchley Road—on the evening of 28th July I was at Aldersgate station getting into the train, when the prisoner pushed against me; finding he did not get into the carriage I felt for my purse and missed it—I walked after him and poke to the ticket collector who asked him if he had got my. parse—he said that he had not—nobody but him was by me.

SAMUEL HAWKS . I am ticket examiner at Aldersgate station—on 28th July about 6.45 the prosecutrix spoke to me and I caught hold of the prisoner and said "Have you got this lady's purse?"—he said "I have not"—he began to cry and said "Take me and search me"—I was taking him to the inspector's room when he made a noise with his mouth and the purse fell at his feet—I picked it up and said "Here is the purse"—he said "I picked it up on the platform; for God's sake don't lock me up for my mother is lying dead on her bed with the rheumatics"—he was given in custody.

WILLIAM WISBEE (City Policeman 66). The prisoner was given into my charge—he refused his address—I received this purse from Hawks.

Prisoner's Defence. I was waiting for a Blackfriars train, and finding that it was not a Blackfriars train I did not get in. I saw the lady with the guard, and she caught hold of me and said that I had her purse; he took me to the refreshment room; he had the purse in his hand before I got near the stairs.

GUILTY **— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday,—August 7th, 1875.

Before MR. COMMON Serjeant.

420. ANDREW MUNROE (38), PLEADED GUILTY to four indictments for feloniously forging and uttering two bills for the payment of 1,500l., and two acceptances for the payment of 500l., with intent to defraud— Judgment respited. And

421. ARTHUR RICHARD JACKSON (17) , to breaking and entering the warehouse of Charles Layton and stealing a letter-case and other articles, his property— Four Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

422. HENRY HOBBS (21) , Feloniously forging and uttering an order for 30l. 10s., with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. POLAND and STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS the Defence.

CHARLES TURNER . I am one of the cashiers at Coutts'—Mrs. Williams, of Queen's Gardens, Hyde Park, kept an account there, and the form of the cheque was delivered to her with others—on 2nd July, at a little before 10 o'clock, the prisoner presented this cheque filled up as it is now—I examined it, doubted the signature, and handed it to another gentleman, asking him to examine whose book it was from—after the prisoner had been waiting three or four minutes I returned to my seat, and the prisoner said "Shall I have to wait long?" I said "Not longer than is necessary"—he said "If I am likely to be detained long, I have to go a little further and will call back"—I said "There is no occasion for that"—I saw him making towards the door and followed him as quickly as possible—when he got to the inner door he was walking, but when he got between the two doors he ran, and I followed him into the Strand and looked each way, but could see nothing of him—I had asked him who he brought the cheque from; he said "From Mr. Clark, of Oxford Street"—it is drawn to Clark & Robinson for 30l. 10s., and

signed "M. C. Williams"—he was seven or eight minutes in the bank before he went to the door—I saw him next in the dock at Marylebone police-court I am sure he is the person.

Cross-examined. I have cashed many thousand cheques in my time—ordinarily speaking I don't notice the features of every person who presents a heque, and should not be able to speak to them afterwards—the prisoner was a stranger to me.

CHARLES FREDERICK MORRIS . I am a clerk at Coutts' Bank—on 2nd July I saw the prisoner present this cheque to Mr. Turner, and saw him leave the bank—I did not go out after him—I afterwards went to Newgate and pointed him out from about ten other prisoners in the yard—I have not the slightest doubt of him.

Cross-examined. I was not called before the Magistrate—I went to the prison by Mr. Mullens' wish—I believe he is the solicitor to the Bankers' Association—I was told what I was going for; I went alone—cheques are not often presented early in the morning at our bank.

ALFRED WILLIAM YOUNG . I am a clerk at Coutts'—I saw the person who presented the cheque on 2nd July; it was the prisoner—I went by Mr. Mullens' desire to Newgate, about a week ago, saw about a dozen persons there, and picked the prisoner out of them.

Cross-examined. I had never seen him before 2nd July; I have not been been before the Magistrate.

CLARA MARGARET WILLIAMS . I live at 2, Prince's Gardens, Hyde Park, and keep an account at Messrs. Coutts'—I have a cheque-book which begins in October, 1874; that was the one I had in use when this matter occurred—I usually keep it in a Davenport, in my dining-room, which is locked, and the key is kept in another room in an unlocked drawer—the prisoner was in my daughter's service as groom; she lives with me—he left her service last year—my attention was called to my cheque-book early in July, and I found that a cheque had been taken out at the end, leaving the counterfoil blank—this cheque is D 23, 07,723—Hannah Walker was in my service for two years up to the time of this matter occurring—this cheque is not signed or filled up by me, or by my authority—I know nothing about Clark & Robinson.

ANNIE PASSMORE WILLIAMS . I live with my mother—the prisoner was my groom for three months—he was recommended by my brother-in-law, Mr. Tudor—he left my service in August last year, and after he left I spoke to him in the following January, and told him not to come to the house—I found him there in April, and required him to leave at once—he was in the habit of driving me and my mother out, and he has driven us to Coutts' Bank—I have seen him put paid to different things, and know this cheque to be in his writing—I know his figures; he made figures more often than writing—this paper (produced) is in his writing.

Cross-examined. He was three months in my service and I found him honest, sober, steady, obliging, and a careful driver; my only reason for parting with him was my leaving town—I identify the whole of the cheque, but I go more by the figures than the writing—this "June 29" I should say is the same as I have had put to my accounts—I have seen him write.

CAPTAIN HAYES . I know the prisoner and know his writing—I should say that the whole of this cheque is in his writing—I have never seen him write, but I have seen his writing—he has written letters to me and I have seen his bills.

Cross-examined. I saw his writing at the end of every month or every week—he used to bring me an account—he has sent me letters.

Re-examined. He brought me my stable accounts, and he has written to me when I have been away, relating to my stable management.

WILLIAM SMITH (Detective Officer X). On 8th July, at 7.30 p.m., I saw the prisoner with Hannah Walker, in Kennington Road—I told him I was a police officer and should take him in custody for stealing a cheque from 2, Prince's Gardens, some time in June—he said "It was not me that stole the cheque"—I said "The cheque has been presented at Messrs. Coutts', in the Strand, and they have identified your photograph as the man presenting it"—he said "It was not me and I can prove where I was"—I had not said on what day he presented the cheque—I took him to Paddington Station, searched him and found the paper which has been produced on him—I asked him what it was—he said "It is only-some addresses I wrote about a situation.

GUILTY of uttering — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

423. ALEXANDER JOHN JAMES (19) , Feloniously cutting and wounding Robert Haylock, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

MR. MILLWOOD conducted the Prosecution; and M. WILLIAMS the Defence.

ROBERT HAYLOCK . I am a greengrocer, of 4, Chapter Street, Westminster, and am in the employ of Mr. Haynes, of Vauxhall Bridge Road—he is a relation of mine—on 5th July, about 11 o'clock, I was at work at the back of the shop, my sister called me, and on going to the front I saw the prisoner outside—he said to my sister "Fetch your man out and I will do for you"—I went out to advise him to go away, and he struck at me with his fist—I closed with him to get away, and in the struggle we fell, the prisoner underneath, and before I could recover myself to get up ha struck me on the head with a knife—I got up not knowing I had been stabbed—he closed with me again and stabbed me in my side with a knife—I saw the knife the second time—I lost all consciousness—I did not strike him or challenge him to fight.

Cross-examined. It was. all done without my giving the smallest provocation whatever—I never attempted to touch him or held out my hand to him or threatened him in any way—he is in my brother's employ—my wife was not there, Mrs. Haines is my sister; she did not say to me "Come and give this fellow a twisting in the road"—she is not here—the prisoner challenged me to come out and he would do for me—I never put myself in a fighting attitude—there was no provocation.

EDWARD SAUNDERS . I am also in Mr. Haynes' employ—I know the prisoner—he had been in Mr. Haynes' employ—on this day he came across from the public-house and was blackguarding the mistress—he said "Bring out your fancy man and I will fight him"—that was Robert Haylook, I believe—he said "I will do for him"—of course he got down off the board and held up his hand, and they struggled and fell, and the prisoner pulled a knife out—of his pocket and gave him one stick on the side of the head with the knife and returned it to his pocket—they then had another struggle and he drew it again, and stabbed the prosecutor in the side; I rushed from the shop and pinned him by the arms—I struggled with him ten minutes till we got to the pawnbroker's, where I knocked the knife out of his hand, picked it up and put it in my pocket—there was blood on it.

Cross-examined. Before they were on the ground I did not see the prosesecutor's hand go out—I have said "Haylock held up his hand against the

prisoner and the prisoner fell down," that is the fact, that was the first starting of it—the prisoner was not knocked down, he fell of his own accord.

THOMAS CASTLES , M.D. I live at 2, Upper Tatchbrook Street, Pimlico—on 5th July I was called to Haylock and found an incised wound on his head and another on his left side—he was weak and faint and almost in a state of coma from loss of blood—this knife would produce the wounds—the wound on his head was very serious—I attended him ten days, he is well now.

WALTER BARBELL (Detective Officer B). I was on duty and saw the prisoner and Saunders struggling—I saw a knife fall and asked Saunders in the prisoner's presence whether he had stabbed any one with it—he said that he had stabbed Haylock who was in the shop—I went to the shop and saw the sister and went back and took the prisoner and sent for a doctor—I afterwards went with the prosecutor to the station and he charged the prisoner—while in the dock he said "I am a b----y good hand at the knife and I will do it again."

Cross-examined. I have said that before—the prisoner might have been drinking and I believe he had, but he was not drunk, he was very, excited—it was nearly an hour and a half before he was charged.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.

THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, August 17th.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

424. RODERICK CAMPBELL (37) , Stealing 2l. 14s. of George Cooper, his master.

MR. WILLOUGHBY conducted the Prosecution.

GEORGE COOPER . I am proprietor of the Leicester Restaurant, in Princes Street—the prisoner was employed there in July last year as manager—on 20th July I gave him 8l. or 10l. and told him to go to a place in the Hay market to apply to have a grave opened for the reception of my brother who had died, and he was to send a telegram apprising another brother in America of his death—he went and took a hansom cab to call on several persons and pay little things—when he came back I asked him and he said he had sent the telegram—four or five days afterwards, in consequence of information, I said "It seems strange that my brother has not written or telegraphed on account of the telegram which you said you had sent"—he had the money to go to Regent Circus to send it—he said that he did not send it from, Regent Circus, but he had some business in Chancery Lane and had sent it from the office in Fleet Street—about a fortnight afterwards I went with him to Fleet Street, and he asked the young ladies in the office if there had been a telegram sent from Cooper—they referred to the books and said no such telegram was sent from the office; upon which the prisoner said he supposed it was neglect on their part.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I will swear I gave you on the 20th of July 8l. or 10l. to send a telegram to America—it was four words "Brother "William died yesterday"—I will swear that I gave you the sum of 8l. or 10l.—I have nothing to show the amount—I don't distinctly remember the—amount—I don't think you handed me the funeral receipts from the Brompton Cemetery Company the same day—I have not got my books and receipts here—the Cemetery Company's charges were 3l. 2s.—I don't recollect

that you handed me the receipt for that—the boy Dyer was there when I handed you the money for the telegram, I was going to send him, but you said you were going that way and would send it, it was no use in trusting it to a boy—I had been drinking hard all day because I was very much distressed—I don't know whether I was taken up to bed drunk between 6 and 7 o'clock, I was very much distressed and Mr. Newton saw me upstairs—I was not taken to bed that evening by three people—I did not threaten to cut my throat—I don't know anything about that; I saw you about 11 o'clock or 11.30 on the Saturday morning in the restaurant—I think you were to send another telegram to Bridgeworth, but not to a friend of mine at Guildford—Mr. Lovett, a friend of mine lives there—I was very well in the morning, as well as I am now—I know you sent one of the boys to Regent's Circus to get a form; when we did not receive a reply to the telegram you suggested getting the post-office to repeat it—I sent a telegram to my brother afterwards, but you had nothing to do with that—you wrote out a second telegram but it was never sent—I have no books to show what you received as salary; you did not have any limit, I gave you money when you wanted it—I asked you several times what salary I should pay you, you said "Wait until we settle the affairs of your brother William," then of course you took advantage of it in my distress—after my brother's death you entered into a joint bond with me as my brother's administrator—I don't know that this is a straightforward account, you have made it very satisfactory to yourself.

NOT GUILTY .

There was another indictment against the prisoner for forging an order for 5l., upon which no evidence was offered.

425. JAMES BLAND HAWKES (34), was indicted for that he having been entrusted by John Alton Hatchard, as an agent, with a cheque for 403l. 15s. for the purpose of purchasing five Egyptian bonds, did convert the same to his own use, and also the sum of 806l. 5s. entrusted to him by James Deardon Cannon. Other counts varying the mode of charge.

MR. METCALFE, Q.C., and MR. F. H. LEWIS, conducted the Prosecution;

MESSRS. BESLEY and W. SLEIGH, the Defence.

REV. JOHN ALTON HATCHARD . I am a clergyman of the Church of England, residing at Marina, St. Leonard's—on 3rd of April this year I received this circular, marked A. (This was headed "Consolidated Exchange and Banking Agency, 8 and 9, Gracechurch Street, London" offering to give advice with regard to the purchase of securities, and protect purchasers from fraud, and also to give them facilities for purchasing, by paying the amount by instalments). On the receipt of that letter I wrote the letter marked B, acknowledging it, and on the 8th April I wrote this letter marked C. (Read):" 104, Marina, St. Leonards-on-Sea, April 8, 1875. Sir,—Thank you for your letter of yesterday. I shall be further obliged if you could let me know when the dividend is payable on the Egyptian 7 per cent. Khedive Loan, 1870 ; also how often drawings take place, and when the next is. I think it is a good plan to buy in when a dividend is near, is it so or not? The Egyptian, 1873, dividend is nearly due, I believe, which would be most profitable, 1872 or 1873? I shall be glad of further particulars about City and County Bank; is it under the Limited Liability Act? What were the shares orginally; how much paid on them; how long established, and all particulars; also the same about Wedgewood Coal and Iron. I don't see either in the Money Market Review quoted. What do you think of Lima

Railway; to a holder of 5 per cent. Peruvian Stock, what would be your advice, to hold on or sell? I see Native Manure Company's shares rise: please quote your scale of brokerage on purchase and sale of Foreign Bonds and Stocks. What is your opinion of London, Chatham and Dover Ordinarys?") I received this letter marked D, replying to my inquiries. I received this telegram F, dated 12th April, stating that he had bought five Egyptian Bonds, 1873, at 80 3/4, and requesting draft by next post to cover same. I wrote this letter on the same day. (This enclosed a cheque on Sir Samuel Scott & Co., for 403l. 15s. to meet the purchase of the five Egyptian Bonds.) The letter G enclosed a receipt for the amount remitted. (A number of letters were put in and read, containing questions from the witness as to certain Companies and investments, and also pressing for the delivery of the bonds, with replies from the defendant) I expected the bonds by the next post, because I had paid for them and inquired whether they were purchaseable cum dividend, and upon the strength of that I sent my cheque—I looked for nothing more or less than the five Egyptian Bonds—I was no party to any interest for non-delivery—after receiving this letter of the 12th May, from the defendant, stating that he was compelled to carry over until the next settlement, the 31st May, I telegraphed to my solicitor, and then came up to town and saw. the defendant in the presence of Mr. Govett, my solicitor—I understand he is very ill to-day, he was on Sunday—we went to the prisoner's office to demand my bonds—I asked him why my bonds had not been sent—I pressed for the bonds, and my solicitor asked to see the note, which would have satisfied us that they had been purchased, but we could not satisfy our minds, except on one point, that they had not been purchased—the prisoner produced a piece of paper, but I did not look very much at it myself; I left it to my solicitor, and he informed me it was utterly valueless—I saw the amount 403l. 15s. on the paper, which answered to the amount of the cheque I had sent—I believe this is the piece of paper. (Head: "13th April, 1875, Sold to the Consolidated Exchange and Banking Agency, five 100l. Egyptians-1873, at 80 3/4, 403l. 15s. (signed) H. H. Wraxall & Co.") I asked for the bonds, and the prisoner went away and said he would go and get them or see some gentleman—we waited for a long time, until we were tired, and went away—they 'told us that if we returned in two hours Mr. Hawkes would be sure to be there—we returned in two hours and he had not come back, we were told by Mr. Hawkes' employes—we asked for the money or the bonds, and a gentleman, Mr. Hanrott, who was his legal adviser at that time, recommended them to produce the money if they could not produce the bonds, and he wrote a letter to Mr. Hawkes and left it for him with that advice in it—Mr. Hanrott appeared to be advising the prisoner while we were there, and before the prisoner left—he was asked a great many questions by the prisoner—the prisoner did not come back, and we got neither the bonds or the money, and I returned home—on the 18th May I applied for a warrant against the prisoner, at the Mansion House, and advertised a reward for his apprehension—every means were taken to find him at his own house, and at his office—at the time I applied for the warrant, Mr. Hanrott, the prisoner's solicitor, and a gentleman as Counsel, were there—I afterwards received this telegram from the defendant. "Sir H. Wraxall writes, that bonds await our order; satisfactory apologies must be made, also indentification for expenses improperly necessitated"—I telegraphed to him that Mr. Govett had my full authority to receive the bonds—I had given him

authority to receive them weeks before, and Mr. Govett did receive them; but I still thought it my duty to the public and to myself to continue this prosecution, and the prisoner was committed for trial by the Lord Mayor.

Cross-examined. I considered it my duty to continue this prosecution, that was my own unbiassed opinion, I did not ask my solicitor even—I felt very much grieved about the whole case—it is a long time ago since I first began investing—I have not speculated, buying shares is not speculating—I have not been an investor in the public funds as long as I could wish, it extends over a period of thirty years—I generally ask the opinion of others, but I have found if I have gone upon my own it has been better than other people's, sometimes even better than respectable stockbrokers—on the interview of 13th May when Mr. Govett went with me I was asked who a certain person who was with me was—I said "Never mind who he is, he is a friend of mine," as I consider a policeman to be to a man who is in difficulty, as I felt myself to be—I did not even know his name—I wished to keep up his character as a detective—I don't think I said he was a personal friend of mine, I was in need and I considered him a friend in need—I don't believe I did say a personal friend: I was under excitement, going there—I considered I had lost a large sum of money—I did not say at the Mansion House that I introduced the detective as my personal friend, I contradicted it—I said he was a friend, I could,—not call him by his name because I did not know it—when the prisoner left on 13th May he did not give us to understand where he was going for the bonds—I don't think at that time I had heard Sir Henry Wraxall's name—he was going somewhere, I won't swear that he said he was going to Sir Henry Wraxall—I am placed at disadvantage in answering these questions because Mr. Govett is not here, and upon that occasion he listened with professional ears, and I really 'don't remember—I think if I had known the detective's name I should have told him to keep it back—he was a detective, and it was better his name should not be known—the prisoner went away to get the bonds from someone or somewhere—I gave Mr. Govett authority to accept my bonds from the prisoner from the first, if he could get them—in my first telegram I said "Get my bonds"—before I saw the prisoner at all I telegraphed to my solicitor—I think it was on 12th May, the day before we called at the prisoner's office—I am not aware that Mr. Govett when the bonds were offered to him refused to accept them saying he had no authority from me, he certainly has never told me that because he knew that he had authority to accept them—I expected the bonds the day after I had sent my cheque—I went up to London because I was afraid that the bonds would not be delivered until the 31st of May—I expected them a month before—I had paid for them and they were due to me—I was under the impression that he could not deliver me the bonds at all—I was afraid before the 12th May that the bonds would not be delivered until the next dividend day—I received a letter stating that I should have to wait for the bonds until next dividend day—I went up to London because I wanted to get them the earliest day that I could—this prosecution was not continued because I and Mr. George Lewis were threatened with proceedings for the course we had taken with regard to Mr. Hawkes—I should have gone on with it under any cir cumstances and I told them so in the office—I was not threatened with any action—I had heard that Mr. Hawkes through Mr. Hanrott, his then attorney, threatened an action against me and Mr. Lewis, but it did not.

influence my going on; there was my own case and many others—I should have been less than a man, if I had not gone on, after the letters I had received—I don't recollect that I telegraphed to Mr. Govett that I had heard that the bonds were ready to be delivered over on 1st June—I believe I received a telegram from the defendant and communicated with Mr. Govett to tell him to accept the bonds—I won't swear that it was on the 1st June because I really don't recollect—I had given-him authority over and over again before, that—I dare say I did communicate with Mr. Govett on 1st June to accept the bonds—I have got a memorandum "Received notice of receipt of bonds from Mr. Govett on June 3rd"—I paid for them on 12th April—I have no memorandum that I Telegraphed to Mr. Govett on 1st June—I last saw Mr. Govett on Sunday week, he spent Sunday with me at St. Leonard's—he was very unwell then—we had no conversation about this business at all—he was an old friend of thirty years, and spent Saturday and Sunday with me—I have not communicated with him since he left me on Monday week—he has not been at these Sessions to my knowledge—I had 1l. 5s. from Mr. Hawkes, but it was not for holding over or continuing—I did not hold over or continue at all—I did not return what money I had from Mr. Hawkes, I wrote for an explanation—I don't recollect that at the interview at Mr. Hawkes's office Mr. Hawkes explained that he was put to a great deal of trouble by Sir Henry Wraxall holding over—I don't recollect anything of the kind passing—I saw a contract note similar to what has been shown me this morning Mr. Govett asked the prisoner if he had a contract note from Sir Henry Wraxall—he said "Yes" and he produced a piece of paper—I can't swear that he said that Sir Henry Wraxell had given him a great deal of trouble, but he would go to him and try and obtain the bonds—I won't deny it either, but I don't think Sir Henry Wraxall's name was mentioned at that time—I don't think the prisoner said at that interview that 1l. 5s. had been paid for the non-delivery of the bonds—I had received a communication to that effect, but I don't remember that he said it at that interview—I won't deny it, but the impression on my mind was that all we could get was a general refusal of money and bonds—I am sure he did not say that as we had accepted the 25s. for non-delivery, he could not force the people to deliver over the bonds—he said he would go and try and get them.

Re-examined. I had not given him notice of my intention to come to London—I don't know how Mr. Hanrott, his solicitor, came to be there—I knew Mr. Govett had called there the day before—it was an arranged interview, that was it—Mr. Govett told him that he would meet them at a certain hour the next day.

GEORGE HENRY LEWIS . I am conducting this prosecution on behalf of Mr. Hatchard and Mr. Cannon—Mr. Govett was examined before the Magistrate—I have received two telegrams addressed to his firm in King's Bench Walk with reference to his illness—on 18th May I applied for a warrant to apprehend the prisoner for fraud in connection with these bonds—his attorney Mr. Hanrott, and his counsel Mr. Cooper, were present to oppose the warrant being granted—Sir Robert Carden declined to hear either of them and granted the warrant—I then used every effort to apprehend him, and finally being unsuccessful, I offered a reward for his apprehension—I think that was about 31st May or 1st June—after the bonds had been delivered up, Mr. Sherwood, his present solicitor called on me to know whether we should persevere in the prosecution—I told him "Yes,"

that I was perfectly willing if he pledged his word that the defendant should surrender, not to have him arrested if I could discover him meanwhile—I never was threatened by him or by anybody with any proceedings of any kind, neither was Mr. Hatchard to my knowledge.

Cross-examined. I informed Mr. Sherwood that I had receive 1 a telegram from Mr. Hanrott saying "Take your own course, my client will take his;" and I also informed him that I had communicated with Mr. Hanrott by letter, and told him to tell me where the prisoner was, that he might be apprehended, and whether he would surrender him; but I declined to allow the case to be settled in any way by the delivery of the bonds—I certainly did not understand that Mr. Hanrott was threatening an action in respect of the advertisement of the warrant after the acceptance of the bonds by Mr. Govett—I think the advertisment appeared the day before the acceptance of the bonds—it only appeared once, and I think it was the day before the bonds were delivered up—I think it was on the 1st June the defendant telegraphed to Mr. Hatchard the bonds were ready to be delivered over; the advertisement was sent to the Times newspaper on 1st June without any knowledge of the telegram; Mr. Hatchard residing in the country the telegram was sent up to me—on 2nd June the advertisement appeared, and on the 3rd the bonds were delivered up—T did not certainly understand that Mr. Hanrott was intending an action—I understood the phrase "my client will take his course "as a sort of threat that it was better to leave him alone; however Mr. Hatchard would not let him alone—I appeared at the police-court for Mr. Hatchard first, and I think it was on the third occasion Mr. Cannon appeared—you opposed that charge being taken before a summons had been taken out—Mr. Cannon said he had come from Brighton, and the Lord Mayor ordered an information to be filed, and it was filed and proceedings granted—it was not the act of the Lord Mayor, it was your act—I think he would have heard it at once, but you opposed it.

WALTER FLUKE . I am cashier at Sir Samuel Scott & Co., bankers, in Cavendish Square; Mrs. Hatchard banks there, Mr. Hatchard having power to draw on her account—I honoured a cheque for 403l. 15s. drawn by Mr. Hatchard—I paid it with a 300l. note, 6,3374, dated 13th August, 1873; and a 100l. note, 58,640, dated 5th March, 1874; and the rest in cash—it was an open cheque.

CHARLES JOHN WILLIAMS . I am in the accountant's department of the Bank of England—I produce two notes for 300l. and 100l. cancelled, and numbered 63,374 and 58,640—we received them from the Joint Stock Bunk.

WILLIAM RICHARD WILCOX . I am manager of the Clarendon Bank, 301, Strand—the defendant kept an account there in the name of James Bland Hawkes—these two notes were paid in to his account about the 13th April—I have not got the books here because the bank is in liquidation, and the books are in the hands of the accountants, Messrs. Whenham & Scrimgeour, 42, Finsbury Circus.

CHARLES CAMPIN . I was manager to the defendant, and was in his service about six months altogether—the business was carried on in the name of the Consolidated Exchange and Banking Agency—the only book that I kept was a diary—I know of no other—I can't tell whether there were any private books, I only kept a diary—I used to make the entries in the diary of the daily transactions; my actual position there was a clerk—I used to sign nominally as manager—I don't know of any ledger or cash

book—the prisoner was the principal in the business—this (produced) is the diary that I kept—I saw a cheque from Mr. Hatchard for 403l. 15s.; it came in a letter which Mr. Hawkes opened—the cheque was handed to me for endorsement, and I returned it to Mr. Hawkes and saw no more of it—I endorsed it with the stamp in the office, and signed my name to it as manager; that was the only cheque that I endorsed—I had seen other cheques previously, but I was not manager at the time.

Cross-examined. I saw the advertisement in the Times on 2nd June there was an appointment made to meet Mr. Hawkes at the office, but I won't swear whether it was the day before or after the 2nd—it was about that time—Mr. Hawkes kept the appointment—I won't swear that Detective Child was there at the time, but he came during the day, I think—Mr. Hawkes was punctual, but I believe the detective was not—the diary is mine, in which I made memoranda, and as far as I know they are true—t was my duty to make the account sheets and give to the prisoner of the business done—I believe that Mr. Hawkes kept the private accounts—anything that passed through my hands I gave an account of to Mr. Hawkes—I was present when Mr. Govett came with Mr. Hatchard, but I can't say from memory that it was 13th May—this paper in reference to the purchase of the Egyptian bonds by Sir Henry Wraxall was shown to Mr. Govett—the explanation was given at that time that 1l. 5s. had been paid for non-delivery, and that therefore Mr. Hawkes could not enforce the delivery until 31st May—he said he would see Sir Henry Wraxall and endeavour to get them—the prisoner was constantly at the office from the date of Mr. Govett's interview up to the time of the appointment of Detective Child coming there—he came on two or three other occasions, but the prisoner was not there—I know of no other person in the business, except Mr. Hawkes; the business was that of buying stocks and shares—it was carried on under the name of agency, but it was directly between the prisoner and those he dealt with—I can't swear that the prisoner had any other banking account besides the one at the Clarendon Bank—I have seen two or three cheque-books in the office.

Re-examined. I believe there have been many clients at previous times—Mr. Hatchard and Mr. Cannon were the only two that I had any knowledge of—I was only there as manager three months—I have known of other clients, but I can't give their names, because they did not come under my notice at all—this entry of 24th March in the diary which has been scribbled over, is not my handwriting; it was previous to my time in office—I have seen Sir Horatio Wraxall once or twice—I saw him accidentally in some dining-room at the West End; I have never seen him at the place of business—I have been to his place of business once, between two or three months ago; I think it was before this prosecution was commenced—he has got a very nicely-furnished room on the first floor of No. 17, King William Street, Strand—I did not see him there; I don't know where he is now.

By MR. BESLEY. I saw him at the police-court—this entry in the diary of the 13th April, "Bought for Richard Alton Hatchard, 5 Egyptian Bonds at 80 3/4," is in my handwriting.

Sir Henry Horatio Wraxall was called upon his recognisances, but did not answer.

WILLIAM CHAPPELL . I am a common law clerk to Messrs. Morris & Co., 20, Bedford Row, who acted as solicitors to the Rev. Mr. Underhay—on the 10th December, 1872, we issued a writ against Sir Henry Wraxall and the

prisoner, and recovered judgment on the 30th May, 1873, for 30l., and 15l. 12s. 10d. costs—we have never recovered anything from either of them; it was a joint action against the two.

Cross-examined. I never could see Sir Henry Wraxall on that matter—I did not know that he was a witness in Walter's and Murray's prosecution for the Government, to prove that he was not one of the agents for the Turf Agency—I did not go down to the Mansion House when he was a witness in this case; I did not know him—I saw Hawkes in reference to our matter, and I served him myself with the writ at 4, Royal Exchange Buildings—he said he should defend it, and he appeared by attorney.

MARY YOUNG . I am widow of the late Captain Young, and live at 19, Oxford Terrace, Hyde Park—while my husband was alive I remember Wraxall & Hawkes. carrying on business at 4, Royal Exchange Buildings—they were instructed by my husband to sell some bonds.

By MR. BESLEY. I know that of my own knowledge—I saw my husband fonward the bonds, and I know that letters came to my husband from the defendant—I have had letters of his—I have not seen him write.

CHARLES CAMPIN (re-called). This document marked A C is in the prisoner's writing—I should say this signature to this promissory note is his—I don't know Wraxalls writing—I have seen his name on that contract note, and I can hardly tell whether that is his writing or not—I have no means of knowing his writing—this letter of 12th October, 1872, is in the prisoner's writing—I can't swear to this one of the 16th. (Promissory note read: "4, Royal Exchange Buildings, London, 10th February, 1872. On demand we jointly and severally promise to pay Captain J. R, Young, or order, the sum of 700l. value received, Henry H. Wraxall and J. B. Hawkes.") (The letter of 12th October, was headed Sir H. H. Wraxall, Hawkes & Co., and stated that the cash, they expected had not come to hand, but was expected the next day and should be forwarded.)

MRS. YOUNG (continued). I have never been to 4, Royal Exchange Buildings at all—my solicitor has made inquiries—I have' never received any money on the promissory note.

HORACE BLOXAM . I am manager of the National Bank, at Charing Cross—I believe this signature to this promissory note is Sir Henry Wraxall's—I have a signature which I saw him write, and by comparison I say this is his—on 25th May, this year, I bought for Sir Henry Wraxall, 5 Egyptian Bonds, 7 per cent., 1873—they were handed to our head office by the brokers, and the money was received from there on the following day—we kept the bonds till 1st June, and then handed them to Sir Henry Wraxall on payment of the balance due to us—the head office had paid for them I think on 26th May, and we did not withdraw them I think for two or three days, as they were in our hands we made an advance to Wraxall, on the security of the bonds.

REV. JAMES DEARDEN CANNON . I am a clergyman and live at Oriental Place, Brighton—I saw an advertisement and a circular purporting to come from the Consolidated Exchange and Banking Agency, and I communicated with the company at Gracechurch Street—I received letters from the company, but they were not signed by Hawkes until October—there was another manager before him—after October I received letters signed by the prisoner—on 22nd February, 1875, I wrote this letter to the company. (This authorised them to sell 9001. worth of South Eeastern Railway Stock at 117l., and to expend the amount realised in the parchase of other stock).I

received an answer to that letter that the South Eastern were sold at 117l. (There were several other letters from the witness to the company as to the disposal of the 1050l. realised by the sale of the South Eastern Stock, and replies thereto which were put in and read.) On 27th February, I wrote for for 100l. spare cash for Mrs. Cannon, which I received, and I afterwards had a further remittance of 100l.—about the middle of March, I told them to buy 10 Egyptian Bonds—I don't remember the date, but it was within a week of Good Friday—I gave definite instructions then to buy 10 Egyptian Bonds, and I had a letter afterwards stating that the stock had been bought—"The purchase has been concluded in Egyptian 7 percent. 1873, at which we trust will be approved by you"—I was not giving him instructions to buy any other stock as well—I did not get any Egyptians afterwards—when I wrote the letter of 8th April, I was not clear whether the bonds passed by delivery or had to be transferred—I afterwards learned they had not, and I wrote expressing surprise that they were not delivered.

THE COURT considered that in the case of Mr. Cannon, there was not a direction in writing within the Statute, and therefore there was no case to go to the Jury.

GUILTY on the First Count only — Six Month' Imprisonment.

426. HENRY WARREN (19), PLEADED GUILTY to three indictments for forging and uttering requests for the delivery of goods with intent to defraud— Judgment respited.

427. WILLIAM JOYCE (56) , to unlawfully carnally knowing and abusing Susan Lydia Baker, a girl under the age of twelve years— Five Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

428. GEORGE SMITH (26) , to feloniously forging and uttering a cheque for 3l. 6s. 6d., the property of Lauchlan Rose and others, his masters, with intent to defraud.— Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutors— Twelve Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

OLD COURT.—Wednesday, August 18th, 1875.

Before Mr. Justice Brett.

429. THOMAS KIRWIN (38), was indicted for feloniously wounding Robert Clapp with intent to murder. Two other Counts with intent to resist his apprehension, and to do grievous bodily harm.

MESSRS. POLAND and MEAD conducted the Prosecution; Messrs. Straight and Horace Avory the Defence.

The prisoner was tried at the last session for this offence (see page 255), and the Jury being unable to agree were discharged without giving a verdict. The evidence is there fully reported. In this instance the Jury found him.

NOT GUILTY . There was another indictment for breaking and entering the counting-house upon which no evidence was offered.

430. FREDERICK ARBERRY (20) , Unlawfully taking Elizabeth Catherine Tremlett an unmarried girl under the age of sixteen out of the possession and against the will of her father.

MESSRS. HARRIS and SAFFORD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. BRINDLEY

the Defence.

MARION RAYMOND . I live at 35, Mayfield Street—I know the prisoner—in April, 1874 he was paying his addresses to me—he proposed to me in September, and the wedding day was fixed for the 8th of March—I am an orphan and live with my sister and brother-in-law next door to the prisoner—we made arrangements to go abroad—on 23rd January he said he wanted some money to pay off some one that he owed it to—I gave him 50l. and

169l., altogether 250l.—I gave him the last sum on 26th February—he told me to get it in gold—I saw him on Sunday evening the 28th and then did not see him again until the 8th of March at Northfleet at Mrs. Laws—I went down there with his mother, after he had gone off with Miss Tremlett—I asked him to return the money; he told me to wait and he would bring the money out to me—I waited five minutes and he was gone.

FRANCES LAWS . I live at Hope Cottages, Northfleet—on Friday, 26th February, the prisoner came to my place and wanted apartments—I let him two bed-rooms which communicated by a door, and a sitting-room—he said he required two bed-rooms and a sitting-room for his sister and himself—he said "I will take the place for three months, and if I don't stay I shall pay you"—he said he would come on Monday, and bring his sister probably on Thursday—he came on Monday 1st March and Miss Tremlett came with him; he said she was his sistor—they stopped over a week—they went out together and absconded, they knocked at the inner door, and the young lady asked if there was a back way where they could get out—I said we had not a back way and they went out by the front—I said What about dinner?" she said "We are only going for a short walk we shall return shortly"—he did not say anything—I did not see him again till he was at the police-court.

Cross-examined. I saw the young lady at the police-court—she was very badly dressed when she came to my house; her clothes were very old and ragged—they did not remain so, she became very smart—I received it. for the time they were there.

Re-examined. He seemed to have plenty of money.

ROBERT TUCK TREMLETT . I keep a wine and beer establishment at Clapton—Elizabeth Catherine Tremlett is my daughter—she was living with me in my house up to Monday, the 1st of March—she left home that afternoon about 3.30; I was out at the time—she said she wanted to go out to visit one of her married sisters—I gave her permission—when I returned she was gone—she was sixteen on 26th April as she left on 1st March—I did not give her permission to go away with the prisoner; I had no idea of it—I knew nothing of him except as a casual customer once or twice a week.

Cross-examined. I told the inspector that I thought my daughter was seventeen; she did not pass in my house as seventeen or eighteen by my wish or sanction—her own mother is not living—I have had a very large family—her age is registered in the family bible, and when this arose I looked there and found her real age—I have a certificate of her birth here; she was born on 25th April, 1859—I don't think there was any jealousy at home between her and another sister—she has said there was, but there was no occasion for it—I was not aware that there was a feeling that she was not so well treated as her sister, or so respectably clothed—I am not aware that it is a fact that she was not so well dressed—I first heard of this jealousy at the police-court—I have not had others of my family leave home without my consent; two are married, and both were married with my knowledge—I don't say that in one case it was altogether with my wish, but it was certainly with my knowledge—I stated at the police-court that I did not know where to find my daughter; I did not know then—the prisoner's father afterwards told me she was at his house, and if I did not take her away he would kick her out—I did not say that I would not fetch her out of the gutter; I have not refused to see her—she came to my house

after returning from Natal and said "I want to speak to you," and I pointed to the door—her manner was such that I could not receive her; I never spoke to her—she is at present living with my son; she is provided for—I heard a rumour that she was married to the prisoner, but he contradicted it—he never intended to marry her—I have not heard that they wish to marry—I should be sorry if they did; it would be a greater calamity than she has upon her now—I heard her say before the Magistrate that they would have been married if it had not been for the father—I heard from Miss Raymond that they were at Northfleet—a friend of the prisoner told me where they were, under fear and pressure—I don't remember the prisoner's brother coming and telling me two or three days after she had left home—he might have done so; I don't dispute it—I forget it.

JAMES GALE (Policeman N). I apprehended the prisoner at Clapton on the charge of obtaining Miss Raymond's money—as I was taking him to the station he said "I went away along with Tremlett's daughter because she would not stop along with her father, as he behaved so badly to her."

Cross-examined. He did not say she had left her home and would not go back.

CATHERINE ELIZABETH TREMLETT (examined by the Court). I am the daughter of Mr. Tremlett—there was a feeling of jealousy between me and one of my sisters, who is here—he was very unkind to me—I left home on 1st March—I had not seen the prisoner for about a fortnight before that—I left home because I was not happy; I was very uncomfortable at home—it was after I left my home that I saw the prisoner—if I had not met him I should not have gone home again; I meant to stay away altogether—I thought I was eighteen, and I told the prisoner I was eighteen; I told him so the day I went away—I asked him to take me away when I met him; I ran away with him—I read the newspapers—I have read the story of a girl who told the man she was eighteen—there was no arrangement being made for the prisoner and me to be married—since we came back from the Cape we have made arrangements to be married; his mother is furnishing some rooms for us—I went to my father after I came back, and he ordered me out of the house—I said "I wish to speak to you, father," and he said "Go," and I went—my clothing was very poor at home, not fit for a sweep's daughter—when I left home I went to Hackney Down Station; I met the prisoner there, he was not waiting there—I asked him to take me away—I was going to my sister's; I did not intend to go home again—I got to the Hackney Station about 3 o'clock or a little after—the prisoner took me to Northfleet because I asked him—I had known him before—we were going abroad together before I asked him to take me away, but I had not seen him for a fortnight, because I was out—I told him not to come to the house, because he was insulted by my sister—it was altogether by accident that I met him at Hackney Down Station—we had been out walking together before this—I don't exactly say we had been talking about marriage; we had been sweet hearting together there was not much said between us—we went to Cape Town—I said I did not mind going to Cape Town; I did not care where I went, so that he took me away—we were not to be married before we went to Cape Town—I did not exactly know whether we were going to be married or not; I did not care whether I was married or not—I was not happy at home—I did not exactly know that he had taken the lodging at Northfleet—he did not say anything about taking me away when we walked out together—we had been

out together for about three months—our names were to be called in church on the Sunday as my father took him away on the Monday; they were to be called at Christ Church, Hackney, opposite the prisoner's house—that was where we were going to be married—he intends to marry me now, only father won't give him a chance—of course he ought to marry me—we stopped at Cape Town about a month; he is a builder by trade—I had no luggage with me when I left home; nothing but what I stood upright in—we had two bedrooms at Northfleet—he had not told me anything about those rooms before I got there.

GUILTY — Six Months' Imprisonment.

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, August, 18, 1875.

Before Mr. Recorder.

431. THOMAS HAMILTON (25) , Feloniously cutting and wounding Selina Sansom, with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm.

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

SELINA SANSOM . I am an unfortunate girl, and live at 2, Brunswick Street, St. George's—I spent a night with the prisoner, and he did not pay me—I met him on 1st June and asked him if he was going to give me some money—he called to Stokes and said." If she does not leave me alone Harry, I shall stick her"—Stokes said to me" Why don't you leave the man alone, and go away"—I said that I would not go till I got some money; the prisoner then drew a knife from his pocket and Harry took it from his hand—Harry is the name that Stokes goes by; I did not Bee that knife, hut he then took out another which he thrust into my left shoulder—I was taken to the hospital.

By THE COURT. I had not threatened him, I just put my hand on his collar and said "Give me some money"—I was alone.

Cross-examined. I did not abuse him in the public street, nor did a crowd collect—I do not know whether there were ten or twelve persons there—no one struck the prisoner in my presence—I had never seen the prisoner before the night I slept with him—I find that he had come from his ship on this day but, but I did not find out before I spoke to him that he had plenty of money—my asking him for money lasted about ten. minutes; it was in Well Street—I am quite well now.

WILLIAM STOKES . I live at 19, Well Street, at a boarding house opposite the Sailors Home—I am generally known as Harry; I was in the kitchen and heard a disturbance, went up and saw the prosecutrix holding the prisoner by the coat—he said "If she does not let go Harry, I shall stab her"—and he had no sooner used the words than he pulled a knife from his waistband—it was not in a sheath, it was wrapped in a handkerchief—when he went to stick it into her I snatched it from his hand—this is it (produced)—he then pulled out an older knife and stuck it into her back; she had left go of him then, and was turning to go.

Cross-examined. These are sailors knives—the prisoner was lodging at our house—the woman was holding his coat—I said "Why don't you let go," and she let go the moment I asked her—there was nobody but me and the woman in the street—the prisoner was going to sea next morning, and he had both the knives in a handkerchief to save them from cutting him—they generally wear them behind them in a sheath.

RICHARD DOWDSWELL . (Policeman H 226). I was opposite the boarding

house and saw the prisoner deliberately strike the prosecutrix, but I did not know he had a knife—I saw him run and heard some one say the woman is stabbed—he ran into the boarding house and I ran after him; I followed him up stairs and met him on the top stairs coming down again—he said "You want me." I said "I do" he said "You are going to put me in chokey"—that is a new name sailors have for a prison—I told him I was going to take him for stabbing a woman—he said "I know I have done it, she accused me wrongfully—I received the knife from Stokes, and the other was brought to the station by a constable.

Cross-examined. The prisoner appeared excited; sailors begin to drink very early in the morning.

PATRICK NOLAN . I am a labourer of 15, Well Street—I picked up this knife in a wheelwright's yard; a constable knocked me down in the road and took it from me.

RACE LLEWELLYN . On 1st July I was house surgeon at the London Hospital—the prosecutrix was brought there suffering from an incised wound on her right shoulder, passing right through the bone—there was danger from the hemorrhage, and if it had gone a short distance further it would have gone into the chest—it was dangerous to life—such a knife as this would cause it.

The Prisoner in his statement before the Magistrate denied all knowledge of the Prosecutrix, stating that she attacked him, and he struck her in self defence.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding — Nine Months' Imprisonment ,

432. WILLIAM PURVER (50), was indicted for bigamy.

MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution.

MARTHA ROBINSON . I keep a beer-house at Haddenham, in the Isle of Ely—I am a widow—on 29th of March, 1840, I was present at the prisoner's marriage, with Mary Elger, at Haddenham parish church—I was then a spinster, my name was Martha Wright, and I was one of the witnesses, and signed the book—the prisoner's wife is here now, she is the same person, she has lived a very few miles from me ever since—they lived together several years, and then separated, and the prisoner lived with one of his sisters; but I can't say where.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I have never received a newspaper sent to shew that you were married to my cousin—I never knew anything about your second marriage till I was told afterwards—she knew my sisters, but I never saw my sisters for six or seven years.

RACHEL BUNN . I am the wife of Robert Bunn, of 79, Mare Street,. Hackney—in March, 1874, I was present at the prisoner's marriage, with my mother, Sarah Barrett—I signed the Register as one of the witnesses—the prisoner told my mother that his former wife had been dead some time—my mother is here—I afterwards received a letter, in consequence of which I gave the prisoner into custody.

Cross-examined. My grandmother lived at Haddenham, but she has left there four years—her name is Barrett—I do not believe that your former wife knew my mother.

HENRY WOODBRIDGE (Policeman X 237). I took the prisoner on the 23rd July, he said it is no more than I expected—he also said "I have not seen my wife for 27 years.

Prisoner. I said for 20 years.

MARTHA ROBINSON (re-examined). I know the prisoner's sisters, who live

at Haddenham, quite well, and within the last seven years I have seen them in company with the first wife—when the woman comes up to Haddenham I see them together—I have seen them speaking together, but not many times—I dare say the last time was two years back—I have seen them together within the last seven years; they always passed the time of day.

NOT GUILTY .

433. HENRY TILLMAN (24) , Unlawfully assaulting James Pizey, and occasioning him actual bodily harm.

MR. MOODY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS, the

Defence.

JAMES PIZEY . I am a mason, and live at 31, Romney Street, Westminster—on the 7th July, about 11 a.m. I went to see my brother off from Waterloo Station, and I did not go to work that day—after that I went to Kew, with Mr. Young, the landlord, of the Brown Bear, Millbank Street—we got back from there about 10 p.m., and I and my wife, and some other friends remained at the Brown Bear till they closed, at 12.30, we then went outside and were standing having a few minutes' conversation, when the prisoner 391 B, came up and said "Clear the corner"—he was in uniform and on duty—I said "You will give us time to say Good night," and I had no sooner said so, than he up with his fist, struck me on the eye and knocked me down—my face was cut and I got up and went to the station, at Rochester Row, and reported him to the acting sergeant, whose name I believe is Geary—I have heard it since—I wrote my report on paper at a desk outside, and handed it to Geary—that was I should think three quarters of an hour after I was struck—Mrs. Barrow, my sister-in-law was there when I was struck, and my wife, and Mrs. Hallom and Mr. Washington, I do not know the others—when I received the blow, three constables were standing on the opposite side of the street, by the White Hart, the prisoner had been with them—he left them to come across—none of my party were the worse for liquor—there were six or seven of us standing at the corner of the Brown Bear, but there was no disturbance whatever.

Cross-examined. There was no disturbance, no noise, and no screaming of women—we were standing there perfectly quietly, and without the smallest provocation he came up and struck me, he being in uniform at the time—my wife is not related to a man named Hicks—I have heard since that Hicks has been in custody for assaulting the police—my wife is a witness against a constable named Heavingham in reference to a series of assaults later on, she is actually prosecuting a police sergeant for assaulting her at a later hour in the neighbourhood of Vincent Square—I first went to the Brown Bear at 8.30 in the morning—I did not go to work at all that day, I stayed at the Brown Bear for two hours till between 10 and 11 o'clock—I was drinking during that time, I had a glass of ale—I then went to Waterloo station and from there to Kew and came back and went to the Brown Bear between 1 and 2 o'clock and remained there about an hour and a half—I also had some ale on that occasion, I cannot say how much—I then took a boat up the river to Kew—we only went into one public-house at Kew, but we stopped at one before we got to Kew—I had drink at both those public-houses—we got back at 10 o'clock and I then paid my third visit to the Brown Bear, but I went home first—I had beer again, I cannot say how much—I have said "I had been drinking during the day I cannot say how many glasses, not twenty I think," or something to that effect—I

was perfectly sober—I am not in the habit of drinking twenty glasses every day—all the people with me were as sober as I was—I did not hear the prisoner request the people not to make such a noise but to disperse quietly—I did not say to him "Mind your b----y business, you are only a youngster in the service, nothing of the kind; I only heard him say "Clear the women"—I did not say "I shall go when I like"—I did not see a lot of women crowd round the defendant and push him into a doorway, there was not a lot of women there, nor did I see them push him into a doorway—I did not see him trying to push through the women to get out of the doorway—when I was knocked down I felt inclined to return the blow, but they persuaded me to go the station and report him instead—I did not say "I want to get at the b----"—I said nothing to the prisoner when I was struck—it was a smartish blow, it cut my eye and knocked me down, but I never said a single word to him, I went direct to the station—my wife came into the Brown Bear about 10.30, but she did not stay, she came in and out; she did not ask me to go home, she came about twice—I did not say before the Magistrate-" It was a temperate day with me, I can almost swear I did not take twenty glasses," but it was a temperate day with me, I was not drunk—I used no offensive words to the constable—I know Hannah Brown, she is the wife of a cabdriver in Horseferry Road—I attended five times at Westminster—my solicitor is named Sampson and so is theirs.

Re-examined. I heard last night that the Grand Jury have thrown out the bill against Hicks for the assault—the charge against Heavingham, was after I had made my report at the station—I was not present at the assault of which Heavingham is accused—I began to drink at 8.30, and the twenty glasses of ale extended right through the day—I took my ordinary meals and I include what I had with them—I did not take anything, with my meals in the boat—I do not think the glasses would come to twenty.

EMMA BARRELL . I am married, Pizey is my brother-in-law—I went to the Brown Bear, about 11 o'clock on this night, and when the house was closed I went out with Mr. and Mrs. Pizey, Mr. and Mrs. Hammond, and I believe Mr. Washington—three or four policemen were standing opposite by the White Hart, and one of them, the prisoner, crossed the road and walked round us—he said "Clear the corner"—Pizey said "You will give us time to wish our friends good night," and on that the prisoner struck him in the eye with his fist and knocked him down—he got up directly and I took hold of him and persuaded him to go and report him—I went to the station with him directly, and he made his report—I went straight home from the—station—I had had a glass of wine at the Brown Bear—I did not see any thing in Pizey different to what I generally saw, and I see him everyday—he did not appear at all the worse for what he had taken.

Cross-examined. He appeared perfectly sober—the defendant came up and hit him in the eye without the slightest provocation—no noise was made, and there was no screaming outside—he had no sooner said "Clear the corner," than he struck the blow—when Pizey got up I heard him say "See what you have done"—he did not use any bad language—I went to the Brown Bear, about 11 o'clock, and stayed there an hour and a half—I saw Mrs. Pizey there; she came in and out—I noticed her twice—I did not hear her ask Pizey to come home.

Re-examined. No charge was made by the police against any of my party of being disorderly.

WILLIAM WASHINGTON . I went to the Brown Bear, about 10.30 p.m., and remained till the closing of the house at 12.30, when we all came out together, and were standing at the corner wishing one another good night—there were three or four policemen opposite, and one of them came across towards Pizey, and said "Now then clear this here corner"—Pizey said "Allow us to wish one another good night" and he up with his fist and knocked him down—I advised Pizey to report the case at the station, instead of getting into any bother with the prisoner, and I went there with him and saw him write the report—he was sober.

Cross-examined. He was perfectly sober—this is the first time I have given my evidence in this matter—I went to Rochester Row twice, when the Magistrate was sitting, and was in court once, but was not called—I was with Pizey all day; I joined him about 9 a.m., and went with him to the Brown Bear, with a brother of his who was going to Fareham, and we saw him off—we drank at intervals; I may have have had three or four glasses, or four or five during the day, it was a long way from twenty or thirty glasses—I can't say whether I had as much as Pizey—I might have missed a turn—we were not on the spree, we went for an excursion on the river, not for the purpose of getting drunk—I mean, to say that there was no screaming, no noise, and no disturbance of any kind—the women were quiet.

By THE COURT. We were not two hours at the Brown Bear in the morning—we had to go by the 11.15 train, and we did not return to the Brown Bear till 3 o'clock; we then had a pot of ale between us, and then engaged a boat and went up the river to Kew—we only stopped at one house, the Star and Garter, at Putney, and when we got to Kew we stopped at another and waited till the tide turned, to come back, but we did not stop at any house coming back—it was 10.30 before we got to the Brown Bear again.

Re-examined. There were seven of us in the party; the landlord of the Brown Bear was one—we pulled up to Kew in a boat; we did not go by the steamer.

HENRY YOUNG . I keep the Brown Bear—I was one of the party that pulled up to Kew—there were five of us 'altogether, Pizey, Gill, Hallom, Washington, and myself—when we started none of us were the worse for the liquor we had taken—we called at one house going, and went to one at Kew, but called at none coming back—we may have had two or three pots of beer between the five of us, but for myself I had a little whiskey—the whole party then remained at my house—I cannot give any idea how much was supplied to them before we closed, but when I called "Time" at 12.25 they all left sober—I then heard a woman scream, and a wrangling at the same time.

Cross-examined. My house is half a mile from the Rochester Row police court—I know that this case was for several weeks before Mr. Arnold, the Police Magistrate—this is the first time I have given evidence—I know that there are pains and penalties for serving & man after he has had too much—Pizey was perfectly sober—he might be a little fresh, nothing more, not for me to notice it—we are all a little fresh if we take a glass or two, but he did not show it in any way—I served all of them about twenty minutes before they left—my wife and I served them; I cannot say with how much, as I was up in the billiard-room part of the time, and people were coming in and out—I had never been out with Washington or Pizey before—I suggested the jaunt on the river—we had two pots at Putney; I drank porter

there and some whisky—we had two or three pots at Kew, not more than three—Pizey may have been an hour or an hour and a half at my house in the morning.

ISABELLA HAMMOND . On the night of 7th July I was at the Brown Bear—my husband was there—I went there about 10.30, and left at 12.30—I may have had a little ale with my husband; I had no spirits—when we got outside, Mr. Pizey and several friends were bidding each other good night, and the policeman came across and called "Clear the corner," and he took his clenched fist and struck Mr. Pizey in the eye and knocked him down, and the blood ran down his face—he got up and went to report him at the station, but I did not hear any of his friends say anything to him before he went.

Cross-examined. All the party were perfectly sober—Pizey asked the constable very pleasantly and civilly, to allow them to wish one another good night, and without any provocation this violent blow was struck—I live opposite the Brown Bear, about a quarter of a mile from the police-court—I did not go there while the case was being heard—this is the first time I have given evidence—I was asked by Pizey to go, and I said that I would rather not—I left the public-house at the same time as Pizey—I never heard a woman scream, and I must have heard her if she had—there was nothing of the sort.

By THE COURT. There was no screaming when Pizey was struck.

Witnesses for the Defence.

JOSEPH PETTIT (Policeman B 83). On the morning of 7th July I was on duty at the foot of Lambeth Bridge—the Brown Bear faces Lambeth Bridge, and the White Hart is at the other corner—between 12.20 and 12.45 I was at that corner, and heard some women hallooing, and saw a crowd of fourteen or fifteen people in front of the Brown Bear, which was closed—I crossed over and saw the defendant standing there; I had seen him about a quarter of an hour previously—I saw some women pushing him backwards into the doorway of the Brown Bear with their hands—I then saw Pizey, who was drunk; he said "Let me get at the young b----"—the women were pushing Pizey to keep him from getting at the constable, and I assisted the women in keeping him away—he did not make the smallest complaint to me of any kind, but the women said that the policeman had struck him—I asked Pizey to let me look at his face, but he would not—two constables, one of the A and one of the B division, were on the other side—I had been at the opposite corner ever since 9 o'clock, and I was there when the Brown Bear closed—that is what is termed in the division a fixed point, at which I am obliged to stay the whole time—during the whole time I was there I saw no man knocked down, and that fixed point is about five or six yards from the Brown Bear—the rest of the men and women appeared excited—it is a very rough neighbourhood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Moody. When I came on the scene the women complained that the prisoner had struck Pizey in the face—my duty is to remain there constantly unless I am called away—I did not hear that night or next morning that Pizey had made a report, not till I came on at 1 o'clock next day—the prisoner did not make any charge—I was not obliged to take Pizey in custody for being drunk, he was not disorderly—I did not take his name and address nor did Tillman—I had to make a report because my officer directed me to do so—that was after Pizey had made his report—I made no actual charge against any person in that crowd, of being drunk or disorderly—I took no proceedings.

Re-examined. I knew of no report made by Pizey on that night of the 7th—on the morning of the 8th I was requested by the inspector to make my report and I did so—the defendant joined the force before me and I have been there fifteen months—none of the A division are here—I believe they crossed over to the Brown Bear, but I cannot swear it.

SAMUEL EDWARDS (Policeman B 184). I was on duty on 7th July at 12.45, ten or fifteen yards from the Brown Bear and heard hallooing and shouting—I saw the defendant there and three women in front of him pushing him up against the doorway—they said that a child had been struck—I tried to get them away from the defendant—there were fourteen or fifteen women there.

SAMUEL GEAREY (Police Sergeant B 22.) I have been in the force nineteen years next Christmas—I was acting inspector at the station on the 7th and was there at 12.45 when Pizey came there—he was drunk—he said that he came to make a complaint against 391—I told him he could make his complaint if he liked—he walked into the office, staggered, and threw himself on the desk—I gave him a piece of paper and a pen, and in about a quarter of an hour he brought this statement back—he was excited and drunk and there was a streak of dry blood on his face—there was no wound from which blood was pouring, it was just a scratch, and the blood had run down about an inch; there was no sign whatever of a black eye.

Cross-examined. I said to the Magistrate "He fell across the desk at which I was sitting; I perceived he was drunk directly from his speech and manner; he spoke incoherently"—he could not if he pleased have written the paper where I was; I was sitting at the desk and I have only one desk—there is another room at the station with a desk and gas, he could have written it there.

Re-examined. The defendant has been three or four years in that division—I have always found him temperate and quiet.

JAMES PIZEY (re-examined). This is the paper which I wrote that night. (The paper was put in as evidence of the manner in which it was written, but not as to its contents.)

NOT GUILTY .

434. ALFRED HEAVINGHAM (31) , Unlawfully assaulting Hannah Brown and causing her actual bodily harm. Second Count—for a like assault upon Richard White. Second Count—for a like assault upon Ann Pizey.

MESSRS. HARRIS and DIXON conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS the Defence.

HANNAH BROWN . I am the wife of Edward Brown, a cabman, of 11, Castle Street, Horseferry Road—on the morning of 7th July, between 1 and 2 o'clock, I was in the Horseferry Road and saw Richard Hicks in the custody of two constables—the prisoner was standing in the road—I asked him what the matter was, and he hit me a blow with his hand which cut my lips top and bottom—my mother, Mary Ann Hill, and my sister, Mrs. Hicks, were there—my mother said "Oh, my God, what did you hit my child for like that"—he then struck my mother, she had given him no provocation—I said to her "We will go and report him at the station"—I walked to the station with her, and when we got between Austin Road and Earl Street he knocked my bonnet off and told me to mind I did not lose my comb—my mother stepped back and we walked as far as Mr. Bovett's yard where he heard me say that I should go to the station, and he gave

me a blow at the side of my face which knocked me down and my mother as well on the top of me—I did not go to the station, I went no further—I was out at that time of the morning because we had been to see my other sister, Elizabeth Hicks, who had just been confined—she is another brother's wife—I did not go to the station to make the charge, till the next morning.

Cross-examined. I went to the Magistrate the nest morning,' that was after my brother-in-law, Hicks, was in custody for assaulting the police—I live in the same house with my mother and sister-in-law; Mr. Hicks lives at 101, Praed Street—when I came up, my sister was in the custody of another policeman, and upon my asking him quietly what was the matter, he struck me a violent blow on my mouth with no provocation at all—he had his uniform on and I knew he was on duty—Hicks was going quietly with the constable, and thirty or forty people were following—I saw Hicks struck by the policeman but not by the sergeant—I did not see the sergeant Hicks was going quietly, he did nothing to provoke it that I saw—my mother also was knocked down without provocation—I should say if the policeman was not drunk he was mad—I don't know what Hicks was taken for, he was orderly and quiet, and so were the rest of the people as far as I saw—I had not been out with Hicks that night—I did not ask him what was the matter, nor did his wife, or mother-in-law—he is a cabdriver—I did not see Pizey that night, Mrs. Pizey was not with me, but I saw her after she came from the station—I did not see her struck—there were several people there—I did not see the sergeant draw his staff—I did not hear a cabman say "The b----is drunk, I should like to have him in the square and I would give him a b----good hiding"—my husband was not in the crowd, he was at home when I got home—he did not go the station—I went there next morning with my mother—I did not hear a cabman say "I have a mark on you you b----and I will do for some of you"—there was no shouting in the Horseferry Road—I call forty people a crowd—they smacked Hicks' face and I said "Go quietly or you will be killed."

Q. I thought you said just now that you did not speak to him? A. Not at first, it was afterwards, when they brought him to the station—I attended the police-court on every occasion—I have not seen much of the cabman since I saw him there on the case—the other cabmen are no acquaintances of mine or my husband, they do not work in tie same yard as my husband.

Re-examined. The prisoner had struck me before I said "Go quietly or you will be killed"—I had my bonnet knocked off at the top of Horseferry Road; both my lips were bleeding—Hicks was two or three yards off when I came up to the sergeant, and when I saw who it was I asked what was the matter—the prisoner seemed as if he did not know what he was doing; whether he was drunk I cannot say.

MARY ANN HILL . I am a widow, and am the mother of the last witness—on 7th July I went with her to a daughter of mine who was confined—I left her between 1 and 2 o'clock and went to the Horseferry Road, where I saw Hicks in the custody of two constables—I asked the prisoner what my son-in-law had done, and he gave me a blow in the face and her too, and they beat my son-in-law on his face very much—Mrs. Brown and I walked on further to the burying ground, when the prisoner struck me in the face again, and when we got to the cab stand I had the last blow—at Albert Terrace he struck my daughter and knocked her down, and he struck me

a blow and knocked me on top of her—two cabmen came out of the yard and picked us up—I said we will go to the station; the cabmen begged us not, but my daughter went next morning—the prisoner was almost mad I think.

Cross-examined. Only seven or eight people were following my son, and they ware going quietly—when I came up, the first thing I saw was Hicks being struck in a brutal manner by the police—he went quietly—my daughter asked the sergeant what was the matter and he struck her in the mouth—I was knocked down twice by his fist, not with his staff—he struck my daughter as hard as he could, and he struck me so as to fell me to the ground—no bad language was used by the cabman or the people.

Re-examined. I did not count the people, I was in too much trouble.

JOHN BRUNNING . I am a cabman—I was in the Horseferry Road, on this morning between 1 and 2 o'clock, and saw a man in the custody of the police—I saw the defendant behind, and I saw him strike Mrs. Brown on the mouth and knock her down on the pavement—when they picked her up the blood came from her mouth—I did not hear her give any provocation—when they got to Vincent Square, the defendant struck Brown, Baxter, and White; they did not provoke him—I think he struck White on the hat first, with his staff—I should say the defendant was drunk.

Cross-examined. Brown and I are both cabmen—there was no interference with the police, no disorder, and no crowd, only six or seven people—he drew his staff in Vincent Square, that is at the back of the station—he hit White without the slightest provocation, and conducted himself more like a madman than a rational being—I did not go into the station—the first I saw was by Downey's Yard, that is coming, from 'Horseferry Road towards the station—I did not say before the Magistrate that it was 150 yards from the Brown Bear—I do not know where the Brown Bear is or the White Hart—I knew Hicks by sight—I know Brown, White and Baxter—I did not say that I should Eke to have him in the square to give him be—good hiding—there were a good many people round the station door—I did not hear him say at the station "My number is B 11, if you have any complaint against me make it inside the station"—I pledge my oath that I never heard him say "My number is B 11," and I do not believe I swore so before the Magistrate—I did not hear a man say "I have a mark on you, you b----, I will do for some of you yet"—Hicks was on before me—I never heard him speak at all—there was a great crowd at the station—I swore before the Magistrate "There was not a great crowd outside the police-station, about ten or a dozen"—I don't complain of being assaulted—I have not subscribed to the prosecution or promised to—I do not know of any subscription to prosecute this sergeant; it was not got up by subscription I don't believe; it might be by a society—I mean the cabmens' society—I don't know what society it is, it is called "The society," I suppose it is the union—I do not know whether it is prosecuted by the cabmen.

JOHN WOOLLEY . I am a cab driver, of 18, Stanley Street, Pimlico—I drive for Mr. Cutting—on the 7th July, between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning, I was in the Horseferry Road, and saw Hicks in the custody of two constables, and the sergeant following four or five yards behind, and when they got to the corner of Downey's Yard, two females were following, and begging the sergeant to let the man go, and he turned round and struck one of them, Mrs. Brown, a deliberate blow and knocked "her down

—the old lady said, that he ought to be ashamed of himself, and he violently pushed her on the top of her—I did not know Mrs. Brown or Mrs. Hill before—I told the sergeant that he ought to be ashamed of him-self, and he wanted to know what it was to do with me, and asked me if I could fight—I stood back and said nothing; I went back and spoke to the women—I stopped with them ten minutes or so, and then went home.

Cross-examined. I went by the station, but I did not make any complaint—I have paid the solicitor a part out of kindness, and all that are concerned in the case have paid—I suppose Brunning has paid his share and the rest of them—I do not know a man named Reed, but he has been pointed out to me—I collected money from all who were concerned in the case—when I saw Reed before the Magistrate—I did not say "I ought to get 2l. to prosecute the b----scamp, and I mean to get it"—Brunning gave me a sovereign, and several others gave me money—am I compelled to tell who paid—I cannot tell you—I received nothing from White, Baxter, Brown, or Smith—my own cabmen would give something towards it—I collected enough to pay the Counsel, somewhere about 15l.; I gave 2l. myself—the others were all cabmen—I did not see the staff drawn—I went to the station on my way home, it was all quiet then—there was no crowd, but I may have met one or two—there were only seven or eight people at Downey's Yard—the subscriptions did not also go to pay for Tillman's prosecution—I do not know whether Mr. Pizey paid anything or not—I was not asked in the Court whether Tillman's case should go for trial or not.

Re-examined. The subscription was to raise a fund for the prosecution, because we could not pay it ourselves—I paid nothing towards Tillman's prosecution—there is a cabman's association for our mutual protection—this was paid for by every member of the association independently of the association—I have no doubt whatever that I saw the woman knocked down—I have no feeling, but that of seeing justice done—I don't know why I should have any feeling against the police, I depend upon them for my license—I kept a written account of the sums I received, but I have not got it with me—I know the persons who have subscribed, but I cannot tell them all.

RICHARD WHITE . I am a cabdriver, of Hendon Place, Pimlico—on 7th July in the morning I was in Horseferry Road, I had just put up my cab—I heard shouting, and went to see what was the matter; I saw two constables taking Hicks in custody, and saw the sergeant knock a woman down—she was a little short woman, Mrs. Brown, I believe—I can't say whether she had provoked him—I did nothing—I went towards home, and on our way the sergeant came running round Vincent Square and asked us whether we knew anything about the case, we said "No," and he struck a cabman on his mouth with his fist, whose name is Brown, and then he drew his staff and struck me on the shoulder—I was going to the station to make a report and the sergeant was outside, I said "This is the man that done it," and he pitched, into me right and left—the other constable persuaded me to go home and come again in the morning, and I went home, and next day I went before the Magistrate at Rochester Row and made a complaint.

Cross-examined. I was knocked about a good deal with the staff, but I had on my big coat—my coat did not go round my head; he broke my head—he was thoroughly intoxicated—I did not see any crowd—no bad language or violence was used by me—I am one of the prosecutors, I have not collected any money for the prosecution or given any—I do not know

who has—I have not enquired—I know Brunning—I do not know whether he has subscribed—he was a cabman in the same yard, but he is not now—Woolley is a cabman, but not in the same yard—I use Knightsbridge, and he uses Ebury Bridge—I have seen him during the remands, but have not discussed the case with him, and never heard of any subscription—I have not heard of the cabmen's society subscription; they have not asked me yet—I do not expect to have to give anything now—I said before the Magistrate "The sergeant ran after Baxter, one of the four, with his staff out up Warwick Street;" he was like the rest he had given no provocation, nobody had—I did not see Hicks knocked about by the police, but I saw him shook—he was going quietly, like a lamb—I was outside the station and heard the sergeant say "My number is 11 B, do what you like"—he did not say "My number is 11 B, if you have any complaint against me go into the station"—I heard no bad language used by the prisoner.

Re-examined. I went to the station to make a report and that man (Gay 12 B), who was at the door said "You can't get in"—I said that I was going to make a report against Sergeant 11 B for an assault, and Gay said that there was no inspector present to take the charge, but the sergeant came up at the time and he went to my right and left and said "We won't use any sticks, I will have my fists, I am as good "a man as you without my coat—he went at me—he was either intoxicated, or mad, or excited—I go by his manner.

MR. M. WILLIAMS. Q. Did you say before the Magistrate "The defendant said we were all b----thieves, and we had no business out at that time?" A. Yes—that is bad language.

CHARLES BAXTER I am a cab driver and work for Mr. Downing—on 7th July between 1 and 2 o'clock I was in Horseferry Road and saw Hicks in the custody of two constables; two women were following him, and the defendant turned round struck one of the women in the face, and knocked her down—I helped to pick her up and walked on towards home—I was going round Vincent Square and the defendant came running after us and asked what it was to do with us, and struck a cabman named Brown in the face with his fist, and he drew his staff and struck an old lady who I have not seen since—I do not know whether that is her (Mrs. Hill)—he then struck a cabman named White on the back and on the hat, and he struck me with his staff on my shoulder twice—I told him I should go round to the station and report him; he said nothing—I walked to the station and tried to get in, and he bundled me out twice—he did not strike me there only with his fist, and he chased me down Warwick Street and said "You b----thief 1 will serve you the same"—after that I went home—I heard that a complaint had been made next morning, and I thought it did not matter my going up—I have paid money to Hicks towards this prosecution—I knew him by working with him eight or nine months ago—he is no friend of mine—I have no quarrel against the police.

Cross-examined. I gave Hicks half a crown towards getting a solicitor—I heard that Woolley was collecting, he was not there when I gave it to Hicks—I did not work in the same yard as Woolley then, but I did nine months ago—Brown was struck without the least provocation—the prisoner was very excited—I have not said that he was mad drunk—I said that to the best of my belief he was drunk—I do not recognise Mrs. Hill—I did not complain of the assault; I was all blue and green—I did not see a doctor—there were only seven or eight people in Vincent Square.

By THE COURT. I saw him strike two women with the staff in Vincent Square, first a young and then an old woman—to the best of my belief the young one was a woman who I had seen him knock down before; he struck her in Horseferry Road with his fist, and in Vincent Square with his staff.

ANN PIZEY . I am the wife of James Pizey, a mason, of 31, Rodney Street, Westminster—on 7th July, between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning, I was in Horseferry Road, and saw Hicks, and I afterwards saw him in custody—I knew him him, and I knew Mrs. Brown—my husband was in front with my baby, and Mr. Hicks was about crossing the road, and he stopped and said "Come along, mother" once or twice, and the two police-men came up him and shoved him—I said "Be off; get along"—he said "I am going home"—they took hold of him, and the sergeant came across and struck Hicks in the face—I said "What a shame to knock a man about like that"—he said "What has that to do with you" and he knocked me down with his hand on my chest—I was going to the station to report him and had got into Vincent Square when I saw three young men in the road—he went up to them and asked them who they were following—they said they were not following anybody, and he struck them with his staff—I cannot say whether he struck all three—he turned into Rochester Row, where he pushed me and struck me across the back of my arm with his staff—I went to the station door to go in to report him, and the policeman said that there were too many in; I could not go in then—I had a bruise from my shoulder to my elbow from the second blow—my husband had gone on with the baby—the staff did not knock me down; it descended on my shoulder, but I was knocked down in Horseferry Road—I went next morning and took out a summons by myself.

Cross-examined. My husband was quite sober—I had been into the Brown Bear two or three times that night—I came out with my husband and saw him knocked down by Tillman—he was perfectly sober—we were going home; he had been on the water, and I went to the public-house to see if he had come home, as he was rather late—I did not find him there the first time, but the second and third time I found him there—I did not go to a doctor; I did not follow Hicks from the commencement to the end—I was knocked down—there was no crowd following anybody during the whole time—the prisoner appeared either drunk or mad by the way he went on—Hicks was not conducting himself violently, but the sergeant went up and struck him violently for nothing—Hicks is no relation of mine; we do not live in the same house—I have known him something like two years there was a great crowd outside the station; there is no mistake about that—I saw the defendant draw his staff not only in Vincent Square, but in Rochester Row—he struck me for nothing at all in Rochester Row—in Vincent Square there was no one but myself and the three men watching—Hicks did not say to me outside the police-court on one of the remands "You must stick to it, and swear to it that the sergeant struck me when I was wishing my mother good night"—I recollect being outside the police-court on a rainy morning, but Hicks did not say that in the presence of that person (Sarah Jane Stevens); he never mentioned anything of the kind.

JOHN RAY . I am a cabdriver, of 16, Guy's Buildings, Vauxhall—on the morning of 7th July I was in Rochester Row, and saw White there and a crowd—I saw the sergeant make a blow with his left hand at White, and then with his right hand—I think he made three blows at him, one after another, quick—White was standing in this attitude, as if he would either

run away or face the sergeant—two gentlemen who stood by me said "What a shame," and I took their names and addresses—I kept on talking to them, and did not pay much attention, and then the crowd scattered.

Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate "There was a tremendous mob, and he, White, stood the foremost man in the mob;" that is quite right—they were all standing round the constable, and a few. groups a little way off in Rochester Row—there might be fifty or a hundred round the sergeant—I am a cabman now, but I am not likely to be much-longer—I have not subscribed a penny to this prosecution—I have suffered enough through it without subscribing—I have heard of a subscription being got up amongst the cabmen.

Re-examined. I have suffered enough; I have been told that I shall lose my license.

WILLIAM BROWN . I am a cabdriver, of Robert Street—I was in Horseferry Road on 7th July, between 1 and 2 o'clock, and saw Hicks in custody—the first I saw was the sergeant knocking Mrs. Brown down; I saw her helped up—there was another woman there—I saw her helping her daughter up, but did not see her struck—the woman was going to the station to charge the sergeant with striking her—we persuaded her not to go till the morning, and we walked on through. Rochester Row, and when we got into Vincent Square the sergeant came behind me, Baxter, and White, and struck me deliberately in the jaw—I went to the station to charge him, but they would not allow me to go in—White asked him what he struck me for, and he said he would serve him the same, and made a blow at him with his fist, but I did not see whether he struck him—he then drew his truncheon out and hit White and Baxter with it—he ran after Baxter towards Warwick Street—I went into the station and charged him with striking me, but they would not let me speak and shoved me out—the sergeant came into Rochester Row and commenced beating White again and shoving him about—I stopped till they all went—I went to the station next morning to make a complaint, but I did not make it myself, because Mr. Arnold refused to give any more summonses.

Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate "The sergeant said 'What have you to do with it?' and he said 'Take that, you b----,' and he deliberately struck me in the jaw with his clenched fist"—I never heard Baxter say anything to the sergeant—I suffered severe pain from the blow in the jaw; I had tooth-ache—I did not see a doctor—I have known Hicks some time—no crowd followed through Vincent Square; none of us used any language to the defendant—I swore that he was either mad or mad drunk—i did not hear anyone say "I should like to have you for tea minutes in the square"—nobody gave the police any provocation.

JOHN SMITH . I am a cab driver of 8, Lemon Place, Albert Embankment—on 7th July, between 1 and 2 o'clock, I was in the Horseferry Road and saw the sergeant knock down Mrs. Pizey with his band—I went to pick her up and he served me the same—I got up and took his number and then he knocked my hat off—the woman was not provoking him in the least—she was walking behind him—he struck her on her back and she fell on her face—I believe he was either drunk or mad—I then went home.

Cross-examined. I gave him no provocation—he was striking the people with his hand right and left, not with his staff—I swear he was using

his staff and his hand right and left—about seven or eight persons were present.

By THE COURT. Hicks was in custody between them and Mrs. Pizey was following—I did not see Hicks taken in custody—that happened a few minutes afterwards—I knew Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Hill, but I don't know the names of the people who were there—I was going home.

MART ANN PAXMAN . I am a widow and a charwoman—on 7th July, in the morning, I was in Horseferry Road—I had been with Mrs. Pizey—I saw Hicks in the custody of two constables—the prisoner smacked Hicks across the face—my sister, Mrs. Brown, asked him what he was taking him for and then, he struck her—Mrs. Hill said "Oh, my child," and then he struck her—he struck Mrs. Brown with his hand—she did not fall in my presence nor did Mrs. Hill—Mrs. Pizey then said "What a shameful thing to serve a man so," and he struck her and she fell—that was in the Horseferry Road—I picked her up and stayed with her a few minutes—she then made her way up to Rochester Row Station to report him—I did not go with her and don't know what happened on the way—I walked with her a little way and met Mrs. Hill and Mrs. Brown whose mouth was bleeding—I then returned to my mother and sister and went home.

Cross-examined. I picked Mrs. Pizey up—nobody else picked her up that I am aware of—she fell on her side, not on her face—while Hicks was in the custody of the, two officers I saw the sergeant go up deliberately to him and without the slightest provocation strike him in the face—I was not struck—the only persons that I saw struck were Mrs. Hill, Mrs. Brown, and Mrs. Pizey—they were knocked down in my presence—they were struck near the burying ground.

Re-examined. I have not sworn that there was a very great crowd in the Horseferry Road—I am not aware that I swore "There were a great many people there"—I suppose there were between twenty and thirty people—I noticed the sergeant—I did not look at him, all my attention was on the persons who he knocked about—he did not appear to me to be drunk. Richard Hicks. I was taken on 7th July between 1 and 2 o'clock in the morning in the Horseferry Road by constables 441 and I believe 184 to be the other—the Grand Jury have thrown out the bill against me—I did not see the prisoner at the time they laid hands on me—he came up in about a minute and a half and I said "I believe, sergeant, they have taken me for another person"—he said "Don't sergeant me "and knocked me down that was about the same time that the other people came up—I could not see well what was taking place as I was going to the station between the two constables, and the other one came after me.

By THE COURT. He struck me six or seven times with his open hand.

Witnesses for the Defence.

STEPHEN NORRIS . I am a commission agent—I know the defendant by seeing him on duty—I was in the Horseferry Road on this night about 12.25 and saw him there—he spoke to me and there is not the slightest imputation for saying that he was the worse for liquor—he appeared to be perfectly sober.

Cross-examined. I am a commission agent—that does not mean a betting man—I am engaged for Messrs. Green & Co., of Cannon Street.

GEORGE EASTGOOD (Police Inspector B). I have been eighteen years in the police—the defendant is one of my sergeants—I saw him on 7th July about 12.40 at the corner of Frederick Street—we were both on duty—he

was perfectly sober then—I left him there and saw him again at 1.40 but did not speak to him—he was with Templeman, No. 441—I saw his back—I saw nothing to lead me to suppose he was intoxicated—his character is very good as a quiet respectable officer.

Cross-examined. He was 70 or 80 yards off me at 1.40.

THOMAS TEMPLEMAN . (Policeman B 441). On the morning in question I was in Johnson Street and at about 1.40 heard something going on in the Horseferry Road—I went to the spot—there were twelve or fifteen persons there who were very disorderly, and using very obscene language, particularly a man named Hicks—I persuaded him to leave off using such language and he gave me smack on the mouth—I saw the defendant there—it is not true that while Hicks was in my custody he came up and struck him in the mouth—he did not strike him at all—if he had I must have seen him—I was afterwards at the police-office Rochester Row, but I did not see him drive Baxter out of the office—if he had done so I must have seen it—he was quite sober.

Cross-examined. I said at the police-court that he appeared to be sober and I believe he was—I am under him.

SAMUEL EDWARDS (Policeman B 184). Templeman and I had a man named Hicks in custody—I saw the sergeant come up—he was sober—it is not true that he struck Hicks in the face, he never struck him at all—I saw more than one woman there; they said "Don't let him go"—there were fifteen or twenty people behind us, in Horseferry Road—we went on with Hicks through Vincent Square—subsequently I was inside the station at Rochester Row, and Sergeant Gearey, the acting inspector, asked me to go out—I went out and saw the defendant outside, with a crowd round him, and I heard him say "My number is B 11, if you have anything against me you can go into the station after the charge is taken"—at that time the charge was being taken against Hicks—nobody in my presence said that they had any complaint against the sergeant—I saw Hicks when he was in custody, there were no marks of violence on him—a man is always told off on duty at the station door to keep people out while a charge is being taken—the man on duty that night was Gay.

Cross-examined. I was under the sergeant up to this time—I went before the Grand Jury and gave my evidence against Hicks at this Session, and Templeman also—the Grand Jury threw the bill out—I gave them the evidence I have given to-day with regard to taking him into custody.

HENRY TILLMAN (Policeman B 391). I was on duty at Lambeth Bridge, at 1.15—I heard screaming and shouting in the Horseferry Road, and saw Hicks in custody—I saw the sergeant—he did not strike Hicks in the face or strike him at all; if he had I must have seen it—he was quite sober.

—GEARY (Police Sergeant B). I was in the station and heard a noise outside, and sent Edwards out to see what was the matter; he came back and made a statement to me—I had a constable named Gay at the door, while the charge was being taken.

THOMAS GAY (Policeman B 42). On the night of the alleged assault I was at the station door while the charge was being taken against Hicks—I shut the door and remained outside—three men—and a woman came up and said that they wanted to see the Inspector, I told them that he was engaged taking the charge, and if they waited a few minutes they could see him—they waited about two minutes and then went away—the people outside were very obstreporous, and were kicking up a noise—I saw the

defendant there, he did not strike anybody, if he bad I must have seen it—I did not see him drive anybody out of the police-station and run after them up Warwick Street—the door was not opened, and nobody was let into the passage until the charge was read over, and then all the three men had gone.

THOMAS FOYNETTE (Chief Inspector B). The defendant has been twelve years in the service, he has always borne a very high character, and is a very quiet man—on Friday, 16th July, Sarah Jane Stephens came to the station, that was the same day that the case against the defendant was before the Magistrate—she made a communication to me which I reduced to writing in the book kept for that purpose, which I have here.

SARAH JANE STEPHENS . I live at 7, Greek Street West—my husband is a carpenter—on the Friday on which I went to the police-station and made a report—I was at the Westminster police-court on business of my own, and I never saw any of the parties there before—I saw a woman there, who I afterwards found to be Mrs. Pizey, and a man—who I afterwards found out was Hicks—it was raining—in consequence of what I heard pass between Hicks and the woman, I went to the police-office next door and made a report to the inspector, and he wrote in my presence, in this book, while I was telling it to him—Hicks put his hand in this way to Mrs. Pizey and said "You must stick to it and swear to it and swear that the sergeant struck me when I was in the Row, bidding my mother good night"—I then went in and told what I had heard—I was examined before the Magistrate.

JOSEPH BBOWN . I live at 4, Cornwall Street, and am a boot maker—on the morning of the 7th July, I was in Rochester Row, between 1 and 2 o'clock, and saw the sergeant there in his uniform—I saw people outside the station, and saw a man put his fist in the sergeant's face, saying that he should like to have him in the square, for it was not him he was frightened of, it was his coat—several men and women were round the sergeant, pushing him about, and he took his staff out at that time, but did not use it—he did not strike anyone—my employer was with me and at his request I made a statement at the police-court.

NOT GUILTY .

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, August 18th, 1875.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

435. JOHN SALMON (17), FREDERICK ANDREWS (18), and LESTER MARTINDALE (18) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Edward Unwin and others, and stealing fifty-two receipt stamps, their property.

SALMON and ANDREWS PLEADED GUILTY .

Andrews received a good character.

MR. A. B. KELLY conducted the Prosecution.

JOSEPH FRIDAY BRADEN (City Police Sergeant 10). Between 11 and 12 o'olook on Saturday night, 23rd July, I placed some constables outside the premises of Messrs. Unwin, obtained the keys and went in to examine the premises, and under one of the counters I found Salmon and Andrews together—turning my light round to the other end of the counter, I saw Martindale stooping down with his head in the counter, but his body produced—they were all three without coats, boots, or hats—I called constable Cole to assist me to take Martindale; I already had hold of the other two—I left a constable in charge of the premises and went to the station with the prisoners—I then returned and found that an entrance had been effected by getting into a disused churchyard, into which Messrs.

Unwin's premises look—the windows were protected on the inside by iron bars—it appeared to me that the screws at the bottom of one of the bars had been removed, but had been replaced, not screwed home—entrance could be effected by moving back one of those bars—my impression is that without moving the bars, an entrance could be effected, although they were not wide enough for me they were wide enough for lads to get through—inside the window you land in the machine room—at the end there is a passage which leads into the shop—in that passage we found the three prisoners' coats, boots, and hats, which they are now wearing—there was a door at the end of the passage with a glass top, the putty had been taken out and the glass removed with a view to open the bolts, but the door being locked as well, it was forced—in addition to the window being taken out the door was forced—there was a holdfast lying on the ground with the broken glass—there were marks on the door leading to an inner office which corresponded with marks which this screwdriver would make—we found the screwdriver behind the counter, bent as it is now—I found a drawer had been forced which contained postage stamps, and there were a few receipt stamps as well in the drawer—I found about thirty-two receipts stamps on the ground in the middle of the shop where the prisoners had stood before they were taken to the station—they all have "Unwin Brothers" printed on the front of them—the marks on the drawer containing the stamps corresponded with the screwdriver—I found on Salmon, at the station, a metal match box, containing matches and a penknife—I did not know Martindale previously—he made a statement to me at the station—I cautioned him first, and he said "I was drawn into it by the other two"—I asked him how he came to be in the premises, if he was drawn into it, they did not carry him over—he said "When in the place they said 'pocket those pencils'; but I said I would not put them in my pocket lest we should be caught, and I did not want anything found on me."

GEORGE ROBINSON . I am manager of the stationery department at Messrs. Unwin's—the till is under my charge—on Saturday, 23rd July, I safely locked the till when I left—I found it broken open on Monday morning—similar stamps to these were left in the till on Saturday, and were gone on the Monday—the name of the firm is printed on them—this penknife and matchbox are similar to a penknife and matchbox which we missed in a robbery about a month before—I know the prisoners, Salmon and Andrews—they had been in the employ of the firm.

HUGH ANDREWS . I am timekeeper at Messrs. Unwin's—it was my duty to lock up the premises—on Saturday afternoon, 23rd July, about 5 o'clock, I locked up the place safely, and left everything safe—when I went to the Mansion House on the Monday I recognised Martindale as being a lad that I have seen sitting on the side door of the machine room, and I have noticed him night after night previous to the first robbery, sitting there reading one of the magazines.

Martindale. I have been employed at Cubitt & Co.'s, Gray's Inn Road, and they can prove that I never lurked about there. Witness. I have seen him there between 6 and 7 o'clock at night—the door of the machine-room is in Oxford Court—I passed quite close to him.

CHARLES SLADE . I am engine driver at Messrs. Unwin's—these tools belong to me; they were all kept in the basement of the building, and belong to the machine room—they were kept on the vice bench—I saw the screwdriver on Saturday; it was straight then—Salmon worked two or

three years ago in the machine room, and he was then a very well-conducted lad—he has worked once as a night hand.

SAMUEL COLE (City Policeman 573). I took Martindale; he was under the counter in the shop—his head was under the counter; you could just see him.

Martindale's mother gave him a good character, and stated that he worked at Cubitt & Son's.

GUILTY .

Recommended to mercy by the Jury and Prosecutors— Judgment respited.

436. JAMES NICHOLLS (37) and GEORGE HAWKINSON (25) (soldiers), Stealing a watch and chain, and 3l. 16s. 9 1/2 d., of Thomas Battson Lancaster, from his person.

MR. AUSTIN METCALFE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. J. P. GRAIN the Defence.

FLORENCE CHALEVIN . I am a dressmaker, and live at 76, Abbeyfield Road, Rotherhithe—on 27th July, about 8.50 at night, I was by London Bridge, going under the dry arch over Thames Street—I saw the two prisoners there and the prosecutor against the wall—the prosecutor was so tipsy he could not stand—he was being propped up by the prisoners, and was leaning against the wall—the prisoners put their hands in his pockets and took something out, each of them, and put it in their own—I was on the other side of the road—I could not see what they took, but I could see there was something in their hands which they put into their own pockets—they brought him out into the road and let go of him—he fell down—he was unable to stand—then they were going away up the steps, but Nicholls came back and took hold of his arm to help him up—I went and took hold of Nicholls' arm and he swore at me—I thought the man was dead—he hit his head on the ground when he fell—Nicholls brought him out of the road and let him go again, and went up the steps, and I saw no more of them—there was somebody with me, and she could see what I saw.

Cross-examined. It was not very light, and it was not quite dark; there were not plenty of people passing at that time—the man was dead drunk—they put their hands into his trousers' pocket—I did not see anything in their hands—I did not call out; a witness went and fetched a policeman—both of them put their hands in the man's pocket—they went away after that, and one of them came back—he had only gone away two or three yards—after Nicholls left him the second time he fell down again; he could not stand—the prisoners walked away up the steps—the man who went for the policeman went up the steps.

LOUISA ASHPOOL . I live at 1, Swan's Yard, Bishopsgate Street, and was with the last witness and saw what occurred between the prisoners and the prosecutor under the arch—I have heard what she said, and saw what she has told; she has described it correctly.

THOMAS CREWE . I am a constable at Fresh Wharf—about 8.30 on the evening of 27th July I was in a public-house in Thames Street, and saw the two prisoners and the prosecutor there—he was half tipsy at that time—Hawkinson called for whisky and lemonade, and Nicholls for 3d. of neat whisky—the two prisoners drank the whisky and lemonade, and the prosecutor drank the neat whisky—one of the soldiers paid with a half-sovereign—I did not see where they took that from, but they put the change, part in the prosecutor's purse and part in his pocket—shortly after that they all three went out together; I followed—I saw the prosecutor placed against the wall under the arch; I

passed by—there was no constable at the end of the bridge, but I found one on the Swan Pier—when I came back I found Hawkinson in charge of a constable, and I went after Nicholls to the bottom of Fish Street Hill—I told him to remain there until the policeman came, and he was taken to the police-station.

Cross-examined. Hawkinson called for 2d. or 3d. of neat whisky—you would not get much for that—Nicholls paid for it—the gentleman had his purse in his hand, and Nicholls put part of the change in it and part in his pocket.

ISAAC FUTRELL . I saw the prisoners and the prosecutor on the night of the 27th, at Booth's public-house, at the corner of Fish Street Hill, about 8.30—they were there when I went in—I afterwards saw them under the arch—the prosecutor was against the wall—I was on the opposite side, about twenty feet off—they could see me; I could see what happened—the account given by the female witnesses is correct—I went for a constable and gave them into custody at the top of Crooked Lane—they had gone up the steps into King William Street.

JOHN DAVIS (City Policeman 597). I took the prisoners into custody at the top of Crooked Lane, Cannon Street, and they went with me to the station—I heard something jingling in Hawkinson's trowsers pocket—he had his hand in his pocket—I put my hand under his pocket, thinking he was going to take something out, and this watch and chain dropped into my hand—he did not say anything then—when I told him the charge, he said he took care of the watch and chain for the prosecutor, as he was incapable of taking care of it himself.

Cross-examined. I can't say. whether the watch was put intentionally into my hand, as no words passed between us.

JOHN HEAVEN (City Policeman 798). I was called, and took Nicholls to the station—he made no answer to the charge—Hawkinson said that he had taken the watch and chain away from the prosecutor, he was so helplessly drunk he thought he would take care of it—I found 3l. 16s. 9 1/2 d. on Nicholls, and 2 1/2 d. on Hawkinson.

THOMAS BATTSON LANCASTER . I am a commercial traveller, and live at 23, Everton Street, Liverpool—I suppose I must have met the two prisoners on the 27th July—I can't say that I remember it—I was intoxicated in the afternoon—I distinctly remember that I had my watch and chain before I lost my senses—I missed it the next morning when I was sober.

Cross-examined. I must have had 7l. or 8l. when I went out in the afternoon—I don't know that an application was made at the Mansion House for the return of any of the money to Nicholls—I know nothing about a letter being written to Nicholls about this matter—I have not written—the signature to this letter is very like my writing, but I would not swear to it—it may be mine, I would not swear whether it is or not—I don't recollect having sent it—it is not my regular way of signing my name—I won't swear it was written in the presence of the person sitting there.

Re-examined. I have seen the solicitor for the defence very often, from the beginning of this matter—he came to me, but I don't know when it was—I remember drinking with him on several occasions—he came to me and made my acquaintance—he said "Are you Mr. Lancaster"—I said "Certainly"—he said "Are you against these two soldiers"—I said "Certainly"—he said "Suppose we go and have something to drink, and we will talk matters over," and we went into a public-house close by the

Mansion House, and there was something passed there with respect to Mrs. Nicholls—she was in a bad state of mind and I was sorry for her—it was very late in the afternoon before we parted, and what occurred between my going there and coming out I can no more tell you than this umbrella.

A Sergeant in the Coldstream Guards gave Nicholls an excellent Character for sixteen years, and stated that Hawkinson had been nine years and a half in the Army, but bore an indifferent character as a soldier, through absence.

NOT GUILTY .

OLD COURT—Thursday, August 19th 1875.,

Before Mr. Justice Brett.

437. AUGUSTE JOHN (29) and EMILINE JOHN (25) were indicted for unlawfully by threats of violence to the person of Siegmund Diespecker and by unlawful restraint compelling him to affix his name to a promissory note. Other Counts—varying the mode of charge and describing the instrument as a valuable security.

MR. BESLEY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. FREDERICK WILLIAMS defended Emiline John.

The evidence was interpreted by M. Albert

SIEGMUND DIESPECKER . I live at 6, Bloomfield Road, Maida Hill, and have an office at 2, Pancras Lane, Cheapside—I am president of the German Relief Society—up to Friday, 16th July, the female prisoner was a stranger to me—she came to my office on that day and brought with her this card with the name of Mr. Dietmar who was known to me, and my name and address was written on the back of it by Mr. Dietmar—she said that Mr. Dietmar had sent her and had also assisted her; that she had a passage to Hamburg paid by the Society of Foreigners in Distress, in London Wall and she and her husband were to start the nest day, Saturday, but being destitute and having some things in pledge she wanted to take them out and for that purpose she asked me if 1 could do anything for her from our society—I told her that our meetings were once a week, on the Thursday and I gave her 10s. of my own—I also gave her an address of another German gentleman—she came to me later in the day at my desire because I had told her that I would see if I could find any one else to assist her—I wrote the name of Gustave and Emiline Arnold on the card at the first interview—those were the names she gave of herself and husband—she did not say where she was living on either of those two occasions—on Monday, 19th July she called about 4 o'clock in the afternoon—I expressed my surprise to see-her as I expected she would be on—the road to Hamburg—she replied that she had come from Dr. Sholl or Dr. Capel, I am not certain which, but one of the parties connected with the society to assist foreigners in distress, and she had arranged to postpone her passage to the Wednesday following—I asked her for what purpose—she said she had a few things yet to settle before starting, that she had a few things that she was most desirous of having with her, still in pawn and she wanted to get some additional money to take them out—she asked me if I could give her any further names—I told her I could not annoy my friends in that way—she then said she had a very nice dog which she could not pay the passage for to Hamburg, and if I liked to accept it she would give it to me—I said that under her circumstances I could not accept a present of that description, but if it was worth anything I would

purchase it from her, and I desired her to bring it to the City—she said she could not well do that, but if I would oblige her by calling upon her I could see it and take it away with me; she gave me her address 40, Bloomsbury Street—I told her that I should be on my way home very likely between 6 and 7 o'clock, and I would call—she then left, and on my way from the City that evening I did call at 40, Bloomsbury Street about 6.45—it was a private house—I knocked and the female prisoner opened the door—she desired me to walk upstairs; she was living on the first floor—I did so and she followed me—I entered the first floor front room; she shut the door—I had my coat and hat with me—I was carrying my coat on my arm—I put it on a side table, just on going into the room with my hat—there were about half-a-dozen dogs in the room; I expressed my surprise at seeing so many dogs—she said they belonged to some friend of her husband's—she pointed out a black dog and said that was the one she wanted me to have—I said it would not suit me—she had desired me to sit down when I entered the room, and I did so—she remained standing; I was about leaving the room, when the door opened, and the male prisoner and another man who is not in custody, came in—I had been in the room about five or six minutes; the chair I was sitting in was at the back of the door; I noticed the woman went to the door before the men entered the room, but I did not hear anything; the male prisoner locked the door at once after he was in the room and put the key into his pocket; he first addressed himself to the female prisoner, and said in German "Have I caught you at last;" she did not say anything—she put her hands before her face and sat down in a chair—he then took my coat and hat and put them under the table where there was a box; he put them in that box, and put that key also in his pocket—he then said "What business have you got here with my wife"—I said "I am here at the invitation of your wife about at a dog"—I spoke in German to him; he said "That is all nonlooking sense, you have been seducing my wife, and you have to pay for it, I have got a witness here," referring to the other man—I said "If you think I am in the wrong or that I have done anything wrong you had better send for the police and give me in charge"—he said "I will have nothing to do with the police, I won't allow a policeman to enter this house"—I then applied to the female prisoner to say for what purpose I came into the room, and that I was a perfectly innocent man, but she did not reply—I then said to him "What is it you want of me?"—he said "I must have money"—I said if that was his object I had only got a few pounds in my pocket—he said "We know you, you are the President of the German Society, and you must give us a written acknowledgement to pay 500l."—I told him that was a ridiculous demand, and he said "You will not come out of this place alive if you don't comply with my request"—the other man said "You bad better comply with what he wants or else you will have to bear the consequence"—I said it was ridiculous to ask such a sum, and he said "I must have it for 100l."—the man not in custody then ask me to sit down and write it out, and he put a paper before me, and stood behind and dictated to me, and I wrote—the first paper that the other man dictated to me was "I acknowledge being found alone in the room with Arnold's wife"—he then said that would not do, and destroyed it, and then he dictated a promissory note for 100l., which I wrote at his dictation—this is it (produced)—the other man dictated it in English—he spoke German, but he dictated this writing in English; he gave me English words: "London, July 19,

1875,—I hereby agree to pay you 100l. sterling on 27th inst. to prevent any action against me"—that was what was dictated to me and what I wrote, and I signed it—there was no stamp on it then—the other man then said 'We must have the money that you have got about you"—I handed him the 21., at least I put it on the table—the male prisoner then said "You can go now; we will let you go"—I believe the man not in custody dictated something to the prisoner and put this penny stamp on the paper while I was there, and the prisoner wrote on it "Received on account 2l., London, 19th July, balance 98l."—the sixpenny stamp was not on it then—it is dated 20th July, the day after—I was not near the window at any time during this interview; I was about the middle of the room—one of the men was standing behind me and one in front, and the prisoner said "If you dare to move from this spot you do it at your peril," and he assumed a threatening attitude—the other man said as I was going "You must consider yourself a very lucky man to get so easily off"—and the prisoner said "You had better keep the matter quiet, we won't say anything more about it, and you won't hear anything more about it"—he then unlocked the box and gave me my coat and hat, unlocked the door and let me' go—I was induced to write this paper because I was in great fear—after leaving the house I went that same evening to the police-station and made a complaint.

Cross-examined. The female did not say anything to me about my going to her house, till the Monday, the third time of her calling—I believe there was a bed in the room—it was a small room—she did not make any improper advances towards me; she conducted herself with strict propriety—I was there five or six minutes, it might have been a minute or so more—the conversation during that time was entirely upon the subject of dogs—I said I thought it was very unhealthy for her to have so many animals in the room—I examined the dog and did not like it—she referred to nothing else—she was standing talking—the door was shut, not locked—she had been moving about the room, and just before that man entered she happened to be near the door—I did not notice that she was touching it—she went to the door, whether she opened it or not I could not observe—I did not hear the men coming up the stairs—I did not hear anything—when the male prisoner charged her with having caught her, she put her hand before her face and sat down in a chair in the corner of the room, not the chair that I had been occupying, it was at the other end of the room, and there she remained during the interview—she had her hands before her face pretending to cry—I would not swear she was not crying—I was about retiring from the room as the men came in—I had not taken up my hat—I gave her. the 10s. when she first called, out of my own pocket, as I thought she was a respectable woman, and there was no time to apply to our society—I give away a good many 10s.—I am a cigar importer—I have been in London twenty-three years, and carrying on the same business for thirteen years—as a rule we inquire into cases before giving money—sometimes when I think it is a genuine case I give money out of my own pocket—I had every reason to believe she was a perfectly respectable woman—she says she is the wife of the male prisoner—I have heard things since.

JAMES SMART (Policeman E 111). I am a warrant officer employed at Bow Street—I produce a warrant signed by the Magistrate there—I received it, and on Tuesday evening, 20th July, at 9.30 I went to 40, Bloomsbury Street, to execute it—the female prisoner opened the door—I was in plain clothes—I asked her if her name was Arnold—she made no

answer at first—I asked her if her husband was upstairs, and told her I had a paper in my hand that I wanted to read to her, but being dark would she allow me to go upstairs—I followed her up to the first floor front room—I spoke to her in English—she appeared quite to understand me—I began to read the warrant, before I had quite finished reading it the male prisoner came into the room and I finished reading it—Fletcher, another officer was with me, also in plain clothes—I told the man we were police officers—he said in broken English "I don't understand you, fetch somebody that can speak German"—I said "Your wife can explain it to you"—she endeavoured to explain the warrant to him, but they both seemed not to know anything about who the prosecutor was, named in the warrant—I pointed it out to her—she said she did not know who it was—I took her to the station, and Fletcher took the man—on the way I said to the woman "Don't you know the name Arnold at all"—she said "Oh, that is my step-father's name"—she spoke in broken English, but I could understand it—I said "Then you must know who Siegmund Diespecker is"—she said "Yes, a merchant in the City"—the male prisoner was searched at the station and a sovereign and 1s. 4d. found on him—the female searcher gave me afterwards 17s. in silver, and 10d. in copper—on Wednesday 21st, I went to the same room at 40, Bloomsbury Street, and there found this book in a chest of drawers under same shirts, and in the book was the paper that has been referred to—by Mr. Diespecker—the book is a German and English Dictionary—I did not find any ticket for a passage to Hamburg by a steamer.

Cross-examined. I believe the prisoners were living together in the house—I could understand every word she said with ease.

HENRY FLETCHER (Policeman E 256). I was in the yard just before the female prisoner was bring searched—she asked me if she was to be locked up all night—she spoke in English—I could understand all she said—I said yes, I expected they would be detained—she said she did not know she was doing wrong, she was very sorry.

CHARLES PELLETT SMITH . I am assistant secretary to the Society for the Relief of Foreigners in distress—they have offices at Finsbury Chambers, London Wall—in October last year there was an order that the female prisoner should have passage money for Hamburg—after the order was made she came and told me that she wished to stay in London, and the order was cancelled at her own request—I saw nothing of her from October till she was in custody—it is not true that the society had granted her and the male prisoner a passage for Hamburg on Saturday, 17th, or Wednesday, 21st July—I had no interview with her to postpone' that passage from one day to the other.

Cross-examined. I am not speaking from memory, the books will prove what I have said, I remember the woman—I would not swear to her—I see so many persons in the course of the year, but I firmly believe she is the woman—she came to us under the name of Juhn—I know nothing of a man of that name—Juhn is a very common German name.

Re-examined. The address she gave was 7, Chipstone Street, Great Portland Street—she described herself as a married woman and a musician, and said she had been deserted by her husband.

GERARD AUSTERMANN . I am a German missionary, and member of the benevolent society, of which Mr. Diespecker is president—on the 29th October last, the female prisoner came to me—she gave me the name of Amelia Von Hagan, and her address as 7, Clipstone Street, Great Portland

Street—she came recommended from the German Embassy—it so happened that we had an application on the 27th October from a. man named Auguste Juhn, of 7, Clipstone Street—in consequence of the address the female gave being the same, I went to the house and asked her whether she knew anything of this Auguste Juhn and his wife—she said no, that they had been living there, but had removed a few days ago to an adjoining street, and she did not know the number—she said her husband had deserted her about four weeks ago, he being a musician—I had never seen her before this—she gave her maiden name as Beck—I produce the paper that she brought to me on making the application.

Cross-examined. A great number of people come to me for relief—I have seen hundreds since October, 1874—I usually remember important things that are said to me—an application for relief is a very usual thing, but it is in unusual cases that we go to the house—with regard to this case my memory is quite clear, and my books corroborate me—she was not making an application on behalf of a person named Von Hagan—I did not know the man Juhn at that time—I have seen him since—the male prisoner is the man—my books state the name of Amelia Von Hagan, and the 15s., was granted conditionally, but she only received 5s.—I am quite positive she is the woman.

Re-examined. I told her when I called that I should make further inquiries—she never appeared at the office again after that.

MR.F. WILLIAMS submitted that the document in question was not in any sense a valuable security it was not negotiable, there was no consideration on the face of it, it was impossible to sue upon it, nor did the stamping subsequently make it a valuable security. MR. BESLEY, after referring to the cases of "Rex v. Phipoe," 2 Leach, 673, "Rex v. Edwards," 6 Carrington and Payne, 521, and "Rex v. Hart," 6 Carrington and Payne, 121, contended that the statute was not intended to apply to a negotiable valuable security, because no such instrument could be given under a case of restraint or violence. It expressly said "any part of a valuable security;" it therefore applied to any paper which might afterwards be converted into a valuable security. Its being in an imperfect form would not prevent the operation of the statute. If it were otherwise, a lawyer who by restraint or threats dictated a perfect valuable security would be guilty, and a layman whose intention was the same, but had not the requisite knowledge, would not be guilty. The paper by the addition of "bearer" would be a perfect promisory note, and. it must be without alteration a warrant for the payment of money. MR. JUSTICE BRETT. "I am clearly of opinion that this is not a promissory note or a negotiable instrument, and never could be made one. Therefore the question must be whether such an instrument is within the statute. The words of the stutute are 'a valuable security.' It is suggested that the meaning of that is a negotiable security; but when we look at the interpretation clause it is obvious that it is much larger than that, because it includes many things which are clearly not negotiable. If that be so, the question is whether this is a security, and whether it is valuable? It seems to me that on the face of it, if the a fair were a genuine one, it is an agreement to pay money; it is an agreement to pay 1001. in consideration of the person, to whom the promise is given, undertaking not to bring an action against the person by whom it is given. It is a document which, if it were genuine, would be strong, if not conclusive evidence against the prosecutor when made a defendant, that for a good consideration he had agreed to pay a sum of money. It is not a debenture; if it was, no consideration need appear on the face of it

Being an agreement only, it is necessary in order to make it valuable that a sufficient consideration should appear on the face of it, and I am of opinion that there is a sufficient consideration appearing on the face of it, and that it is strong evidence of a binding agreement upon which, if the affair were genuine, the prisoner might have sued the. prosecutor. It seems to me that it is an instrument upon which, if genuine, the person who procured it might recover the amount against the person signing it. I am therefore of opinion, although it is not a negotiable instrument, yet in as much as it would, if genuine, be evidence of a binding agreement, it is a binding agreement between the parties, and it is within the Statute.

The male prisoner dictated to the interpreter a long address, the effect of which was that having entertained suspicions of his wife's fidelity, he had watched her, and on the day in question on returning home with a friend and finding the prosecutor and his wife together under circumstances which confirmed his suspicions, he charged her with adultery, and desired the prosecutor. to quit the house; that upon that the prosecutor offered him money, and at the suggestion of his friend he reluctantly consented to that course.

MR. WILLIAMS, in addressing the Jury on behalf of the female prisoner, urged that the evidence did not warrant the suggestion that she was a party to the attempted extortion; and, further, that if she was, yet being the wife of the male prisoner, and acting under his control, she would be entitled to an acquittal. A certificate of marriage on 1st October, 1872, at Ham, of Auguste John and Sophia Amelia Aberline, called Koch, was handed in.

MR. JUSTICE BRETT told the Jury that if they were of opinion that the woman took an independent part in carrying out the crimes, the fact of her being the wife could not absolve her. He should advise them, to consider her as the wife; if so, anything done by her in his presence and under his control, the law would excuse, but if she was taking an independent part in the mailer when he was not there, then she would be answerable, although she were his wife. AUGUSTE JOHN— GUILTY — Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.

EMILINE JOHN— GUILTY — Six Months' Imprisonment.

438. CHARLES WATSON (29), was indicted for a rape on Olive Bunce.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Thursday, August 18th; and

OLD COURT.—Friday, August 19th, 1875.

Before Mr. Recorder.

439. HENRY WEBB (38), PLEADED GUILTY to certain counts charging the concealing the fact of the existence of certain bills of exchange amounting to 377l. 9s. 4d., and certain debts due from him of 10l. 17s. 9d., 3l., and 7l. 16s. 7d., with intent to defraud, and to making certain material omissions from his statement to his creditors. Mr. Besley, for the Prosecution, did not press the other counts of the indictment against him— One Month's Imprisonment.

440. PIERRE LECHEVIN (43), ALEXANDER GUYOT (42) and LUCINE CHALLIER (34) , Unlawfully obtaining, by false pretences, ninety-nine cases of wine, one case of brandy, and divers casks of Portland cement, with intent to defraud. GUYOT PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining the wine only.

MESSRS. BESLEY and GRAIN conducted the Prosecution; and MR. RIBTON defended Lechevin and Challier.

Theophile Negre. (Through an Interpreter). I am a wine grower and dealer in wines and brandies, at 6, Cour de Chapeau rouge, Bordeaux—a customer of mine named Doussou acted as my clerk at Bordeaux—I know M. Bessome, the father of Challier's wife; he lives at Paris—through those two persons I was introduced to Challier by correspondence, and I appointed him by letter my agent in London for the whole of my wines—I was to pay him 10 per cent, on the sales—I received these letters (produced)—they are in Challier's writing. (These were partly translated by the Interpreter, and were orders to send wines of the first and second qualities to Challier) I afterwards sent him ninety-nine cases of wine and one of brandy by the English steamer Lumley—this is a copy of the invoice for 1,038 francs. (Other letters containing orders from Challier, and bills of lading relating to them, were here put in and translated in part). After that I sent 100 hogsheads of wine by the steamer Henry Balker, and this (produced) is the bill of lading—I think the order for 100 cases of Medoc, amounting to 900 francs 50 centimes, was sent from Paris—this is a copy of the bill of lading—the letter is in Challier's writing. (This was dated London, 14th January, 1875, signed by Challier, forwarding another order, and complaining that he did not like to sell thirty cases out of 100 already sent, as the wine oozed out at the corks, and that in every bottle a piece of wood or straw was found.) This is the bill of lading, and this is the invoice (For 977 francs)—it was upon Guyot's orders that I sent goods to Challier—this letter (produced) is in Guyot's writing, but before I received that I had an interview with Challier at Bordeaux—an order was given to Doussou to send fifty-six hogsheads of wine to Guyot—that order was transferred to me, and I had a conversation with Challier about it, but I cannot recollect where—I had a conversation with I him at Bordeaux after the goods were sent, but not before—before that it was by correspondence. (Several other letters and invoices and bills of lading in French were here put in.) I saw Challier in Bordeaux and also in London in March—I came to London, I think, in the second half of March, and saw him at Mr. Lechevin's office, and also at Guyot's office—I saw Challier and Guyot together every day while I was in London, and they both came to reside at my hotel at Charing Cross—I saw Lechevin there—when I came to London in March I had these two bills of exchange with me for 261l. 6s. 2d. and 364l. (The first was dated Bordeaux, 11th January, 1875. It had three endorsements, and was accepted by A. Guyot. The second was dated 25th December, 1874, to M. Lechevin, and was endorsed "Bills renewed by other drafts.") The first of those bills represented 3,000 francs, being one quarter of the invoice, and the one for 360l. the other three-fourths of the invoice—the bill for 251l. 65. was the only form of payment for the fifty-one hogsheads sent to Guyot—that bill was current at the time of my visit to London in March—I had negotiated it while it was current, and it was subsequently returned to me unpaid—the two bills, the one I brought with me and this one, represented the total amount of wine sent over to Guyot, and while in London I came to an arrangement for those two bills to be given up, and other bills being in their place—the endorsement on Lechevin's bill is quite correct, it is my writing; the four bills mentioned there are what were substituted in place of the two others—they were all returned to me unpaid—I only received 151l. for them—Challier told me in March, that all the goods I had sent had been sold, and he asked me to send him as many as possible—Lechevin told me he had a law suit about some cement he had

forwarded to Calais and Caen, which would be terminated at the end of the month, and then he should be in possession of plenty of money, and then he would pay—he told me that he had no longer an office, on account of that law suit—I believed that he was then carrying on business, and I believed the representations made in the letters by Challier, as to Lechevin's position—I Bent the goods to Lechevin, relying on the contents of Challier's letters, and I dispatched the goods to Guyot on the references I received from Challier and Doussou; I mean the letters, and also the verbal reference which I received at Bordeaux, and also from Doussou when he came back from travelling—I came to London again in May, after Guyot's bill was dishonoured, or it may have been June—I met all the three prisoners accidentally in Cannon Street, and they took me to the office of Webber & Co., Martin Street, where they told me that at. that time they had no money to pay me, but that if I would serve them by giving some references, that would put them in a position to do business; and that after having robbed a few Englishmen they would pay me, and upon that I went to a solicitor—I went over to Bordeaux, and came back to this country while the prisoners were in custody—on the day before I gave evidence at the Mansion House, I went with the officers to different warehouses and saw some goods—I recognised the marks on the cases and hogsheads, and am able to swear that they were my property—I pointed them out to the officer, who made notes at the time—the actual amount of wine I have seen amounts to about 22,000 francs.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. I have been in business as a wine merchant eighteen months at Bordeaux—I was not in business before that—I have been an insurance broker, But that is not called a business—I was an insurance agent, representing a company—they paid me a salary, and I had private means of my own—I started as a wine merchant with capital—I bought for ready money and never on credit at that time; but I did afterwards—I always paid ready money, or I paid when the time arrived, that payment should take place by our agreement—I have carried on business at the Cour Chapeau Rouge, for two years—I was eighteen months a wine merchant at Bordeaux, and ten years an insurance agent—I am still carrying on both—I had another business there which I carried on six smonths, and gave it up to go into the town—I had an agent in Paris, M. Besson—he is not a relation of mine; he is Challier's father-in-law—he represented my house, selling wines on commission—I did not know him before—my traveller, M. Doussou, appointed him as my agent in Paris—Doussou, is my cousin—I have known him ever since I was born, but I have ceased to be on good terms with him since I made the complaint in this case—I was on very intimate terms with him—I never saw him in Paris—I have seen him in Bordeaux, at ray office, not at my house—he wrote letters for me and assisted me in my business—I had great confidence in him—he was my agent for a year—I paid him a salary—I did not see him for ten years before he was my agent—it was after the introduction of Bessou, that Challier was introduced to me—Doussou sent me some orders which he had obtained for wine from customers in Paris, and I sent much wine on his representation—I have been paid for it by bills which are all paid to the amount of about 12,000 francs—Doussou was in the habit of making inquiries for me about the solvency of customers—Challier wrote a letter to Doussou, which Doussou sent to me from Berne, in July, 1874—I think I first saw Challier in October or November, in Bordeaux—

Doussou introduced him personally and represented him as a man who would be likely to be a good agent for me in London, and I had no reason to doubt it—I came to London in March—I did not see Challier in Paris afterwards—Doussou appointed him my agent in October—Challier remained, four, five, or six days at Bordeaux—he was a visitor at my house, but he did not live with me in October—he came to my office—he tasted my wine and talked to me at great length on business matters—I knew that he had been in London, and was returning back, but on what business I did not know—after he had been in London, I got the first order from him I think in the beginning of November—I received this letter from him (produced)—I had not at that time sent the wine to Lechevin & Co.—I received that letter at the 15th or 16th, and I did not send the wine for a month afterwards, perhaps move, because I was waiting for some confirmation by Lechevin, of what Challier had told me—I sent Doussou to London, to make inquiries, and he was absent a month, but he wrote to me sometimes—I have not got his letters here—if they have not been given to my atcorney they must be in Bordeaux—Doussou confirmed to me all the information which Challier had given me about Lechevin, in all its particulars—I sent the wine in consequence of what the one or the other had said—nobody has even advised me to say that it was in consequence partly of what Challier told me, and partly what Doussou told me that I sent the goods off—if Doussou had told me not to send them I would not have done so—I had perfect confidence in Doussou at that time; he had my power of attorney and I would have sent wine to any customer he alone represented to be a good one, and perhaps I should have sent it if he had been the only person who recommended-Lechevin & Co.—when I started from Bordeaux the Bill of Exchange was not due, but it fell due while I was in London—while I was in London a letter from Sauge, was sent after me from Bordeaux—before I came to London I had not received more than one letter from Challier on that subject—he wrote to me after I had started for London—he asked me by letter to let him see Sauge's letter—he wrote to me seven or eight times upon that subject to Bordeaux after I came to London in March, but not before—I received this letter from Challier. (This being translated, was dated April 22nd to the witness, acknowledging his letter containing 750 francs in notes, and staled, "I am still expecting with patience the letter in which certain persons are mentioned, Sauge. I will return it by the next post") I received several letters from him of a similar kind at Bordeaux, asking for Sauge's letter, but have not sent it—Sauge was a customer to whom I have sent wine on Challier's recommendation, to the amount of, about 100l.—I have seen him twice, and he paid for the goods after the bill had been protested—it was paid by Mr. Gillian, at Messrs. Ransom's—I have not got my books here—the customers which Challier introduced to me are entered in them—I sent several. small orders to them—Le Gros is one—some of the customers paid me and some Challier—I did not receive all the money—I have seen a customer named Bigot twice—I may have sent him wine amounting to about 1,200 francs, part of "which was paid and I took back part of the goods—I don't know Lechevin's father or brother, but I know their names—what I said at the police-court was that I had made some inquiries and got information about them, and found they were satisfactory—I sold one hogshead of wine to each of them through Doussou—I think I sent wine to Le Gros, Guyot, Bigot, and Le Compte before Lechevin's transactions—I drew on Challier on each occasion that I

sent the goods—I—was not compelled to draw upon him in order that I might meet other bills which were due—I may have said at the Mansion House "I continually drew bills on Chattier, I was compelled to do so to meet my bills"—I said "Every bill was paid with money I sent him, and partly from money he received from me here"—all the bills were not paid with money which I sent him—I frequently sent more money than the bills represented—I had received information respecting Guyot from Doussou before I sent him any wine, and the information he gave me was satisfactory—it was Doussou who sent the wine—I did not occupy myself with it—when I sent the goods I did not know that Guyot was trading under the name of Webber & Co.—I discovered it when Challier wrote to me, and when I came to London in March—I have received about 3,000 francs from Guyot, and I sent him wine for more than 12,000 francs—I have bills of of Guyot or Webber & Co.—they are here—they fell due before he was given in custody—complaints were not made to me in reference to the quality of the wine I sent over—I always received compliments about my wine—I recollect once at Guoyot's house a bottle of wine being shown to me—there were a few cases which were muddy; perhaps twenty-five or thirty, and Challier had complained of it to me verbally—I do not remember asking Doussou to accept accommodation bills for me—I said at the Mansion House "I have drawn for two bills on Besson, part of those bills were drawn for my own use"—that was in order to meet some bills which were due in Paris—the amount of wine sent to London, at the agency of Challier, was some 30,000 francs, and the amount altogether from Challier, and all the other customers which I received in cash, was about 7,000 or 8,000 francs by bills, which were paid—that is all that has been paid—I have had bills for the remainder and they are here—the value of the wine I have received back and which is at the wharfingers, is not more than 17,000 francs—the first order I executed for Lechevin was 12,000 francs out of the 30,000; perhaps 100 francs more or less—Sauge's bills were paid after protest—he owes me nothing—I can't say whether Le Gros, Guyot and the others' bills were paid, but Challier no doubt got the money for them—I got some of them—this letter (produced) is in Doussou's writing, my clerk—it was possible that it was written by my authority—it is signed Doussou, but written in my name, on one of my printed letter heads—Doussou some times wrote letters at my office—I did know of this letter. (This being translated, was dated 17th February, 1875, enclosing a bill of lading for 200 cases of wine, and another for 50 hogsheads, embarked on the steamer Era, and stated "I don't know what to think of all my expeditions to London, and it seems to come from a sure source that the major part of my wines sent to Lechevin are put on warrants into the docks as soon as they arrive, all this seems to increase my fears, particularly in considering the refusal of the bankers to negotiate these securities, and therefore I am compelled to wait for the maturity of these bills in London before I can think to send some, although it is painful to say so") The bankers refused to discount Lechevin's bills—I don't recollect whether that was while Doussou was at Bordeaux—Challier has not paid me 4l., 6s., 6d. received from Le Gros—he very likely told me that he had received it, but I never received it—I never received 25l. from Bigot, from Challier—I am looking at a memorandum—I have never received 5l. 4s. from Le Compte—I can say that Challier received it, but not I—I have received 20l. from Delaman; 26l. from West, and 10l. from Grelliot—I have not received 32l. in two sums from Bigot—I only received 12l. in

cash and 20l. worth of goods were returned—I have supplied altogether wine to the amount of 800 or 900 francs in two shipments to Bigot—the first time I came over here I brought my books—this bill for 2,000 francs. (produced) is accepted by Challier—I sent to meet it 1,715l. 70d.—no doubt Challier paid the remainder out of the proceeds of more than 3,000 francs worth of goods which I had sent him—Challier has accepted six bills. for me in the same way, amounting to 9,750 francs—only one has been. paid when presented—they were drawn on Challier and accepted by him—they were all overdue at the time he was taken, except one, which was due on the 30th June—the one paid was for 2,000 francs—it was paid by Challier, with' money that I sent him—this is another (produced), also for 2,000 francs—Challier paid nothing on the other; it was dishonoured—he sent me 80l. in cash for the other, that was the amount of it—the two 2,000 franc bills were discounted at my bankers—the bill was presented in London, dishonoured and returned to me at Bordeaux—Challier then sent me I think a bill for 2,003 francs for money which I had sent him in April, and so he actually returned me my own money which I had sent him for the very purpose of paying this very bill—there is a long account between me and him—this (produced) is a copy of it. (Found on Challier)—it is in Losey's, my accountant's, writing—I sent Challier these papers I think in the beginning of June—out of the six bills I mentioned, none of them were accommodation bills—I had sent more money than the bills represented, also the goods.

Re-examined. I ceased to have confidence in Doussou at my last journey to London in June—I have seen a letter which contains the writing of Doussou, the contents of which I was not aware of—this side of the letter was suggested by me, but it did not contain this postscript when it left my office—I have read the part of this letter marked E, which refers to Lechevin—Doussou had confirmed the contents of that letter before I sent the goods to Lechevin—this letter (found on Guyot, dated Bordeaux, 14th April, 1875) is in my writing—I sent it to Challier—this letter (dated London, 6th February, 1875) is in Challier's writing. (This stated "Mr. Lechevin has 150,000 kilos. of cement, on which has been paid 5,000 francs; but, as the cement is worth 11,000 francs, if you can pay the 5,000 francs cash, the 11,000 barrels will be sent to you immediately.") 4,115 francs 70 cents was sent to Challier for the purpose of taking up bills, and the amount of goods consigned to him, independent of customers, was 5,496 francs 80 centimes.

By MR. RIBTON. It may be that I first heard about the cement from Doussou—Doussou wrote this letter to Challier and I signed it. (This was dated Bordeaux, 2nd January, 1875, stating that 100 cases had been made up with extraordinary care, and that 200 cases more were being prepared to Guyot's order.) I had nothing to do with, the cement.

DANIEL ALLEN SCOTT . I am a wine and spirit broker and auctioneer, trading under the style of Scott, Wright & Co., Great Tower Street—I knew Guyot by the name of Webber—on 15th May I saw him with reference to some hogsheads of wine—I had a sale fixed for 21st May, and a sample of wine was brought to me—I made an advance on fifty hogsheads of 130l.—I have not got my cheques; I left them at the Mansion House—forty-six of the hogsheads were sold on 31st May—they realised about 160l.—two of the other hogsheads have been sold since for 7l. the two, and the other two are on hand at Gun and Shot Wharf, where Mr. Romaine is the manager

—I had the mark in my catalogue—I did not see Challier in reference to the matter, only Guyot—I had another transaction on 1st June with Guyot, and advanced 150l. on fifty hogsheads—at that time the warrants were in Mr. Layland's possession—I have not sold them; I am going to sell them to-day at 1 o'clock—I am not aware that I have been told not to do so—there are at Gun and Shot Wharf ex Ernest, from Bordeaux.

Cross-examined. I never saw Challier—Guyot was introduced to me by a person named Pignell, whom I have known for five or six years—he has introduced several purchasers and sellers to me—I had perfect confidence in Pignell, and nothing has diminished that confidence—he did not introduce Guyot as Guyot, but as the principal in Webber & Co.'s house—it is not unusual for people to trade under other names than their own—men who have had partners, the same as myself, still retain the partner's name—that is in the case of an old firm—Pignell represented Guyot as a large merchant and importer of goods, which I believed, relying on his recommendation—I had sold other wine before for Webber—we had four transactions—the 10th May was the first time I ever saw him—we then sold 500 or 600 cases of champagne for him.

Re-examined. Having the recommendation, I did not ask to see the invoice of the goods—I had advanced 2l. 10s. per hogshead on the first, and 3l. on the second.

CHARLES ISAACS . I am now out of business—I was a wine merchant at Bristol in September and October—Mr. Holt, of Great St. Helens, was my agent—I had at that time three cargoes of cement, one at Caen, in Normandy, and two warehoused at Bristol—Lechevin was introduced to me by Losey, and I made a contract-with him in reference to the cement—this is it (produced)—I have a translation here, signed by Lechevin—I have also got a document of 27th September, commencing "Bought of Mr. Isaacs—it is not dated; it is signed by Lechevin—he had it in French, and I had it in English—I gave him 74l. 1s. 8d., as he asked me for a cheque to pay the charges on the cargo at Caen—the cheque, which was given on the following day, is dated 17th October—I gave authority to the gentleman whose name is to the cheque, to pay the amount; that is Mr. Cockburn—Lechevin said he was a general merchant, dealer in potatoes, grain, cement, oil, and a variety of articles—he said he was going to Caen. for the special purpose of paying those charges and receiving the cement—I subsequently sent another cargo of cement under that contract to Calais, value 269l. and some few shillings; I don't recollect the date—the third cargo mentioned in the contract was never delivered, because I found out that he was a swindler—I never received any money in respect of the cargoes or any money back for any cheque—he gave me some bills, the first of which was due just before Christmas, and before the first bill was matured he made a proposal to my agent, but I was not present—Lechevin afterwards told me that the ship put into Plymouth damaged, and that immediately on her arrival in London he would give me seventy hogsheads of wine to secure the payment of the bill—I had parted with the second cargo at that time—he gave me no charge on the seventy hogsheads of wine; I saw the hogsheads—the man who introduced Lechevin went to the wharf in Thames Street, in December, and tasted some wine, and I saw a number of casks and the names and marks—the bill has not been paid at all—when this conversation took place I met Lechevin in Thames Street—I did not see him afterwards—I neither got any wine or any money—I saw

Challier and another Frenchman at Mr. Hall's office, in Great St. Helen's, the latter end of November or early in December—that was after the cheque had been given and after the cargo was sent to Calais—nothing was said in Challier's presence about the business between Lechevin and me, but Lechevin said, when Challier had left, "That is Mr. Challier, from whom I am to have the wine."

Cross-examined. I am informed by the detective and by the solicitor that the cargo at Caen is confiscated, and left a loss of 200 or 300 francs—the cargoes at Bristol are still there—they did not get into the possession of the men, but the other did—one cargo was sent from Bristol to Calais; it was sold; and they brought me in a difference of 900 and odd francs—I got a bill from Lechevin for that—the bill was passed on, and he was sued upon it by my solicitor, who got judgment in the English Court, and subsequently in the French Court on the production of the English judgment—that was the Caen bill—one cargo remained at Bristol, and the one at Caen was sold to pay the dues—the one at Calais was sold under a judgment, and no portion of it came into Lechevin's possession, at least I suppose not—I have known Losey since September or October last—he is a very respectable man in appearance—I met him and saw him at the office of Mr. Hall, my agent, when Mr. Hall was out, and when he returned he said "I see you two gentlemen are in conversation I need not introduce you"—Mr. Hall said he had known Mr. Losey fifteen years, had several transactions with him, and believed him to be a poor but respectable man—I believed that, and afterwards Losey introduced Lechevin to me.

Re-examined. I actually lost money—I had to pay about 900 francs and sundry other expenses, amounting to nearly 100l.

HENRY JOHN HALL . I am an accountant of 2, Leadenhall Street—in September last I was about taking an office at Great St. Helen's—I know Losey, he introduced Lechevin to me at the end of August, and said that he was going into business, and wished his name to be up, and he would pay me so much per annum to receive letters for Mr. Losey to do any business there for him—that was in October, and for a month I objected, but on 16th November, Challier and Lechevin came together, and it was finally arranged that he was to pay 30l. a year, and they gave instructions in my presence to have the name put up immediately, one was acting quite as much as the other—on the 20th a man named Passmore came and "Lechevin Aine" & Co." was painted on the glass tablets, and on the landing, and on the general office door, both Challier and Lechevin were present when the painting was being done, and Challier wished to have the chalk marks rubbed off that it might look older, he asked me to get the housekeeper to do it—Lechevin came there about nine times in November, and about the same number in December, and when the bill of Mr. Isaacs became due in December he disappeared altogether—he paid nothing for the rooms—I never saw two Englishmen connected with them—there were no ledgers, day-books, or cash-books, but Losey ordered some headed paper—I did not know Lechevin by any other name.

Cross-examined. I have known Losey about fifteen years—I believe he calls himself a wine merchant—he purchases small parcels of wine and re-sells them—I believe him to be respectable—the date of the first contract with Lechevin for cement is 24th September—he had not taken a room at my place then; I think he was brought there the same day—when

I came in I found them there—I refused to have Lechevin at first, because I did not want to have any other name up—that was in October, subsequent to the first contract—Losey repeated the application some time afterwards, he said "You may as well have it, it will be no trouble to you"—he told me that Lechevin was a very rich man, a dealer in potatoes and grain who had depots every ten miles all the way from Calais to Paris—I saw Losey on Monday, I don't know where he is now—I saw Challier in November—the bills for the cement bad been given the and then cheque also—it was all settled about the cement as far as Mr. Isaacs and I were concerned when I first saw Challier—I am not aware that Lechevin subsequently referred to me as to his respectability, or at any time—Challier said in the dock at the Mansion House that he never saw me in his life—the name was painted up on 20th February about mid-day—my clerks were there—none of them are here—I have dissolved partnership; the firm was "J. B. Howell, Hall & Co.'—I am not in partnership now.

Re-examined. When the ship arrived about 23rd December, I had a conversation with Lechevin, who said that he would give security to Mr. Israel for the seventy hogsheads of wine, and that he might be allowed to sell them, and hand the proceeds to Mr. Isaacs—I could not see him after 23rd December.

HENRY PASSMORE . I am a sign writer of 24, Martin's Lane, Cannon Street, I painted up the name of J. B. Howell & Co., at 27, Leadenhall Street—I also painted up the name of R. C. Webber & Co., by Guyot's directions—he paid me 7s., and I gave him this receipt (produced)—Losey ordered me to paint up a name at 20, Great St. Helen's, and I painted it up in four places—I do not recognise Lechevin as being there—I gave a receipt—I think he wrote the body, and I put my name at the bottom—two or three years ago I put up "R. Draneey" for Lechevin, at 17, Fenchurch Street, but I did not see him there, what I did was by Losey's direction—I live at 24, St. Martin's Lane, on the the third floor, and Webber & Co. occupied the first floor—I—have constantly gone up the staircase since November last, but have not been in and out of their office.

ALFRED DAVIS . I am manager of the chambers, 17, Fenchurch Street—on 14th September, Lechevin took two rooms on the third floor at 50l. a year, and signed this agreement (produced) in the name of Raul Drancey—he occupied them nearly four months, and owed a quarter's rent when he left.

JOHN BECK . I am in partnership with Mr. Pollitzer, in Upper Thames Street, as forwarding and commission agents—I have known Lechevin, five or six years in the name of Lambert—I saw him at intervals up to December last, and knew him by no other name—we cleared goods for him—on 23rd December, he brought in a bill of lading in the name of Lechevin; in reference to 100 casks of wine by the Henry Bailer, from Bordeaux, either then or on another occasion—I called attention to my always knowing him as Lambert, and he explained that Lechevin was his wife's name, or his wife's first name—he wanted me to clear the wine and make an advance upon it; I did so and advanced 50l. on it—it was lying at Old Swan Wharf—I gave this cheque, dated the same day, December 23rd—it is in my partner's writing—it has come back as cashed on the same day—at the same time I gave him this receipt. (This was for 50l. received on the deposit of claret, and was signed Lechevin, Aine & Co.) He also gave me this general lien. (This being translated was dated December 23rd, 1874, authorising

MESSRS. BECK & Pollitzer, to detain all goods they received on Lechevin's account, as security for advances made or to be made, rendering an account for the difference after sale.) The Balker went to Plymouth, because the machinery broke down—she arrived in London about 6th January—my charges for freight and landing were 45l.—they were landed at the Old Swan Wharf—I afterwards got ten warrants representing ninety-nine hogsheads—one is still missing—I held the warrants from the 6th till 14th January—we sold twenty-eight casks which recouped us upon that, but there was a balance upon another transaction for brandy—we parted with warrants in respect of seventy casks, and there is Lechevin's signature upon that—these are seven warrants each for ten hogsheads, we only sold twenty-eight, and we gave up the residue, except the one which was short—Lechevin had a single cask which he sold to a private customer—we sold the twenty-eight hogsheads at 4l. 5s. gross; I think we had bought them at 3l. 10s., but I do not know as the account is still open, there was 5l. or 6l. rent on it—we bought the claret to square the account; we offered him 3l. 10s. and he accepted it, and at the same time we gave up the seventy.

MARK LOUIS . My father's name is John, he is a commission agent—he is absent from illness—I produce a receipt of Lechevin's which is signed "Lambert"—I know nothing of the transaction.

H. T. HALL (re-examined). This receipt is Lechevin's writing. (Read: "London,14th June, 1875. Sold to J. M. Louis, hogsheads 186 to 188, 192, 3l. and 5 for 200l. 10s. Received 200l. L. Lambert.")

MR. ISAACS (recalled by MR. RIBTON). The cement had been at Caen several months before I saw Lechevin, but not at my risk—it had been sold before and the party did not receive it, not because it was damaged,. but because it had not arrived at the port of destination and was not in time for their market—I sold it free on board at Bristol—there was an action about it and the consignee refused to take it and the Tribunal of Commerce gave a verdict against the firm I am agent for, because I did not appear—there was no complaint about it being damaged—I did not offer Lechevin a cheque, but he asked me for it—the cement was not offered to anybody before I saw Lechevin—when Lechevin's bill became due he told me he had not realised on the cement and asked me for the renewal of the first bill when it became due, and-1 refused—he askedime to take the cement back which was to be shipped for Calais, but the vessel sprang a leak—what he offered me was the cargo lying at Cardiff, but it was worth nothing as it was sold free at Bristol and my jurisdiction ended there, and he went down there and employed his own ship broker—my agent was his agent; my representative there delivered it to him and I have seen the bill of lading—the cement' was stopped by Cockburn at Calais when I got judgment on the first bill—I made no advance to the captain, if there was an advance it was by the party who freighted the vessel—I said that I would not renew the bill without security—I did not ask him to give me the wine or pledge it to me as security, but he offered it; he was represented to me to deal in wines and other things—I know Beck & Pollitzer be reputation—I did not put an attachment on the cement—I had no intimation that the Caen cement was damaged.

H. T. HALL (recalled by MR. RIBTON). I went to Calais on 16th October to see Lechevin's references and found them very satisfactory—I was told that he had been a merchant eleven or twelve years—Lechevin did not ask Mr. Isaacs to pay 2 francs per cask for the cement which was damaged,

he said that the casks had been landed in bad order and the hoops were out of order and he was to pay a franc and a half each for repairing them—I made no effort to sell the cement, it was not damaged but the hoops of the casks were—I have still got the offices at Great St. Helen's—I removed the furniture before December 24th before the rent was due—the 25th was quarter day—I saw Lechevin on 23rd or 24th—I have been back since that—I saw Lechevin frequently after that at Cannon Street station—I did not ask him for an advance of 50l. to buy furniture—there was no agreement for me and Lechevin to occupy a new office—I paid the rent some time in January—there was a partnership dispute and that was the reason of it—Challier did not ask me questions about Lechevin, I only saw him four times.

WILLIAM LEWIS ANCEY . I was ledger keeper and afterwards cashier in in the City and County Bank, Limited—I was there from 1872, which was nearly the commencement, down to its liquidation on the Saturday before Easter Sunday—Lechevin opened an account there on 6th August, 1874—this (produced) is his pass-book, and this is the ledger—the account commenced with the payment on 6th August of 40l., and there were several payments down to October 28th—on 27th November he paid in 57., and on 9th December 27l.—on the credit side of the pass-book there are genuine entries up to the 28th October, and from that date the entries are all fictitious—the last cheque paid out was on 12th November, 1874, for 2l. in favour of Challier—all the entries on the debit side from that date are fictitious; they run over seven pages, and they are not in the writing of any clerk in the bank—the account is in the name of Pierre Lechevin.

THOMAS YULL . I am assistant to Mr. Robert Attenborough, pawnbroker, of the Minories—I know Guyot by the name of Webber by his coming there—I made an advance to him on 16th April of 174l. on eleven wine warrants, seven of which referred to claret—the wine was in bond some-where, but I don't know where, as we have not the warrants now—I have not my book here. (The witness was directed to fetch his book.)

GUSTAVE ROBERT . (Interpreted). I am a licensed victualler, at 51, Dean Street—I know the three prisoners—I have seen them at my place, and at Cannon Street in a public-house—all three together sometimes—I have known Lechevin and Guyot two and a half years, and Challier three or four months.

Cross-examined. They came there for refreshment—I never bought any wine of Challier, but I knew him as representing M. Negre, who came with him to my house once—we spoke about the sale of wine the first time, and the second time I negotiated some business with Mr. Negre, not with Challier, and four hogsheads of wine were sent to me—I don't know the price; I did not pay for it—I gave a bill, which is not paid yet: the credit was four months—the wine has been delivered—Challier introduced Negre to me.

Re-examined. I knew Lechevin as Lambert, and not by any other name.

WILLIAM SMITH (City Detective Sergeant). As early as June 5th I received instructions from my superior officers to watch the three prisoners—I saw them very frequently, sometimes alone, and four or five times together—they were taken on the 28th June—I have seen them in Gracechurch Street, Cannon Street, Martin's Lane, and at the West End, and I have seen them all three coming in and out of Webber & Co.'s office—I have known Lechevin, six or eight years in the name of Lambert, and I have known him trading

by other names—I have known Guyot eighteen months or two years, and Challier eight or nine months—I did not know Lechevin in partnership with any Englishman—I received warrants to take the prisoners on Saturday, 26th, and on Monday at 5 a.m. I went with two officers to 42, Davey's Road, Camberwell—I placed Wright in the back garden, and Pitt was near—I had a conversation with a woman at the window, and Lechevin made a remark—he seemed to be undressing—he understands English very well—I told him we were the police, and threatened to break in the door if he did not come down—after waiting some time he came down dressed in another suit of clothes to what he has on now—he took me to a little parlour; I read the warrant to him—he said that he would prove that it was all right; he had made arrangements with Mr. Negre—on the way to the station he asked whether Mr. Negre was in England—I told him he had gone to Bordeaux—he said he had made arrangements with him for the settlement of the affair—I searched him and found some documents on him—I afterwards went with Wright to 752, Old Kent Road—I placed Wright at the bottom of the garden, about 7 a.m., and then I knocked—it was a long time before I got admission—I then looked through the window in the back door and saw Wright struggling with Guyot—I went to his assistance—I afterwards went to 18, Albion Road, Harrow Road, and saw Challier—I tried to make him understand that I was a police officer and had a warrant for his arrest—a friend of his was there, who knew English, and as I read the warrant he explained it to him—he said he had got papers from Mr. Negre—this (produced) is the only book I found relating to any business—I found it at 24, Martin's Lane—there were no books at the other private addresses, but there were letters, which I have produced—Great St. Helen's was closed, but the name of Lechevin, Aine & Co. was still up—I found two pass-books there of Leechvin—the City and County pass-book was at 42, Davey's Road, Lechevin's address—I found it in his presence, and also another pass-book of another bank, and a number of letters—I found this letter, headed "M. Sauge"," in a' drawer in Guyot's office—I found this account, made out by the accountant, amongst the papers found on Challier, and also this letter. (The one with the postscript. Letters dated 4th and 9th February, 1875, were put in, and an account of every customer up to May 15th, amounting to 16,735 francs 75 centimes.) I have been at Caen since the defendants were committed for trial, and made inquiries there and also at Paris—I have brought from Paris three witnesses, M. Levillain, M. Giriox, and Alexis Busset—I went with M. Negre to the different wharves, and have got copies of the bills of lading—at the Free Trade Wharf I saw number of hogsheads marked A G, which M. Negre identified as the goods supplied to Guyot's order, and a large number of cases initialled I C, which he identified as having been sent to Challier—we went to Old Swan Wharf and saw sixty-two or sixty-three hogsheads initialled L—C, which M. Negre identified as those supplied to Lechevin—we then went to the British and Foreign Wharf, Upper East Smithfield, and saw six cases of brandy initialled L. C, which he identified as having been sent to Challier, and a large quantity of other cases initialled L. C, about 170 of which he also identified as having been sent to Challier—I have also seen other hogsheads which formed a portion of the cargo, but M. Negre was not present. MR. PAYNE. I am a builder at 131, King's Cross Road—I am landlord of 15, Wellington Street, New Kent Road—Lechevin took that house of me in January, 1874, at 26l. a year payable on the first of every

month, in the name of Lechevin—I seldom saw him, nor did I get access to the premises—my agent let it to him and I can't say that I ever went into the place—I went there when the broker went and found about 1 1/2 cwt. of soap and a quantity of articles called thistle and a quantity of empty bottles—I levied the rent and it is paid—he had paid one month before that, 2l. is on January 14th, but I did not see him—after that the premises were deserted and I took possession three months afterwards.

Cross-examined. I knew him as a general merchant.

----Sporks. I am a clerk in the Bankruptcy Court—I produce the proceedings in the bankruptcy of Pierre Frangois Lechevin, known as Lambert Doublay, dated July, 1873—the adjudication is the same day—the liabilities are 592l. 17s. 4d. and the assets 9l.—the assets never realised anything—he did not appear for his examination, and it was adjourned sine die for non-appearance.

THOMAS ALEXANDER LAYLAND . On 13th March last I made an advance of 150l. to Guyot on fifty hogsheads of claret, being one warrant, by this cheque, it was paid by Mr. Scott—the whole of the wine on which I made the advance was transferred to Mr. Scott—he brought the delivery order and I took him round the warrants.

RICHARD H. CLOUD . I manage Mr. Attenborough's business at 181, Minories—in January last I made an advance to Guyot in the name of Webber—I shall be able to give you the amount when the young man returns with the book—I think it was 250l. on 450 dozen of champagne—I had nothing to do with the claret.

LEON GIRIOX (Interpreted). I am a jeweller in Paris—I knew Guyot at 130, Boulevard Voltaire, in the. name of Outhenin & Co. from May to September, 1874—I think I have seen a person named Besson at Messrs. Outhenin's.

PIEERE AUGUSTE LEVILLAIN (Interpreted). I live at 30, Rue Bourbonnais—I have a share in the business of M. Rennevat—I first knew Guyot—and Challier in August and September last when they bought hosiery at our place, they were trading as Outhenin & Co., 130, Boulevard Voltaire—we did business with them to the amount of 6,120 francs in several transactions, but did not get a penny—they signed some bills for it but they came back—I last saw Challier in Paris on 14th September, he came to fetch some goods from the firm in the name of Outhenin; they had a printed billhead Outhenin & Co.—he took the goods away to show them and never came back—I saw Guyot about August 1st—I did not know that he was coming to London, his brother told me he had gone to Switzerland—I did not learn from Challier that he was about to leave Paris—after he had gone I placed the matter in the hands of the Paris police.

Cross-examined. I had never seen Challier before I first saw him and Guyot together when he came to make the first purchase in August—I saw Challier twice, first for perhaps half an hour, and the second interview was longer—I saw him again three days ago in prison, a detective took me there—I did not know what he was charged with or that he was a prisoner, twelve or fourteen persons were with him but they had not such black beards as he has—this is the first time I have given evidence, the officer who brought me over from Paris told me he wanted me to recognise Challier and Guyot.

ALEXIS BUSSET (Interpreted). I am officer in the Paris police—I brought over certain documents of Outhenin & Co. and handed them to Smith.

T. NEGRE (re-examined.) These two bills of exchange are drawn in Challier's writing and the acceptances are Guyot's. (Both were dated September 9, 1874.) This promissory note I believe to be Guyot's writing, both the drawing and the acceptance—this letter (produced) is in Guyot's writing.

THOMAS YULL (re-examined). I have now got the book in which the advance was made in January. (This contained an entry signed by Guyot, of nine warrants pledged for 2701. with interest, giving the right to sell if not redeemed by April 7th). I have not the numbers of the warrants, 150 cases were redeemed, and 250 have been sold—they were all for champagne—this "other advance of 170l. was made by us on clarets on 7th April to Guyot, with power of sale if not redeemed, but they were redeemed on 31st May, by Guyot himself.

T. NEGRE (re-called by MR. RIBTON). I believe I made a mistake in saying that the body of this bill is in Challier's writing—I believe it was drawn by the house, but it is accepted by Guyot—I do not think there is any writing of Challier's on it.

By THE COURT. The average price at which I sold the claret to Lechevin was 120 francs the hogshead, I believe—that was free on board, taken without freight or charges, put on board the ship at Bordeaux—Doussou made some admissions to me in June, respecting Guyot, not before—it was entirely on Challier's representation that I was induced to part with the goods.

LECHEVIN— GUILTY — Fifteen Months' Imprisonment.

CHALLIER— GUILTY — Five Yean Penal Servitude.

GUYOT—Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor— Eight Months' Imprisonment.

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, August 19th, 1875.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

441. OLIVER MART (48), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing 1l. 18s., and 1l. 11l. 11s., and 1l. 4s. 6d., of James Bolton and others— Four Months' Imprisonment

442. JOSEPH OLDEN , to unlawfully and maliciously writing and publishing a certain libel of and concerning Robert Gill.— To enter into recognizances to appear and receive judgment if called upon. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

443. JOHN TOWNSHEND (39) , to feloniously marrying Mary Pearce, during the lifetime of his wife— Three Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

444. WILLIAM RICHARDSON , was indicted for unlawfully making away with his property, not giving a true account of his assets, and appropriating them to his own use, thereby defrauding his creditors.

MESSRS. BESLEY and J. P. GRAIN conducted the Prosecution; Messrs. M.

WILLIAMS and R. WILLIAMS the Defence.

RICHARD SPARKS . I am an officer in the Bankruptcy Court, I produce the proceedings in the bankruptcy of William Richardson—I find in them a statement of affairs, and a transcript of the shorthand writer's notes of the examination of the bankrupt—the date of the petition is the 12th January, 1875—he was adjudicated bankrupt on the 28th January—the first meeting was called on the 9th March—28th January was the first meeting—on the 9th March, Mr. Charles Brown was appointed trustee—the statement of affairs was filed on the 9th March, 1875.

Cross-examined. There was an order to prosecute, which was obtained on Counsel's opinion—I have the order here—I do not see anything about the trustee being represented by Counsel—I think as a rule, in these examinations the Registrar is present—I do not know that he is absent sometimes—I have known that as long as the Registrar is in the building it is considered enough—I believe that when a prosecution is recommended by Counsel and ordered by the Registrar or Commissioner, the costs come out of the public fund—I cannot speak as to their being taxed sometimes to a pretty considerable amount—I have no doubt they are.

GEORGE BLAGRAVE SNELL . I attended at the Bankruptcy Court, on the 3rd April last, and took shorthand notes of the examination of William Richardson—I have since made a transcript, it is filed and is correct. (This was put in and read.)

CHARLES BOWN . I am a wholesale cheesemonger, in King Street, Hammersmith—I have had dealings with Richardson, up to July, and at that time he owed me 69l. 9s. 9d.—I saw my solicitors about this matter and gave them certain instructions—I believe on the 9th March, I was appointed trustee to the estate—I have left the matter entirely in the hands of my solicitor, Mr. Aird, I have nothing to do with it at all.

Cross-examined. I don't think the defendant came to me and offered to hand over the lease of the premises, 299, Fulham Road—I don't remember it—I cannot swear he did not—if he came to me, which I do not recollect his doing I should have told him I left the matter with Mr. Aird—I believe Mr. Broom is a principal creditor; he did not come to me about the defendant—Mr. Broom did not come to me and say "We are the principal creditors and we can arrange a composition"—his clerk came on bis behalf; I cannot say what passed now, but I think he called upon me; I cannot say what I said—I was a creditor under a previous bankruptcy of the defendant—I cannot say the amount of composition he paid in the pound, whether it was 6s.; I know there was a composition paid—I think Mr. Broom was a creditor too—we have dealt with him again since, and trusted him again—I cannot say how long he has been in business—I have known him there about three or four years, it may be longer—I have lived in Hammersmith thirty-six years.

THOMAS JOSEPH MASON . I am managing clerk to Mr. Henry Aird, the solicitor to the estate of the defendant, and one of the committee of inspection, and from the commencement I have practically had the management of the affairs—in consequence of the last witness coming to me with instructions, I issued a writ against the defendant, but first wrote a letter—I have given notice to produce that letter, I have a copy here, and there was no reply—the writ was issued the same day and not served until two days afterwards—with these exceptional cases I ask them if there is any reply, and he said he should hand it to his solicitor—I also issued a debtor's summons against him on the 2nd January—there was no conversation between us then, simply that it might be attended to—I do not recollect on the occasion of serving the summons that anything was stated between myself and the bankrupt—the horse and cart were standing at the door on the 2nd January, he said to the boy something about binding up the vein in the horse's leg; he stated at that time that he had sold them—I saw the horse and cart there, and I waited a little way off and watched where they were taken to; they were taken to the livery stables—I said nothing to him about it—on the 12th January I went to Fulham Road, for the purpose of serving the

petition in bankruptcy, and I found the shop closed—there was no knocker, I pulled the bell, the wire was broken—I went out in the road and saw the blinds were gone—I then looked about the front of the shop and saw no notice of removal, and I made enquiries but was unable to find his address, or any trace where he had gone—I subsequently discovered that the first lot of the furniture was removed to Merrick Road, and the second lot to Spencer Street—I then instructed the Sheriff to levy on the furniture at 20, Spencer Street, under the judgment of Mr. Bown, and the net amount realised, "after the deduction of his expenses, was 15l. 18s. placed to the credit of the bankrupt—on the 20th January, I saw the bankrupt again in Spencer Street, and served him with the petition—I had no conversation with him on that occasion at all—all I recollect he said was "If you had been a minute later I should have been out"—on the 28th January he attended the hearing of the petition in the Bankruptcy Court—the registrar's clerk asked him in my presence if he had any objection to the adjudication, he said "No"—he was served with the usual orders under the 19th section, on the 16th February, and to produce the statement of affairs under the 19th section of the Bankruptcy Act—the officer of the Court served him—I heard the officer ask him if he had any property to take possession of, he said "No, nothing"—I attended the first meeting on the 16th February, the bankrupt was there, but no statement of affairs—Mr. Aird asked him for the names of his creditors, he gave the names which Mr. Aird took down in my presence—I heard Mr. Aird ask him what he did with his property when he shut up his shop, and he said "I shan't tell you, that's my business"—I attended on the 23rd, the next week, the bankrupt was there, but no statement of affairs—the registrar asked him "Why have you not produced a statement of your affairs?" and he answered that he had been unable to get one prepared, he had no money—the registrar then said, if he went to Mr. Aird, the petitioning creditor he had no doubt that he would assist him—Mr. Aird turned to him and said "If you come to my office, my clerk will prepare it for you"—between this date and the 9th March he came to Mr. Aird not to me—I set the draft statement of his affairs—before the 9th March I wrote him the letter (produced) on blue paper—I have a press copy of it—on the 9th March, before the meeting, I produced the statement to him—I read the whole of the eight sheets to him to the finish—after reading it once, I said "Is it right?"—he said "Yes"—I told him to be careful that it was correct—I read the whole of that sheet to him, but when I came to that clause "The whole of the furniture I had at 299, Fulham Road," I laid special emphasis on it, and he said it was quite right—he signed each sheet—the whole of the sheet referring to the property I read twice and handed him the pen, and he signed it—I blotted each signature as he signed each page—the statement was then handed in to the registrar's clerk, who marked it "filed"—I subsequently served requisitions upon him—I served him with a demand in writing to deliver up the policy to the trustee, and on each occasion he said he should not do so until he was compelled—I had to trace him through the police—I traced him to Kilburn where he was in a situation; I ascertained from the man that removed him that he had gone to Alexander Road, Kilburn—when I called upon him at his house in Spencer Street, he told me he was going to remove at quarter-day, and I told him he should give us his last address, he said he would, but he did not—the policy was worth about 8l.—the policy was ultimately given up to me before the

registrar—I have applied to these debtors; the result was that most of them that came back again were not known, and one of the debtors says that he does not know Mr. Richardson—the bankrupt has given up this pass-book (produced), and two other books—they are called bill-book and ledger—I have gone through them carefully, and find that Guttridge's account is marked paid; in other cases he has put "paid contra account"—I forget for the moment whether there is any account with Osmond in the ledger.

Cross-examined. I have been managing this case from the beginning—I did not manage the previous bankruptcy, I was not in Mr. Aird's employment at that time, we had nothing to do with the case at that time—I have made inquiries with-reference to it, I have done nearly everything—I have spoken to Keen, he is one of our witnesses, the prisoner's cousin—I do not know whether he paid 6s.—he told me he paid a composition—I think Keen did lend it to him to pay one of the compositions, either the first or the second—I think Keen told me he lent him 30l.—I think he said this was the balance of an advance of 30l.—Keen is the man who had a sausage machine—the prisoner says he gave him 121l. 1s. 6d. for it—I am quite sure that the defendant after he had arrived from 299, Fulham Road, did not tell me that he had given notice to the Gas Company of his removal, he said nothing of the sort to me, the first we heard of that was in the Bankruptcy. Court—I made inquiries about the removal of the furniture—I was not there when it was removed—I only found out where it had been removed to, I found the second lot not the first—I did not speak of that being the best lot, the second lot I think I said—it was not moved by a couple of men named Ellis and Roberts—one of the men was named Roberts and the other Steer, both will be here—I believe the name of the defendant's mother-in-law is Mary Smith—I believe at present she has not the lease of the house No. 299, Fulham Road, because the shop is in the possession of a man named Derwin; she produced it to me and said she had lent the prisoner the money—I fancy she said he owed her more than 45l., she said she had not proved her debt—I am quite positive she did not offer to hand the lease over to me, on the contrary—I did not decline it, we could make some money of it if we got it—I have heard of Mr. Broom as a creditor in other cases—he is the principal creditor in this case, he has proved his debt, 70l—that is larger than Mr. Brown's debt—I never was in Mr. Broom's shop to ask him to join in this prosecution, I never saw Mr. Broom—I don't recollect seeing anybody, I. have seen a clerk in other cases—Mr. Broom sent his proxy to our office—I know what goes on in Mr. Aird's office, in this case I know more than Mr. Aird—no suggestion has been made to Mr. Broom from our office to join in this prosecution—I know who you mean by a man named Gray, I saw him when I went to take Mr. Sergeant's evidence—I saw him in the presence of Mr. Sergeant for a few moments, he brought a candle into the room and went out into the next room—I did not say to him in the presence of Mr. Sergeant that I had a good case in this prosecution—I did not say to him I could make a better thing out of it than out of a bankruptcy, I am satisfied of that—Sergeant and Gray were both in the Northcote Arms—I asked Sergeant if he would have anything to drink the object of my visit was to ask Sergeant if he would be a witness—I deny most emphatically that I used the words "I could make a better thing out of it," &c., as a matter of fact I

have no interest in the case except my employer's interest, not a farthing in any way.

Re-examined. I had the proxy of Mr. Broom and another, that gentleman's makes up the larger amount—Sergeant is the man who sold the best furniture at Merrick Road—I went to see him for the purpose of taking a note of his evidence.

HARRIET HUDSON . I was living at 3, Merrick Road, in January last—I went down to the Guildhall and saw the man who was being charged there—I fancy I recognised him as having seen him before—I recognise him now—in January last I was living with "Mrs. Gower at the Merrick Road, she was ill and I entirely acted for her—when the defendant called he asked if we had apartments and I said "Yes"—he took one room—I saw some furniture moved in, it was brought in a van—there was some name on the van, I could not swear to it—the prisoner was with it—I think the furniture was very good—I could not tell you a few of the articles—I think the van was full as far as I could see—there was not another cart there as well, not then—I saw on the small cart the name of Richardson—the furniture remained there about ten days—I could not say they gave any name at all—they took all the furniture away that had been brought in—I don't know that I have seen Mr. Sergeant on any of these occasions—no address was given when they came for apartments—they stated as a reason for their moving in that they had some business to settle, and when it was settled we would be allowed to relet—I did not go to them to the Tholgan Road after they went away.

Cross-examined. I could not swear that a spring cart came too when the things came, I think not—I saw a spring cart at some time with the name of Richardson on it—when they came they would have taken the three rooms—they might have said that there was a family, a wife and eight children, but I did not hear it—I do not know that it was because there were children that Mrs. Gower did not let the rooms, but I know she has a general aversion to children—they only took one room and the furniture was put in that and taken away afterwards—the rooms were of average size—the house was a moderate size—it was a one-horse van that called with four wheels—I cannot say how much furniture there was nor how many rooms it would have furnished—there was one van load with one horse.

MRS. GOWER. I live at 3, Merrick Rood, Clapham Junction—I should not know the prisoner again—I think it was about the beginning of January that he came and asked for a room—I think they gave the name of Marshall—I could not recognise him—I know the furniture came in; I did not see it come in, nor after it came in—they did not live there—they merely had the room, the furniture was put inside the room; they had the key—I subsequently went to Tholgan Road and found them there.

Cross-examined. I think I let the room, it was arranged that they should have one room—two or three were spoken about, but they only wanted them for the time being—nothing was said about children that I remember—one room was taken—I did not see the furniture, but I heard it come in—I should say it took about ten minutes coming in—I did not see the cart with Richardson on it.

HENRY ROBERTS . I am a carman and cab proprietor—shortly after Christmas, last year, I received an order from my father to remove some furniture from 299, Fulham Road—I went there with my van—the size of

my van is 9 feet long, 4 feet 6 inches wide, a one horse van—there were a couch, washing stands, with marble tops, pictures, fender, and a table, I think—the van was about three parts full—I took the furniture to Merrick Road, and Mr. Richardson stood on the stairs and helped the things into the room, while a man carried it up.

Cross-examined. This moving took place about the middle of the day, about 2 or 3 o'clock—there are several carmen living nearer to Richardson's place in the Fulham Road than me—I am about a quarter of a mile from his place—I knew Richardson before by moving his goods—we have known him the whole time we were there—he followed us up with his horse and cart from Fulham Road to where the furniture was taken—the cart had his name on it.

JOHN SARGEANT . I am bailiff of the Wandsworth County Court—I also carry on the business of a house agent and furniture broker—I saw Richardson just after Christmas about some furniture; I cannot give you the exact date—I went with him to Merrick Road, where I inspected some furniture in the room—I sent for it after I had seen it and valued it—I subsequently sold it for 18l. 10s.—it was not pretty good furniture—I handed Richardson 18l.—I have a list of the furniture purchased that I made at the time—Richardson had got his cart with his name on it, and this van was standing just by—he had been recommended to me.

Cross-examined. He gave me no instructions as to how they were to be sold—I told him what I thought they were worth—they were not sold at a loss—I took him the money—I met him with a lady who had the lease of the house—I was to take the money to Battersea—I had not known him previously.

GEORGE DANIEL FLACK . I am the proprietor of 299, Fulham Road, of which the defendant had a lease for seven years, it had three years to run from last June; the rent was 60l. a year—the last payment was made on the 2nd January, up to September last—after Christmas he owed me for two quarters—it was paid up to September—there were some fixtures on the premises belonging to him—I reckoned the value of them to be about from 12l. to 15l.—I should think the value of them to a person purchasing the shop to carry on business, would be about about 30l.—to an incoming tenant they would be worth that—I have not seized the fixtures.

Cross-examined. I think Mr. Richardson has been my tenant about sixteen years I have known him the whole of that time—I do not suppose the fixtures would be worth more than 5l. to me to take them out—why I said 30l. was in consideration of their condition now—he paid his rent very regularly except the last two years, and then I have been obliged to take it as I could get it—he paid me 8l. shortly before Christmas, and the day after Christmas day he paid me 3l., and on the 2nd January he settled the account—he is in possession of the house now—Mr. Derwin is my tenant—the lease was returned to me by Mrs. Smith—the clauses were broken in several instances.

MR. MASON (re-examined). I did not go to Mr. Brown to ask for his proxy, nor did Mr. Aird, it was a clerk in his employ—it has not come to my knowledge that the proxy was given on some understanding.

MR. BUTT (examined by MR. R. WILLIAMS). I am a clerk to Mr. Broom—I am a cashier, and have been so very nearly three years—during that time the defendant has dealt with us, his account has been a bad one—we wanted him to get the money, and we consented to take his proceedings in

bankruptcy—I have taken no part in this prosecution—as regards the prisoner's character, I know he has been a struggling man ever since his insolvency—we were pressing him hard for money, and he came and made an offer—we believe he paid to the utmost of his power—Mr. Broom is not in town or he would have been here.

The prisoner received a good character; strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his misfortunes in business.

GUILTY — Six Months' Imprisonment.

445. ALFRED MOONEY (19) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Francis Waters, with intent to steal.

MR. DIXON conducted the Prosecution; and MR. R. WILLIAMS the Defence.

WILLIAM NOTLEY (Policeman 371 B). I was on duty on Monday morning, 19th July, in Strutton Ground, Westminster, about 1.45—as I was passing I heard a door open on my left—I saw a man come out with a light in his hand, holding it behind him—he went towards the corner of Great Peter Street, where the prisoner was standing—I went after him, and when he saw that I was getting near to him he ran away, the prisoner joining him—they both ran down Great Peter Street, as far as Matthew Street, where the prisoner turned in, but the other man kept straight on and turned into Perkin's Rents—I lost sight of him there.—I then went back to the shop and woke up Mr. Waters; I examined the premises and found the first floor window open—the prisoner was brought back by another constable—I gave instructions for him to be taken to the station, while I examined the premises—I found nothing had been taken—I went into the station and charged the prisoner, and he took this chisel (produced) from his pocket and "That will convict me"—he also took this cap (produced) from his pocket and said it belonged to the man that ran away—he said at first, he did not know anything about it; there were three others, but they were strangers to him—I found upon him 2s. id in coppers, 1s. 3d. in silver, a small file, a knife and some string—he told the Magistrate they asked him to hold these things while they had a fight—I have, not the slightest doubt he is the man.

Cross-examined. It was rather a close night, rather cloudy; I could not say that it had been raining—the prisoner was about 12 yards from the house—when he was at the station he produced the chisel himself—he was standing right under a street lamp—I was about 20 yards from him then—I am sure he is the same man—the man who ran away had on a cap similar to this.

FREDERICK COLE (Policeman B 401). I was on duty in Matthew Street, Westminster, at 2.30 on Monday morning, the 19th July, I heard a noise like two men running—the prisoner tried to pass me, and I stopped him and asked him what he was running for—he said "All right Charlie, its all right, there's a row, a fight; I must run away or get a good hiding"—I told him to come back with me and we would see what was the matter—I took him to Strutton Ground.

Cross-examined. It was rather a cloudy night.

FRANCIS WATERS . I live at 39, Strutton Ground, Westminster, I am a tobacconist—when I went to bed on Sunday night, I left the house perfectly locked up, but forgot to put down the first floor window, which is 8 or 9 feet from the ground—I was sound asleep until the police constable woke me up—I dressed myself and searched, but found nothing was missing;

I found the window a little farther up, not in the position I had left it—it is very easy for anyone to get in by the window—I left the door barred—I do not know whether anybody was in the house when I went to bed—I think nobody could be there without my knowing it.

WILLIAM MAYHEW (Policeman B 213). I was on duty in the Horseferry Road, on Monday, the 19th July, when I came to the Strutton Ground I saw the prisoner standing on the opposite side of the road under the lamp-post, which is 14 or 15 yards from the prosecutor's house—he stood directly in the light of the lamp; I saw his features—I heard a door open and saw the prisoner join a man running from the prosecutor's house—I went across and shortly afterwards constable 371 returned and aroused Mr. Waters—while he was doing so constable 401 brought the prisoner back, and I identified him—he denied having been there, and afterwards admitted to me that he was there—he said he knew nothing of the affair, there were three in it and were all strangers to him.

Cross-examined. I think he was some 14 or 15 yards from the corner of the street, when I saw his features—I saw him join the man that escaped from Mr. Waters' house—they both ran together in the direction of Great Peter Street, and constable 371 followed him—I know the neighbourhood of Great Peter Street pretty well—it is a rough neighbourhood and pretty crowded.

NOT GUILTY .

FOURTH COURT.—Thursday, August 19th, 1875.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

446. CHARLES GOUGH (23), and HENRY EUSTACE (45) , Stealing fifty-five cases of condensed milk, value 70l. of Francis Maybury, the master of Gough.

MR. FRITH conducted the Prosecution. No evidence was offered against Eustace—

NOT GUILTY .

FRANCIS JOHN MAYBURY . I am manager to my father, who is a master carman, of 7, St. Mary Axe—the prisoner was in his employ as carman—on 12th August, about 7 o'clock in the morning, I sent him to Custom House quay for fifty five cases of milk, he was to take them in two loads, fifty to Wilkinson, of Stratford, and five to I bbeson—he was then to come back and take fifty cases to Mr. Chalon, of Stoke Newington, get the receipts, and bring them back to me signed—the value of the cases was 70l.—I next saw the prisoner about 7 o'clock in the evening in Whitechapel, where Childs went to look after him.

WILLIAM CHAPMAN . I am a delivery foreman at Custom House quay—on the morning of 12th August, between 10 and 11 o'clock, I delivered to the prisoner, fifty cases of condensed milk, in one load, and fifty in another—they were marked G and Z—this (produced) is a case of the same kind.

WILLIAM MORGAN . I am a grocer and cheesemonger of 6, Lancet Place, Church Street, Stoke Newington—on the afternoon of 12th August a Mr. Eustace came to my shop, my niece was there—I never saw Gough till he was at the Mansion House—in consequence of something my niece said to me, I went to Mr. Maybury's with Mr. Eustace—I found the case produced along with fifty four others in my cellar.

ROBERT CHILDS (City Detective). I took Gough into custody in Childs Street, Shadwell—I said to him "You are a long distance out of your way, "he said "Yes, I was going down here to see a pal of mine at the Nelson

beer-house"—I said "I am a police-officer, you will be charged with being concerned with a man named Eustace, in stealing fifty-five cases of milk"—he said "I suppose I delivered them at the wrong place, and I have lost the two notes"—I said "No, we have the two notes, and Eustace is in custody"—he then said "This has been got up for me—I suppose he, (meaning Eustace), is a detective, I have heard of such things being done before" Gough in his defence stated that on his way with his load he met a man and went with him to a public-house, where he met Eustace, that he there dropped the notes containing the addresses of the persons to whom. he was to deliver the milk, that Eustace picked them up, and afterwards gave him a paper with Mr. Morgan's address on it, and. told him that was where he was to deliver them; he accordingly took them there.

MARY MORGAN . I am niece to Mr. Morgan—I was there when the cases of milk were brought, three men came with them—I took them in and put them in the cellar—Gough did not show me any paper or any address—Eustace came there ten minutes afterwards and wanted to see my uncle.

THE COURT was of opinion that there was no evidence of appropriation of the property by Gough—GOUGH

NOT GUILTY .

447. JAMES HOWARD (49) , Unlawfully obtaining 1l. 19s. of William Bussage by false pretences.

MR. GILL conducted the Prosecution.

The prosecutor stating that he parted with his money not upon the pretences alleged, the Jury found the prisoner.

NOT GUILTY .

448. FRANCIS WILLIAM COOK (30), and EDWARD KELLARD (17) , Robbery with violence on John Anderson, and stealing 2s. his property.

MR. LYON conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN ANDERSON *. I am a painter, and live at 31, Frederick Street, Caledonian Road—on Saturday morning last about two o'clock, I was crossing Barnsbury Road and saw the two prisoners and was knocked down by Cook, I caught hold of his leg and pulled him down—I rose up and we had a scuffle—they knocked me down a second time, and they tumbled me about, pulled me across the road, and kicked me on the eye—Cook put his hands in my pocket and took 2s.—Kellard felt me all about the body as I was on the ground—they then left me—I met the sergeant and told him I had been knocked down; I had been drinking, but was not drunk, I was quite capable of knowing what I was about—I saw the prisoners in custody about twenty minutes afterwards.

Cross-examined by the prisoner Cook. I had about 7s. in my pocket when I left home—I had only spent 2s.—I had 3s. left after the 2s. was taken—I did not see you before you knocked me down—I had not been with any woman that evening—I have not stated to any one that I was sorry I had prosecuted you—I did not quarrel with Kellard and hit him in the jaw; I swear that.

WILLIAM BURNHAM (Policeman 48 K). I saw the prisoners running and stopped them—I said "What are you running for?"—Cook said "It's all right;" Kellard said "We are only having a lark, just having a race home, it's all right governor"—I let them pass after turning my lamp on their faces and looking at them well—Constables 118 and 391 came up, I gave them instructions and ran in the direction (he prisoners came from and saw the prosecutor, he was covered with blood—he said had been knocked down and robbed—he was drunk but seemed to know what he was about—I

called out to the constables to detain the prisoners—they denied robbing the prosecutor, but said they had had a fair fight—Cook had a black eye, it began to swell as we went to the station.

WILLIAM CLIFFORD (Policeman T 118). I stopped the prisoners—they said "You are not going to take us for anything we did not see, we have had a fight"—a few halfpence were found on Kellard.

MARY ANN DANVILLE . I heard a desperate row in the street—I opened my window and saw the prosecutor knocked down and pulled about.

NOT GUILTY .

449. THOMAS PARSONS (38) , Robbery with violence on William Graham and stealing a watch and chain, his property.

MR. MOODY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. J. P. GRAIN the Defence.

WILLIAM GRAHAM . I am a bill poster and live in High Street, Hounslow—on 10th February last I was out collecting some debts—I went to the Five Oaks on Twickenham Common and had a glass of beer—the prisoner was there and a woman named Humphreys sat by his side—I was only there a few minutes, I left and when I had got about 100 yards the prisoner followed me, grabbed me by the neck, threw me down in a ditch on my backside, and took my watch and silver guard chain—I hallooed out and the prisoner disappeared up the Hanworth Road—I got home the best way I could and next day I went and told the police—I was frightened to go back that night—I described the man to the police and I went to where he used to work at some drainage works, but could not find him) I had seen him several times before—I saw nothing of him until the 25th of last month when he came into my house as I was at dinner and said "Does Graham live here"—I said "Yes"—he sat and said "Did you lose a silver watch with a silver guard to it 1l. "I said "I did"—he said "If you come along with me I will take you to the party as has got it"—as we were going along he said "If you follow me and sweat hard and fast that this woman robbed you I will swear the same"—I knew the man directly he came into my place, but I did not tell him so—he took me to Wilton and I went with Kerridge the policeman—he brought the woman out; the prisoner kept calling her nasty names and said to me "Will you swear this woman took your watch?"—I said "You come along, don't make a noise"—we went to the station, the woman was let go and the prisoner was locked up.

Cross-examined. Kerridge was not called before the Magistrate—I had only been into one public-house, I was as sober as a Judge and was making the best of my way home—it was quite light, I saw the man distinctly—the woman was in the public-house when I was there, but she was not near me when the prisoner took my watch.

JOHN RONEY (Police Sergeant T 18). On 25th of last month the prisoner, the prosecutor, and Sarah Humphreys came to me at the station with Kerridge—the prisoner said "'I wish to give information about a watch, this is the woman (pointing to Humphreys) that took it; she brought it home and showed it tome; I said 'Sal, don't have anything to do with it; she then took it into the garden and buried it and next day I found it and took it to London and sold it to a man, if you lock up the woman I will bring back the watch"—she said "I know nothing about it"—I said to the prisoner "There is no evidence at present that the woman took the watch, and according to your own statement the watch was in your possession and she was living with you as your wife, I shall detain you" and I locked him

up—I left him in the cell for a little time and when I went to him I found him lying on his back black in the face, with a silk handkerchief tied tightly round his neck and the ends of it in his hands—I loosened it at once and after some time he came to—he said he would kill himself if I did not lock up the woman, that she was a b----whore and was living with a police-constable—the woman said she had been living with him eight years and she had left him because he broke her leg.

SARAH HUMPHREYS . I live at Paper Mill Cottages, Twickenham—I lived with the prisoner for eight years, I separated from him some time ago—I was at the Five Oaks with him when the prosecutor was there, he had a glass of ale and went out—the prisoner followed him and said he was going to work—I went home and got the tea and he came home to tea at the regular time—I never saw or heard anything about the prosecutor's watch until 25th July—I did not bury it in the garden.

Cross-examined. We lived close to the Five Oaks—I saw nothing of the watch and know nothing about it—everything that the prisoner said at Brentford was false.

GUILTY .

He also PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction in February, 1872.

Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

NEW COURT.—Friday, August 20th, 1875.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

450. WILLIAM GEOGHAN (15), and ROBERT MARKS (15) , Feloniously breaking and entering the counting-house of George Kinahan, and others, and stealing therein an order for the payment of money, and 2l. 15s. Second Count—Feloniously receiving the same.

GEOGHAN PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. F. H. LEWIS

defended Marks.

JAMES SMITH . I am office boy to George Kinahan, and others, of 20, Great Tichfield Street—on Friday evening, 2nd July, at 7.30, I went away from the office—I locked the door and left everything safe—on Saturday, we had a bean feast and did not come to business—on Monday morning, the 5th, I went to the office at 8.30 and found that three desks had been broken open.

WILLIAM BLAKE . I am foreman to Kinahan & Co.—I live on the premises and keep the keys—I went into the office at 7.35—I noticed nothing wrong at that time.

ALFRED BROWN . (Detective Officer E). From information, I went to Margate, on 8th July, and saw Geoghan there, in charge of the police—I told him the charge, and cautioned him in the usual way—he then stated that he and Marks had crept underneath the door, between 10 and 11 o'clock on the Saturday night, got on a van, and from that to the first floor, broke open the door leading into the office, and then he and Marks broke three desks open; that they then went to the letter box, opened that and took out twelve letters, and took 3s. 6d. out of Mr. Harrison's drawer—they then went to Princes-Street, Regent Street, opened all the letters and tore them up, and threw them away—I afterwards apprehended Marks—I told him the charge—he said I had made a mistake; I took him to the station, and Geoghan repeated his statement in his presence—Marks made no answer to that, Geoghan said they got a cheque from one of the letters they had taken from the office, and it was agreed that he should go to

Margate and get it cashed, and afterwards return and meet the other two in Oxford Market, to divide the money—I subsequently took the lad Barber into custody and he was admitted as a witness.

Cross-examined. When I took Barber, he said I had made a mistake—he knew nothing about it; he was near the place.

Re-examined. He subsequently said "I am very sorry, on account of my character, what do you think I shall get"—Geoghan afterwards told me that he had thrown the cheque into the sea.

CATHERINE GEOGHAN . I live at 2, Little Portland Street—Geoghan is my son—on Saturday, 2nd July, about 11 o'clock at night, as I was returning home from Oxford Market; I saw Barber at the corner of Tichfield Street, and Little Portland Street—the prosecutor's premises are directly opposite my house—as soon as Barber saw me he ran away, and as he ran he gave a peculiar whistle—I saw him again about 11.30, he was going at a very quick pace, not running, towards Marlbofough Street, away from Kinahan's—my boy worked there; I knew Barber, as a companion of his—ray son was brought home by the officer on Sunday night, about 11.30—he had not been in on Saturday night.

WILLIAM GEORGE TILLSELL . I am junior cashier at" Messrs. Kinahan's—on Saturday, 3rd July, the office was not opened, in—consequence of the bean feast—I had been there on Friday—my desk was locked and there was 2l. 15s. in it in gold, silver, and copper, and a key of the letter-box—on the 5th, I found my desk broken open, and the money and key gone.

ROBERT GRAHAM CRAMP . I am a wine and spirit merchant at Margate—on 2nd July, I drew a cheque for 19l. 16s. on the Margate Bank, and sent it by post to Messrs. Kinahan.

JOHN EDWARD PHILLIPS . I am manager of the Margate Branch of the London and County Bank—on Tuesday, 6th July, between 1 and 2 o'clock, Geoghan brought this cheque for 19l. 16s.—in consequence of what happened I took him to the superintendent of police.

WILLIAM BARBER . I am apprenticed to & gilder, and live with my mother at 3, Great Tichfield Street—on the night of 3rd July, between 10 and 11 o'clock, I was waiting outside Kinaban's to see whether it was all right, while Marks and Geoghan were inside, I saw Geoghan's mother once—it had been arranged between the prisoners and myself that I should remain outside—Geoghan said we should get a lot of money, they crawled in under the large gates—there was a space between the gates and the ground—Geoghan had mentioned this to me two nights before; Marks was present,—I saw them come out—I asked Geoghan what he had got—he said "3s. 6d. and some letters"—we went to Princes Street and opened all the letters; there was a cheque for 19l. 16s. in one of them—Geoghan said they should try and get it cashed—he said he would take it on the Monday morning—on Monday morning, he came to my shop, in Carnaby Street, and said he had taken the cheque to the bank, but they would not cash it—he said he would borrow 18d. and go to Margate to try and get it cashed there—Marks was present at this conversation—the 3s. 6d. was to make up the amount to go to Margate with.

The Prisoners before the Magistrate stated that they never saw the 2l. 15s. 8d.

MARKS— GUILTY — Three Months' each, in Newgate.

451. THOMAS KIRBY (40) , Embezzling the sums of 26l. 18s., 6l., and 18l. 6s., which he had received on account of John Wright his master.

MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution; MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS the

Defence.

CHARLES FREDERICK COOKSEY . I am a member of the firm of Soper & Co., of 56, Queen Victoria Street, City; we are gas engineers—in March last we owed John Wright, & Co., of Birmingham, 26l. 18s. 2d.—I paid that by cheque to the prisoner, and he signed the receipt produced, dated 17th March—the cheque has been returned by my bankers as paid—in May last we owed the firm 6l. 18s. 6d., that was paid to the prisoner in cash, and he signed this receipt "T. E Kirby, for John Wright & Co."

Cross-examined. The cheque was made payable to Kirby's order, and is endorsed by him—I can't say that I have ever seen any cards of Messrs. Wright's—I have received cards by post from the prisoner, dated from his private residence.

Re-examined. I made the cheque payable to Kirby's order, because it was our first transaction with the firm, so that he might get the money at once, in case he should have any doubt about it—I think I asked if he would not prefer it.

JOHN WRIGHT . I am a gas and stove manufacturer at Birmingham—I employed the prisoner some years ago as a clerk in the counting-house; he was then paid by a weekly salary—he afterwards became a traveller for me, and travelled for three or four years in the London district—he was to have a per centage on all the goods that he actually sold, and he was allowed to retain a certain sum, I think 5l., until about October twelvemonth—I then thought it would be advisable for him to have a trap, and allowed him 7l. a week from that time—it was his duty to get orders and collect the money—he was to remit every Friday night the money he had collected during the week, and he did so I think without exception, keeping back the 7l.—if he received a cheque it was his duty to send it on to us—he had no banker of his own that I know of—these (produced) are his weekly statements, dated 20th and 24th March, which was the day before Good Friday—there is no entry in these of Soper & Co's cheque for 26l. 18s. 2d., nor of 6l. 18s. 6d. in his statements of 28th May and 4th June—on the Thursday in the first whole week in July I came to town and saw the prisoner-at his house, I said to him "Mr. Kirby, I am sorry to find there are some defalcations in your accounts"—he said "There are, but it is not very much, I think"—I said "You were down at Birmingham on Monday, and made out a list of the amounts for you to collect for the next two months, I want you to go through that list with me, as I am afraid the amount is very heavy, and point out those you have received"—he said "I can do that"—I had seen him at Birmingham on the Monday; it was his duty to come down every two months to make out the accounts for collection for the following two months; this is the list he gave me, I took it down in writing; he gave it me from a" book before him, and I copied it down at the time—he gives here the number of sums he said he had received, amounting altogether to 505l. 1s. 8d., that was the amount of his deficiency—among the list that I took down was Soper & Cooksey, 6l. 18s. 6d., but there is no mention of the larger sum of 26l. 18s.—he did not mention that to me at all; I told him there was a larger amount due—nothing further passed—he asked me not to say anything to his wife about it—I said I did not want to say anything more, but he was to meet me at Lincoln's Inn Fields next morning at 11 o'clock"—he did so—he then told me that he had made a mistake, that there were some other matters, and

he had got an amended list—I said "It is in the hands of my solicitors, and I cannot say anything now"—he wanted to know if we could not make some arrangement by which he could continue to travel and have nothing to do with the money—I said I could not think of that—he stayed in the lower office while I went in to Mr. Preston's office—when I came down I called a cab and got in, and he came to the door and said "I have got to come down to your office on Monday—I said "Have you told your wife"—he said "No"—I said "Then if I was you I would go home and cousult her as to the best course to take"—I consulted Mr. Preston, and on the following Tuesday the prisoner was given into custody—he never sent me the amended list—all orders came to me to be executed.

Cross-examined. The 5l. a week was not for travelling expenses, the extra 2l. was for expenses for the horse and trap; he had no other expenses, he was living in London—he did not receive any commission, the 5l. was for his services; that was all the commission he had; if he earned more he had it, the 5l. was retained on account and if he. earned more it was settled at the end of the year; he had 7 1/2 per cent., at one time he was allowed 10 per cent, and then it was reduced to 7 1/2, that was to include the horse and trap—he used his own discretion in obtaining orders and collecting monies within a certain locality—I suppose the London district would be twelve miles round London, but that is a detail of the business that I don't have much to do with—I told him only to collect in the London district; I did not tell him what the London district was—he formerly travelled in the country and then I received orders from him at other places, I don't know that—I have since; mine is a large business and it is impossible for me to know all the details of it—I saw some cards of his at the Mansion House the other day in which he described himself as my agent; I don't believe I ever saw any before (referring to a letter of November, 1872). I don't know what card this refers to, I don't think it is this card (produced), I can't remember, I can't tell what was on the card—I had not seen any card with "agent" on it—I know Davis & Co., the printers; we have had an account from them since the prisoner has been in custody and we sent it back and said we knew nothing of it—we gave them an order to print some postage cards for the prisoner reminding people when he would come round—I have seen some of the post-cards—he was not described as our agent on any that we ordered—Mr. Robjohn is my managing man, he acts by my authority—this letter (produced) is his writing—(Read:" November 23rd, 1871. Mr. John Davis, printer, 201, Old Kent Road. Sir,—Please get 1,000 cards printed as enclosed and and sent to our traveller as per address on card.") This is not the card—the address is in Kirby's writing—he lived first at 18. Benwell Road, and then at 48—I believe I have never seen any card of this description until before the Magistrate—I was asked about a card before the Magistrate, but not this card—Robjohn is not here—this (produced) is a letter dated 6th February, 1874, from Robjohn to the prisoner telling him that he had better get Davis to do the cards for him, but that does not say what was to be on the cards—the prisoner had no authority to draw in advance—he never did so that I know of for three weeks—this letter is my writing. (This was dated May 15th, 1871, stating that the prisoner had drawn two weeks in advance).—I did not remember that—he had authority to buy any stove for me if he saw one that he thought would suit me—I was to pay for it—I don't say he never

did, but it would be an unusual thing—I won't swear he has not done so—I did not owe a Mr. Carver 15l. 11s. 3d.—the prisoner paid Carver—it was a renewed bill, and in this letter dated 26th November, 1873, we told him he had better give him the money—my manager wrote it, I was away—it was not paying for it the money, it was simply renewing a bill for Carver's accommodation—I authorised him once or twice to make a present of a pheasant or a brace of hares to customers—I know a gas engineer named McCrosky—I don't know that the prisoner ever travelled for him or that he solicited orders for my brother—this (produced) is a paper that was forwarded by Robjohn to the prisoner from a customer in which he says "If you have an agent in London let him call on us as we wish to have the matter settled at once"—I was never outside the prisoner's house until the day I went to speak to him about this affair—I then saw a slab on which he was described as my agent and I was surprised to see it—I did not pay for it, it was not painted by my order, I knew nothing about it—I think we were charged with it, but it was charged to Kirby's account.

Re-examined. I never knew that the word "agent" was on the card till I saw it at his house—his weekly remittances averaged from 10l. to 100l.—if in travelling about he saw a stove that was something new in the trade he might buy that for us and that would be deducted—as a rule he would not have occasion to deduct it because it would be charged by the customer of whom he bought it—I don't think he ever retained two weeks in advance except on the one occasion referred to.

WILLIAM MITCHELL (Policeman). I took the prisoner into custody on Tuesday, 13th July, at the Clerkenwell Sessions—I told him I held a warrant for his arrest and read it to him—he said "Did Mr. Wright take that warrant out?—I said I did not know, Mr. Tanner, the solicitor's clerk, had instructed me—he said "Mr. Wright gave me until, Tuesday next when I was to go to Birmingham and the matter would be then settled."

MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS submitted that the prisoner was not a servant within the meaning of the Act, but that the evidence showed he was merely an agent, and therefore not liable under this indictment. MR. POLAND contended that the-evidence was for the Jury, and that there was ample to justify their finding the prisoner to be an ordinary traveller or servant. The cases referred to were "Reg. v. Bowers," 1 Law Reports, 4l.; "Reg. v. Negus," 2 Law Reports (Crown cases reserved), and "Reg. v. Tite." The Common Sergeant: "The relation of master and servant is to be inferred from a good many facts, and if there are a good many facts from which that inference is to be drawn it is proper for the Jury to consider them, if they find the facts to be so and so, it is for the Judge to say whether that finding establishes the prisoner to be a clerk or servant; in the same way as in a case of malicious prosecution, the facts are for the Jary, and upon those facts being found, the Court decides whether they amount to a reasonable or probable cause."

Witness for the Defence.

JOHN JOSEPH VARNEY . I am manager to John Davis & Co., printers, 201, Old Kent Road, we have printed several lots of cards for Wright & Co.—I received this letter dated 23rd November, from Wright's manager; we did not print this post card, this is the copy supplied to us to print from—in consequence of receiving in a letter that from Wright's manager we printed cards like this (read): "We have the pleasure to inform you that our Mr. T. E. Kirby will wait upon you, and trust to be favoured by a continuance

of your kind support, Wright & Co., agents, address 80, Benwell Road, Holloway." We printed that set of cards in accordance with the direction from Wright's manager; we also printed some like this, which has on it the same agents address.

MR. WEIGHT (re-examined.) The prisoner was in my employment about seven years—we had a settlement every two months—there was no settlement about his commission when he left.

GUILTY as a servant, of embezzling the money, Recommended to mercy by the Jury and Prosecutor — Twelve Months Imprisonment.

452. JOSEPH HENRY STRONG (20), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing sixty coupons, and thirty coupons of the Egyptian 9 per cent. Government loan of 1867, the property of Thomas Charles Bruce and others, his masters. Second Count—of the Imperial Ottoman Bank.

Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor— Judgment respited.

453. CORNELIUS LAWRENCE SCHOLLAR (33) , Unlawfully obtaining 16l. of Magnus Norregard by false pretences.

MR. MOODY conducted the Prosecution.

MAGNUS NORREGARD . I am cashier to Messrs. Harrison & Co., of Billiter Street, ship and insurance brokers—on Friday, 9th July, the prisoner came to our place with Captain Fisher, one of our customers—on Saturday 7th he called again, and asked for Captain Johansen—I told him he was not in—he said "If he calls, will you be kind enough-to tell him I shall be at the office at 5 o'clock"—he represented himself as Captain Schollar, of the ship Robert Andrew, discharging in Victoria 'Dock, from New York; he said Charles Gumm & Co., were the ship's brokers—he came again at 5 o'clock—I told him Captain Johansen had not called—he then said that he wanted to do some business with the firm, as he was dissatisfied with the other brokers—I told him the clerk who attended to the American department was not in—he then said "Can you let me have 121. or 16l. on account of Captain Johansen"—I did not agree to that, but I said "As you represent yourself as Captain Schollar of the American ship Robert Andrew, and also tell me your brokers are closed, I will let you have the money on your ship's account," and I gave him 16l.—I filled up this form, and he signed it—he promised to call next day; he did not come, or the next day either—I met him at the Fenchurch Street Station, and gave him in charge—I parted with the 16l. believing he was Captain Schollar of the Robert W. Andrew.

CHARLES CURTIS FORD . I am a clerk to Gumm & Co., shipbrokers, Change Alley—I never saw the prisoner till he was at the Mansion House—I do not know any captain of a ship named Schollar, or any person of that name—there is no ship called Robert W. Andrew, in the Victoria Dock—we do not act as brokers for any ship of that name—I do not know such a ship.

WILLIAM BIRD (City Policeman 701). The prisoner was given into my custody by Mr. Norregard—he said he was very sorry, he never was a captain, but he had been an officer on board the Robert W. Andrew.

Prisoner. I was mate on board the Robert W. Andrew—I did not say I was the captain—I call myself a master because I have a master's certificate—I know Captain Johansen and spent the day with him and Captain Fisher—I did ask for the loan of 16l., but it was for myself, and not under any false pretence.

NOT GUILTY .

454. HENRY MUGGERIDGE (39), and FREDERICK GEORGE ROSE (48) , Feloniously forging and uttering an order for 12l. 10s., with intent to defraud.

MESSRS POLAND and GILL conducted the Prosecution. George Martin. I am a dealer in hardwood at Abbey Street, Bethnal Green—I have known Rose twelve months, and have seen him several times—he has introduced customers to me—he is a commission agent—on 10th April the two prisoners came together—I had never seen Muggeridge before—Rose said "This gentleman wants to select some mahogany to fit up an office in Lincoln's Inn"—he said he had been a lawyer's clerk, and his name was Johnstons—they selected about sixteen pieces, which came to 7l. 8s. 3d.—Rose made out the bill, I signed the receipt and I gave it to Muggeridge—he then produced this cheque for 12l. 10s.—I asked Rose if it was all right, and he said "I have not introduced you a bad customer before"—Muggeridge wrote on the back of it "H. J. Johnstone, Tillotson Street, Stepney Green"—I had not sufficient change, and I went to my brother-in-law Mr. Dorling to get it—I left the cheque with him, and gave the change 5l. 1s. 9d., to Muggeridge, and gave Rose half a sovereign for introducing him—I said I would send the wood home if they liked—Muggeridge said no, he would send his own carman for it on the Monday—about 12 o'clock on Monday, Hills the carman came for it, and took it away, and signed a receipt for it—on the Wednesday the cheque was returned to me marked "N.S."—I went to the address in Tillotson Street that Muggeridge had given me, and found he had gone—I could find no trace of him—I afterwards found my wood at Mr. Mitton's in New North Road—I looked for Rose but could not find him—I paid Mr. Mitton 3l. 12s. for the wood and bought it back from him—that was the price he had given for it—it was worth what I charged, 1l. 8s. 3d.

Cross-examined by Muggeridge. I was not at home when you first called—both of you selected it—I did not come home the worse for drink—you said you would not take the timber away until I had an opportunity of satisfying myself about the cheque—you were arrested in Coventry Street, which is about four-hundred yards from my place, and not far from the police-station—I have never been a bankrupt, or compounded with my creditors—I don't carry on the business in my own name; it is Mr. Dorling's business—you wrote your name on the cheque in my presence—Rose volunteered to get it changed, and I said I would go to my brother-in-law for it.

Cross-examined by Rose. You generally wrote out the invoices for me when you introduced a customer—I have paid you as much as 4l. or 5l. on one transaction—all your transactions before were perfectly honest—when Muggeridge offered the cheque, you said if Mr. Dixon was in, you could get it cashed there, and I said "Don't trouble I will go to my brother-in-law"—Dixon is a bill discounter in Church Street—I sold one of the planks afterwards for 8s. to Mitton—some of it was Government stuff—I am not prosecuting you—I am only a witness.

WILLIAM HILLS . I live at 57, Charles Street, Mile End, Old Town, and am a general dealer—I have known Muggeridge, about six months—he came to me in the beginning of April, and said he wanted me to draw some timber for an office in Lincoln'-inn-Fields, from Mr. Martin, in Bethnal Green, and I was to take it to Stepney Green—he said he had not got room enough to take the long pieces, would I take them to my place and house them—I got the timber from Martin, and signed this receipt for it—on

Monday afternoon, I took it to my place, and there it remained until the following dinner time, when Muggeridge came with Rose to measure it—they talked together as if they had been taken in with it—another carman came and took it away from my place on the Tuesday.

Cross-examined by Muggeridge. I had employed you as a solicitor's clerk, that was how I became acquainted with you—you put me in the way of meeting a writ of ejectment.

FREDERICK STONE . I am in the employ of Mr. Garrett, carman, in New North Road—I know the prisoners—on a Tuesday, in April, they came to me and told me to go and fetch this timber from Mr. Hills—I did so and took it to Mitton's—before getting there Muggeridge jumped off the van and waited outside a public house—Rose went on with me to Mitton's—I took the timber into Mitton's yard, and he paid Rose 3l. 11s.—he then went and joined Muggeridge—I don't know what Rose said, but Muggeridge said "No, no, no"—Rose then came back again to Mitton's, and said to me "I am off"—I did not see him with any paper or bill—Muggeridge had one—he showed it me—he said he had bought the timber at a sale.

Cross-examined by Muggtridge. Rose and you were having a few high words—you went back with me to Mr. Mitton's and asked him if he had bought any timber of Rose, and what he had given for it—he said 3l. 11s. 2d.—you showed him your bill and said Rose had no authority to sell it for that money—he said he believed Rose to be a respectable honest man—you told Mitton that the first time you saw Rose you should give him into custody for selling it at that price.

Cross-examined by Rose. You engaged me to move your furniture and paid me 5s. for it—there was a large spring mattrass, a solid loo table, and a lot of furniture—I took it to Muggeridge's house.

WILLIAM MITTON . I am a cabinet maker at 70, St. John's Road, Hoxton—on Monday, 12th April, Rose came and asked me if I would buy some mahogany—he came with it on Tuesday and I paid him 3l. 11s. 2d. for it—Stone came with it—Muggeridge afterwards came and said that Rose had no authority to sell it—I afterwards gave it up to Mr. Martin and he paid me what I had given for it.

Cross-examined by Muggeridgt, 3l. 11s. 2d. was a fair and honest price for it, it was not worth more—you said the first opportunity of seeing Rose you should give him into custody—you called on the following Thursday to ascertain whether I had heard anything of him.

Cross-examined by Rose. When you first called you asked if I would take any odds and ends—I gave the full value for it—Mr. Martin afterwards sold me one of the planks for 8s.—I have dealings with you for a good many years.

JOSEPH ALLEN . I am a boxmaker of Norfolk Street, Islington—on 20th April, Muggeridge came to my place—I had known him 10 or 12 years by that name—he brought me this cheque for 50l. and asked me if I could get it cashed for him—I said I would try—I gave him 2l. 10s. on it and he said lie would call in a day or two—he said he got it from a solicitor's office for an action for some illegal seizure—he called again on the Thursday—I had not got it cashed at that time—I gave him 2l. more—he was to call again on, Monday following—in the meantime I sent the cheque to Mr. Ware, a baker and I afterwards got a memorandum stating that it had been refused as a forgery—on Monday, 26th, Muggeridge called again and asked whether I had got the cheque changed—I showed him this memorandum—he read it

and took a copy of it—he said "If they dishonour that cheque they must dishonour all their cheques"—he would make inquiries and come next day and let me know—I did not see him again till he was in custody—the cheque was signed Lee & Best and dated 17th April.

Cross-examined by Muggeridge. When you called on the Tuesday you asked me if I kept a banking account, that a friend of yours had brought an action for an illegal distress which had been settled for 50l. and you asked whether I would pay it into my bank—I said if the cheque was all right I would cash it—I did not offer you the money then—I did not go down with you to Lincoln's Inn Fields and wait while you got the cheque—that I swear—we did not adjourn to Reeve's dining rooms to have some dinner—I did not meet a Mr. Keymer, I don't know him—it was not over dinner that I suggested the loan of 2l. 10s.—I gave it you at Islington—I have a friend who lodges at the Black Bull in Gray's Inn Road, we did not go there—I told you it took two days for the cheque to go through the bank—when you called on the Thursday I told you that I had paid the cheque away to my friend, a baker, and he had paid it that morning to his miller—you said you had got the man belonging to the cheque waiting for his money and you said "I don't know what my friend will say about it, he will think I have got the money and am humbugging him"—I said "You had better take another 2l. that will keep him quiet till Saturday or Monday when I shall be sure to have the money"—you came on the Monday before dinner and stayed with me till between two and 3 o'clock till Mr. Ware came home to ascertain the result about the cheque—when the letter came stating it was a forgery you insisted on coming to the bank to make inquiries—we went on the omnibus as far as Holborn and met two friencs—we went into a public-house and stayed there till it was too late to go to the bank—you then walked home with me—you said the money was not for you—when you gave me the cheque you said "Make any inquiry about it you like I don't require the money till you have satisfied yourself"—I did not receive a letter from you on the Tuesday about the party you had the cheque from—if I had had 20l. by me I should no doubt have let you had it on the cheque.

Re-examined. He mentioned the name of his friend that he had the cheque from—it was the same name as is on the cheque "T. C. White."

ALLEN JOHN LEE . I am a member of the firm of Lee & Best, solicitors, 27, Lincoln's Inn Fields—I attend to the London business—Mr. Best resides at Winchester—I keep an account at the Bloomsbury branch of the London and Westminster Branch—in March last I had this cheque book (produced)—I kept it in a drawer in my own office—the drawer was not locked—I had a clerk in my employment then named Rogers—he was a man of about 40 years of age—I was away in March—this cheque signed Lee & Best for 50l. is a forgery—it is not. signed by me or by my authority—it is not a good imitation of my signature—the body of the cheque is certainly something similar—I have no client of the name of T. C. White—I have drawn cheques in favour of Mr. White to pay rent on behalf of a client of mine—when I found this cheque was a forgery I looked among my cancelled cheques for the last 1 had drawn in Mr. White's favour, and it was missing—this forged cheque has been torn out of my cheque-book, counterfoil and all; and also this one for 12l. 10s. purporting to be signed "Franklin"—I don't know the handwriting of the cheque at all.

Cross-examined by muggeridge. I had a character with Rogers—I have

not heard that previous to his employment with me he was a tramway. conductor and was discharged for dishonesty, or that he was a porter in a cooperative stores and was discharged from there—I don't know where he lived—he told me he was in lodgings—he is not here that I am aware of—he is not in my service now—my own room is a front room, looking on to Lincoln's Inn Fields—the clerk's office is divided from it by a passage and two or three steps at the back.

FRANK FAULKNER DALE . I live at Hoxton—in March last I went into the service of Messrs. Lee & Best—I knew Muggeridge about a year before that, and he recommended me there—he told me of the situation—Rogers was a clerk there at that time—I have seen Muggeridge at the office two or three limes—once when he called Rogers was out and he asked me if I would allow him to go into Mr. Lee's room to look at a bill—I said he had better wait till Mr. Rogers came—he did come afterwards and saw Muggeridge—I did not hear what was said, but they both went into Mr. Lee's room together—the cancelled cheques are kept in a cupboard there.

Cross-examined by Muggeridge. I did not see you go into the room, but I saw you go upstairs, and I heard the door of Mr. Lee's office shut—I could tell by the sound of the door it was his room door—I was used to it.

EMILY RANDALL . I live at Tillotson Street, Stepney—Muggeridge has lodged at my place, and was there from the 2nd January till the 10th April—he took them in the name of Peat—a person named Rogers used to come to visit him—I knew Muggeridge by the name of Muggeridge, and Johnstone, as well as Peat—on Good Friday, 26th March, I saw a cheque like this for 12l. 10s., with the name of Franklin at the bottom—Muggeridge said if I would get it changed he would pay me what was owing—I did not get it changed—when he left me on the 10th April, he left no address, I did not know where he was going.

Cross-examined by Muggeridge. Your wife took the room—she told me her maiden name was Peat—I gave you notice to leave, saying I had let the place, but I had not—after you left your little boy was in the habit of earning backwards and forwards to fetch letters, and so he does now—if anybody had asked for Johnstone I should have known it was you—I believe one gentleman did call.

ANN WARRY . I live at 28, Coventry Street—Muggeridge lodged with me in June, and was taken into custody there—he came in the name of Murray—I afterwards heard his name was Muggeridge.

Cross-examined by Mitggeridge. Your wife had a business, which she carried on in her first husband's name, Murray—you did not come until your wife had been there some few days.

ALFRED POPE PLANT . I am a clerk in the Bloomsbury Branch of the London and Westminster Bank—Messrs. Lee & Best have an account there—we have no customer of the name of "J. B. Franklin"—I have been at the bank fourteen years—both these cheques were presented and refused.

FREDERICK JARVIS (Detective Officer A). On the 19th June I took Muggeridge into custody, at 28, Coventry Street, Bethnal Green—I told him 1 was a detective officer, and held a warrant for his apprehension for forging two cheques on the London and Westminster Bank, for 50l. and 12l. 10s.—he replied "I never had any cheque and I don't know anything about it"—I afterwards took Rose into custody on the 27th July, on another warrant—I told him he was charged with forging and uttering a cheque for 12l. 10s., on the London and Westminster Bank—he said "I don't know anything

about any forgery"—I said, that although the warrant was made out as a principal, he would be charged with being concerned with Muggeridge or Johnstone—he said "Yes, I know a man of that name, I took him to be a respectable man, but I found him to be a rogue, for he has robbed me of a quantity of furniture."

Muggeridge in his defence alleged that he had received the 50l. cheque from Rogers, and had got it cashed for him, and the cheque for 12l. 10s. he received from a Mr. Wheeler, in whose employ he was for a few weeks. Rose stated that he only acted as a commission agent, in introducing Muggeridge, to purchase the wood, and had no knowledge of the cheque being forged.

MR. LEE (re-called). Rogers left our service about April, because he was not sufficiently conversant with the work I required of him; he went to an auctioneer at Chertsey.

WILLIAM JARVIS (re-called). I have not tried to find Rogers—it was not thought necessary.

NOT GUILTY .

There was another indictment against Muggeridge, for the forgery of the 50l. cheque , upon which no evidence was offered.

OLD COURT.—Saturday, August 21st, 1875.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

455. ELLEN WILMORE (18), Was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. POYNTER and MR. MEAD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. GRIFFITHS

the Defence.

The perjury alleged was upon a statement on oath, by the prisoner, before a Magistrate at the Thames Police Court, that she had witnessed an act of adultery on the part of Esther, the wife of Joseph Friedner, with a man named Gehbardt.

NOT GUILTY .

456. WINIFRED GEARY (18) , Feloniously wounding Thomas Stanton, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. A. NICOLL conducted the Prosecution.

THOMAS STANTON . I am a sealskin purse maker, of 3, Slades Place, Clerkenwell—last Monday night, I was at the Metropolitan public-house, in Farringdon Road, about 11.15, and with my friend William Mortimer, when I came out I saw the prisoner talking to two men—she came up to me and said "Take that Stanton; now I am satisfied"—at the same time stabbing me with a knife in the face and walked away—the knife remained in my face; I tried to pull it out, but could not—my friend tried twice before he could pull it out; I followed the prisoner up Farringdon Road, till I met a policeman and gave her in charge; I bled a good deal—I had my wound dressed at the station—I knew the prisoner well in the street—I have never had any quarrel with her—on the Sunday night, before this, I was drinking at the corner of Cross Street, Leather Lane, and she came in and called for a pot of beer; they would not serve her, and as we came out she said "There is Stanton, a bony b----," and she took out a knife then, and if I had nut run across the road she would have stuck it into me then; I had given her no provocation; I did not strike her; she was intoxicated.

WILLIAM MORTIMER . I am a printers' labourer, and live at 28, Corporation Buildings, Clerkenwell—I was with the prosecutor last Monday night, at the Metropolitan—when we came outside 1 saw the prisoner calling to two young men; she came over my shoulder and put the knife into

Stanton's face and said "Take that Stanton, now I am satisfied"—the knife remained in his face—another young man tried to pull it out and could not; and I tried the first time I could not; the second time I took it out—this is the knife (produced)—it is a penknife.

JESSE DYBALL (Policeman G 85). I took the prisoner into custody; she said she had done it.

Prisoner. I did not; I said "Did you see me do it"

JOHN ALEXANDER MILLER . I live at 15, Peroy Circus, and am surgeon to the G division of police—last Monday night, about 11.30, I examined the prosecutor—he had a small incised wound half an inch below the lower eyelid of the left eye, extending upwards and backwards towards the ball of the eye; I attempted to probe it, but found its dangerous position; I did not force my probe in; it was at all events half an inch deep—the wound was not in itself dangerous, but it was in a very dangerous neighbourhood—this knife would cause such a wound.

Prisoner's Defence. About a month ago, I had a row with a young woman and friend of his, and ever since he has always been calling me names and interfering with me; on the Monday night, he had been fighting with some young man, and he came up to me and struck me in the face and knocked me on my back; that was about 10 o'clock; Mortimer was not there then. About 10.40 I was standing outside the Metropolitan, with the knife in my hand picking my nails, when he came out and made a hit at me, and I threw the knife at him; I did not do it with the intention of hurting him.

GUILTY — Nine Months' Imprisonment.

KENT CASES.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

457. THOMAS DANVERS (44) , Embezzling 7s. 11d., 8s. 2 1/2 d., and 8s. 2d., the monies of Alexander Walker and others, his masters.

MESSRS. BESLEY and J. P. GRAIN conducted the Prosecution; MR. SERJEANT SLEIGH and MR. GILL the Defence.

SAMUEL HARRINGTON . I live at 89, Thurlow Road, Waltham—previous to January, 1871 I was a member of the Sir Walter Raleigh Lodge of Odd Fellows, held at the Shakespere Tavern, Woolwich—on 7th January, 1871, I sent 8s. 8d. to Danvers, the secretary of that lodge, and received this receipt—my subscription was due at that time.

Cross-examined. I joined the lodge in 1863; I ceased to be a member about four months ago—the whole of the time Danvers was secretary I was a member—I have not attended the lodge meetings since 1866—I know Danvers was what was called the annual secretary—I was not at the meeting when he resigned—I subscribed to. the testimonial for him; he had been secretary for a great many years—he was engaged at that time in the Government employment—I was in the Government employment but I did not know him there; I never heard anything against him—I was not examined before the Magistrate; this is the first time I have been called upon—Mr. Davis is the present secretary—I handed him all my receipts; lie Wrote for them about two months ago—I sent him three or four for 1871 and 1872; I think I have lost the rest—the receipts always came in Mr. Danvers name, and I always communicated with him.

Re-examined. I went to Woolwich police-court, and was present when

the prisoner was committed for trial—I was there ready to give evidence, but was not examined.

THOMAS WHITE . I am a member of this lodge, and live at Bayswater—011 5th April, 1871, I sent my subscription of 8s. 1d. to the lodge, and received this receipt back—I was at Woolwich when this matter commenced and saw the prisoner there—he said he hoped I would make it as easy for him as I could.

Cross-examined. I was not called at the police-court—I have been a member of the lodge a good many years, and am still—I subscribed to the testimonial when Mr. Danvers resigned—during all the time I have known him he has borne an irreproachable character, and has had the esteem and respect of everybody—I had notice that he was going to resign, from another member; I did not have any notice from the prisoner that he was going to resign and would like to look over the accounts, and if there was any error it was to be rectified—I don't remember that I received any notice to that effect—I think it was before the second examination that I met the prisoner, at Woolwich Arsenal Station—he said he was sorry to see me there, and hoped if I was examined I would make it as easy for him as I could—I began the conversation by saying "I would rather have met you at Margate than here."

By THE JURY. We receive a lodge summons prior to every quarter, and they tell you the arrears—I was credited with the 8s. 1d.; it was returned with the prisoner's initials as paid—the subsequent summons did not charge me with any arrears.

JOHN HOBSON . I am a sergeant in the Army Service Corps—on 4th January I sent this card with 8s. 1d. to the prisoner, 7s. 11d. being my subscription, and 5d. post charges—I received this receipt back with the initials T. D. against the amount.

Cross-examined. I have been a member of the lodge eight years—I paid my subscription repeatedly after 1871; I was never charged for any default or for being in arrears—the initial J. E. on the card against October, 1870, is J. Emby's—I have not attended the lodge for seven years since I have been at Aldershot—before that I have attended at night and paid my money by hand; the meetings were then at the Eagle Tavern—I don't know who the elective secretary was; the prisoner was the annual secretary—I did not always pay the money into Danvers' hands—I have not been to the lodge since this card commenced—the card always came by post—I had been to the lodge before this card commenced, and at the time Danvers was secretary—I have paid money to other officials, but Danvers has always initialled the card.

Re-examined. On this occasion, on 4th January, I sent a post-office order and sent the card up for signature and it came back to me.

WILLIAM DAVIS . I was appointed secretary pro tern of this society about four months ago I think—Emby was the previous secretary—I received this book from him—I joined the society on 25th April, 1860, and was a member during the time the prisoner was secretary—this minute book is in his writing—the minute of his own appointment is in his writing—"June 4th, 1861. 14th resolution: That Past Grand Thomas Danvers be the Annual Secretary"—he resigned in June, 1872, and his resignation was accepted in July—Emby succeeded him—the initials on the three cards of Hobson's, Harrington's, and White's are the prisoner's initials as receipts for the amounts mentioned there—I

attended on lodge nights occasionally when I was a member and I have seen the prisoner sitting as secretary there—this book, which is called the contribution ledger, is in his writing—Mr. Dubois, an accountant, was appointed to go into these books—I was not present when the trustees applied to the prisoner for any other books—I heard Mr. Chapman, the prisoner's solicitor, make a statement at the police-station with reference, to books—Mr. Pagden was the treasurer in 1871.

Cross-examined. When the prisoner resigned his position of annual secretary Emby was appointed to succeed him, he is here—I know that the society prosecuted him for embezzlement—I was in various offices before the prisoner resigned—I went through the chair—I was never treasurer, I was elective secretary, the duty of elective secretary is to keep the accounts of the receipts and expenditure and to enter the contributions in the book kept for the purpose and to enter the receipts on the cards—Danvers was then annual secretary, he was secretary ever since I have been a member until he resigned—it was part of his duty to have the charge and conduct of the books and papers, attend the lodge meetings, and register the members' names and residences and so forth—other members have duties to perform at the meetings, the noble grand and the vice-grand; it is the duty of the noble grand to open the letters and to hand the members' subscription cards to be signed by the annual secretary or the elective secretary—sometimes the cards would be signed by one and sometimes by the other—the money received in the course of the evening would be handed to Mr. Pagden who was the treasurer then and now, he is a permanent officer and is not elected annually—the money would first be handed to the secretary and he would sign the card—there is a treasurer's book—on 6th April, 1870, this resolution was passed: "We depute the secretary to have all useless books, papers, &c., destroyed"—if there were any blank pages in the books of course they would not be useless books—I can't say when a new set of books was first made use of—a summons was taken out against the prisoner calling upon him to give up possession—it was not heard before a Magistrate and dismissed, it was unheard—I did not obtain the summons, the trustees did—I was not present when it was obtained and did not see it afterwards—he was called upon to give up the Contribution pence book, the treasurer's book, and the night book—it was the prisoner's duty to keep the ledger, that was not one of the books which we say is destroyed, that is in existence for 1871—the nightly pence book is the one that is missing, that is the book from which the contribution ledger would be made up—I don't remember the defendant sending out a circular when he was about to resign or had resigned inviting each member if there were any errors in his account to come and point them out, I have no knowledge of that, this is the first time I have heard of it—there "is" a member named McConnell and he was a member in 1872 when the prisoner resigned, so was Rumsey and Mortice—I was an auditor in 1870—there was no a special auditing of the accounts that I am aware of in 1872 when the prisoner resigned—I was secretary from January to March, 1872—I was at the meeting in July when the prisoner's resignation was accepted, it was at the Shakspeare—there had not then been a subscription amongst the members to present a testimonial to him—I was not the chairman at that meeting in July and I did not make a speech—there was a vote of thanks to him and a testimonial was subsequently presented to him, I was not a subscriber to it—I did not go to the police-court in the

first instance for the purpose of laying an information and obtaining a warrant, the trustees went—they were Mr. Walker, Mr. Howe, add Mr. Langhatu—I was appointed annual secretary about six months ago, sometime in February, and I have during that time received monies from subscribers and I paid them over myself—I did not pay it over to the elective secretary, I put it in the box—the two of us sit side by side and we both take the money and put it into one box, it is afterwards counted and handed over to the treasurer by one or the other of us—it is the elective secretary's duty to enter all contributions in the night book, I can't say that the book for 1871 is in existence, it is not here—the defendant was absent at times from the lodge during 1871—there are fifty-two lodge meetings in the year—I will swear he was not absent twenty times that year, I can't say that he was not twelve times; he was away at times—I will swear that I did not hear of the prisoner asking before his resignation was accepted that a special audit should be made of all his accounts, I have never heard of it—the entries in the contribution pence book would be made by the annual secretary from minutes which he got at the nightly week meetings and he would take them home and make the entries before the next weekly meeting—the figures in 1872 are Mr. Emby's, I can't say whose the writing is—I should say the names all down the page were written at the same time, but not the amounts—if the prisoner was absent from a lodge meeting he would call the next morning and take the books away with him—he would have the means of making up the book before the next lodge night from the materials that he would get there.

Re-examined. If he was absent on a lodge night the nightly pence-book would be there and the address-book; somebody else would do his duty—the materials to make up the books the next day would be the nightly pence book only—a post-office order received at his private address between two lodge meetings would not be any portion of the materials given to him—if he received a post-office order he ought to take it to the lodge at the next meeting—it was his duty to cash post-office orders; they were made payable to him, and all letters sent to his private address would be opened by him—I have seen the nightly pence-book for 1871, when it was in use, but I have not seen it since the prisoner ceased to be secretary, in July, 1872—on quarter nights the two secretaries generally count the money, paid into the box, and they would both do so on other nights if there was a large sum received—sometimes one secretary would take it down to the treasurer, and sometimes the other—the annual secretary kept the treasurer's book, this "balance to next quarter" and the figures, are in the prisoner's writing—he gets the treasurer's receipt on the left side for the amounts which the treasurer receives and puts down, and on the right hand side the prisoner has carried out the balance in his own figures—the contribution pence-book shows the amount received during the whole of the quarter—page 125, is in the prisoner's writing—that book contains a complete list of every member of the lodge, and a page does for six months—the names are all written before the entries were made—that book would show-any arrears.

By THE COURT. If the secretary received post-office orders between the two meetings, the ordinary course would be for him to bring the money which he had received for them and have it entered with the amounts and names at the nightly meeting—if lie forgot the circumstance at the next

meeting and did not bring the money, there was no one to remind him of it—nobody would know anything about it—if he omitted to enter it, it would show an arrear against the contributor—nobody at the club meeting would have any intimation that money was received except the secretary—the majority of contributions were received on quarterly nights, not on week nights—it is the duty of the elective secretary to receive the money and enter it in the night book, and at the end of the meeting he should hand over the night book to the secretary, and the money to the treasurer—we should agree the amount—all the entries are made in the night book, and the total made up—there were three auditors appointed annually—they would have the contribution book and the night book—there were four different elective secretaries during 1871—from the 4th January to the 29th March, J. Emby was elective secretary, and from the 5th April to 28th July, J. Bishop was elective secretary.

HENRY ARTHUR DUBOIS . I am a professional accountant—about three or four months ago I was employed by the trustees of this lodge to examine the books—I have gone carefully through certain parts to which my attention has been drawn—at page 47 of this account I find the name of Hob-son, a member, at the top of the page—there is no entry there under the date of 4th January or the next date of any receipt of money from Hobson—all the weeks up to the last week of the quarter are left blank—in the last column I find 8s. 5 1/2 d. as being a payment by Hobson, and there is an entry of 3s. on the 29th March to another member, John Baker—in the summary on page 48, I find on March 29th, the whole column added up and the 3s. is carried out in the same column as the 85s. 5 1/2 d.—as the column now appears it is 18s. 8 1/2., and that should have been in the summary, instead of that there is 3s. in the summary—the total of the figures in the summary for 29th March, is 1l. 14s.—a sum of 17s. 1d. was received from other lodges on 29th March—I find in the ledger at page 125, a penny for pence card, and 1s. surgeon—the 1l. 14s. in the summary, and 17s. 11d. and 1s. 1d. makes a total of 2l. 12s. 11d., which is the exact sum signed for in the treasurer's book—the balance paid off is 2l. 6s. 3 1/2 d.—I do not find any entry of a payment by Harrington on 11th January of 8s. 2 1/2 d.—I find under the column of 15th March, an entry of 8s. 2 1/2 d. against his name as if he had paid it on that day—the column with the 8s. 2 1/2 d. in adds up to 1l. 18s. 0 1/2 d—the total summary on 15th March is 5l. 5s. 5 1/2 d.—in the same book there is received on account of other lodges 9s. 1d., and pence card and surgeon 1s. 1d., which makes 5l. 15s. 01/2 d—that is the amount which the prisoner has entered in the treasurer's book and received the receipt for; so, that reckoning the summary to be true, when you add it up it comes to the excessive sum of 1l. 18s. 01/2 d. instead of 1l. 5s. 10d.—there is no entry on the 5th April of 8s. 2d. received from Thomas Wife—there is no entry at all to his credit until 29th June, when it is 8s. 2 1/2 d. the summary with that in adds up to 1l. 16s.—the total column of the 28th June is added up as 1s. 6d.—there is 1s. 6d. in the column entered against Samuel Warsap, another member—the figures in the column add up to 1l. 16s., but the summary has got Is. 6d.—the total summary is 2l. 6s. 1d.—there is 6d. in the ledger for other lodges, and in the treasurer's book as having been paid on 28th June there is entered 2l. 1s. 7d., although the summary makes 2l. 6s. 1d.

Cross-examined. I have not been in communication with persons who were named as the auditors) I have only seen Mr. Davis—I don't know

whether he was an auditor at any particular time—he has assisted me if I have asked any questions, but I have been very careful to do it on my own account—Mr. Davis and the solicitor are the only persons whom I have been in communication with, and who were ready to give assistance if it was wanted—I think Mr. Davis was at my office on every occasion when I have had the books.

ALBERT JAMES PAGDEN . I am the treasurer of this Odd Fellows lodge on 30th March, 1871, I received 2l. 12s. 11d. and signed for that sura—the prisoner has made up the balance in the book afterwards—I have never received a shilling more than I signed for—on 15th March I received 5l. 10s. 10 1/2 d., and signed for that and no more—on June 28th I received 52s. 2l. 1s. 7d., and signed for that.

Cross-examined. I have been treasurer since the lodge was held at my house in January, 1870—during the whole of the period I have known Mr. Danvers he has always borne a character for honour and integrity—these lodges were held at my house—I have never attended one of the meetings—they bring the money downstairs to me; it was not always brought down by the same person sometimes a man named Bishop, sometimes Emby—I believe they were elective secretaries, but I am sure I don't know—I don't suppose I received the money from Danvers half-a-dozen times during the time he was secretary—I believe Danvers was absent for several weeks during 1871 on his employer's business, as far as my memory can go back—he was formerly in her Majesty's service and resigned, and subsequently in the employment of a highly respectable firm of upholsterers in Woolwich.

Re-examined. I am speaking of his being absent on lodge nights—I could not say he was not present on 4th January—I cannot mention any particular night or any particular month.

ALEXANDER WALKER . I am one of the trustees of this lodge—Davis is now acting as secretary, and the booksare in his custody—I have had a conversation with the prisoner with reference to the absence of the nightly pence-book which was in use during the time he was secretary—I can't remember the date, but I hare asked him about it on two or three occasions—he told me he had destroyed it, and I told him he should not have done so—this is the minute-book of the lodge meetings of 1871; it is in the prisoner's writing. and it was generally written at the time of the meeting—I find his handwriting there on the 4th January, 1871—the book would not give us an account of when he was absent, because he might do the writing at home—I don't see the writing of anyone else between 4th and 15th January—if anyone acted as secretary for him he should make the entries—Mr. Davis has nothing whatever to do with this prosecution.

Cross-examined. In the absence of the annual secretary some one could take a minute for him on paper, no doubt, and when the secretary returns he would make the entries in the books from the minutes on paper—all the minute-book is in the prisoner's writing—I am one of the trustees under the constitution of the society—there was a resolution that the secretary should be empowered to destroy all useless books—the nightly pence-book would not be a useless book; that was one of the books in use, but it was not included in the resolution—when the resolution was passed the prisoner had the books in his own keeping—I had no conversation with him previous to the destruction of any books as regards their destruction—I am not aware that I had any conversation with him at any time with reference to going to Bow—I never had any conversation with him as to which books

should be destroyed and which should be preserved—the money was paid into the treasurer's hands by one or other of the secretaries, and the treasurer would hand it to us.

Re examined. The amount would be ascertained by the two secretaries, and would be signed for by the treasurer the same evening in the book—the annual secretary had the custody of that book.

By THE COURT. The resolution as to the destrucion of useless books and papers came to be passed because the box was full of old quarterly reports, old magazines, pence-cards, and many papers, and there was not room to put the necessary things away, and they were understood to be the useless books, not the account books of the society.

By THE JURY. We have fines for the non-attendance of our officers, and we keep a fine-book—the secretary, I believe, is not fined for absence; he would send an apology, and the fine would not be registered against him.

HENRY HELLARD . I was appointed one of the auditors in 1872, and it was ray business to go through the books with reference to the preceding twelve months, ending December, 1871—my attention has been called to the summary column at page 48 of the Contribution Book—the amount of 3s., on 29th March, is brought forward in that summary—the column at page 47 agreed with that 3s., when I audited the accounts—that 3s. was in the column when I audited the account—I compared the summaries with the totals and they tallied.

Cross-examined. I don't know anything about James Broom, whose name is mentioned there.

WILLIAM DAVIS (re-called by MR. SERGEANT SLEIGH). I had some conversation with the prisoner about an entry to James Broom, before he resigned, and before the testimonial was handed to him—I have no doubt that the prisoner was present every lodge night from January to April—all the entries in the minute book are not in his writing, but during those three months they are—I heard Mr. Walker say, that if the annual secretary was absent he made entries from a piece of paper—I say that that is not right—the entries are made in the lodge room at the time.

JAMES FLOWER . I acted with Mr. Hellard, as auditor in 1872, and looked into the books with reference to 1871—I tested the columns with him, and verified the totals in the summaries with them.

HENRY HOWSE . I am a draper, of Powis Street, Woolwich—on 7th April, I entered into recognisance in the sum of 200l. to surrender the prisoner the following week at the police-court—he was in my employment during that week—he was remanded and bail taken a second time—he left his employment after that and absconded—he did not tell me where he was going, and I don't know where he went—I offered a reward for him—my recognisances would have been entreated, but I brought him back.

Cross-examined. He had been in my employment about three years, arid during the whole of that time he acted as a faithful and honest servant—we employed him in fitting up and going round the country for orders we had in moving goods and furniture—he was not away for more than three or four days, except once when he was in Devonshire, about six weeks for us—I should think that was in 1870, but I am not quite certain—he was not away for any time in the early part of 1871.

Re-examined. That was when he was away for six weeks—he occasionally received monies on my account, but I never trusted him to take large amounts.

CHARLES HEMMING (Dover Police). I found the prisoner at Dover, on 10th May, and handed him over to a Woolwich officer.

GEORGE BROWN . I am a clerk in the Friendly Societies' Registration Office—I produce the registered rules of the Sir Walter Raleigh Lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, held at Woolwich, signed by Thomas Danvers, also the appointment of trustees and of the secretary, and other papers which have been deposited—the three trustees are Alexander Walker, Alfred How, and W. Langham, the resolutions appointing them are signed by them, and are sent to us as I now produce them—they are signed by the prisoner as secretary.

The Prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY .

Recommended to mercy by the Jury— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

There were other indictments against the prisoner.

458. JOSEPH FORD (18) and HENRY DUNN (21) , Robbery on Francis Callaghan, and stealing from his person a cigar-case, a handkerchief, and 11s., his property.

MR. DOUGLAS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. GILL the Defence.

FRANCIS CALLAGHAN . I am a quartermaster in the merchant service, and was paid off last Wednesday fortnight—I was at Woolwich on Friday night, 6th August at the Steam Packet public-house—I left when the house closed at 12.30—I was making my way quietly along Beresford Street by myself when some one knocked me down from behind; they rifled my pockets and took 1 11s., a silk handkerchief, and cigar-case—I may have spoken to some one on my way before any one touched me—Ford knocked me down from behind—I seized him as he struck me, and I held him several seconds; that is how 1 know him—I am perfectly satisfied that Dunn was one of the men; he assisted in rifling my pockets—after that they ran away, except one, whom I kept in my grasp, but he afterwards got away—I then gave information to the police—I called out "Police" when they attacked me—I went across to the alley and stopped there; I cannot say how long, whether ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—I then went away, found a policeman, and gave him a description of Ford and Dunu—he then took me to a house where I found Ford in bed with his mother—I recognised him as the man—his mother said to the policeman "What are you doing there?" and Ford, who was putting en his boots, said that if she didn't shut up he would put the heels of his b----boots in her mouth—I afterwards went to another house with the policeman and stood on the stairs, when Dunn was brought down—I said he was the man.

Cross-examined. I had been to two or three houses during the evening—I was not the last person to leave the Steam Packet; several went out when they were closing—they were going to shut up when I came out; they close at 12.30—I did not turn round at all when I was attacked, but seized the man from behind—the opportunity I had of seeing him was two or three seconds—I did not notice the men before I was struck, to my knowledge—the whole affair took six or seven seconds—I had never seen any of the men before the night was cloudy—I had not had much to drink that night—I may have spoken to a parson by way of a compliment on my way—I did not interfere in a quarrel—I am not aware of having been spoken to.

Re-examined. The house was not cleared when I came out—I came out with several others—I was not turned out anymore than with everybody else.

SUSAN DEAKIN . I live at 11, Nelson Street, Woolwich—I am married—on the night of the 6th I was in my house, and about to bolt the door when I heard a woman scream out "Murder!"—I ran up the street and saw a man knocking a woman about—a seafaring man, who was passing, wanted to interfere on her behalf, but she objected to it, and did not want him to interfere with her quarrels—I stood for a few minutes and saw some young fellows in dark clothes—one dressed in skin trousers and waistcoat came and took the man who offered to help the woman by the arm and tried to make him go up the street—they all went up together, and some short time after I heard the man or some one halloo out "Police!"—I cannot say who it was—I could see them there; they were not very far up—I can swear that Callaghan was the man whom they persuaded to go up the street—when I heard the scream I spoke to the young woman and said "You had better send some one up, that man is being murdered," and then I came away—I could not swear to the man's face who came and took the prosecutor up the street—this—was a little after 12.30—it was 12.30 when I left my house—the prosecutor was near a boot shop when the men took him up the street.

Cross-examined. Three or four men came up, but they took him away immediately—they were standing a few minutes persuading him, but I could not exactly hear what they said—I stated at the police-court that I could not swear to the man's face with the skin trousers on—I did not swear to Ford's face.

Re-examined. I went up to the police-court to give my evidence, and there saw the prisoners—at the request of the Magistrate the prisoners were placed with a number of Others, and I picked out Ford, as far as I could, but I would not swear to him.

By MR. DOUGLAS. I picked him out by his dress—the man I picked out at the police-station was dressed like him, but I could not swear to his face.

CATHERINE HIGGS . I am married, and live in Beresford Street, Woolgone wich—on the night between Friday, the 6th, and Saturday, the 7th, I had to bed, and was awakened by the cry of "Police!" about 1 o'clock—I got up and looked out at the window—I saw one young man on the pavement, and another had hold of a man's arm, and shortly after the others came up—they knocked him down, and were pushing him along—one held on to his legs, and one across his chest with his hands across his mouth, while the man tried to call "Police!" and a third was leaning across his head, and seemed to be robbing him—I called out to them several times that they were villains, and for the police—the tall young man came away first towards my window, and muttered something—I do not know what; and the second one followed him—I recognise Ford—they went up the street towards the arsenal, the others following—the seafaring man got up and went after. them—it was Callaghan—the affair took place facing my window, and I was near enough to see.

Cross-examined. I saw the whole thing plainly—two other men came up—at the police-court I said that I did not like to identify the men—I was talking to two young men outside the door, and told them I saw the affair, and that is how I came to go to the police-court—they did not tell me who was charged—I do not know whether they knew anything about it—it was not in consequence of this that I went to the police-court—I never wished to go—the policeman fetched me to the police-court—he told

me he had heard that I knew about the affair, and called out of the window—he said they had got two; he did not say who they were, nor how they were dressed—I saw them at the police-court, and said I should not like to swear, but I picked them out as near as I could—I do not know Ford at all, I cannot say that I have ever seen him before—the window was the upstairs front room.

DUNN. This woman said she did not like to swear to me, but being short is why she recognised me.

GEORGE BRENCHLEY (Policeman R 14). I was on duty on Friday night, in Beresford Street, Woolwich, at about 10.15—I saw four men and several others at the corner of Beresford Street—I followed them, and saw Dunn—they were loitering—I told Dunn that if I caught him loitering again I should take him in custody—I again passed through Beresford Street at about 11.15, and saw Dunn and five others—one of them, to the best of my belief, was Ford, but I cannot swear positively—I believe he was wearing a round hat, he had a coat on similar to the one he has now, but a different cap to that he generally wears—all the men ran away—the houses close at 12.30—the Steam Packet closes at that time.

Cross-examined. The last time I saw Dunn was 11.15 and I saw somebody something like Ford, but I won't swear positively to him—I have known Ford for some time, he has never been charged with felony, he has been six times in custody for different offences, once for wilful damage and twice for gambling.

CHARLES GILLAM (Policeman R 328). On this Saturday morning I saw the prosecutor in Beresford Street, I should think at about 1.15 or 1.30—he gave me a description of persons and I went with him to a house in High Street and found Ford in bed with his clothes on, except his boots, with his mother—no one else was in the room—I asked the prosecutor if he was the man and he said "Yes"—I told him he would have to come with me on a charge of highway robbery with violence—he said that he knew nothing of the highway robbery—his mother and he had some altercation and he threatened to strike her—I took him to the station—I afterwards went to Dunn's lodgings and found him in bed in a common lodging-house—I told him what I had come about, the highway robbery—he said nothing until I got him downstairs and then asked me what I wanted him for—I asked the prosecutor if he was the man and he said "Yes"—Dunn said he was never near the place.

Cross-examined. I took the prosecutor straight to Ford's house and asked him if that was the man, Ford was not working in the arsenal up to that time—he has never been charged with felony to my knowledge, I should have heard of it if he had.

By THE COURT. I knew Ford lived there—I went there to find him because of the description the prosecutor gave me—I also went to the lodging-house to find him in consequence of the description given—the prosecutor was sober.

Witnesses for the Defence.

THOMAS PRICE . I keep the Three Daws public-house, High Street, Woolwich—on Friday evening, the 6th, I saw Ford first at about a little turned 11.30—he lives close to my house with his people—he had a man with him and Mrs. Brewer was there—I closed that evening at 12.30—I saw Ford that night in my bar, they stayed there until I closed—I am sure I saw them go out at that time—a man named Murray who lives next

door to me came in just before the half-hour, he had a glass of ale, and then went out—I heard of the robbery the next day.

Cross-examined. Ford was in my house drinking up to the time it was closed—he was with one man I think, I will not be sure, he may have been with two or three perhaps—I know Dunn—I am quite sure he was not there that night—I have not seen Dunn and Ford together; I have perhaps occasionally; one cannot tell who comes into a public bar.

By THE COURT. My house is in High Street—I know Beresford Street, it is about 200 yards away.

JULIA BREWER . I live at Deptford—Ford is my godson—I have known him all his life—I went to Woolwich on Friday, the 6th—I was stopping at Murray's place—I was in the Three Daws on Friday night; I went there about 11.30, and stayed there until the house was closed, 12.30—Ford was with me from the time I went in until I came out—I asked him to come with me to Mr. Murray's to have supper, and we went there together, and my husband—he stayed about three-quarters of an hour—after supper and just upon 1 o'clock, the landlord of the house said it was time to go to bed—I told my godson to go home, and I went out of the house to his own father's door, where I shook hands with him and said "Go up to bed like a good son," and I saw him go into the house.

Cross-examined. I was at the Three Daws, drinking with Ford up to 12.20, when the house closed; then he, my husband and self went to Murray's house, and not along Beresford Street—I take my oath I am telling the truth—I did not say I saw Ford at 12.45; it must have been 1 o'clock to the best of my knowledge when he left Murray's house, and I saw him home, after that I went to bed—I don't know how many people lodge at Murray's—I never lodged there in my life before—I was there the night before, but I don't know who goes in and out—I had come up from Deptford.

MATTHEW MURRAY . I am a lodging-house keeper, of 77, High. Street, Woolwich—on Friday night, the 6th, about 11.45 I saw Ford standing outside the Three Daws public-house—I went in there at about 12.25, and when I came out he was still there—Ford came with his godmother into my house and had supper, and stayed for a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes—I afterwards stood outside the house a little while, and said "I think it is time for you people to get to bed"—I did not see where Ford went to; he went out with his godmother, who said she was going to see him home.

Cross-examined. They were in my house about twenty minutes; Julia Brewer was there for a week—I do not see everybody that comes, but I saw her; she is a hawker, I believe—a person might be in my house two or three days without my seeing them.

MARY GOULDS WORTHY . I am a widow and live in Rope Yard Rails, Woolwich—I know Dunn, he lodges with my missus at the house where I am servant—I remember a policeman coming and taking him when he was in bed there last Friday night week; he went to bed at 11.15 and I never saw anything more of him until the policeman came and took him away—I was in bed when the policeman came; I went to bed at 12 o'clock.

GUILTY . FORD— Fifteen Months' Imprisonment.

DUNN— Eighteen Months Imprisonment.

459. MARY ANN FROSTIC (35), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing eight towels, two pair of drawers, and other articles, also one chemise and one sheet, the property of Thomas Bland — Six Months' Imprisonment. And

460. GEORGE ROBINSON (36) , to stealing eleven receipt stamps, one seal, and 4s. of William Paplett, having been convicted in 1865**— Ten Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

461. WILLIAM JOHN BROAD (22) , Stealing a shawl, 15 yards of silk, and 1l. 4s. and 6s. 6d. in money of John Logan his master.

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

JOHN LOGAN . I am a tailor and draper of King. Street, Woolwich—I sell goods on credit and accept payment by instalments—the prisoner entered my service in May, 1873 and continued till May, 1875—during the latter part of the time he had 30s. a week—it was his duty to go round to the customers, get orders, deliver the goods the following week, and collect the money for them—he would write the orders in this order-book the same evening when he came home—on 16th October he has entered with the other orders "I scarf shawl 24s."—this is his writing—on the night of 22nd October I delivered the shawl to him to take away in the morning—he did not mention the name of the person who had bought it but he entered it in the day-book—on 23rd October "Mrs. Poulter, 98, Carr Street, Bow, scarf 1l. 45.," and 2s. 6d. is entered as paid on 23rd October—on 30th November here is an entry in the prisoner's order-book "Stratford, 15 yards black silk, if possible," and on 6th December in the evening I delivered him 15 yards of black silk, value 4l. 2s. 6d. and saw him take it away next morning—here is an entry in the day-book in the prisoner's writing at the end of the day "Mrs. Atterton, 1, Alma Street, Stratford, 15 yards silk 4l. 2s. 6d.; 15s. cash"—I entered that in the ledger myself—I find in the order-book "March 5th, a cotton dress 6s. 6d."—the prisoner took away the several dresses which are in the order-book, and on March 12th he has entered "Mrs. Gwinn 12 yards of calico and one cotton dress, cash 6d."—he takes out blank forms of bills, and fills them up afterwards—I have seen the silk since, but not the dress or the shawl.

Cross-examined. Mine is the tally system—he was to do the best he could to obtain orders, and I did not care so long as he sold the goods and obtained the money—I have measured a man for a suit of clothes in a public-house before now, but I should take his name down at the time—the entry in this order-book is simply for a scarf shawl to no particular person, nor is there any name to the order for the silk or for the printed dress, but when he came home he would enter the names in the day-book—the shawl is entered in the day-book the week afterwards—he has put down wrong names and addresses continually, and has not told me till I found it out myself—he never complained to me that persons who he had supplied with goods had paid him a small instalment, and that he afterwards found that their names and addresses were wrong, but he may have found out so after wards—I have two men in my employ—the prisoner had a pretty large round at first, but it had fallen away when he left—he supplied fifty or sixty customers a day on an average; some days more, and he would have to receive payments from as many people—a retail dealer sells at 12 1/2 per cent, and I am supposed to sell at 20—I also sell at my shop for tally payments and for ready-money also—the smallest payment I receivers 1s. in the pound.

Re-examined. I have been round, myself, and never take an order without

the name and address of the person giving it—Mrs. Poulter was not a customer of mine at the time, but she has had articles since—the prisoner did not complain to me that he was unable to call on fifty or sixty people a day—they are small rounds, he could do it in five hours—he took a book with him, he had not to trust to his memory, and he took seven or eight invoices to fill up; they would be left with the customers—I never gave him authority to take out goods and deliver them unless he took the pro per names and addresses at their own houses.

ELIZABETH POULTER . I am the wife of Edward Poulter, of 96, Can-Street, Stepney—last autumn I ordered a waterproof of the prisoner; he did not on 24th October deliver a scarf to me, nor did I pay him 24s., or 2s. on account.

Cross-examined. Charles Barnes and his wife, and mother lived in the same house—I don't know whether they dealt at this tally shop before, but they did subsequently—I have had nothing since.

CHARLES BARNES . Last autumn I lived with my wife at Mrs. Poulter's—I did not give the prisoner any order for a scarf shawl at 24s., neither have we had it—I had a suit of clothes of the prisoner, but I told him they did not suit me—I told him my name, Charles Barnes, but instead of putting that down he put down the name of Owen, and gave me a little bit of paper which I have lost, with the name of Owen on it—I saw him. write it, but I cannot read writing—he read it to me—I saw Mr. Logan look at it—the prisoner said that because there were so many Barnes's he put down the name of Owen—I have never seen my wife or my mother wear this shawl.

Cross-examined. I cannot say what they wear when I am at work.

JOHN LOGAN (re-examined). I saw the paper, it had on it in the prisoner's writing, "Charles Owen, a suit of clothes."

MARY ANN BARNES . In October I was living with my husband at Mrs. Poulter's—I had no scarf shawl from the prisoner, nor did I pay him 2s.

Cross-examined. I had twelve yards of calico and six yards of flaunel of the prisoner—my mother lived with us.

Re-examined. The prisoner never charged me with the shawl or put it in my bill.

LUCY ATTERTON . I am the wife of George Atterton, of 1, Harmer Street, Stratford—we have two daughters, Annie and Eveline—I know the prisoner coming from Mr. Logan's—I did not order him to bring fifteen yards of silk if possible, nor was it delivered to me, nor did I pay anything for it—I have here the bills for all the goods I had of the prisoner.

ANNIE PARKS . I am Mrs. Atterton's daughter—I married in January last—I know nothing of this silk on the 7th December, or of any payment on account.

EVELINE ATTERTON . I lived with my mother in November and December—I know nothing of this silk, or of a payment of 4l. 2s. 6d.—the prisoner did not. deliver it to me or get any money from me.

ELIZABETH JACKSON . I am the wife of John Jackson, of 4, North place, Stratford—I came home and found the prisoner at ray house; he asked me in my daughter's presence if I would do a kindness for him, and pledge a piece of black silk for him, as he wanted to go to London, and did not want to take it with him, and that it was his own property—I pledged it at Mr. Bressey's for 1l. 19s. 11d.—I gave the prisoner, 1l. 19s. 5d., there was for the ticket, and he gave me 6d. for myself—he asked me to take care

of the ticket, and said he would call for it on Monday—I saw him twice afterwards, but he did not ask for the ticket, and I kept it till I was at Woolwich—I saw it yesterday in the Grand Jury Room.

Cross-examined. I am in the habit of pawning for other people every Monday—I do not get much commission—I pledged a good many things on this day—I deal with Mr. Logan, another traveller, also comes to Mr. Blackmore, he is his own master—I sometimes pledge four articles for my friends on Monday, and sometimes more—I am a laundress.

Re-examined. I pawned nothing else for the prisoner on that day.

SARAH HANNAH BEW . Mrs. Jackson, is my mother, and I live in the same house—I know the prisoner, he came one day last December, with a brown paper parcel—my mother came in shortly afterwards, and he asked her to do him a kindness and pledge a piece of silk for him—before she could answer him he said it is my own property—it was black silk with a violet edge—she went out and came back and gave him 1l. 19s. 5d.—she kept the ticket.

Cross-examined. My mother pawns a good many things for people on Mondays.

EDWARD BRESSEY . I am a pawnbroker, of 326, High Street, Stratford—I produce about 15 yards of silk, upon which I lent Mrs. Jackson, 2l.—I knew her; that is the ticket put on it at the time, and this is the duplicate.

Cross-examined. I see her once a day, sometimes.

J. LOGAN (re-examined.) This is my silk—I identify it by the way it is cut; I cut it myself; I bought it of Mr. Ryland, here is the invoice.

DANIEL FORBES . I am traveller to Messrs. Rylands, of Cheapside; I should say that this silk is the same as the pattern, and 1 believe it is what we sold to Mr. Logan.

ANNA GAIN . I live in Godfrey Street, West Ham—I ordered of the prisoner two lots of calico, 1l. yards each, which I received, and have got the bill at home—I did not buy a print dress of the prisoner, nor did he deliver one, nor did I pay 6d. in respect of it.

Cross-examined. There are other people in the house—Mr. Logan has been paid 2s. off the print, but there was stuff delivered as well; I did not see it paid, Mrs. Brooks, who had it, is paying Mr. Logan now.

J. LOGAN (re-examined). A print dress is entered to MRS. BROOKS, a fort night afterwards—the order would be given on the 17th; the entry in the day-book is "March 24th, one print dress 75." in my writing.

By MR. WILLIAMS. It is not a print dress by the day-book, the entry there is 6 yards of Holland, and 1 yard of diaper to Mrs. James, which is altered to "Mrs. Brooks"—there is no entry of a print dress to Mrs. Brooks he has not accounted to me for 2s. received, but he has for 1s. received on the Holland; I have not charged Mrs. Brooks, with a print dress, nor has the prisoner paid me for one; she is not paying me for it now, that is for some Holland, that may be a false entry of his.

By MR. BESLEY. He has never paid me 2s. from Mrs. Brooks, or 6d. from Mrs. Gain.

GUILTY of stealing the silk-

Recommended to mercy by the Jury— Nine Months Imprisonment.

Before Mr. Recorder.

462. HENRY HARVEY (39), PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining 2l. 10s. 4d., from William Alexander Godley by false pretences.

Six Months' Imprisonment.

463. GEORGE MAY (26) , Stealing a watch and chain of Edward Perry.

MR. H. GIFFARD conducted the Prosecution.

EDWARD PERRY . I live at 20, Holloway Grove, Deptford, and am a. grocer—on Saturday evening, 3rd July, about 5 or 6 o'clock, the prisoner and two other men came into my shop—they bought some biscuits and some other trifling things—they then went outside and stood against the side door; mine is a corner shop—I went out at the private door to take the blind in, leaving it open—it opens into a passage opposite the back parlour where I had a watch and chain—the other two men came into the shop again, and were looking at some goods drawing the girl's attention—I had called her in to serve them while I was taking in the blind—I then stood and watched them and caught sight of the prisoners going out at the parlour door; I immediately called out "Harriett, see if my watch is there"—she said "It is gone"—I threw down the blind and ran after the prisoner and collared him, and said "You scamp, you have stolen my watch"—a policeman came up to the corner, and directly the prisoner saw him he said "Here is your watch," and put it into my hand and made off—he ran into a turning where there was no thoroughfare and was caught—this is my watch (produced).

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not see your face as you came out of the parlour, I saw the back part of you—I can swear it was you that took the watch, I was after you in a moment.

RICHARD WHITE (Police Inspector) having proved that Charles Bowering (Police-constable E. 347) was too ill to "attend, his depositions was read as follows: "I heard the cry of police, and went to the spot—the prisoner ran away from the prosecutor—I chased him with others, he ran down a turning where there was no exit, and I caught him—he made no answer to the charge."

The prisoner put in a written defence stating that he went into the prosecutor's shop to buy some uniting paper, and on-coming out he saw a man running, the prosecutor said he had lost his watch, and lie with others ran in pursuit of the man, that he overtook him, and he gave him the watch which he handed to the Prosecutor, who then accused him of having taken it.

GUILTY . He also

PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction in December, 1874— Eighteen Months Imprisonment.

SURREY CASES.

Before Mr. Justice Brett.

464. JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM (33) , Feloniously wounding Eliza Cunningham with intent to murder. Second count to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. RIBTON conducted the Prosecution; and THORN COLE (at the request

of the Court), defended the prisoner:

ELIZA JOHNSON . I live at 18, Iron Mill Place, Wandsworth, and am the wife of Mr. Johnson, a greengrocer—I know the prisoner and his wife—on the evening of 30th July, about 6 or 6.30, his wife came into the shop—he followed her in—I asked the wife if she had made it up with her husband, she said "No," she never would—I said he did not look in his right mind she said "No, he is more fit for the mad-house, but he shall look worse before I have done with him"—upon that he drew an open razor from his left coat pocket and drew it across her throat—he had it in his left hand—he never spoke—I struck him in the face and held him by the neck handkerchief

and dragged him outside—he then drew the razor across, his own throat—he fell over a barrow and I took the razor out of his hand and gave it to the sergeant—his wife was taken to a surgeon and he followed—I believe he had been drinking.

Cross-examined. I said he did not look in his right mind, from what I had observed on other days as well as on this—they were not having any quarrel—I—was in front of them—their faces were towards me.

By THE COURT. I had known them as neighbours; they were living together up to the Friday before this—she had left him for several days and had taken another room in the neighbourhood—the prisoner had been drinking, and had a very strange look about him—he used to drink—he—worked at umbrella mending—he was only strange when in drink, and then he looked like other drunken men.

JAMES HOLLINGS (Policeman VR 15). On the evening of 30th July, I met the prosecutrix being carried by some persons in the Wandsworth Road—she had her throat cut—I went with her to the hospital—she went to Dr. Hooper, and then to the infirmary where she remained for some time—I did not see the prisoner that night.'

ELIZA CUNNINGHAM . I am the prisoner's wife—shortly before 30th July I left him and took a room for myself, and then he used to come every day and annoy me by calling me names and striking me—on one occassion he broke the door open—on the evening of the 30th I went to Mrs. Johnson's shop he followed me—she asked me whether we had made it up, I said "No, I never intend to"—he said "What do you say?" I turned round to Mrs. Johnson to repeat the words, and before I could get them out he drew the razor across my throat—I recollect no more.

Cross-examined. I did not see the razor before he cut me—I felt the cut and became insensible—Mrs. Johnson said that he did not look in his right mind, and I said he was more fit for a mad-house—he has been very strange in his ways, by drink, and to all appearance is not in his right senses—I left him because I was afraid of him—I had not made any communication to the parish authorities about his being taken into an asylum.

By THE COURT. I left him through his ill-treatment; he only ill-treated me when he was drunk, but he was very seldom sober—he illused me and accused me of other men, which I was not guilty of—I have three children—he makes and repairs umbrellas; I do needlework—he allowed me 18d. a day to keep five of us.

JOHN HARWOOD HOOPER . I am a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and live at 69, High Street, Wandsworth—on 30th July the prosecutrix' was brought to my surgery—she had a clean cut wound extending from under the left ear to the middle of the neck in front; it divided the skin, the superficial muscles, and vessels—it was in a dangerous part; it was not very deep, it laid bare the carotid artery, if it had touched that, death would have been very speedy—she was sent on to the union—I examined the prisoner's neck; it was a wound in front, about two inches long, merely dividing the skin, not doing any serious injury.

Cross-examined. His wound bled freely, but not seriously it was not dangerous.

Re-examined. I considered the prosecutrix in such danger that I did not think she would leave my surgery alive, the loss of blood had been so severe.

ALFRED BROOK (Policeman V). I took the prisoner into custody; he

said "She has brought it on herself; I have put up with enough for the last eight or nine days, and I thought it was time to do something; she has spit in my face, and blown her nose and thrown it in my face, and I thought it was time to begin"—I had seen him for a fortnight or three weeks before this; he was drunk nearly every day.

Cross-examined. I can't say that he had a wild look; he looked as if he did not know what he was about from drunkenness—he is a pedlar, and travels the country with umbrellas.

By THE COURT. I took him into custody directly after the occurrence—he walked very quietly to the station; I walked beside him; he was attended by a doctor.

The Prisoner's statement, before the Magistrate." I should not have done it had I not been drinking for eleven days and eaten nothing. I was suffering from delirium tremens, and remember nothing about it."

GUILTY on Second Count — Fifteen Years' Penal Servitude.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

465. WILLIAM BALDOCK (37), PLEADED GUILTY to embezzling the sum of 47l. 2s. 6d., of Isidore Steinberg and others, his masters— Two Years' Imprisonment.

466. EDWARD BOCKWELL (37) , Unlawfully attempting to abuse Mary Rosina Bidwell, aged six years and five months.

MR. ST. AUBYN conducted the Prosecution.

GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

467. WILLIAM BURCH (27) ; Feloniously forging and uttering a receipt for 15l. 4s., with intent to defraud.

MR. MEAD. conducted the Prosecution.

HENRY GAYDON . I carry on business with my brother as jewellers, at 10, George Street, Richmond—in October, 1869, I supplied the prisoner with some goods—he paid me 5l., for which he gave me this receipt, and at the end of November, 1869, there was a balance due to me of 15l. 4s.—when I receive money on account I put "By cash," and when the whole is paid I put either "Paid" or "Settled"—in February, 1871, he paid me 5l. more, and I gave him this receipt (produced)—the words "By cash" are my writing, but it has been altered—I entered those sums in my ledger (produced)—here are the two entries—that left a balance of 10l. is.—in 1873 I saw the prisoner in service at Dr. Hassah's, and he spoke to me about the debt before I spoke to him—he said "Now that my wife and I are in situations we shall soon be able to pay you," and he wished me not to say anything about it before the other servants—the amount was not named—I lost sight of him again till the spring of this year, when he was driving a fly—I then saw Mr. Owen, the solicitor, and induced him to take proceedings—the prisoner afterwards called on me, when my son Alfred was pre sent, and complained of my sending a person to the yard to ask for him—he said "I know I owe you the money, I never denied it to anybody," but no sum was named—a County Court summons was taken out, which came on for hearing on June 22nd—I heard the prisoner give evidence, and he produced the receipts altered, which purported then to be for 15l.—he was asked where he got the money from, and said that his wife, Sarah West, drew the principal part of it from the savings bank at Twickenham—the case was adjourned—it came on again on July 13—a verdict was given in

my favour, and I then took proceedings—the Judge ordered the receipt to be impounded.

ALFRED HENRY GAYDON . I am the son of the last witness—about three or four months ago the prisoner came and complained of some one going to the yard to ask for the money before his mates—he said "I know I owe you the money, and if you summon me I can only pay you so much a week"—I saw him again about a fortnight afterwards, when he produced a receipt for 15l.—he said that his wife and he had talked about it and they did not think they owed so much, and had looked over their receipts and found one for 15l.—I said that I did not know anything about it, and asked him to call again when my father was in.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. That was after the County Court summons was issued, you said you would call again the same evening.

Prisoner. I said that if your father wanted me he knew where to find me.

FREDERICK HENRY WYVELL . I am clerk to Mr. Owen, solicitor of 1, Castle Terrace, Richmond—I received instructions to recover 10l. is. from the prisoner—I sent him the usual official letter for payment, and I gave him notice on Monday last to produce it in Court—I afterwards saw him standing outside the Talbot Yard—I said "What are you going to do about that account of Gaydon's?"—he said "I can't pay it now, my wages are only 18s. a week"—he did not repudiate the debt in any way.

Prisoner. I never saw you at the yard or anywhere else till after the County Court summons. Witness. That is absurd.

The prisoner produced a written defence, stating that the prosecutor had brought the jewellery to him, laid it out on the kitchen table, and persuaded him to buy it; that he had paid 51. on account, and afterwards paid the balance as he believed, and thought no more about it till he was summonsed, when Mrs. Lonsdale seeing his wife in trouble, searched for the receipt and found it; that he had been constantly in Richmond meeting the prosecutor two or three times a week, who therefore knew perfectly well where to find him.

Witnesses for the Defence.

SARAH ANN LONSDALE . I know the prisoner—I called on his wife on the day after the summons, and she was crying—I asked her the cause and she said that she had been summonsed for 10l. 4s. which she had paid, but she did not believe she had the bills now—I said "Search every crook and corner of the house to find them, shall I help you?"—she said "Yes," and in the bottom of the writing desk, I found the two bills, one receipted "By cash, 5l., and the other "By cash, 15l."—I kept them till the prisoner took them to Mr. Gaydon—here are two duplicates to show that the prisoner had been living in Richmond, for the articles have been twice re deemed at Mr. Gaydon's own shop.

GUILTY .

Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury, the prosecutor having placed great temptation in his way by selling him the jewellery.

Three Months' Imprisonment.

Before Mr. Recorder.

468. THOMAS DUFFIELD (35), and JAMES CLARK (25) , Breaking and entering the warehouse of Stuart Bidden, with intent to steal.

MESSRS. POLAND and MEAD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. W. SLEIGH the Defence.

GEORGE WILLIAM WESSON . I am a hoop bender, of 6, George Street,

Blackfriars Road—part of the house is Mr. Bidden's warehouse, it consists of two railway arches with gates—there is a lamp by the side of the gate—on 23rd June, about 1 o'clock, I was in bed and heard something opening, and the crash of wood; I looked out at the window and saw three men standing opposite, with their backs towards Mr. Bidden's gate, and their faces towards me—the middle one turned round and opened the gate with something; I could not see what, and then he drew it to, turned his back looked up and down the street, and then entered at the gate, and closed it after him—the prisoner Duffield then tried the gate with a push as a policeman would, and went towards Blackfriars Road, and the other man the other way and stood at the corner—I awoke Mallows, the drayman, next door, who tried the gate with the key, but he could not enter; I ran and got a policeman who returned with me—Mallows was still outside, and finding he could not enter from the front, he went to the back—I saw Mrs. Mallows standing at her door, and while I was talking to her, Duffield passed me, and I said to her "That is one of the men"—I believe Duffield heard that he looked at me and walked on in the direction in which the other had gone—Mallows and the policeman made their way in at the back and came and opened the gate, and I saw that it had been fastened with two gimblets, one at the top and the other at the bottom of the lock; I went into both the counting-houses and found the desks all open, and on the table were these eight wedges, three crowbars, and two chisels—I described the men, and on 3rd August, I was fetched to Stones End Station, where I selected the prisoners from ten or twelve men—Inspector Halse was there.

Cross-examined. I am sure Clark was there—two or three weeks afterwards an officer named Stephens took me to the Borough, pointed out a man and said "That is the man I want you to see," and asked whether I knew him—I said "No, I cannot recognise him"—I said to the acting inspector "At the distance he was off he looked to me as though he had no hair about his face," I said 'nothing about his having a tuft' of hair on his chin; I described him as about my own height 5 feet 5 inches, he had no hair about his face'—there was no lantern there only a lamp at the corner of the yard—his back was turned towards me while he was prizing the door—I said that he looked to me to have a brown overcoat—I used the word "brown."

GEORGE MALLOWS . I am a drayman to Mr. Bidden—I shut up the premises safely on this night, and was aroused about 1.30 by Wesson, but could not get the key to turn one way or the other—I went to the back of the premises, got over the wall, got in and found the door fastened with two gimblets.

WILLIAM HALSE (Police Inspector). After the prisoners were in custody I got Wesson to go to the police-court, where I put eight or nine other persons with them in the cell passage, and Wesson picked them each out, and tapped them on the shoulder—I produce these wedges and other things.

Cross-examined. I remember you handing a paper like that (a telegram) to the Magistrate, and it was after reading that that Clark was admitted to Bail—I have not brought the scrap-book or police-sheet—the other inspector is" not here.

Witnesses for the Defence.

ELIZABETH CLARK . On 23rd June I was in London—at that time my husband was dangerously ill; I have got a piece of paper which I got that day. (The Court ruled that the telegram was not evidence, and could not be put in.) My son was admitted to bail by the Magistrate after the last hearing,

and after he was let out I saw him start to go to Southampton—I am sure I did not see him in London either on the 22nd or 23rd June.

Cross-examined. He came to London on Saturday because his father was so bad—I don't know what day of the week 23rd June was—he went away the day before Hampton Races—it was not the same week he came back, not till the week afterwards—my address is 88, Friar Street, a coffee-shop, and he lives with me—he does not attend to the coffee-shop; he deals in bladders—I do not know Duffield; I never saw him till I was at the police-court.

Re-examined. My husband died soon after 23rd June—I have seen Earl Wills at these Sessions, but he could not stay any longer—I telegraphed to. him last night to Southampton.

PATRICK HALL . I served a copy of a subpoena, of which this (produced) is the original on Earl Wills, at the Builders' Arms, Southampton—I saw him in london on the two first days of the Session—the name is blank in the original, but it is inscribed in the copy now.

Cross-examined. I am a friend of the prisoners—I can't say whether they are much of companions, but they know each other.

SAMUEL DAVET . I live at the Builders' Arms, Union Street, Southampton, kpt by Earl Wills—on 23rd June I went to a ball, after which I went to the Builders' Arms, and saw Clark in the parlour when I arrived—Mr. Wills was there at the same time, and he came up to London with me on Sunday morning to attend this trial, but he has gone back to Southampton—he was telegraphed for yesterday to come here to-day—there was a little bit of a shindy on this night with some Oxford gentlemen, and this knife was introduced and the blade broken; to the best of my belief Duffield is the person who broke it—Clark had a friend with him, who, to the best of my belief was Duffield—some supper was fetched and I had some crab with them—I cannot recollect whether the master, the mistress, or the servant fetched the super—the landlord did not have supper with us; I and the two men had supper together.

Cross-examined. I am a musician, and played in a band at this ball, which is held every Wednesday night at the Victoria Rooms—I don't know whether Clark was there—I had not known him before; this was the first time I had seen him—I slept there—I saw him again next morning when I got up, but I had no conversation with him—I met him in London on Sunday night when I arrived from Southampton—I saw him at his mother's house—the gentleman who served the subpoena fetched me—I did not know Duffield before that night; I have no doubt about him whatever—I believe he is the man, to the best of my opinion—I said at first that I could not recognize him, but now I do—to the best of my opinion he is the man who broke the knife by playing with it, chopping it on the table—I did not know the prisoner by any name—when I came up to town I went to Mrs. Clark's, 88, Friar Street, and have been stopping there since we arrived—I am quite clear that the weekly ball is on Wednesday night—I first saw the prisoners on that night at 10.30.

Re-examined. During the day of the ball I was round the Isle of Wight—I recollect two Oxford gentlemen playing games on the day of the ball and they were at the Stockbridge and Bilbury Races—I was served with a subpoena, and conduct money was paid me to pay my fare up to London—I have had opportunities of seeing Clark, but I have not seen Duffield till this morning, and while I have been giving my evidence I have been

constantly looking at him—there was not a third man with us; no friends but the Oxford gentlemen were there.

GEORGE WILLIAM WESSON (re-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH). This was at a little after 1 o'clock on the morning of June 23rd—it was Wednesday morning, past 12 o'clock of Tuesday night.

Witness in reply.

JOHN PATTISON (Policeman S 20). I am the policeman who was called—it was the morning of 23rd June—the street is about twenty feet wide, the lamp is on the kerb-stone, and it shines directly on the door of the warehouse.

GUILTY .

DUFFIELD was further charged with having been convicted at Newington, in October 1873, to which he

PLEADED GUILTY**— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

CLARK— Twleve Months' Imprisonment.

469. FREDERICK WARD (22) , Feloniously cutting and wounding Henry Wood, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

MR. NICHOLL conducted the Prosecution; and MR. LYON the Defence.

WILLIAM WATTS . I live at 25, St. George's Place, Borough, and am a brewer's, servant—the prisoner and I worked together—I was with him on 26th July, about 10.30 in Long Lane—a band of music came up as a lodger was shifting from one house to another—we only went into one public-house, and when we came out we saw the prisoner with four men and an oldish and a youngish woman; one of whom had a jug—that is the woman (Mrs. Ward)—I identified her before the Magistrate—the band struck up again and I caught hold of Wood's neck and began skipping along; the women were on the kerb, and there was hardly room for us to go by, and I went against the woman—she said "Where are you running to, you fools?"—I said "All right mother, no offence"—I did not spill her beer at that time—the prisoner said "You nearly shoved my mother down, you b----monkey, if you are two big navvies I am not frightened at you, I would fight either of you"—Wood said I would not demean myself to hit you, I could eat eight of you before breakfast—I said to the prisoner "Look here, the best thing you can do is to go home and get your supper"—we were walking away to get out of it, as I did not want to have any bother, and he said "Can you make me go home and get my supper?"—I said "No, I don't want to interfere with you at all"—he said "I would knife the b----pair of you"—I saw him go like this, twice, but I saw no knife—there was a woman on each side of him, and they rushed at him to pull him back—Wood, who was five or six yards away, said "Bill, collar him he has stabbed me"—I went up to him and saw blood running out of his trousers—I looked for the prisoner at the public-house, but could not find him—I afterwards picked him out at the station from ten or twelve others—I am positive he is the man.

Cross-examined. It was. dark, but there was a gas light—there was a crowd round the band, but not where we were—I did not say at the police-court "The prisoner is the man I believe, but I won't swear positively"—I said that he was the man—I only knew one of the people who was with the prisoner at the station—I picked the prisoner out, but I did not know his name—the other ten or twelve were men not boys—the prisoner did not look younger than the rest—he looked like a man as much as the rest—I consider him a man—I saw Robinson, the detective, outside the police-court, and I saw the woman who had had the beer the night before inside,

a sort of room before you get into the Court—there were thirty or forty people inside—that was the elder woman of the two—the two women were brought into Court, and it was one of those two who had the beer—they were both elderly women—I said "I believe the elder woman is in Court, but I did not take much notice of the younger one"—I did not say "I believe I saw in Court to-day the woman who had the jug last night," I said that I saw her—I said "The women tried to pull the prisoner back, the elder and the younger one"—I had never seen the prisoner before to my knowledge.

HENRY WOOD . I am a brewer's man and live in White Street, Borough—on Monday evening, 26th July at 11.20 I was in the Coach and Horses with Watts—I had come out of my lodging to hear the band, and Watts" caught hold of my neck to pretend to make me dance, and hit against a woman with a jug in her hand—the prisoner said "What the b----h—do you want to shift up against my mother for, you are a big puppy"—he went on abusing Watts, who told him to go home to his supper—the other said "You are two big navvies, I could do the two of you, I would knife the pair of you in a second"—I said "Why you little hound I could eat eight of you before breakfast"—he rushed at me and stabbed me in the thigh—I felt the blood running down, and called out "Collar him Watts, he has stabbed me"—he then ran away—the prisoner is the man who stabbed me—I afterwards identified him—I had had no quarrel with him.

Cross-examined. I described him as a short man with corduroy trousers, a black coat, and a turn-up nose—three other men were with him—I was about 8 yards from the lamp post—it was not a cloudy night—one or two people were standing at the pork shop door, and one woman, Mrs. Graham, was standing at a greengrocer's shop door—I did not notice the woman who was carrying the beer, or whether it was spilt—the detective brought the prisoner to my bed side and said "I have brought a man for you to look at, and see if you can identify him as the man who stabbed you"—I do not know Noonan—the other persons who were with the prisoner on that night were about the same size as himself.

Re-examined. I saw his features distinctly, I stood looking at him all the time.

SAMUEL ROBINSON (Detective Officer M). In consequence of information I took the prisoner on 27th July, in Kent Street—I told him I should take him on suspicion of stabbing a man in White Street, on Monday night—he said "I know nothing at all about it"—I told him I should take him to the station, where he would be placed with other men to be identified—he. said "You b----I will cut your throat before you get to the police-station, as you are always down on me"—Ridgway 133 M threw him down and searched him to see if he had got a knife, but he had not—we took him to the station, where I told the inspector that he answered the description we had got, he said "Go and fetch the party who can identify him"—the prisoner said "Don't let him go, or they will put it up for me, they are sure to identify me if he goes"—he begged and prayed of me not to go so I remained with the prisoner—several other people were then placed in the library of the station, and the prisoner had the opportunity of standing where he liked, but I stood up with him—I told him I had no animosity against him, and I would not leave him—Watts came in and looked along the row of about a dozen, and touching the prisoner, he said "That is the man who stabbed Wood"—the prisoner then put his hands together and

said that he wished the heavens would open and swallow him alive to cheat us—he was then charged and locked up for the night—I afterwards took him to Wood's bed side, and the detective said "Which of these two is the man 1" that was me and the prisoner—he said "The little one is the one who stabbed me"—the prisoner then made a similar remark about the heavens opening—I was in the reserve room next morning and there were about 100 persons present who were going to attend cases, and I said to Watts "Go in here and see if you can see any one you saw last night"—he went in and looked round, and identified the woman, and came back to me, and I said "Which woman do you say it was?"—he pointed to her, and said "And the young woman is the other"—that is the woman he calls his wife—I said to Watts "That is the prisoner's mother and his wife, or who he calls his wife"—Wood did not identify the woman.

Cross-examined. I know two men named Matthews and Noonan, I have warrants for their apprehension; I know that Matthews has sworn an information in this case—I was present when he swore it—I have chased him since and he jumped out of a window two stories high—he said that he was not coming here for perjury—I did say to Wood u I have brought a man who has been identified as the man who stabbed you;" but he was in another room—Wells and I were the only men in the room besides Wood—Wood actually picked the prisoner out as the man who stabbed him, and I said "That is the same man who was identified by Watts last night"

Re-examined. What I said was "I have brought a man who has been identified."

CHARLES DOW . I am a surgeon of 13, White Street, Borough—I saw Wood on 26th July, he was suffering from two incised wounds on the left thigh, the upper one about an inch and a half long, and an inch deep; the other was about three inches lower down, and more behind, it was under half an inch long and half an inch deep—he had lost a great deal of blood; the wounds are not dangerous now, they are getting well—a knife would cause them—there was danger of erysipelas, and also from loss of blood.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I am innocent: I never was near the place."

Witnesses for the Defence.

ELIZA ALDRIDGE . I live at 5, Queen's Gardens, Crosby Row, and am a widow—on the night of 26th July, I was standing at the Coach and Horses, Long Lane, listening to the band, and saw Wood and his friend there dancing on the pavement—Mrs. Noonan was there, carrying some beer—we call her Noolan—they shoved against" her and upset the beer—I may have been 10 yards off them—Mrs. Noonan is a neighbour of mine, and I know her son Stephen—he went up and called the young man a monkey, and asked him why he struck his mother—he said "I did not strike her"—he said "You did"—he said "Go home and get your supper;" the prisoner said "Can you make me get my supper?"—the other said "Go on," and 1 am not sure whether he said that he would eat eight or ten before breakfast—Noonan said "Why, I could do the biggest of you," and with that Steve Noonan struck the young man twice on the thigh—I know Mrs. Graham and her daughter, Mrs. Israel—she was there at the time and I heard her tell Steve Noonan to get out of the way as the police were coming down—he stood there and I said "Mrs. Noonan why don't you get your soli away, he will get locked up," but I did not say that he had stabbed him—when he got to the corner of Crosby Row, he ran away, and Mr. Watts

ran after him down Crosby Row, and into his mother's place—I do not know the prisoner, I never saw him to my knowledge till I saw him before the Magistrate—my son was taken from the Constitution to Mr. Watts, and he said that he was not the man who did it—I did not see Mrs. Ward till a young boy named Matthews brought her down to me—I do not know a man named Jordan—I don't think there is much difference in the height of Noonan and the prisoner, but he is very much darker, almost brown—the prisoner was not with Noonan; I did not see him there at all—I never saw him that I am aware of till I saw him at the police-station.

Cross-examined. I had been in the Coach and Horses with a friend and had the share of a pint of beer, or it may be two pints—I had not been with Mrs. Noonan; I never spoke to her, although she is a neighbour, until this happened—if any one has said that I was with her they have not spoken the truth, but I know her very well—I do not know that she is not on good terms with her son—I did not see the stab, but I saw him make two distinct blows, as if he was throwing all his weight on him—I thought he only struck him; I did not see the knife—Mrs. Israel is not here—she actually spoke to the prisoner—the prisoner is not like Noonan; he is not so stout, and Noonan is dark—they are not at all alike in the face, only in height—I know Matthews; he is not here—I never saw Mrs. Ward before she came to my house—I know now that she is the prisoner's mother—she said that her son was charged with stabbing a man, and she was given to understand who it was; but I said "There were plenty more to see," and I would not tell her who it wad—I don't think the prisoner is at all like the man—I was not examined before the Magistrate.

MARY NOONAN . I live at 2, Prince's Place, Canterbury Row—on 26th July I was in Long Lane when the band was playing—I had been to the Constitution for some beer, which I had in my hand, and two men pushed me very nearly down, but I did not fall—not much beer was upset I kept the jug in my hand—I turned round to speak to my son, and saw Mrs. Aldridge there—my son spoke to the two men, and there were some rather angry words—I did not see Mrs. Ward there; I did not know her till I saw her at the police-court—Mrs. Aldridge was the only woman I saw—I saw my son going through Crosby Row a few minutes afterwards—I did not see the prisoner there; I don't know him.

Cross-examined. I have never said that I was with Mrs. Aldridge that night—I did not say at the police-court "I think I was with Mrs. Aldridge, "but I said that she stood there—I had seen her before; she is a neighbour—I had not seen my son for a mouth or two before—I am not on good terms with him, and we do not live together—I have not seen him since—the prisoner is not like him—I should not be likely to mistake the one for the other.

Re-examined. I met my son there by accident, and was stopping to speak to him—I am telling the truth about him.

MARY WARD . I am the prisoner's mother, and live at 4, York Street, Old Kent Road—I was not in Long Lane on the evening of July 26th; I was in Castle Street, Old Kent Road, where my daughter lives, and I was in bed with my grand children before 8.15—next morning when I was at work; my son's wife, Sarah Ward, sent my daughter to tell me that my son was locked up.

CAROLINE WARD . I am the daughter of the last witness, and live at 4,

Castle Place—I remember the morning of the 27th, when I was told that my brother was locked up—on the night before that my mother was at my house, she had been staying with me very nearly three weeks—she went to bed on that night between 8 and 9 o'clock; she came home between 6 and 7 o'clock and only had one cup of tea, and went upstairs with my children.

Cross-examined. My mother did not go out to fetch beer that day; a drink of beer was never in my house that day.

THE COURT suggested that it was hardly necessary to go ok with the case, as the evidence for the, defence was overwhelming, and the Jury concurred in this opinion.

NOT GUILTY .

ADJOUENED TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20TH, 1875.