Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 6.0, 22 September 2014), January 1891 (t18910112).

Old Bailey Proceedings, 12th January 1891.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

Sessions Paper.

SAVORY, MAYOR.

THIRD SESSION, HELD JANUARY 12TH, 1891.

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 AND SONS, LIMITED, 119, CHANCERY LANE.

Law Booksellers and Publishers.

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

(Including cases committed to this Court under Order in Council, pursuant to the Winter Assize Act of 1879),

Held on Monday, January 12th, 1891, and following days.

BEFORE the RIGHT HON. JOSEPH SAVORY, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; Hon. Sir ARCHIBALD LEVIN SMITH , one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; Sir REGINALD HANSON , Bart., Alderman of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q. C., Recorder of the said City; DAVID EVANS , Esq., STUART KNILL , Esq., GEORGE ROBERT TYLER , Esq., JOSEPH RENALS, Esq., WALTER HENRY WILKIN , Esq., GEO. FAUDEL PHILLIPS, Esq., and HORATIO DAVID DAVIES , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; and Sir WILLIAM THOMAS CHARLEY , Knt., Q. C., D. C. L., Common Serjeant of the said City; Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

WILLIAM FARMER , Esq.,

AUGUSTUS HENRY GLOSSOP HARRIS, Esq.,

Sheriffs.

BEAUMONT SHEPHEARD , Esq.,

THOMAS BEARD Esq.,

Under-Sheriffs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

SAVORY, MAYOR. THIRD SESSION.

A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—a dagger (†) 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, January 12th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder

130. EDWARD HINES (24) and JAMES BAINES (26) PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the shop of Ernest Everson and another, and stealing six jars of ginger and other articles; BAINES also PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction in March, 1880. HINES— Nine Months' Hard Labour. BAINES — Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

131. JOHN WILSON (30) , to a burglary in the dwelling-house of James Smith, and stealing a gold watch and other articles.— Nine Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

132. JOHN ROBERT HOGG (22) , to stealing a letter, the property of the Postmaster-General.— One Day's Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

133. ALFRED GILCHRIST (42) , to feloniously wounding William Hamilton, with intend to do grievous bodily harm.— Six Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

(134). JOSEPH DUPRE (28) and GEORGE WILLIAMS (32) , to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Isaac Truger, and stealing a coat and other articles; also to previous convictions of felony. DUPRE— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. WILLIAMS— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

135. JOSEPH SHINER (29) and WALTER HOUSE (24) , Robbery with violence on Hyman Spurling, and stealing a watch and chain.

MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted; MR. SANDS Defended Shiner, and MR. BURNIE Defended House,

HYMAN SPURLING . I am a tailor, and live at 12, Tenter Street—on the night of 22nd December, about ten, I was walking along Newman Street, Whitechapel—I had got about twenty yards from my house when I was seized from behind by the prisoners; Shiner put his hand over my mouth, and House came, round, opened both my coats, and attempted to take my watch from my waistcoat pocket, but the chain broke, and he only took that—I struggled with Shiner, and he slipped down—I heard a voice call out, "All right, Joe "—I left Shiner and went after the voice, and at the corner of St. Mark's Church I caught House and gave him into custody—after that I went into a public-house for refreshment, and there saw Shiner, and gave him in charge; he bit my finger—I saw

a portion of my chain at the station—my watch had dropped back into my pocket when Shiner seized the chain.

Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. I was passing along Newman Street on my way home—there were no people about, it was very dark—I had never seen the men before—I was walking quite steadily home—I had been staying at a friend's house up to twenty minutes past nine—I had no refreshment there, nor during the whole evening—I heard Constable Bristow examined at the Police-court—I was excited on this occasion—I had no money about me; I lost nothing but the chain.

Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. I was quite sober—it was Shiner that took me round the neck, and House took the chain—I said before the Magistrate that he took my watch and chain; I did not find my watch was in my pocket till I got to the station—I said there that Shiner took it—I was excited because the two were round me and I was struggling with both—I did not know at first which took it, but I remember now.

THOMAS BRISTOW (H R 45.) On the night of 22nd December I was in Scarborough Street, and heard cries—I 'ran into Newman Street, and saw the two prisoners run out of there, followed by the prosecutor; House crossed the road and Shiner turned into St. Mark's Street—when opposite the Scarborough Arms Shiner crossed and went in the public side of the house—House almost ran into my arms, followed by the prosecutor; I stopped him and asked the prosecutor what was the matter; he said, "They have stolen my watch and chain "—I took House into the Scarborough Arms, and told the prosecutor to go in and see if he knew anyone there—he went in and went straight up to Shiner—I took him into custody; he said, "You have made a mistake"—I searched both the prisoners; on Shiner I found a pension paper and a life certificate made out in the name of Goggin; he said that was his right name.

Cross-examined. I have made inquiries about him, he bears a good character; he is a member of the Army Reserve, and has a pension—the prosecutor showed me the spot where he was stopped, it is about ten yards down Newman Street, and about thirty yards from the Scarborough Arms—I had been on duty all night—this occurred about 10.45—there were some women about, and there had been some larking, but I don't think the prisoners were in that—the prosecutor had been drinking; Shiner had been drinking, he appeared to be excited.

Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. I have made inquiries about House, he bears a good character—the prosecutor is a foreigner; he had been drinking, I could smell him of drink—he made several rambling statements.

WILLIAM FLUISTER (H 373). I searched the spot where this happened, and found this chain about twenty-five yards from it, about where House was taken; the prosecutor identified it.

HARRY SLY (H 474). I took Shiner into custody in the Scarborough Arms—he was charged by the prosecutor at the station with stealing the watch and chain—he said, "All right, very likely I did. "

Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. I should say the prosecutor had been drinking—he was very excited, but knew what he was doing—Shiner had been drinking.

House's employers deposed to his good character.

GUILTY .— Four Months' Hard Labour each.

136. MONTAGU TOTTENHAM, Having been entrusted as agent with an acceptance for £500, did convert part of the proceeds to his own use.

MR. F. FULTON, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Monday, January 12th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

137. WILLIAM SNOWDEN** (25) and SAMUEL PERRY** (23) PLEADED GUILTY to burglary in the dwelling-house of Martha Jane Ronniger, and stealing a ring and other articles, having each been previously convicted.— Twenty Months' Hard Labour each.

138. GEORGE WESDERBY (19) and JAMES HILL (19) , Stealing a brass plate, the property of John Brighouse.

MR. GRIFFITHS Prosecuted..

Mr. FREDERICK COLE (Y 321). On January 1st, at 6.15 p.m., I was on duty with another constable, in plain clothes, at Upper Tollington Park, and saw the prisoners there—we watched them some minutes and lost sight of them, and rive minutes afterwards I found them in Oxford Road, close by, and followed them to Perth Road, where Hill handed something to Wesderby, which he put under the right-hand side of his coat—Hill was very bulky on his right side—I followed them to Clifton Terrace, where they parted—we followed Wesderby along Clifton Terrace, and when within a few yards of him I saw him throw something away; he ran, I ran after him, caught him, and brought him back to the spot, and the constable picked up this brass plate; it has on it, "Br. Wickers, Surgeon"—Wesderby said, "Have Hill as well"—I handed him over to Thomas.

JAMES THOMAS (Y R 18). I was on duty with Cole, and saw the prisoners loitering; Wesderby was handed over to me, and about ten minutes afterwards I saw Hill walking sharply towards the lodging-house; he threw something away and entered the lodging-house—I went in after him, and then took him to the station; I saw Wesderby there, and on being charged he said, "No one did not see us steal these plates. "

EMMA GRIFFITHS . I am servant to Dr. Brighouse, of 59, Upper Tollington Park—this is his brass plate; it was fastened to the railings on January 1st—I saw it safe at 10 a.m.

GEORGE ALLUM . I am ten years old and live at 52, Camden Road—on January 1st, at a little after 7 p.m., I picked up this plate in the road, and gave it to my father; he opened it and took it up to the big house.

HAROLD BRIGHOUSE . I live at 93, Tollington Park—my father is a doctor—this plate belongs to him; I saw it safe on January 1st, about 9.30 a.m.—it is worth about 30s.

The prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. Wesderby says: "When I was coming round I was taking a can towards home, and all at once the constable said what did I have under my coat., I said, 'Nothing'" Hill says, "As soon as I came back the constable came and clawed me; they are always going down my pockets. "

GUILTY.—Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury. They then PLEADED GUILTY to previous convictions, Wesderby** at Dalston on April

1st, 1890, and Hill at Clerkenwell on 16th December, 1889.— Eight Months' Hard Labour each.

139. JOHN CASSON (45) and THOMAS BRUCE (50), Burglariously breaking into the dwelling-house of George Smith, with intent to steal, to which Bruce PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. EOUTH Prosecuted.

GEORGE SMITH (Police Inpector C). On 23rd December I went to bed about 11.40, and saw the doors fast—I heard a noise about 5.40 a.m., went into the passage, and found the two prisoners on the stairs leading to the basement, about three steps down—I asked what they were doing—Casson said, "It is all right, governor"—I said, "It is not all right"—he said, "Two women brought us here; I have been robbed"—I saw no women—I detained them—I was present when Bruce was searched, and saw this skeleton key found on him; I tried it to the lock of the door, and it opened it—Casson was sober.

WILLIAM FAULKNER (Police Sergeant C). I live in this house—on 24th December I was awoke by an unusual noise, and went down and found the prisoner detained by Inspector Smith—I searched Bruce, and found a skeleton key in his inside pocket; the inspector tried it to the door, and it opened it at once—Bruce threw away these keys (produced) going to the station—they are common door keys, but all of different make and sizes—while taking Bruce to the station I heard a jink on the stones, looked back and saw this key (produced), the constable picked it up—I searched Bruce at the station, and found three ordinary door keys, this piece of candle, and a knife.

RICHARD SLADDEN (D 298). I was on duty, and Faulkner called me to this house, when I found the prisoner detained in the passage—I took him to the station, searched him, and found a box of silent matches and a case containing eight discharges from the Merchant Service as fireman.

Casson produced a written defence, stating that he lost 5s., and had only 6d. left, and met Bruce, who offered to take him home to lie down for a few hours; that he went home with him, and found himself in custody. He called,

THOMAS BRUCE (the prisoner). I am a compositor—I live anywhere, and sleep at coffee taverns—I met Casson, and said he might come home with me—I opened the door, but I never spoke to him—he is no connection of mine.

Cross-examined. I have pleaded guilty—I took Casson to this house—it is a lie that two women took him there—no women went with me—I did not tell the inspector that because it was no use—the Magistrate told me what I wished to say must be before the Judge.

CASSON— NOT GUILTY .

BRUCE— Four Months' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, January 13th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

140. JOHN VICTOR CLARK (16) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing £845 11s. 5d., the moneys of John Thomas Smith, his master; and ERNEST HUSKINSON(18) to feloniously receiving the same— Judgment respited.

141. JOHN WILLIAM HAGGERTY (50) , Stealing three orders for the payment of £1, £1 1s., and 5s., and divers pieces of paper, the property of the Marchioness of Waterford, trustee of the East-end Mothers' Home.

MESSRS. C. F. GILL and BODKIN Prosecuted, and MR. PAYN Defended. MABIA LILY ASHTON WARNER. I am the wife of Ashton Warner, and superintendent of the East End Mothers' Home, Commercial Road—the prisoner was porter there in December, his wife acting as cook—Mrs. Rhoda Hindley is a subscriber, and has been in the habit of regularly sending a guinea subscription—up to 18th December I had not received that subscription—as porter the prisoner's duties would take him to the Home door, on which there is a letter-box—on 16th December I heard something about that box, and in consequence I had the lid altered and made secure—on 18th December Mr. Glanville, a grocer's manager, told me something, and afterwards I sent to Mr. Colley, postmaster, and after getting an answer from him I charged the prisoner, when he came back to the house, about four, with taking a cheque and presenting it without my permission—he was then very tipsy indeed—this cheque (produced) is signed by Mrs. Rhoda Hindley; it never passed into my possession—it has been altered from "order" to "bearer"; I don't know whose writing that alteration is in—this cheque, signed by M. A. Chaplin, for £1 1s., payable to myself on behalf of the charity, has never passed into my possession; I first to saw it after the prisoner was in custody—the prisoner has taken in the letters at the Home in the morning—I never saw this postal order before I was at the Police-court; the money for it has not passed into my hands.

Cross-examined. The Home is not a very large place—the only other servant besides the prisoner and his wife is the charwoman—we have two nurses—all money sent to the Home is addressed to me; if they are small amounts I put them into the cash-box, and when a certain amount has been collected I pay it into the bank—we have not a large income—I am positive I have never cashed a cheque sent for a subscription with a tradesman in the neighbourhood—if I was short I should not send out and cash a cheque, it would be against the rules, and I have never done it—I always put cheques into a cash-box immediately—I never lost a cheque for £40 that had been put on one side—the prisoner served eighteen years in the Army, he told me—he was in my employment up to 1888, and then he left because he used to get so dreadfully tipsy that I could not bear him—I gave his wife this character, and she begged me not to say anything about his. tipsyness—I wrote to the mother of the prisoner's wife in November, 1890, and referred in the letter to the prisoner as the "dear old porter"—the prisoner would do whatever he was asked to do; he was a handy man—I should not be surprised at his taking the letters in in the morning—I got Mrs. Hindley's cheque front the prisoner's wife after the question of arrest—I did not first charge the prisoner with drunkenness, it was for stealing the cheque; I heard he could not be taken for drunkenness, or I should have charged him with that before—I have never left cheques about.

Re-examined. I have a banking account into which I paid the sums I received—I do not pay for things I want by cheques on my own account; I make a schedule of the estimated amount every month, and the committee give me a cheque, which is signed by the treasurer, chairman, and myself—I discharged the prisoner once for drunkenness simply—I gave

the character on account of the appeal his wife made to me—the prisoner received 17s. 6d. a week latterly, and a home and other things, and he also had a pension as a retired sergeant.

WILLIAM COLLEY . I am a grocer and postmaster, at 439, Commercial Road—about 8.20 a.m. on 18th December the prisoner came in and handed me this cheque for £1 1s., drawn by Mrs. Hindley, and said, "Will you oblige Mrs. Warner with small change for this cheque?"—I noticed he seemed like a person who had been drinking for some time—I examined the cheque, and told him it was to order; if Mrs. Ashton Warner endorsed it, I should be very pleased to cash it for her—he said, "Mrs. Ashton Warner is very busy; you know her way, she told me to "take it and get the money at once"—I said, "You must take it across and do so"—he was taking the pen to endorse it, saying, "I have Mrs. Ashton Warner's authority to endorse cheques; I have done it often"—I remonstrated with him, and told him to be off, and do what I said, and he went away—when he left me the cheque was to order and without alteration, there is now the addition to it "or bearer"—he did not come back to me.

Cross-examined. I thought he had had too much to drink—I did not relieve him when he said he had authority to endorse it—I have cashed cheques for Mrs. Warner through the prisoner before—those were cheques drawn by her—I never cashed any small cheques drawn by other people for her.

JOHN GLANVILLE . I am manager to a grocer at 449, Commercial Road—between twelve and one on 18th December the prisoner produced this cheque to me and asked me to change it for him; we had cashed many there before in his time, he said—I asked him if he would give me an explanation as to what the alteration on it was, I noticed the word "bearer"—he said, "That is nothing—I said, "You take it back to Mrs. Ashton Warner, and when you give me some better explanation I will cash it for her"—he said, "The alteration is nothing at all"—he did not say who had made the alteration—I sent my boy to watch him, he went to the Home—afterwards I went and explained the matter to Mrs. Warner.

Cross-examined. My impression was that the prisoner was either mad or intoxicated, he was very abusive.

SIDNEY HINDLEY . I live at 59, Mount View Road, Hornsey—my mother, Rhoda Hindley, signed this cheque, and wrote the body of it—I have the counterfoil—the alteration from "order "to "bearer" is not in her writing—she is an invalid.

Cross-examined. I am sure this alteration is not in the writing of anyone at home.

GEORGE DERBY . I am an oilman, at 418, Commercial Road—on 17th December, about 10 a.m., the prisoner snowed me this cheque, and asked me if I would oblige Mrs. Ashton Warner with change—I cashed it—I noticed it was crossed, but I did not notice that it was not endorsed—I knew him as being the porter at the Home—I had cashed private cheques for Mrs. Warner before—I kept the cheque till I gave it to a constable.

Cross-examined. I did not notice the prisoner's condition particularly—the only cheques I had cashed for Mrs. Warner were cheques she has drawn herself.

----CHAPLIN. I am a clerk in holy orders—my mother, Mrs. C. Chaplin, of Palace Gardens Terrace, is a subscriber to the East-end Home—this cheque is in her handwriting—she is not able to travel.

Cross-examined. I did not see the cheque drawn; I think it is in her writing.

JANE CHARLES . I live at 25, Clarges Street, Mayfair, with my mother—this postal-order for 5s. is filled in in her writing, and was sent by her by post as a donation to the Home in the Commercial Road.

Cross-examined. She told me she sent it.

JANE PALMER . I am the wife of James Palmer, a lighterman—the prisoner is our friend—one day in December, before we heard of his being in custody, he came into our house about half-past two, very tipsy—he was in our kitchen a little while—after he had gone I found under the table where he had been a cheque very much like this one (Mrs. Hindley's cheque)—I kept it till my husband came home, and then sent it hack to Mrs. Haggerty.

Cross-examined. He was very much intoxicated.

HERBERT BENNETT HOWLETT . I am a first-class postman; I deliver letters in the Commercial Road—I knew the prisoner as porter at the Home—I have always delivered at the Home every letter that has been addressed there when given to me for delivering—occasionally I have seen the prisoner at the door, and have handed letters to him, instead of putting them into the letter-box.

Cross-examined. There is nothing unusual in delivering letters to a servant at the doorway; I should have given them to any servant of the institution.

JOHN STEWART (H 346). On 18th December, about four p.m., Mrs. Warner gave the prisoner into my custody for stealing a cheque—he said, "I am very sorry"—on the way to the station he said, "I never stole any cheque, nor know anything about it"—when the charge was read the prisoner said, "Yes, sir"—Mrs. Warner might have mentioned in his presence at the station his having gone to the tradesmen to try and change the cheque.

Cross-examined. Mrs. Warner called me in as I was passing, and told me prisoner was drunk, and that she wished to give him into custody for stealing a cheque.

ALFRED DRYWOOD (Inspector E). I took the charge against the prisoner, of stealing Mrs. Hindley's cheque—he said, "I know nothing about the-cheque"—after the charge was taken he said, "Yes, sir; I suppose I shall have to remain here all night; "he was drunk.

GUILTY — Nine Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, January 13th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

142. JAMES COPE (16), SIDNEY BARRY (18), and ALBERT JONES (17) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of George Frederick Stanislaus Simmonds, and stealing pipes, tobacco, and other articles, his property.

MR. SANDERS Prosecuted.

GEORGE FREDERICK STANISLAUS SIMMONDS . I am a tobacconist, of 133, City Road—on 8th December, about 11.30 p.m., I went to bed, after locking up the house—I sleep at the back of the shop—I was aroused by the police about 5.45, went into my shop, and found a large plate-glass window broken and six boxes containing fifty cigars each, four others containing twenty-five, two tobacco pouches, and some pipes had been taken away—the cigars had been pulled down by a stick, which was taken from the window—I sell sticks—I have no shutters to the window, only iron grills—this tobacco is similar to what I lost; it was in the window for people to see.

SCOTT HARRISSON (G 449). On 9th December, about 5.30 a.m., I was in the City Road, and saw the prisoners at the window of a tobacco shop—I heard a noise, and when they saw me they ran away—I called the prosecutor—two days afterwards I took Jones to the police-station, and charged him at Kingsland Road—I said he would be charged with being in company with two others in stealing tobacco at a shop in the City Road—he made no answer—I had seen the three prisoners earlier that morning in East Road about five o'clock, 250 yards from Mr. Simmonds' shop—they were standing together, and I requested them to move away.

JOSEPH MASLIN (G 450). On December 9th, about 5.30 a.m., I was in the City Road, and heard cries of "Stop thief!" and saw Cope and Jones running—I stopped Cope, and before I said anything he said, "I did not do it"—I said, "What have you got in your pocket? "—he said, "It is only a bit of tobacco; this was given to me by the other chap"—I found this knife in his coat pocket on the other side; I took him back to the shop—the window was broken, and I found a cigar on the pavement, and a cigarette and some pieces of glass—the hole was not large enough for anybody to go through—there are iron railings, which, were broken, and a stick was pointing out of the window—I had seen Cope and Jones together in the City Road about an hour before—another officer took Barry—he is not here.

Barry called

CHARLOTTE BARRY . I am the mother of the centre prisoner—my husband, James Barry, has been timekeeper at Messrs. Whitbread's for twenty-six years—I have six children besides the prisoner—his father was laid up in bed on the 8th, and he was in the same room—he went to bed, and did not get up till ten next morning—I gave him some gruel in bed—I was sleeping in the same room.

Cross-examined. We live from five to ten minutes' walk from the City Road—I got up about seven o'clock—I heard he was locked up, and went to the Police-court to see what it was for.

By the COURT. My husband sent him out on an errand, and he did not return—I went to the Court, but could not get in—somebody said, "Call the witnesses at the trial. "

Jones called

CHARLES JONES . The prisoner Jones is my son—I am a boot and shoemaker, of 37, Prover Street, and 31, Baldwin Street—my boy was out playing at eleven o'clock—he is sixteen years old; I thought it was time for him to be in, and I sent to him to return home—he came in at 11.30—I told him to get into bed—he had to sleep in the shop where I work, and I slept there too, because I have been robbed—I got up at 6 a.m.

and lit the fire, and he was in bed—a playmate of his named Jones came and called for him to go and seek for employment—he went out after breakfast, and came home to his dinner—he worked with Mr. Ware twelve months, and with a crumpet maker who is paralysed, or he would, be here, and also for a Mr. Jones—he has been out of work three months.—I have seventeen other children.

Cross-examined. He had slept in the shop with me for about a week; he slept there the next night Tuesday and on Wednesday, and on Thursday he was apprehended—I do not know the other two prisoners but Cope came and called my son out on several mornings—it was not possible for him to go out of the shop without my knowing it, because I always lock the door—I do not think he' could have opened it and got out unless I slept very sound—I live about fifty yards from the prosecutor's shop—he has been in trouble once for attempting to pick pockets; that was two or three months ago.

Cope's Defence. A fellow with a moustache gave me the tobacco, and the policeman found it in my pocket, and said I must come to the station.

Barry's Defence, He never saw me at all; I was in bed at the time.

Jones's Defence. At 11.20 I was in bed and asleep, and did not get up before nine o'clock.

NOT GUILTY .

143. JAMES DALGLIESH (43) and JOSEPH TRINNIMAN (18) Unlawfully committing acts of gross indecency.

MR. LEVER Prosecuted, and MR. LAWLESS Defended Dalgliesh. Dalgliesh received a good character.

NOT GUILTY .

OLD COURT.—Wednesday, January 14th, 1891.

Before Mr. Justice Smith.

144. MARY JANE BAYNON (32) PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully inciting " William Yelveston Davenport to procure her miscarriage.— Three Months' Imprisonment.

For other cases tried this day and Thursday see Essex and Surrey cases.

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, January 14th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

145. REGINALD AYLMER was indicted for label. In this case MR. FULTON applied to quash the indictment. The defendant had been committed under Section 5 of Lord Campbell's Act for publishing a defamatory libel; at the last Sessions the prosecution applied for leave to add Counts under Section 4, alleging scienter; notwithstanding such leave had been refused, the Counts had been added; he contended that the GRAND JURY, in returning a true bill, must hare had regard to the fact of the six Counts under Section 4, charging a distinct offence, which were added without legal authority (see Q. v. Bradlaugh,15 Cox c. c., and Q. v. Boater, Sessions Paper). MR. WOODFALL submitted that the charges were preferred on the facts before the Magistrate, and that therefore leave of the COURT was unnecessary; and that even if the Counts were bad, if

was no ground for quashing the indictment, because of suspicion that MR. GRAND JURY might have been influenced by them (Q. v. Carden, Q. v. Fuidge) . The RECORDER, after consulting MR. JUSTICE SMITH, ruled that as the Counts under Section 4 were very different from those under Section 5, and might be followed by much more serious consequences, as the COURT had refused leave to add them; and as after a verdict they could not be reviewed by a writ of error, as there would be no error on the face of the record, he should quash the indictment. The indictment was accordingly quashed.

146. EDWARD RUSSELL OLORENSHAW PLEADED GUILTY to omitting and concurring in omitting material particulars from an account belonging to his employer, Frederick Hutchinson, and to other falsifications of account. There were other Counts in the indictment for obtaining money by false pretences, upon which no evidence was offered; and there were other indictments against the prisoner for forgery and embezzlement. The prosecutor recommended him to mercy.— Discharged on recognisances.

147. ALFRED GROVES, Stealing a cash-box, a cheque for 5s., and £10, the goods and moneys of William Hunt, in his dwelling-house. Second Count, receiving the same.

MR. SANDS Prosecuted.

WILLIAM HUNT . I keep the King's Arms at Longford, Harmonds-worth—on Saturday evening, January 5th, between seven and eight, my cash-box was safe in the bar-parlour cupboard; in it were between £10 and £11, a cheque for 5s., and several letters—among the money was a fourpenny-piece of the time of George III. or IV. with a hole in it, and a Jubilee sixpence—the cupboard was not locked, anyone could go straight to the cupboard from the front door, which is five or six yards from it, without passing through the bar—I went out and came in again, and when I went to the cupboard the same evening at ten o'clock, the cash-box was not there—I cannot swear to this cash-box, but I can to these letters and other things in it—I saw it again the next day between three and four a.m., when the police showed me it and some of my letters and papers, and a Jubilee sixpence, and a fourpenny-piece—I cannot swear to the coins—I have known the prisoner for twelve or fourteen months—I saw him on that same evening standing outside the house.

ELIZABETH MARGARET HUNT . I am wife of the last witness—on this night I served the prisoner with half a pint of beer in a can, about ten minutes to nine—he asked me the time at a quarter or twenty minutes past nine I went out and slipped, and I saw the prisoner there, who said, "Have you hurt yourself, Mrs. Hunt?"—he was then thirty or forty yards from my door, nearer his father's house, which is about fifty yards from ours—when my husband was out I left the bar a little before eight, and was away not more than ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, I think—that was before the prisoner came in—no one was serving besides myself—I don't think anyone came in to be served while I was away—I did not exactly keep a watch on the front door; I watched people come in and out—no one was left in charge of the house while I was out for a quarter of an hour, but I left the back door open so that I could hear—Mr. Hunt was in the cellar.

JAMES WHITBREAD (T R 65). On Tuesday, 6th January, inconsequence of information, I went to the prisoner's father's house, about 9 p.m.—I

saw the prisoner, and told him he would be charged with stealing a cash-box from a cupboard in the bar-parlour of the King's Head, containing money—he said, "I don't know anything about it"—I took him into custody—I found on him a watch-chain, with an ordinary four-penny piece on a ring: attached to it, and a sixpence, and a pawnticket in his pocket—I asked him how he accounted for the money; he said he had done a day's work the day before—I said, "You gave Tillyear 1s. 6d. "—he said, "Yes, I gave him 1s. 6d., and bought him two ounces of tea and a pound of sugar "—his mother said he had no money of his own, he had done no work for a lung time, and he had no money except what they gave him—I left him in charge of another constable, and made inquiries as to whether he had been at work—afterwards I went with the prisoner and two other constables to his father's garden, and there the prisoner pointed to a place from which Rivett moved the snow and found 11s. 6d. in silver, tied up in a piece of rag—among the silver there was a Jubilee sixpence—when that was found the prisoner sail, "Naggy Nibs took the box, and that is part of the money"—Nibs was arrested—the Magistrate discharged him.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I believe the pawnticket refers to your own watch; you pulled it from your pocket with the sixpence.

GEORGE EBENEZER ENSOR (T 275). On the evening of the 6th I was left in charge of the prisoner in the bar-parlour of the King's Arms—he burst out crying and said, "I did not take it, but I know who did; Naggy Nibs took the cash-box, put it under his coat, and pave me fifteen shillings; that is all I know of it. Come with me, and I will show you where it is"—I went with Whitbread and Rivett to the back of his father's house and in the garden, buried in the snow, the prisoner pointed out a place from which Rivett picked up a rag containing 11s. 6d.—Naggy Nibs was. charged at the station, and before him the prisoner repeated his statement several times—Nibs was remanded, and afterwards discharged by the Magistrate—I was in company with Rivett when he found the cash-box.

GEORGE RIVETT (T 286). I was with Ensor and Whitbread when the prisoner pointed out the money in the garden—I found the cash-box in a heap of wood in a farmyard about forty yards from the public-house—there were a number of letters and this cheque in it then, that was all.

FREDERICK: FINCH . I live at Longford—I know the prisoner—on the evening of Monday, the 5th, I was with him and Naggy Nibs against the King's Arms between seven and eight—I was with them for about twenty minutes or half an hour—I went away and left them together.

The prisoner in his defence, said Nibs gave him 15s., and that he did not know where Nibs got it from; and that he did not have the cash-box.

GUILTY of receiving. Recommended by the Jury to mercy on account of his youth.—Judgment respited,

148. HENRY CASEY, For a riot with other persons (see page 160)

MR. C. MATHEWS, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.— NOT GUILTY .

149. JAMES LEWIS (26) , Unlawfully and carnally knowing Annie Treadwell, a girl between 13 and 16. Second Count, for attempting to carnally knowing her.

MR. A. GILL Prosecuted, and MR. MARTIN Defended.

NOT GUILTY .

150. EDWARD HURLEY, Unlawfully and maliciously publishing a false and defamatory libel of and concerning William Faulkner.

MR. ABINGER Prosecuted, and MR. DRUMMOND Defended.

JOHN LAING . I have been proprietor of Laing's Private Hotel, Jermyn Street, for thirty years—Mr. Stanhope was staying there; he left on 22nd December for the South of France—he handed me this letter, and I read it. (This was addressed to Mr. Stanhope and signed "E. Hurley. "It described Faulkner as a notorious thief and one not fit to be employed)—there is a crest on the envelope—in consequence of a telegram from Mr. Stanhope telling me to do so, I discharged the prosecutor—had not engaged him; he had not slept at my house—when he insisted on having some reason for my discharging him, I showed him the letter—Mr. Stanhope handed me the letter, and I advised Mr. Stan hope to discharge him, and said I could not keep him in my house after seeing that letter.

Cross-examined. I don't know the prisoner—I saw Faulkner once in my house, and then I saw the letter and discharged him, that is all I know about him.

THOMAS TURNER . I am a valet—on 25th September I went into Short's, in the Strand, to get some wine, and I met the prisoner and his friend Daley drinking there—the prisoner asked me what I thought about the Faulkner case—I told him I had heard one side of the question at the club, and he said, "I don't intend him to get the place, I would sooner see the biggest thief in London have it; I wrote to the gentleman and stopped Faulkner having the place"—he said he had told the gentleman that the defendant's nephew had given him a false character, and he had stopped him from getting the place—he said that he said in the letter he was a convicted thief; something of that sort.

Cross-examined. I am valet to six gentlemen, at 34, Grosvenor Road—I was alone in Short's—the prisoner's brother came in after about twenty, minutes—I did not say I knew Faulkner was a thief, and I was very glad he did not have the situation; I have known Faulkner since this case has been on—last year I was in service with Mr. Dinkelsfield and Baron Burndt—I left there through sickness last September, with a character—this letter is in my writing—"He sacked me for asking for that quid for you that evening," means that I was trying to get his brother a sovereign to go and get a place—(a further passage was read) "He refused to pay me my brass, and said I robbed him quite enough he will not give me a b—farthing, or give me a character"—we quarrelled for a week, and then he gave me a character; he had been robbed by other servants.

Re-examined. That is a letter written to an intimate friend—he did give me a character.

WILLIAM JOINER . I am a valet and hall porter—I have been acquainted with the prisoner's writing for the last seventeen years—this letter is not his writing—I said at the Police-court that it was, but I have thought about it since; it is not—I have not been speaking to the prisoner—I found some writing of the prisoner in a portmanteau at home, and I found it did not correspond with this—I did not look for that before I gave evidence at the Police-court; I have some of his writing in my possession.

Cross-examined. I pass by the name of Adams in the house I live in,

11, Tennyson Street—that is a woman's house, she is not my wife—she is not a common street walker.

By the COURT. I said before the Magistrate, "The letter produced is in the handwriting of the defendant to the best of my belief; I produce a letter written by the defendant"—I did not produce a letter; one was produced, but I did not recognise it as one written by the prisoner—I am not a connoisseur in writing.

Re-examined. On 21st November, between 8 and 8.30, I met the prisoner and prosecutor in Jermyn Street—the prosecutor said to him, "Hurley, this is a nice thing you have done for me; have not you done me enough harm already? Why did you write that letter?"—the prisoner said, "What letter; I know nothing of any letter; any letter that I have written I am ready to substantiate. "

By MR. DRUMMOND. I don't think I mentioned anything about the letter at the Police-court; I have remembered that since—at times I am a friend of the prosecutor's; I am not particularly to-day—I am as much his friend as I am the prisoner's friend—I am a purely disinterested witness—I have never been taken up.

By the COURT. The prosecutor began the conversation—he said, "Why don't you leave me alone? Have not you done enough to me already without doing me any more harm "—the prisoner replied, "No, you little b—, I have done you here, and I will do you wherever you go"—I did not say that before, because the learned counsel did not ask me.

WALTER GEORGE EASTMEAD . I am a waiter in employment—I have known the prisoner between twelve and fifteen years—before the letter was written, the prisoner said to me. "You can have your revenge on Billy Faulkner; you have got an. opportunity of putting him away when he gets a shop "(meaning a situation)—I said nothing; he said, "He has done you a bit of harm; why cannot you do him a bit?"—I said, "Certainly not"—we had a drink and parted—afterwards he wrote to me on 7th December, 1890—after that I saw him in the street, but did not speak to him.

Cross-examined. I said nothing at the Police-court about this conversation as to doing him any harm, because I was not asked—I was asked what passed—I should be employed at the Law Courts now, but for this case—I have been a waiter in the House of Commons dining-room for a whole session; I have been there for years—last session I was there, I forget how often—when I want money I go to the House of Commons, and get evening work there—I have been in Spiers and Pond's too—I was in regular employment last year at Lord's Cricket Ground; I went there five days a week—I am quite. Respectable; you cannot prove otherwise.

By the COURT. I said before the Magistrate about a month ago, "I had a conversation with the prisoner with regard to a letter. He said to me, 'If you don't put Billy away I will. Meet me at the Man in the Moon, John Street, Piccadilly, at 10.30, and then you can have your revenge on Faulkner'"—he said that first, and afterwards it was put into writing; the Man in the Moon was not mentioned in the conversation; I only knew by the letter where I was to meet him—he said, "One word from you will do it, as I have got him nicely set. "

By MR. DRUMMOND. I am not particularly a friend of the prosecutor's—I prosecuted him for an assault on me three months ago, and he was fined £5 at Malborough Street for splitting my head open—I was employed at

the Mansion House Restaurant by Spiers and Pond last winter for six months.

W. G. EASTMEAD (Re examined by the COURT). I wrote to the prosecutor at the Bell at Leicester, at the prisoners instigation, "Will you be kind enough to send me 25s., as I have been informed you have stolen from me. If you do not I shall inform your governor"—Faulkner did not owe me 25s.—I did not say he did—I did not know that he had had it—Hurley did not owe me 25s.

Witnesses for the Definite.

MARTIN DALEY . I am a musician, living at 12a, Belvidere Crescent—I was with the prisoner in Short's when Turner came in, and I remained with him during the whole of the time Turner remained there;. I was there when he left—Hurley said to Turner that he was surprised they sent a man down like that (meaning the prosecutor) from the club to fill a situation; they thought he would send him down (meaning Turner)—Turner said, "A scamp like that ought to have five years"—I did not hear the prisoner say, "I suppose you know about the Faulkner case," or "What do you think of the Faulkner case?"—I did not hear the prisoner say, "I do not intend my nephew to have the situation on account of his giving him a false character," nor "I wrote to the gentleman, and told him he was a convicted thief"—I heard every thing he said, and nothing of that kind was said—I could have heard it if it had been—I was standing with them—nothing of the kind was said ii* my presence in the public-house.

Cross-examined. The conversation was between Turner and the prisoner; I took no part in it—after we had been there some time Hurley's brother came in, and I chatted with him—I heard every word that was said—we had some wine—we did not all talk at once.

WILLIAM HURLEY . I was at Short's; the prisoner, Daley, my brother, and Turner were there—no conversation took place about Faulkner—I had a conversation with Turner outside Short's.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, January 14th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

151. CHARLES ROBINS (65) , Indecently assulting Robert Ryan, Frederick Chalkwright, Stephen Barry, William Blackburn, and William Arthurs.

MR. BESLEY Prosecuted.

GUILTY *.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, January 15th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

152. GEORGE WILLIAMS (28), JOHN FORD (58), and GEORGE McKENZIE (25) , Stealing a purse and twelve shillings of Annie Cook, from her person.

MR. ROUTH Prosecuted, and MR. PURCELL Defended Ford. STEPHEN BAKER (City Detective 315). On 13th December, about noon. I was in Aldersgate Street with Detective Gillard, and saw the three prisoners and two other men outside the railway station; they remained

about ten minutes, and went down Long Lane, and looked at the London and County Bank—they stayed there ten or twelve minutes—they all five then went on, and stood outside the London Joint Stock Bank; they remained there ten or twelve minutes, and then went down Charterhouse Street, and stood outside Andrews', the opticians—they stayed outside the City Bank ten or twelve minutes, and then went up Holborn, and turned up Southampton Buildings—Williams and McKenzie stood there talking, and Ford and the other two men stood facing the Birkbeck Bank for about three-quarters of an hour—they then went down Chancery Lane and Fleet Street to Snow Hill Railway Station, where I was joined by Outram—they went on the platform—I did not notice where they took tickets for—a train came in, and a female went to a carriage; Ford got in front of her, Williams stood on her left, and the others surrounded her—I got amongst them; the train went out and they remained on the platform—a ticket for the Elephant and Castle was found on Ford, and the train was going there, but they did not get in—a second train came up. and there was another female—Ford got hold of the door; Williams was on her left—the train went out, and they still remained on the platform—a third train came in, and Annie Cook went to it—Ford got in front of her, Williams on her left, and the others round heir—she had a black handbag closed; she got into the train, and Outram caught hold of Williams and said to her, "You have lost your purse; get out, please"—she got out, and all the prisoners separated and got into the carriages—I rode to Ludgate Hill in another carriage; the other two prisoners got out and turned towards the engine, and Ford and McKenzie got out and stood and looked round—we went to them and said, "We are police officers, and shall take you in custody for stealing a purse from a lady at Snow Hill Railway Station"—Ford said, "Have not you made a mistake?"—I said, "No"—McKenzie said, "You have made a mistake"—we took them to Snow Hill Police-station, where Williams was in custody, and put them in the same dock with him—Ford and McKenzie said that they did not know Williams, and Williams said he did not know them—Ford gave an address, and I went there—on 9th December I saw Ford and Williams together with three other men, but not McKenzie.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I have been twelve years in the force—I believe I told the Magistrate that Ford denied knowing Williams—no solicitor represented the railway company on the first occasion, but on the second occasion one did—I did not tell the Alderman on the second occasion, "It must be false, I saw them together on the 9th and 13th of November"—this is the first time I have said so, because I have never been asked, but I told the solicitor in the indictment office—I got among the prisoners every time—I had seen one of the men not arrested once. before—I have not the least doubt that Ford was at Snow Hill Station—the four men got into different parts of the train—I got into the same carriage as Gillard—Ford and McKenzie were together on the platform, and I believe they were in the same compartment—I got out before the train stopped—did not go up to Ford immediately, I waited a few minutes—most of the passengers had gone away; Ford speaks rather indistinctly—he was very quiet in the dock, not nervous—the ticket found in his pocket was torn into six pieces—Le was not twitching his hands while the charge was being taken.

Cross-examined by McKenzie, I first saw you at Aldersgate Street; you

came along Barbican—I did not charge you with being with Williams and two others not in custody.

Re-examined. In giving evidence at the Police-court it is not customary to go into anything further than the direct charge—I gave information to the solicitor on the second occasion, and he took it down in pencil.

ANNIE COOK . I am a milliner, of 104, Cambridge Street, Warwick Square—on 13th December, at two o'clock, I was at Snow Hill Station—I took a ticket for Brixton, and tried to get into the first train that came in, but was rushed by some men, and when I got into the carriage my bag was open and my purse gone; it contained twelve shillings—my bag was closed before—this is it—a detective told me to come out—this is my purse.

Cross-examined by McKenzie. I did not see you on the platform.

WALTER OUTRAM (City Detective). On 13th December I got out of a train at Snow Hill Station about two o'clock—before I got out I noticed Williams on the platform, which caused me to get out—I saw him follow Miss Cook, and as she was about to get into the train there were a number of men round her, and Williams stood with his left hand under his right arm, and unfastened her bag and put his hand in—as he withdrew it I caught hold of his hand and took this purse from it, which contained twelve shillings—I took him to the station, searched him, and a railway ticket from the Elephant and Castle to Snow Hill and a cap were found upon him—Williams was in the dock at the time; the other two prisoners were put into the dock and charged—Williams said, "I do not know the other two"—Ford and McKenzie said they did not know Williams—Ford did not appear very much flurried.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. They did not use names; they said, "I do not know him "—one of the prisoners asked at Guildhall that Gillard should be out of Court while Baker was examined, I think it was McKenzie—Gillard was not called that day, he was called the week after.

Cross-examined by McKenzie. I did not see you at Snow Hill.

HENRY GILLARD (City Plain Clothes Patrol). On the 13th of December, about noon, I was with Baker in Aldersgate Street, and saw the three prisoners with two men not in custody—they went from one bank to another—I studied their features for two hours—Ford was one of them—I did not know him previously—they went to Snow Hill; a train came in, Ford opened the door on the left side of a lady, McKenzie was on her right, and Williams on her left, and the' others surrounding her—she got into the carriage and they were left on the platform—a second train came in, and they repeated the same thing with another female; a third train came in, and they surrounded the prosecutrix; Ford went to open the carriage door and blocked her; McKenzie and two men not in custody surrounded her—Outram took Williams and gave him to me; Ford and McKenzie got into the next carriage—Outram told Baker to get the lady out, and we got into the carriage and went on to Ludgate Hill, and Ford and McKenzie came up—we told them we were police officers, and took them for stealing a purse from a lady at Snow Hill Railway Station—McKenzie said, "You have made a mistake, have not you?"—I said, "No," and took him to the station—at the first hearing at the Police-court McKenzie asked that the witnesses might be heard separately—I was not in Court when Baker gave his evidence;

he has not prompted me—I was behind the prisoners for two hours—I do not want to make anything up—I had not seen Ford and Williams together before.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I was away from Gillard while I was watching these men; we could not always see one another—when we are watching men we do not get too near them, or show ourselves too much.

Cross-examined by McKenzie. You and Ford got into the same railway carriage—I did not arrest you because we wanted to get the other two—you gave no ticket up—I was out of Court before the Magistrate—I never saw you before that day.

WILLIAM CROSS (City Detective Sergeant). I have seen Williams and Ford in company.

McKenzie's Defence. I took my ticket from Moorgate Street to Ludgate Hill, and got out there—I saw Ford, whom I knew, and said, "Are you going off here?" he said, "No, I am waiting for friends"; the detectives then took us.

GUILTY .**—They then pleaded to previous convictions—Williams at Dalston on 9th December', 1889; Ford at this Court, as John McPherson, on October 15th; and McKenzie at London Sessions on 8th April, 1890, as John Alexander.— Twenty Months' Hard Labour each.

NEW COURT.—Thursday, January 15th, 1891.

Before-Mr. Recorder.

153. FRANK GARDNER, Stealing £378 10s., the moneys of William Mason Greenip and others, his masters.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL, MR. WINCH , Q. C., and MR. A. GILL Prosecuted; MR. COCK, Q. C., and MR. H. AVORY Defended.

LOUIS FLETCHER . I am a cashier to Messrs. Snell, Son, and Greenip, and have the custody of their cheque-book—the body of this cheque "G" for £578 108., dated 19th April, 1881, is in my writing—the prisoner instructed me to make it out—I got the firm's signature to it, and gave it to him—I drew this cheque of 8th May, 1858, for £313 12s. 6d. upon the prisoner's instructions, got the firm's signature to it, and gave it to him—he said he required the cheques to pay into Court.

Cross-examined. In December or January there was a cheque for £378 10s. in respect of Bailey and the Road-Car Company—that was given to the prisoner. (The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that this was tendered before action, and not being accepted, was returned)—the £378 10s. and £313 12s. 6d. cheques would appear in the books—Mr. Greenip and Mr. Snell, junr., were in the habit of looking into the books—Mr. Snell, junr., had the management of this particular action—I was not present when Mr. Greenip gave evidence before the Magistrate—the firm's accounts are not taken regularly in the office by an accountant—the books are made up regularly twice a year, in June and December, and the accounts of each client are entered in the ledger—there would appear in the ledger what sums of money had been received from any particular client in respect of any piece of business—the prisoner's office was on the second floor, where I am—documents and proceedings were delivered as

a rule in the general office on the first floor, and would be delivered to whatever persons had control of the particular business.

Re-examined. In the account of the London Road-Car Company in the ledger would be shown the amounts received from them, and cheques paid out on their account, and those would appear according to the cheques,

GEORGE RICHARD BEST . I am in the pay office of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice—I produce the original lodgment forms of money paid into the Bank of England in the action of Bailey v. the London Road-Car Company—money paid in in an action is paid into the Bank of England—on 9th May, 1888, £378 10s. was paid in in the fifth action of Bailey v. the London Road-Car Company—on 18th January, 1889, £71 12s. 6d. was further paid in.

Cross-examined. On 8th March, 1889, £5 was paid in, and on 22nd August, 1889, £16—the two first amounts would be paid in under orders; the other two would be paid for security of costs, and there is no order made in respect of that.

CHARLES HENRY KNIGHT . I am one of the cashiers at the Law Courts branch of the Bank of England—I produce original paying-in slips of 9th May, 1888, for £378 10s., and on 18th January, 1887, for £71 12s. 6d.

JOHN STOCK . I am a cashier in the Metropolitan and Birmingham Bank, Cannon Street—in 1888 that bank was called the Royal Exchange Bank—on 19th April, 1888, I cashed this cheque for £378 10s. at the bank—I cannot say to whom I gave the money—I paid it by a £200 note No. 27,147, £100 note No. 05,456, £50 note No. 74,333, a £20 and £5 notes, and £3 10s. in money—I cashed this cheque of 8th May, 1888, for £313 12s. 6d. by a £200 note No. 34,765, a £100 note No. 22,534, a £10 note, and £3 12s. 6d. in money.

CHARLES JOHN WILLIAMS . I am a clerk in the Accountant's Bank-note Department of the Bank of England—this £200 note No. 27,147 was cashed over the counter on 25th April, 1888—it bears the endorsement "Snell, Son, and Greenip, 1 and 2, George Street"—the £200 note No. 34,765 was paid in on 10th May, 1888, by the Law Courts branch—the £50 note No. 74,333 was paid in by the London and County Bank on 21st April; 1888—the £100 note No. 7,544 was cashed at the bank on 8th May, 1888 the £50 note No. 79,271 was paid in on the same day by the head office of the London and Westminster Bank.

Cross-examined. The £100 note No. 05,456 was paid in to the account of Messrs. Mossop and Rolfe, solicitors, of 46, Cannon Street.

WILLIAM EDWARD SOLTAU . I am a clerk in the Issue Department of the Bank of England—I cashed the £200 note No. 27,147, giving for it a £100 note No. 7,544, a £50 note No. 79,271, two £20 notes, and a £& note.

CHAELES HERBERT WHITCHER . I am a clerk in the Issue Department of the Bank of England—I cashed on 8th May, 1888, the £100 note No. 75,145—it was endorsed "Snell, Son, and Greenip, 1 and 2, George Street. "

HENRY ARTHUR ATTENBOROUGH . I am a jeweller at the corner of Fleet Street and Chancery Lane—I have had business transactions with the prisoner for four or five years—on 20th April, 1888, we sold him a pair of opera-glasses for 30s.—he paid for them then, not for anything else—I do not think he owed for other matters then—this endorsement, "George Attenborough and Son," on this note, No. 79,271 is mine—I

cannot say if I got the note from the prisoner—we changed it at the Temple Bar branch of the London and Westminster Bank.

GEORGE ROLFE . I am a solicitor in practice with Mr. Mossop—in April, 1888, we had matters pending with Mr. Sedgwick, in respect of which we had to receive some money from him—on 20th April, 1888, the prisoner paid me £100 by a Bank of England note; I took no note of the number—we paid it into the Bank of England on the same day—so far as I knew, Messrs. Snell, Son, and Greenip were acting for Sedgwick, and I assumed the prisoner was acting for them; he was the clerk I saw.

Cross-examined. They had been acting as Mr. Sedgwick's solicitors, as far as I knew—there had been proceedings, and they were adjourned on the understanding that when they came on, in a week or a fortnight's time, the money should be paid; my impression is, it was a personal undertaking to pay by the prisoner—this was the only sum guaranteed by him—there was probably an undertaking in writing, and if there was it was probably handed back when that sum was paid; I have looked through my papers, but I cannot find it.

GEORGE STANLEY SEDGWICK was called, but did not answer.

JOSEPH HARRY GOULD . I am a clerk to the London Joint-Stock Loan Company, Victoria Chambers—I received from the prisoner this £60 note No. 74,333, in respect of £15, the balance of a loan—it is endorsed, "London Joint-Stock Loan Discount Investment Company, J. H. Gould," and "F. Gardner, Springmead, West Barnes"—I changed it at the London and County Bank, Holborn branch, and gave him the balance.

Cross-examined. Springmead, West Barnes," was the prisoners address then.

WILLIAM MASON GREENIP . I am one of the firm of Snell, Son, and Greenip, of 1 and 2, George Street, Mansion House—the prisoner was our managing common-law clerk—he came into our employ in January, 1886, at a salary of £150 a year, I believe; within three months, I think, we gave him a further £25, and it was gradually increased, until when he left us he had £6 a week—during 1887 and 1888 there were five actions going on in our office in connection with the London Road-Car Company, on whose behalf we were solicitors—at the end of 1887 there was a claim pending by Mr. Bailey against the company, which eventually became what was known as action No. 5—in December, 1887, my firm received this cheque for £378 10s. from the Road-Car Company; it bears our endorsement—I am not sure whether a cheque for £378 10s. was given to the prisoner to tender before action; but he saw Bailey's solicitors and made the tender before action, and it was refused—in March, 1888, the writ was issued in the fifth action. (Office copies of the proceedings were put in. The writ was dated 28th March, 1888, and was for £ 692 2s. 6d.; on 30th April, 1888,. was an order under Order 14 for the defendant to pay £31B 10s. into Court within nine days, to abide a further order)—the papers in the matter were entirely in the prisoner's charge—among them is this copy of the summons under Order 14 served on us—it was left by him in the office—it bears no endorsement of the result—it would be a clerk's duty in the ordinary course to endorse the summons with the result of the application—no copy of the order of 30th April was left by the prisoner among the papers in the office—I had nothing to do with the management of the action, but I have looked through the papers—when the

prisoner was in the office he had entire control of the matter and custody of the papers—since he left I have inspected the papers he left in the office in respect of this action, and there was no copy of this among them—it was the prisoner's duty to keep work-sheets from day to day of the work he did in the office for the firm—on the sheet for 30th April, 1888, there is the entry in the prisoner's writing, "London Road-Car ats Bailey, 5th action. Attending Mr. Grierson again, reading over affidavit as altered and re-engrossed, and on his being sworn marking exhibit; oath and exhibit, copy of affidavit for other side; attending summons, leave to defend upon payment into Court; writing company, informing, and filing affidavit"—it does not specify there the sum mentioned to be paid into Court—the date and body of this letter (produced) are in the prisoner's writing, and it is signed on behalf of the firm. (To Mr. Grierson, the secretary of the London Road Car Company, Limited: "Dear Sir,—London Road-Car Company at the suit of Bailey, fifth action, we have in this action to pay the amount claimed into Court to abide the result of the trial. The amount claimed is £692 2s. 6d., which, taking into account the £378 10s. already received, leaves £313 12s. 6d. A cheque for the latter sum will oblige, yours faithfully, SNELL, SON, AND GREENIP")—in. the ordinary course that letter was sent forward to Mr. Grierson, and we received from the London Road-Car Company this cheque for £313 12s. 6d.—then this cheque for £313 12s. 6d. was drawn and handed to the prisoner—when the prisoner was in our employment we were acting for Mr. Sedgwick—on the prisoner's worksheets for 19th and 20th April there is no entry of the payment of £100 on behalf of Mr. Sedgwick—there is no such entry in any of the firm's books, and no report was ever made by the prisoner of the fact—two or three years previously to the payment of the £100 we had acted for Mr. Sedgwick in various matters; he was indebted to us; we had sued him and obtained judgment and a petition in bankruptcy against him—there were other bankruptcy petitions against him, and the prisoner acted for Sedgwick in obtaining an adjournment of those, but I had given the prisoner instructions that no further payments or expenses were to be incurred for Sedgwick—I never authorised the payment of the £100, nor paid it; I should not have incurred any such sum as £100 for him—I knew nothing about it, and I have found no record of it at all—these paying-in slips, with the exception of the initials on them, are in the prisoner's writing—the endorsement on these bank-notes is in his writing—on 4th July the prisoner left our employment—I first knew on 25th October last that the £378 10s. charged in the indictment had been made away with—I met Mr. Hen wood, a director of the Car Company, the previous day, and the result was that I made inquiries at the Law Courts Office as to money paid into Court in the fifth action, and another action, and I discovered what has been proved to-day—on 29th October I was with Lawley when I gave the prisoner into custody—he asked if he might have five minutes' conversation with me—I replied that whatever he had to say must be said in the officer's presence—he then asked to see the cheque—Lawley handed him the £378 10s. cheque; ho said he might have seen it, there was such a matter in the office, but he had not had it, he knew nothing about it.

Cross-examined. This alleged embezzlement took place in April or

May, 1888—we charged the prisoner as soon as we had traced the notes, at the end of October, 1890—in July, 1890, he had left our employment, and had set up in business as a solicitor in Broad Street—we have had a client Thomas Thompson for many years—he was the promoter of the Loma Gold Mine Company; Mr. Creasey was the secretary—we had been instructed by Mr. Thompson to prepare the papers for registration of the company—among them was a contract for the purchase of the supposed gold mine for £250,000 between John Henry Davelin of Beading and the company—I have never heard that Mr. Lupton was interested in the company except as a purchaser of shares; I have no personal knowledge that he held shares; I heard it suggested that he had purchased shares—I do not know that the seller of the company was an undischarged bankrupt who was paid £2 by Lupton to sign the contract—I have not inquired—I believe our clerk, Mr. Bartlett, went to Beading in September last—I did not send him; he went when I was away for my vacation, and I know nothing of the circumstances—I have not inquired what he went for—Mr. Snell is here; he was not called before the Magistrate; it was unnecessary—I cannot say if Mr. Bartlett went to Beading on 18th October, six days before the charge was made against the prisoner—he may have seen Davelin at Beading, I don't know; Mr. Bartlett is here, and can be called—I did not know that Lupton instructed the prisoner to take criminal proceedings against Thompson and Creasy—I did not retain Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Poland on behalf of Creasy; I don't believe the firm did—I believe they were retained on behalf of Thompson; it was during my absence, and I do not know the date or anything personally about it—I did not see Mr. Thompson about that impending prosecution; I believe the younger Mr. Snell had interviews with him while I was away—I used to see Thompson usually when I was in town, but I was out of town at this time, and did not return from the vacation till 13th October—I did not see Thompson when I came back—I have seen him since this prosecution was instituted—I did not know from him or any other source that he had received notice from Lupton, and that Lupton had been referred to us—when I saw Thompson he handed me a letter which Lupton had handed to him, saying, with reference to the proceedings at the Mansion House, that they were entirely unwarranted—I am not aware of any proceedings in which Sir Charles Russell was retained having been instituted—I cannot say why my firm went to Sir Charles Russell—I did not meet the prisoner in Broad Street three or four days before these proceedings were taken—I have not seen a letter of 7th October from Lupton to Thompson; it has never been mentioned to me; I was away when all these occurrences are alleged to have taken place—I did not meet the prisoner on 23rd October in Broad Street; I never spoke to him from the time he left the office till the day he was given in custody, and I only saw him once, and that was within a month of his leaving—I did not say I wanted a few minutes' conversation with him; the whole thing is a myth—he did not suggest I should walk to his office—I did not say no, I was going down Great Winchester Street, and we would talk on the way; I never saw him—I did not say he had no right to mix himself up in the Loma matter, or that he would have to drop it—he did not then say that I might just as well have it out and be done with it, as he did not intend to be

worried and annoyed with threats of proceedings—he did not ask me what I wanted, and I did not say that our firm must have an undertaking that he would not act either for or against anyone who was a client of the firm while he was there; or that we must have a hold over him in the shape of a monetary claim; or that he was to bind himself to pay £500, and take a receipt in the form I dictated—he did not decline to do it, because the interview never took place—this document was found on the prisoner when he was arrested. (On the back of the document, which was a letter addressed to the prisoner, there was in pencil: "With regard to our differences in pecuniary matters, the settlement we have come to this day is, we agree the amount of your appropriation of our money, in round figures, at £500; we assure you the £500 owing on the 500 shares taken by us in your name in the Electron Company has now been paid; you therefore now owe us the £500 appropriated, which is now settled as follows:—£100 which was retained from your salary when with us, £100 now paid by you in. cash, and your two bills of £50 each at six and nine months, and your bill for £200 at twelve months ")—nothing of the kind ever took place; the whole thing is an invention of the prisoner's; it is absolutely untrue; such a memorandum would be contrary to the fact—he did not say he would do nothing of the kind, but would lay all the facts of the matter before the Incorporated Law Society—application for a warrant was made on 29th to Alderman Cotton, and refused; we were told at the Mansion House that it is not his practice to grant warrants in a matter of this kind—then I went to the City detective offices—the prisoner has presented a petition to the Incorporated Law Society since the adjournment of this trial—I have not heard that other people have made a petition to the Incorporated Law Society against us—I have not suggested that the prisoner has given information in respect to charges made against us in the public press—I have not read this article at length—I have not read distinct charges of deliberate and consistent fraud by our firm, in the public journals; any such charges are absolutely false, a tissue of falsehood from beginning to end—we have taken no proceedings with regard to them at present; I cannot answer now whether we intend to do so—we are charged by the prisoner with deliberate frauds with regard to a large number of companies—notwithstanding the numerous charges of fraud against our firm we said we did not, nor do we, propose to take any proceedings against the paper—the Star has called attention to one of the charges; they did not repeat them—I am not aware that the Star called attention to them in strong terms—it was a perfectly safe offer for the Star to invite us to produce our books to show the statements were not true, and if so they would apologise; they knew we should not show them our books—at the time the prisoner was arrested I had given him no hint or notice that he was going to be arrested—Mr. Snell, senior, was the partner who attended to the Road-Car business—it was not necessary that he should be called before the Magistrate; the witnesses who proved the case were called as they have been to-day—the Etheridge Gold Mine Companies were not promoted in our office; we registered it—Mr. Snell, our senior partner, was chairman of the first company—there were many companies in connection with it—this matter did not arise in relation to the Etheridge Company—Mr. Snell took shares in the Etheridge Company in the names of clerks, including the prisoner, but I

cannot say what the amount was—Birch, Robinson, Kelleher, the prisoner, Smith, Fletcher, Prickett, and others were clerks—I don't know how many shares were put in their names—Ellen Agnes Bryant, the wife of Bryant, our clerk, had shares in her name—Bryant had a salary of £300 a year—I did not know his wife took shares to the amount of £1,000—I took shares myself unfortunately—some of the clerks were copying and bill clerks, all grades—I cannot tell you if a call was made in respect of these shares shortly before May, 1888; the whole of the capital of the company was called up from time to time; I cannot tell you the dates—the firm did not write to all the clerks making calls on them in respect of the shares; they wrote to Mr. Prickett—the purchase was partly in cash and partly in shares; in respect of those shares Mr. Snell has paid every penny in cash—I do not know what amount was due in May—I did not attend personally to the Etheridge matters; Mr. Snell, sen., did so—I believe this letter was sent down to me for signature with other letters, and I signed it—there was not a claim on the prisoner for as much as £500, which he had taken up for Mr. Snell; the total liability was £500—there was a liability against the prisoner—he did not to my knowledge tell Mr. Snell that he must pay the money—I do not interfere in my partner's private concerns—I never said that the prisoner was to pay the money on shares he had taken up for Snell—it would have been very improper—I don't believe that at this time claims were made on the prisoner for this money, or that he told Snell he must pay it—the cheque for £378 10s. was received in December; tendered, not accepted; paid back and repaid on 19th April—the summons under Order 14 was taken out on 24th April—the amount to be paid under Order 14 would be determined on the hearing of the summons in the ordinary course—it was returnable on 30th April—I understand the order was that the money was to be paid in nine days—at that time five actions were being brought against the Road-Car Company—I believe there were no other actions of any kind except those in respect of Bailey—there were no running down actions that I was engaged in—Bailey was the principal of Bailey's Carriage Works, and had a debt against the company—I don't know if there were any other actions against the company at that time; we were not concerned in them—probably there were others—I do not know that the prisoner spoke to Mr. Snell about the money, or that Mr. Snell suggested it would be as well to have from the Road-Car Company at that time the full amount that was claimed; I believe that was not the fact—I am sure it was not—it was not upon that that the letter was written—sometimes the prisoner would sign letters himself; sometimes he would have them signed by a member of the firm—this letter came to me, and I read and signed it with others—at that time I should think it might be that the prisoner usually signed letters himself in matters he was concerned with—the money was certainly received—the calls on the prisoner's shares in the Electron Company were paid on 1st January, 1889, by Mr. Snell—I don't know if the calls had been made before—the whole thing had not been gone into and arranged that the call should be paid by Mr. Snell—in April, 1889, I believe Mr. Snell received a letter from Messrs. Ashurst and Morris in reference to the prisoner's character, as he had applied to them for a berth in their office, and the prisoner was spoken to by Mr.

Snell on the subject of some payments that had been made into Court in actions by him, not the present case at all—you keep asking me to tell you things I don't know myself. (A letter was read written in April, 1889 saying his salary would he raised to £400 as offered by Morris; that all disagreements were closed, but that in respect of them the prisoner was to pay £150, of which £100 would be retained from the coming year's salary; and there was further reference to Electron shares)—there was not that arrangement—if the arrangement was then made why should I have made an arrangement in October, 1890, which was almost in the same terms—the prisoner continued in our employment till July, 1890, and was paid £6 a week—he left in July—he had then been admitted as a solicitor; I first heard that in proceedings myself about a fortnight or three weeks before he left—the only clients who left us and went to him was a client Dennison whose business was worth £5, and one whom he introduced himself, Tabart; those were the only cases where there has been a formal change of solicitor—Maxey was never a client of ours—I don't know that Captain Somerset has gone to the prisoner, we are still acting for him—we had never acted for Mr. Lupton—I advised James to apply to the prisoner.

Re-examined. The only client who left us was Dennison, whose business was worth £5, and he left just after the prisoner left—there is no suggestion for saying that we took these proceedings because he took our clients; away—I find in this letter-book the letter of 30th April, signed by me; it is one of several letters which came down to me from the prisoner's room and which I signed on that day—there is no pretence for the suggestion that we wanted to get all the money from the Road-Car Company, though we only had to pay £300; it is a wicked suggestion to make—the Road-Car Company are perfectly solvent, and good clients, and it would be absurd for us to ask for it—no complaint, to my knowledge, has been made about our firm to the Incorporated Law Society, except that by the prisoner, which was since these proceedings—the Law Society have fixed the 5th March for the inquiry, and I have written, urging them to press forward the day—we have taken the best advice as to instituting proceedings while the question is under the Law Society's jurisdiction—the putting of shares in the names of clerks of the firm, or the writing of letters to them about the matter, has nothing to do with the present case nor with the prisoner—no arrangement was ever entered into by the prisoner with regard to the deficiencies that had taken place; we had no knowledge of this at the Police-court—I had not the slightest suspicion of the prisoner having stolen moneys under this cheque till Mr. Hen wood called on me in October, 1890—I did not return from my vacation till 13th October—between 13th October and the day on which the prisoner was arrested I had no communication with him of any kind; I did not even see him—the document found on him is a letter with his pencil-writing on it—there was never any question of our receiving bills from him in payment; his bills would have been waste-paper if we had taken them; we could not have recovered on them.

By MR. COCK. The prisoner did not, to my knowledge, sometimes pay expenses out of his own pocket, which he afterwards received from the firm—I cannot say if he paid his expenses out of his pocket when he went to America—he told us he was going to spend his vacation in 1889, I think, in going over to America, as he had interests there;

we then had business there, and we asked him to go on to Chicago and do it for us—he was reimbursed afterwards; I cannot say whether he had anything in advance—for ordinary petty expenses he was always paid in advance—if he paid witnesses' fees with his own cheque it was a very irregular thing, and there was some irregularity connected with, it; he would receive the money beforehand.

By the JURY. On 23rd October, the date of this alleged interview with the prisoner, I was in London—I can tell by the office call-book exactly how I spent my time if Mr. Cock can suggest the hour when, this, alleged interview took place. (MR. COCK said that the prisoner thought it was about a quarter to twelve)—at a quarter to twelve I was in the office—at 11.27 Captain Macdonald called and saw me, and at twelve another client, Jackson, called and saw me.

By MR. COCK. Our office is close to the Mansion House—to walk down to Great. Winchester Street and have that interview would take about an hour, I should think—this book is a record of all that occurs at the office; I should like the jury to see it—there is a record in it of the time of everybody in the office, from when they come in the morning, giving when they leave, and where they go to.

FREDERICK WILLIAM SNELL . I am the senior partner in the firm of Snell, Son and Greenip—the prisoner was in our employment up to July, 1890—I was away from London from May, 1890, until the end of" October, until after the prisoner was in custody—I had no idea when I went away or while the prisoner was in our employment of this misappropriation of £378 10s.

Cross-examined. I was not called before the Magistrate—I received a letter in the country from my partner about this charge, and he got my immediate consent to the prosecution being instituted—I cannot tell you anything about the affairs of Thompson at the beginning of October or September, as I was away—my son was attending to any matters that came in—I cannot tell you the dates when various amounts were due in respect of the Electron shares; I could do so no doubt by referring to the papers—no doubt calls were owing on shares in the prisoner's name—probably they were owing in May, 1888—I think they were paid in January, 1889—I should think they did not amount to between £400 and £500; I should think they were between £200 and £300; it might be £350, I am not certain; I don't know what the amount was—claims were not made on the prisoner in respect of that at that time; the directors knew the shares belonged to me, and I was to pay for them, and I have paid every penny in respect of those shares—the prisoner never said a word about my arranging for the calls to be paid—the prisoner had superintendence of the Road-Car Company matters, but if any question arose he would consult with me rather than with any other member of the firm—I saw the pleadings as they went on; I never saw the order for the payment of £378—I did not see the pleadings in the action till very lately; I was satisfied in leaving it in the prisoner's hands; he was a very clever common-law clerk—it was one of five actions; it was not very serious for our clients, I think—it was a serious matter as to how much money was paid into Court, but defendants are the persons to judge how much they owe, not solicitors—you cannot tell from the pleadings how much had been paid into Court—there appeared in pleadings, "Have paid into Court £378 10s., and say that such sum is

sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim"—I may have seen the pleadings after they were pleaded; I could not tell you when I saw them—I should only see it if the prisoner brought it to me, and he would take good care not to let me see it; I should be satisfied with leaving it with him—if he had wanted me to see it I should have seen it—I cannot say whether I saw the amended statement of defence when a further sum was paid into Court—I cannot tell whether I discussed the amendment with the prisoner; we had perfect confidence in him and the directors of the Road-Car were so satisfied with him that they requested him to have the conduct of the matter, and he only consulted me when there was any question—the money to be paid in was arranged by the directors them selves, the prisoner attending at their board meeting—a cash account was kept in our books—there is the ledger account with the Road-Car Company.

Re-examined. In that ledger account credit would be given to them for these sums, and they are debited with the payments out—the statement of defence admits that £378 10s. is due, and brings that sum into Court, and the plaintiffs if they like may take it out; but when an order as made under Order 14, the sum is paid into Court, and remains there to abide the result of the action; the plaintiff cannot take it out—whether £692 had been ordered, in fact, to be paid into Court or not on this motion for judgment, equally the sum of £378 would be mentioned and had to be mentioned in the statement—when a larger sum is paid into Court you have to appropriate the amount you mention to be due to be paid out, and the other amount has to remain in Court—whether the order specified £378 10s. or £692 12s. 6d., the matter being in the prisoner's hands, it would not be until a settlement of accounts that anything had to be paid out—it never came to my knowledge that there had been anything wrong about this, I was extremely surprised when I heard of it—there is not the least foundation for suggesting that I suggested it would be as well to get the full amount, £692, from the Road-Car Company, although we had only to pay in £378 10s.

FREDERICK LAWLEY (Detective Sergeant). On 30th October I went with Mr. Greenip to Old Broad Street and saw the prisoner—I told him who I was, and showed him the cheque for £378 10s., and said, "You will be charged with stealing this cheque for £378 10s. "—he requested to look at it, and after doing so he said, "I don't know that I ever saw the cheque; it is an open cheque; anyone may have cashed that"—he requested to be allowed to have five minutes with Mr. Greenip, who said, "No, what you have to say you must say in the presence of the officer"—the prisoner said he was quite innocent—he was given in charge—I found on him the document with the pencil memorandum.

----HENWOOD. I am a director of the Road-Car Company—on 24th October I called at Snell, Son and Greenip's office, and saw Mr. Greenip with reference to the position of the Road-Car Company, with respect to the fifth action of Bailey—Mr. Greenip then in my presence referred to the entries in their books as to cheques received by me and payments made into the bank—in consequence of that conversation he saw me and two other directors again on 28th October, when the matter was referred to, and resulted in these proceedings.

By the JURY. We do not have accounts quarterly or half-yearly from Snell, Son and Greenip, while an action is pending; they were not

general solicitors to the company, but only solicitors in this action of Bailey—the action was not at an end in October, 1890.

F. W. SNELL (Re-examined by the JURY). When the prisoner received the cheque he should have cashed it and paid it into the Law Courts office—I paid for all shares taken in his name; the firm had nothing to do with, them—the last call on his shares was 8th January, 1889—he was not pressed for the money; he was never applied to; he had a great many shares, and I arranged to pay for them—there was a call on him, of course, that was a formal matter—the matter has stood over for two years, because we did not know of it till October, when the director of. the Road-Car Company called—I believed in October that £692 was in Court; we had paid it as far as we were concerned; it had gone from our pockets to the High Court of Justice, as we believed, having been given to the prisoner to pay in—I was away when the £71 was paid afterwards, I can only explain what I heard as to that—it was paid in as part of the £692; the company having paid £370, thought it would be right to increase the admission of what they owed to £450, and thought they had to pay the difference, £71—we neither knew nor heard anything about it.

GUILTY. Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his previous good character. — Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

There was another indictment against the prisoner for falsification of accounts.

OLD COURT.—Friday, January 16th, 1891.

Before Mr. Justice Smith.

154. HENRY ATTWELL (35) , Feloniously shooting at Robert Burn, with intent to murder. Second Count, to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. GRIFFITHS Prosecuted.

ROBERT BURN . I live at 39, Hudson Road, Canning Town—I am a carbonising foreman to the Commercial Gas Company at Bromley—I work alternate fortnights, one fortnight by day and one fortnight by night—the prisoner was formerly in the same employ, and was under me when I worked at night—I had occasion to complain of some neglect of duty on his part; that was about two years ago—he was discharged about six or seven weeks prior to 30th December—I left work by day about two p.m., and at night at ten—on Tuesday, 23rd December, between four and five p.m., I saw the prisoner in Morris Road, and he followed me to St. Leonard's Road, a distance of about three-quarters of a mile—I then went into a. chemist's shop; I came out in two or three minutes—he was still there, and he said tome, "You b—, I will do for you yet"—he again followed me, and I went into a boot-shop in Bruns wick Road—I was in there about twenty minutes, and when I came out he was gone—on the following Tuesday, the 30th, I left work at 10.30 p.m., and met the prisoner in Abbot Road about 800 or 900 yards from the works—I was on my way home; we were passing each other—he said, "Now you b—bastard"—I was walking rather sharp; when I had got on about two paces I looked round, and saw him pointing a revolver at the upper part of my body—I stepped on one side—he fired—I bobbed my head, and I heard a whizzing noise pass me—he was about six feet from me when he fired; the revolver was pointed towards my face—I knocked the revolver out of his hand and closed with him, and two men

came to my assistance, I had hold of the prisoner at the time; they asked me if I was shot—I said, "No"—they said to the prisoner, "You might have shot the man"—he said, "A b—good job, too, if I had, and four or five others "—they took him from me, and I gave him into custody—I handed the revolver to Police-constable Grigsby.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not speak to you when I came out of the chemist's shop—I did not say, M Hallo, you snider," nor did you say, "You scoundrel"—we had been friendly—when the foreman was discharged I took his place—I was not down on you after that, nor did I annoy you in any way—I had to complain of you for being absent—I told you to go to your work, I did not get other men to annoy you.

JAMES DAVIDSON . I live at 45, Morris Road, Bromley—I am an engineer's steward—on Tuesday, 30th December, I was in Abbot Road—I saw the prisoner and prosecutor, and as I passed I heard a shot, I ran back and saw Burn holding the prisoner—Burn shouted, "Police!" and I ran for a policeman; when I came back they were gone.

RICHARD ROBERTS . I live at 14, Broadley Street, Canning Town, and am a labourer—on the night of 30th December I was in Abbot Road—I passed the prisoner; when I had got about fifteen yards from him I heard the report of a pistol; I went back and saw Burn struggling with him—he said, "This man has fired at me"—I said, "Are you shot?"—he said, "I don't think so"—I said, "You had better look"—the prisoner said, "It is a pity it did not settle you, you b—bastard"—I said, "You might have killed the man"—he said, "A b—good job; I will have him yet, and three or four more"—we met a policeman and gave him into custody.

CHARLES GRIGSBY (K 578). The prisoner was given into my custody—on the way to the station he said, "They are not ball cartridges, only shot"—when the charge was read over to him at the station he said, "If I wanted to murder the cur, I should have put a ball in"—this is the revolver; it was loaded with three cartridges, with powder and small shot.

ECCLES HOLDING (Inspector). I produce the pistol; no cartridges were found on the prisoner.

The Prisoner, in his defence, stated that Burn had continually complained of and annoyed him; that when he was discharged he thought of going abroad, and bought the revolver of a man he met; that he was looking at it when Burn met him, and he fired to frighten him, but with no intention to hurt him.

GUILTY on Second Count — Five Years' Penal Servitude.

155. WILLIAM ALLENBY (48) , Feloniously sending to Mawer Cowtan Cowtan a letter threatening to murder him.

MR. ARTHUR GILL Prosecuted.

MAWER COWTAN COWTAN . I am an upholsterer and decorator, of 309, Oxford Street—the prisoner has been in our employ from time to time since the early part of last year—from June to October he was engaged painting at Baron Shroeder's, a customer of ours—I did not come in personal contact with him until a disturbance took place at our place of business, when I recognised his face—he was discharged in October—on 18th October I received this letter.

JOHN NISBIT . I am a foreman at Messrs. Cowtan's—I know the prisoner,

and know his handwriting; I have seen him write—this letter marked "A" is his writing; also these three others, dated 22nd October, 24th December, and 1st January.

MR. COWTAN (Continued). I received all these letters—on 24th December I received this letter, upon which I obtained a warrant for the prisoner's arrest—there is no foundation for the charges contained in it. (Bead: "24th December, 17, Victoria Street. Sir,—Three times you have sent me to prison; three times I have cursed you for your villainy; thirty-five times I have sworn by God Almighty to punish you four English brutes that committed the cowardly assault on me. You have used foul means to shorten my life; I will use foul means to shorten your life. Tour blood will work it away; it will go when I cut your hide; then I will be contented; and my heart will be filled with pride and drink. Damnation to your soul, Gower Cowtan, you loathsome hellish brute, and that type of humanity. I have seen a resemblance of you in Madame Tussaud's chamber of horrors—I remain your victim at present, William Allenby. ")

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I have not encouraged my workman Sutton to go about the country and spread serious accusations against you to prevent your getting work, and saying that you are mad—I never saw or spoke to you till you made a disturbance outside our premises.

William Wyman and William Cousins were put into the witness-box, but not examined in chief, and the prisoner merely questioned them as to their hearing reports against him.

In his defence he alleged that injurious reports had been circulated against him by the prosecutor and his agents, and that his object in writing the letters was to put a stop to it.

GUILTY .— Four Months' Bard Labour.

There was another indictment for libel, upon which no evidence was offered.

NEW COURT.—Friday, January 16th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

156. JOHN WYATT, Unlawfully falsifying certain books and receipts, with intent to defraud Spiers and Pond, Limited, his masters.

MR. GRAIN Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

FREDERICK ARTHUR COLLETT . I am deputy cashier and wages clerk to Spiers and Pond, at their central office, New Bridge Street, Blackfriars—I have to check the wages books—the prisoner was housekeeper at the central office up to June, 1890—he had to keep the house-book, in which the names of permanent servants are inserted in a column, and also the names of any charwoman he engaged—there are columns for each week; the week ends on Friday—it was his duty to insert the names of each person, including his own, and the amount of wages due on Friday night, and "to bring me the book on Friday night or Saturday morning, and I should copy it into a ledger, and hand it to Mr. Farmer, the chief cashier at the central office—each week the sums against each name are totalled up, showing the amount he had to draw for wages, which Mr. Farmer paid him, and took his receipt in a book—these figures against the name of Dalton, on 6th December, 1889, are Wyatt's, and also 4s. on the 13th, 4s. on January 3rd, 4s. on January 10th,

4s. on the 17th, 4s. on the 24th, 4s. on the 31st, and practical are all the figures up to June, 1830, are Wyatt's—this entry on April 4, 1890 of 6s. against the name of Cooper is mine, but Wyatt told me to make it and also this 6s. on April 4; this "Cooper 6s. "on the 18th this Wyatt's—I received these receipts from the prisoner, the first is December 7; the figures are Wyatt's, but I cannot say anything about the signatures—December 14, January 11, 4s.; January 18 and 24, 4s.; February 16, 4s.; and March 29, 14s., are all Wyatt's figures—the figures in this receipt signed "Alice Woodley" are Wyatt's, and also these figures on the receipts of April 5 and 18, signed "E. Cooper. "

Cross-examined. By this contract note (produced) I am engaged on the distinct understanding that I can leave at the end of any day's work, and my signature is on the other side, acknowledging that—the persons entering. the employment had to sign that—before Spiers and Pond, opened these new stores they had the London and Westminster Supply Association—the prisoner was not housekeeper there—certain cases and cash-boxes were given to him over-night—no accusation of theft was ever brought against him that I know of—he had cash-boxes locked up brought to him every night, and the keys of the safe—these receipts are filed and placed on a shelf in the office till the end of the quarter, when they are put in the strong room—he had the keys of the strong room at night, and it was in his power to destroy the receipts, but he would not be able to find them because there were two or three thousand there—his wages were 30s.

MARY COOPER . I have been occasionally employed at Spiers and. Pond's as a charwoman—I cannot write, I make a mark when I sign—this is my mark to these two receipts of June 22nd and 29th, 1889, but I did not sign "E. Cooper" to these receipts of April 5th and 18th, 1890, for 6s. each—I did not work there at all last year; I have not worked there since last August twelve months—I did not receive 6s. in April, 1890; I only, went there when they were vacant of a servant.

WILLIAM FARMER . I am chief cashier at the central office at Spiers and Pond, Limited—Wyatt was the housekeeper—he came to me week by week for the sum total of wages which he had to pay, as well as his own, and I paid him, and took his receipt in this book—I paid him £4 9s. 6d. on 7th December, and he has signed the book; that went on week by week.

ALICE WOODLEY . In November, 1889, the prisoner engaged me as a permanent servant at Spiers and Pond's at £16 a year—I was paid weekly—I remember Mrs. Dalton, a charwoman, but she was not there in December, 1889, or in January, 1890—there is a permanent staff of five servants; we have to look after the young women who live there, and do the domestic work—Mrs. Dalton came in the evening when she did come, and did the rough scrubbing—I was not there after February: I was ill—I was always about the place, and could see whether she was employed or not—these receipts have my signature. (Dated December 7th,14th, and 21st, for 7s. each)—I did not receive 7s. during the first four weeks I was there—when I signed these receipts only the date was on them; no figure or amount—my wages were due on the 6th, and I received the money on the 7th in the housekeeper's sitting-room—he used to sit at the table, and the money was on the table for me—I took 6s. 2d. on those three days—I made it 6s. 11 1/2 d., but he gave me 6s. 2d.

Cross-examined. This is the first time I have been examined—Mr. Ellis first spoke to me about a fortnight ago, and asked me what wages received when I first came—he showed me a number of tickets, and asked if they were ray signature—I went there first on 26th November, 1889—I was only there at the beginning of February, and Mrs. Dalton was not there then—when she did come she came in the evening, but not during December or January—I received 4s. wages on 29th November, I am positive it was not 7s.—I made no entry in any diary—the prisoner discharged me once, and I apologised, and he took me back again—I left in February, but have gone back now—I am now receiving 7s. a week.

Re-examined. I received 4s. on the first Saturday, because I went into the service on Tuesday, and three Saturdays following I received 6s. 2d., and after that 7s., as Mr. Wyatt told me he was perfectly satisfied and he should raise my wages; I had my board and lodging besides.

MARY ELLEN DALTON . The prisoner engaged me as charwoman at Spiers and Pond's about September, 1889—I was engaged in additional work elsewhere, and am now—I went on "Wednesday evening and Saturday afternoons, but when they were without servants I used to go all day and did the charing work—I got 2s. for the whole day and my food, or 1s. for an evening—the prisoner always paid me on Saturday mornings in his room—a block (of paper) like this was on the table, and I signed my name, and took my money—I do not remember seeing any amount filled in when I went—I was not employed there in the latter part of December—I was earning five shillings a week at the latter part of December at Police-sergeant Barrad's—I was not on Spiers and Pond's premises in January, but about the middle of February, I think, I went to work there again, and for the whole day for some time—from April to the middle of June I did evening work there, which came to seven shillings a week—I have never received four teen shillings but once, and that was when the prisoner left, and Mr. Henderson, his successor, paid me that amount—none of these receipts from December 7th to March 29th are signed by me. (These were for four shillings each, except the last, which was fourteen shillings)—when Mr. Wyatt left, he came to me and told me he had booked me at fourteen shillings, and I might as well have it as the firm, and Mr. Henderson paid it to me; he is here.

Cross-examined. I used to be employed at Bridewell Police-station—I left there in March, 1890—I do not know the cause of my leaving; I cannot say why I left; I have not a very good memory about dates—in February, 1890, I worked all day, except Wednesdays, at 2s. a day, and I worked on Sundays—I got 12s. after the middle of February—I never saw the prisoner's wife doing house work when they were short of servants, only going round doing her daily work.

Re-examined. These are my signatures to these receipts from April 12th to June 20th, but I did not receive these sums; I signed them in blank; the figures were not there.

By the JURY. I received no money at all on December 7th; I was not there, and was not entitled to it—I was not there on January 4th—I went there next about the middle of February—I cannot say whether I was there on February 15th: I was there so very little—I was asked at

the Police-court whether I was there on Christmas Eve, and I said I was not.

By MR. GRAIN. I did not sign any of these receipts (produced)—I have been very ill.

ANNIE BUTT . I am the eldest servant at the central office—in December, 1889, and January, 1890, I was suffering from swelled face—I knew Mrs. Dalton as a charwoman occasionally employed—she was not there in December, 1889; and if she was there in January, 1890, I never saw her—I lived there, and was about the house of necessity, and should see her if she was there—I met her outside the house, but never saw her doing any work—she came to work again about the third week in February, after Ada Reader left, who is now dead—Mary Cooper was not there last April.

Cross-examined. We had no charwoman in December; it is not a very busy time—Mrs. Dalton was there the second week in April—the prisoner's wife assisted a little upstairs—we had to complain about Mrs. Dalton because we thought we had extra work; she did not seem to care about working too hard—I have not complained that she was untruthful—; I have very likely thirty or forty barmaids to look after, and their dormitories.

CHARLES BRYAN (Detective Sergeant). On 23rd December, about 9.30 p.m., I went to the prisoner's house, No. 1, Donald Road, Forest Gate, and said, "I have a warrant for your arrest"—he said, "What for?"—I read it; he said, "I cannot understand it"—I read it again, and he said, "What name did I forge for four shillings?"—I said, "I can only tell you what is in the warrant; you must come with me to the City"—I took him to Bridewell Police-station; the charge was read to him; he said, "I don't understand it at all; they might have told me who I cheated and defrauded of four shillings. "

Cross-examined. He appeared thoroughly astonished—I have made inquiries about him; he has been an officer in the Eastbourne Police Office, and then he went to Spiers and Pond's—he was charged at the Mansion House with betting, but the charge was dismissed—he was an officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—with the exception of the charge, which was dismissed, he has been a man of good character till now.

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY—Recommended to mercy by the JURY on account of his character — Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Friday, January 16th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

157. CHARLES SWAN (37) , Unlawfully and indecently assaulting Alice Windsor.

MESSRS. HUTTON and BIRON Prosecuted.

NOT GUILTY .

158. HENRY FROGGETT ISIDORE LONG (29) , Feloniously forging and uttering an order for the payment of £15 18s. 6d., with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. HORACE AVORY and BIRON Prosecuted; MR. GILL Defended.

JAG MOHAN LAL . I now keep the Beehive beer-house at Pentonville—in February, 1890, I was living at 48, Powis Square, Bayswater—I let apartments there to Frederick Nicholas Long; he said he would move in the next day, but his wife was taken ill, and he could not do so, and his brother, Henry Daniel Long, came and occupied the rooms instead—Frederick Nicholas Long was to pay the rent—on 30th January I think Henry Daniel Lone came first—I first saw the prisoner about 2nd February—I knew Turn as Henry Long—he slept there about four or five nights—he occupied the same room as Henry Daniel Long for the first two nights, but then Frederick Nicholas Long came, and when Henry Daniel Long went to Brighton the prisoner occupied his room—they had two bedrooms and a sitting-room—on Wednesday, 12th February, I had a conversation with Henry Daniel Long in his bedroom about money, and he handed me this cheque—the prisoner was not present; he was in the house, but not in the same room; he was in the sitting-room—Henry Daniel Long endorsed the cheque in my presence—I did not see him exactly write the endorsement, but I saw him write on something on the mantelpiece, and as there was no other paper he must have written the endorsement—when he first showed me the cheque it was filled up as it now appears, but it was not endorsed—after he left the mantelpiece it was endorsed—in consequence of what he said to me I gave him, after I had cashed the cheque, £15 8s. 6d. deducting 10s. (The cheque dated 10th February, teas drawn on the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, payable to Henry D Long or bearer, for £15 18s. 6d., and was signed H. Holroyd Clark, and endorsed H. D. Long)—I think it was crossed when I received it—I cashed it at Whiteley's, and sent the money into H. D. Long—I had information on Friday, 14th February, I think, that the cheque had come back marked "no account"—on Thursday morning, the day after I cashed the cheque, H. D. Long and the prisoner left the house after breakfast—I did not know they were going—all the bill, except 10s., was due when they left—they had no luggage with them; they had not brought any—I put the matter into the hands of the police—I did not see either of them again until H. D. Long was arrested in October.

Cross-examined. The prisoner took no rooms from me—he owed me nothing—he never spoke to me about this cheque, and I never saw it in his possession—I never asked him for any money—when I told H. D. Long I wanted some money he took the cheque out of his pocket from among other papers—I understand cheques—I looked at this one, and believed it was a cheque payable to H. D. Long, who was handing it to me—I said it was payable to him, and he had better endorse it, and the bank would know it came from him through me, and thereupon he at once endorsed it—I had complained to him that his brother had not paid for the lodgings, and so I wanted money—I let the lodgings to his brother—he said he had no change, and then he produced the cheque, saying he could let me have 10s. out of it—he never said to me that it was not his cheque—next day he went away without notice—I did not expect the prisoner to give me notice—H. D. Long did not owe me anything; his brother who look the lodgings owed me something like 30s.—when I found the

cheque was bad I swore an information at the Police-court against H. D. Long; when he was arrested I gave evidence against him, and he was committed for trial, and afterwards he made a charge against the prisoner.

Re-examined. The only time I asked H. D. Long for money was on this morning of the 12th, and then I asked him for a few shillings on account—I had previously sent my wife to F. N. Long to ask him to pay the bill—I did not see them leave on the 13th; I was out of the house—I should think that they went about eleven or half-pact eleven—they were both in the house when I went out, and when I came back they had gone.

HENRY DANIEL LONG . In October last I went into occupation of the Shoulder of Mutton public-house, Winchfield, Hampshire, and upon attending before the Magistrates for a licence I was apprehended on the charge of obtaining money by false pretences by means of this cheque for £15 18s. 6d.—I was taken before the Magistrate at the West London Police-court, and committed for trial at the London Sessions upon that charge—after my committal I swore an information against the prisoner, voluntarily; no one requested me to do so; it was of my own motion—on the prisoner being arrested on a warrant I gave evidence at the West London Police-court against him, and he was committed for trial—he is Henry Froggett Isidore Long, my cousin—in February last I was staying at Powis Square, Bayswater, and the prisoner was also staying there—Frederick Nicholas Long, who took the lodgings, is my brother—on 12th February I handed this cheque to Mr. Lai, who gave me £15 8s. 6d.—I endorsed it H. D. Long on the table in the back bedroom; Mr. Lai suggested I should endorse it—next morning I left the house with the prisoner—we went to Brighton for two days, and afterwards I went with him to Jersey—I stayed there for about two weeks, and then came back by myself; I have been there several times since—ultimately I took this public-house in Hampshire—I don't know where the prisoner was all this time; I left him in Jersey when I took the public-house—of the £15 18s. 6d. Mr. Lai had 10s.; I received £15 8s. 6d. from him—I gave the prisoner £4 for compensation the same day; he asked me for a little money on condition of getting him the loan—there was no conversation about the cheque; I simply gave him £4 as compensation for getting me the loan of £15—got the cheque from the prisoner on 12th February, the same day that I cashed it with Mr. Lai—I told the prisoner on that day that I wanted a loan of £20—he went out, and came back and handed me the cheque, filled up as it now appears, and signed Holroyd Clark—I did not know the prisoner's writing at that time, I had had no correspondence with him before then; I have had letters from him since, and I know his writing now—I believe this cheque is in his writing—when he handed me the cheque he said it was a loan from a racing man—I had never seen any cheques like it before—I have received this post-card and letter from the prisoner since this occurrence. (The post-card, dated 21st October, 1890, from Clapham Junction, stated: "Please let me know by return of post how you are getting on, and when it will be convenient for me to run down and see you ")—that was before I was arrested—he was then in London, I believe—his letter of 25th September is written from Jersey.

Cross-examined. I am an Englishman—I was charged with obtaining money by false pretences on this cheque and arrested, and Mr. Lai gave

evidence against mo, and I was committed for trial—it was not after I was committed I first told this story about the prisoner's giving me the cheque; it was after the first time I was charged—I swore an information against the prisoner before I was committed—I was committed for trial in October—I don't remember the day I swore the information; I forget the month; I have a very bad memory. (The date of the information was stated by Mr. Avory to be 27th November)—I asked the prisoner for a loan of £20, and he said he knew a man who would do it, and he went into the street to find the man—I have never known an instance before of a man I did not know lending me money; the prisoner got it for me—the loan from the man was a loan to me, made payable to me, so that the man knew he was lending money to me, as the cheque is made payable to me; my cousin. knew him—he did not know me, but he lent the money to me and made the cheque payable to me—I was not surprised at that; the prisoner knew me—I was to pay back the loan when I got employment—I might never have got employment; I am out of employment now—I gave no security; I would pay him when I was inclined to work and got employment—I have never found any people since who would lend money on those terms; I have never tried to—it did not strike me as an odd amount £15 18s. 6d. to lend me; it might have been all his balance at the bank; I have had cheques for more curious sums than that from people I know—he might have owed money to my cousin, for all I know—I don't know how the £15 18s. 6d. would in that case be a loan to me, it was made payable to me; perhaps it was all lie could afford to pay—I pledge my oath that I believed at the time I endorsed it that Mr. Holroyd Clark was the man who was lending me the money; that is as true as everything else I have said—it was at nine in the morning I asked the prisoner to lend me money—I told him I was in want of a little money; I don't know why he should lend it to me; I wanted a loan, that was the only reason—I suppose he saw I was in want of a little money—I was not very hard up—I had no employment then—J should have repaid the loan to the prisoner—I paid him £4 commission for getting it—I never mentioned paying it back to him—the time has not come when I should pay it off—I could not repay it; I did not know where Clark was—I took no steps to find him out—that was not the reason I did not repay it, that I did not know where he was; if I had money I should have paid it—if the prisoner had mentioned it I should have paid it back—he never mentioned it, and I did not—I left Mr. Lai's on the Thursday to go to Brighton to see some friends, and I was going over to Jersey a few days afterwards—I told Lai's wife that very likely I should leave to-morrow—it is not true that I left without notice—I did not pay my bill, my brother was security for my bill—Lai asked me for 10s. on account of the washing—I told the prisoner I was going down to stop at Brighton with some friends—my mother was living Worthing way at that time—I did not ask him to run away from Lai's place with me; he was to accompany me—in Jersey, before I was arrested, I got married—the prisoner had been paying attention to the girl I married, I believe; I don't know if he was engaged to her—I did not think she had some money—Miss Mars offered me something to start in business with—I got £40 and our wedding expenses—the wedding was on 1st May—I did not make accusations against the prisoner to Miss Mars, saying he was trying to

take advantage of her, and trying to get money from her—Miss Mars did not say after our marriage that she would give me no more assistance—I was not drunk the day I was married—Miss Mars did not cease to give me assistance; I knew she was very friendly to my cousin—I wanted her to come and live with me and my wife, to provide for the household; she had a house in Jersey, and did not come; she visited me for a few days—I have said to Miss Mars that the prisoner was absolutely unprincipled, and that she ought to be protected from him, and that I was the right man to look after her, and be kind to her if she would come and provide for our household—when I made this charge against the prisoner, I did not think it would save me on my own charge; I thought I should still be convicted of obtaining money by false pretences; but I never made any false pretences—I did not know this was a bad cheque, I am innocent, and the prisoner is guilty; everything I did was honest and straightforward—I have known Sassoon Bennett; he was a deserter from the Hussars—I saw him at Clapham some years ago, I cannot fix the time; I knew he was a son of Mrs. Bennett—when I made this charge against the prisoner my wife was a witness against her old sweetheart—I did not say I could get some funny witnesses for him—I wrote this letter when the prisoner was committed for trial I wrote to Miss Mars about this matter—I said Leontine (that is the name of my wife) had served her faithfully for nine years, and never took anything from her—the prisoner had said she had—I said I felt mad with rage when I thought of Miss Mars taking the prisoner's part, and that the prisoner wanted me to be imprisoned for his own purposes—I said I had always spoken most highly of Miss Mars, and that I had saved her from having, her house burnt to the ground and from having her jewels stolen, and everything of that kind; that I wished no harm against Henry, but that all I wanted him to do was to speak up like a man, so as to save me—I wanted him to say he gave me the cheque—he ran away when I was arrested, and never came near the place; I could not find him any where—he was not in Jersey to my knowledge when I was arrested—he was arrested in Jersey on my warrant; that was afterwards—I wished him to come forward to say he gave me the cheque; it would not have saved me, because I was charged with fraud, but the Magistrate thought I forged the cheque—if the prisoner came forward it would show I did not forge it—I wanted him to say he got the cheque from Holroyd Clarke and gave it to me; he did not do it, and then I said he forged it—I did say if witnesses were brought against me I would bring some very funny witnesses against him; I meant it, and I could do so—I remember saying something about the prisoner being nothing but a cur, and that I wanted to protect Miss Mars from a nest of vultures—I sent that in a registered letter—a good many years ago I was in prison in Jersey forgetting goods from tradesmen—I expected some money, which never came, and they put me in prison for a few weeks; it was a civil matter—I did not expect the money from a man who did not know me, or one who was going to lend me money—I described myself before the Magistrate as a Jack-of-all-trades; I could do most trades—I have been to sea, and I was brought up as an engineer—I did not enter into an arrangement with Warry to obtain situations for pursers on board ship—I have not seen Warry for some years—he lived at Shoreham—the year before last I was at sea as

head chef—I have been engineer, purser, I have kept a public-house, and been an artist—I am quite innocent in this matter, and whatever was wrong was done by the prisoner; I only endorsed it; I believed it to be a perfectly genuine cheque.

Re-examined. I was in prison in Jersey because I owed something at the hotel; it was merely for civil debt—they have not abolished imprisonment for debt in Jersey yet—at the time I was arrested there was no quarrel between me and the prisoner—I was on friendly terms with him at the time I was arrested—this postcard of 21st October fairly represents the terms we were on—he had been down to see me for two hours at the Shoulder of Mutton—he was at that time living at Clapham Junction—I was arrested on 21st October, at which time the prisoner was at Clapham Junction—I had no communication from him after my arrest announcing that he had gone back to Jersey; I did not know he had gone back there, or where he was—I believe the fact of my arrest and the charge against me was announced in the papers—my wife before I married her had lived with Miss Mars for about nine years—I handed the £4 to the prisoner about twelve o'clock the same day that I received the money from Lai—when I was in the bedroom with Lai the prisoner was in the front room—I afterwards went into the front room, and Lai's servant brought up the £15 8s. 6d. on a tray into the room where we were—I put it all into my pocket—about two hours after, I think, I gave the £4 to the prisoner, after we left the house temporarily—at Brighton we stayed in lodgings near the railway station—I paid the expenses—we each paid our expenses at Jersey.

JAG MOHAN LAL (Re-examined by MR. GILL). It was early in the morning, about ten, when H. D. Long grave me the cheque, I had to go to Victoria to meet a friend at eleven o'clock.

By MR. AVORY. I got the money from Whiteley's Bank, and sent it back by the servant because I had to go to Victoria Station, and my wife put the money on a tray, and it was sent up by the servant.

LEONTINE LONG . I am the wife of Henry Daniel Long; I was married to him on 12th May—for nine years before that I had lived with Miss Mars, my father's first cousin, at Jersey—I had known the prisoner for nine years, since I first went to live with my cousin; he was a friend of hers; he went away during that time—I have had letters from him and know his handwriting—I am certain that this cheque is in the prisoner's writing—I have seen cheques like this before, and have seen him with a book, which he showed me one evening about the end of February last year, at my cousin's house—my husband went with the prisoner to Jersey about that same time—I was alone with the prisoner in a room, and the conversation turned on cheques, and I said, "I wonder what cheques are like, I have never seen them;" and he said, I have got some and I wilt show them, and he took some out of the pocket of the overcoat which he had on—he had two books one was exactly similar to this cheque, and one was on the London and County Bank—this letter and this post-card are also in his writing.

Cross-examined. That was the first time I ever talked about cheque books—I think I must have been reading something in the papers about cheques; he was in lodgings at the time, he came in just that evening—he took both cheque-books out of one pocket—I thought they were bank notes; I asked him for some; I read them and said, "Give me some"—I

remember exactly what the words were on them—I hope I have a good memory—I have not the least feeling in this case—he was not an old sweetheart of mine—I did not know what it was to be engaged at that time; it was given out in Jersey that I was engaged to him for two months—I don't know if he was an admirer of mine—I gave him up because he was a very bad man; I did not like him—I said before the Magistrate that the only reason Miss Mars ever found fault with me was because I was too truthful—she said I was too truthful; she often said, "How can you get on in the world if you speak the truth too much?"—she never found fault with me for telling falsehoods, only for telling the truth too much—the prisoner did not want me to steal chairs, jewellery he did—I knew where the jewels were; I said, "She has no jewels"—"Cannot you get the chairs?" he said—that wag the only time I did not speak the truth, I thought I had bettor tell him that—after I was married the prisoner tried to burn the house, and my husband prevented him; she had the insurance money, and I thought he wanted that—my husband was the first to tell Miss Mars of that; I was not there when it happened—the prisoner wanted to steal the jewellery before I was married; Miss Mars knows of that, she does not trust him, she locks everything up—at the time of our marriage Miss Mars gave my husband £40; it was a wedding present to me; and she paid the wedding expenses—she hinted she would have liked to Jive with me; before we were married she said, "Get yourself a little home, and I will come and live with you"—we should have liked that, she had been our best friend—she has enough money to live on—my husband has no employment now—it would not have been convenient to have her there, but we thought she had been very good to us; it was not for her money, she has really only enough to live on, and she has always told me that what she has dies with her—we never thought that if we did not get it in her lifetime we should not get it at all—she had not a chance of living with us, she came to see us at Winchfield—I told my husband to write the registered letter to her; I said, 'Henry, she has been so kind to us, I think we ought to let her know whom she has to deal with"—she is old and kind, and I did not want to see her imposed on—three weeks after our marriage my husband came to London to look for work—I stayed and kept house for Miss Mare for six weeks after that—he, the prisoner, and Miss Mars all came to London together and stopped at the Hotel Provence, Leicester Square; I did not think my husband was going to be away more than a few days, he wanted work—we wanted a little public-house—he came back by himself; the prisoner remained in London—he was with Miss Mare all the time, and they went to Paris together—I came to England after that—the prisoner wrote me perhaps twenty letters before I was married, not love-letters or anything of that kind, he meant business by them; he wrote to my cousin first—I have none of the letters—the first I heard of this cheque given to Mr. Lai was when my husband went for his licence and was arrested—a brewer's clerk told my brother-in-law about it, and the next day I knew of it—my husband was bailed, and they called me as a witness, that was how I got to know of it—I knew my husband was committed for trial; I was called as a witness after that—all I could see of my husband's writing was at the back of the cheque—I said that when I was shown the cheque at Clerkenwell—I went with my husband and his solicitor, Mr. Spender, to

get a warrant against the prisoner—I did not know before I went to the Police-court what I was going for—I had never seen the cheque before I saw it at Clerkenwell—I went with Mr. Spender—I don't remember if I had been before Mr. Curtis Bennett before I saw the cheque—Mr. Spender asked me if I should know my husband's cousin's writing, and I said, "Yes," and then I went and saw the cheque—I did not know that that was the cheque which my husband was charged with giving to Mr. Lai—I did think it was the same cheque they had talked about; he only asked if I would know his handwriting if I saw it; they did not say they were going to show me a cheque or anything.

Re-examined. Soon after the prisoner came to Jersey last year there was this rumour in Jersey that I was engaged to the prisoner; in February he spoke to me about it, and I said, "Yes; I have no objection to it"—it was broken off because considering the way he went on in Jersey with my cousin I thought it was. not suitable—I had the conversation with him about Miss Mars' jewellery before I was married; that was why I gave him up—when he could not get any jewellery he asked me if Miss Mars had a cheque-book, and I said, "No, she does not keep a cheque-book"—after he showed me the books I saw one cheque on the London and County Bank one evening at Miss Mars'—he wrote it out and gave it to me; he wanted me to get some money in some shops or something—I did not get the money; I gave the cheque to my cousin.

GEORGE WILLIAM MOORE . I am chief cashier at the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, 31, Lombard Street—on 13th February this cheque was presented at our bank through Messrs. Glyn, and returned, marked No account"—no such person as Holroyd Clarke has ever had an account at our bank—the cheque comes from a book issued to Mrs. E. C. Bennett in April, 1884—on 24th July, 1888, she ceased to be a customer of the bank; the account was closed—I believe that in 1888 she was living at Lavender Road, that was the address we had in our books.

Cross-examined. I cannot say if I issued the cheque-book myself.

JOSEPH CHURCH . I am a retired coal merchant, living at 22, Lavender Road, Battersea—from April, 1888, till June, 1888, Mrs. E. C. Bennett lived in that house—during that time the prisoner came there frequently to visit Mrs. Bennett—he stayed a fortnight once—I always understood that he managed her money matters, and so on; as far as I was concerned he did so, paid her bills and so on—I believe she was very intemperate.

Cross-examined. The prisoner has given me a number of his own cheques—every cheque he gave me was honoured—Mrs. E. C. Bennett had a son, Reuben Sassoon Bennett.

FREDERICK NICHOLAS LONG . I am a clerk in the India Office, and the brother of Henry Daniel Long, and cousin of the prisoner—I know the prisoner's writing; to the best of my belief the body of this cheque is in the prisoner's writing, but I don't know about the drawer's signature—I took these lodgings originally at Powis Square for myself, and we should have moved in, but my wife was confined, and I could not enter into possession of them.

Cross-examined. That is the reason my brother went there—he was doing nothing at the time—I was going to pay for his lodgings and board—I had a room there; I kept the rooms on, and allowed him to go there—I did not know he was in difficulties at the time, or in want of money

—Mr. Lai did not ask me for payment of the rent, or for a payment on account of his bill—I heard afterwards of my cousin living there—I did not go into the rooms at all after 12th February—I did not know till 23rd October, when he was before the Magistrate, that my brother was charged with obtaining money on this cheque—I was not called as a witness then, nor when my brother charged my cousin at the Police-court—I heard afterwards my brother started the prosecution, and got the warrant against the prisoner—I was bail for my brother when he was committed for trial; I have seen him about once a week—I kept my eye on him as I was his bail—I first saw the cheque at Whiteley's Bank, and I had no opportunity of examining it then—I did not then know of my brother being charged in connection with that cheque—I was present at the Police-court when I became bail; he was represented by a solicitor there—I saw my brother afterwards from time to time—I was shown the cheque one day last week—I did not tell my brother that my cousin had taken my clothes and pawned them: he had not done so—I never spoke to him about it—I saw the prisoner in July and February last year—he came to see me at the office—he was in London in July last.

THOMAS THOMPSON (Sergeant F.) On 16th December I went to Jersey and found the prisoner detained at the police-station there—I told him I held a warrant for his arrest on a charge of forging this cheque—he said, "Is this a Treasury prosecution or a private one?"—I said, "A private one"—he said, "I am innocent"—I conveyed him to London the following day—when the charge was read, he said, "I am not guilty"—when I said it was a private prosecution it was before the Treasury took it up.

Cross-examined. "While the case was going on at the Police-court, Mr. Curtis Bennett sent the whole thing to the Treasury—the warrant is dated 28th November—the warrant was applied for several times before it was granted—it was an ordinary warrant; no extradition warrant is required for Jersey—Mr. Spender was acting for H. D. Long at the time;. I believe the same solicitor who had defended him on the charge.

Re-examined. The warrant was not applied for before H. D. Long waft committed for trial, but after that.

The prisoner received a good character from two witnesses.

GUILTY of uttering — Judgment respited.

NEW COURT.—Saturday, January 17th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

159. WILLIAM FREDERICK BROUGHAM, Unlawfully making a false entry in the books of the 710th Star Bowkett Building Society, to which he was clerk. Eight Other Counts, for other falsifications.

MR. GILL, MR. H. AVORY , and MR. A. GILL Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

MARTIN LUTHER BASLEY . I am secretary of the 710th Star Bowkett Building Society, and have been so since October 16th, 1890, on which day the defendant resigned—I produce a copy of the rules, which show that it was incorporated in the East Hounslow district under the Building Society Act of 1874—the defendant had been secretary since August,

1884—in 1889 the society took possession as mortgagees of some houses property at Edmonton, and employed the defendant to look after it—his salary as secretary was £45 a year, and he also received five per cent, commission on the rents he collected—he returned quarterly accounts, in which he entered the rents he collected, and on the other side the-amounts expended in repairs and other expenses, and charged his commission, and any amount due from him on the account, ought to be handed by him to the society, or if any amount was due to him it would be paid him by the society—in addition to his quarterly accounts he produced to the society the vouchers for the expenses—I have no recollection of any estimates for repairs to this particular property being submitted to the board—I produce his accounts for the quarters ending September 29th and Christmas, 1889, and March, 1890, in which he charges the society for different repairs to the houses at Edmonton, and also the vouchers purporting to be receipts from Mr. Chessum and Mr. Moss for money paid to them for repairs—I find here a receipt, dated August 20th, 1889, for £3 18s. 6d., signed by Moss, for repairs at 147A, Brickhill Road—I also find a receipt, dated August 26th, for £2 3s., for repairs to 10, Folkestone Road; and another for £2 17s. 6d., dated October 1st, for repairs of 6, Folkestone Road; and another for £5 4s. 6d., dated November 11th; another of 2nd December for £4 17s. 6d., for repairs to 12, Folkestone Road; one of 13th January, 1890, for £2 19s. 6d., for repairs to 43, Lawrence Road, all signed by Chessum—the defendant has charged the society with all those amounts, and has been credited with all the sums paid to Chessum and Moss—at the March quarter there was a balance due to him of £3 10s. 0 1/2 d.—there was an investigation into his accounts about September or the beginning of October, 1890, at which he and I were present—he said that he had a right to make these extra; charges as auctioneer and house agent, but offered to refund the money.

Cross-examined. I do not think there was any resolution fixing his duties and his salary; Rule 13 defines the secretary's duties, there is nothing in that rule about supervising the property—he lives at St. Margaret's, just beyond Richmond, and this property is at Edmonton—from St. Margaret's to Waterloo, and then to Edmonton, would take about two and a half hours—there is nothing in the rule stating that he should travel down; that would be extra work—I do not know if the 5 per cent, was for collecting the rents only—I swore at the Policecourt, "The society paid Chessum for letting the property"—I cannot say whether they did or not—the £45 was for his duties inside his office; outside his office he got no payment, except the 5 per cent, for collecting the rents—I presume his travelling expenses for going: down and surveying the property came out of his own pocket—the directors have gone down to the estate; they charged their travelling expenses and 10s. each—I believe he used to pay all ready money out or his own pocket during the quarter, ground-rents and other disbursements, and came to the society at the end of each quarter for a cheque—the amounts credited to him have not been paid over—if he had put these things before the society they would have paid him—if he had made any extra charge I think the board would have paid it—when he said that he was entitled to make these charges as auctioneer and house agent, auctioneer was struck out, and house agent inserted—there does not appear to be any attempt to imitate Mr. Chessum's figures—before he

undertook to collect the rents at 5 per cent, we used to employ a local man to collect them—no doubt £10,000 has passed through his hands since his connection with the society, and the only dishonesty charged is £7 1s. 9d., extending over eighteen months, as far as I know—there was a meeting this week of about 200 shareholders, having received due notice, and a resolution was passed at the end, condoling with Mr. Brougham, and regretting that the Treasury were prosecuting him—I do not know whether Mr. Schmidt set this on foot, but he said he would take out a summons if the prisoner was not prosecuted—I do not know that the whole of this disturbance was because the prisoner objected that Mr. Schmidt's legal charges were a little excessive—the prisoner and Schmidt are not friendly—the condolence was unanimous, no hands were held up against it—he has resigned, and I am now secretary—I believe the society owes him some money—he is a shareholder in it, and interested in its general welfare—they did not claim the whole of his time; I do not give the whole of mine—I do not know that he is a house decorator and has a shop—there was nothing to prevent his being employed by any other person—I have only been a director twelve months—I cannot give you a single instance during that time in which a builder's estimate has been put before the board—the prisoner was employed to distrain on tenants who did not pay up; that did not come within his duty as laid down by these rules—I know that he distrained on one tenant, Allen, but not others to my knowledge—I have taken the office pro tem.

Re-examined. I have no idea of paying myself by cooking the receipts—the prisoner had been appointed receiver of this property in October, 1889—I do not know what the duties of a receiver are—there is nothing in the minutes showing that the 5 per cent, commission was only for collecting the rents—he puts down in his own writing, "Receiver's commission at 5 per cent, on rents collected," and he never asked for any more at any meeting when I was present, or suggested that 5 per cent, was not sufficient—I said that if he had asked for these amounts the society would have paid him, but they would not have paid him the £3 18s. 6d. for Brickhill Road, or the £2 3s. for the repairs of. 10, Folkestone Road, if he had only paid £1 13s.—I do not suggest that £1 10s. was in any view of the matter a legitimate commission for a man to charge on £1 7s. 6d.—he always had in his hands the money he collected for rents, and paid over every quarter any balance—if he required money for his expenses during any quarter and disked for it, it would have been given to him—I cannot show you the resolution that this society regretted that the Treasury were prosecuting him, because the meeting only took place last Wednesday—sixteen shareholders called it, not. for that special purpose—I cannot say who started it, the requisition was handed to me—I do not think Mr. Cutbush had anything to do with it as one of the sixteen—on the discovery of these matters the society took counsel's opinion—it was not in this society, but the other, that a resolution was proposed that the defendant should repay the money, and that no proceedings should be taken—I think that was passed at one meeting and rescinded at the next—it was after these discussions at the meeting that the matter was taken up by the Treasury I put my estimates before the board—these three documents purport to be estimates for repairs to

these houses at Edmonton—they are marked, "Passed.—W. F. B. "; but I do not think they were ever put before the board at all—I produce receipts signed by Mr. Chessum, purporting to be for money lie received for letting this property; one is for four shillings for letting a house—I do not know how much he actually received—the defendant has charged against the society the amounts which appear in this document as paid to Chessum for letting this property.

HUGH ROSSENDEL PEAKE . I am a solicitor, of Hounslow, and of Mitre Court, Temple—I am solicitor to the 581st and 710th societies—in September, 1890, I was instructed to investigate the defendant's accounts of the property at Edmonton, which the society had taken possession of as mortgagees—I went to Edmonton and saw Mr. Chessum, ascertained, certain facts from him, and reported to the society—I obtained from Mr. Chessum this book showing the amounts he had received, and compared the entries with an office copy affidavit which I had in some foreclosure proceedings in June or July, 1889—it was necessary to file accounts of the receipts and expenditure on the property—I applied to the defendant, who supplied me with the information I asked for, to vouch, the accounts, and made an affidavit to verify them—I compared Mr. Chessum's book with that affidavit—I cannot remember whether I made any report, or spoke to some of the directors first—on, I think, September 25th, 1890, a meeting of both societies was convened at my office, and adjourned to another day, with the defendant present—I then stated in his presence what I had discovered; taking one of the receipts in my hand I said, "This is a receipt for an account in the foreclosure proceedings"—he said, "Yes"—I then put it to him that it was for less than had been charged in the accounts—he said, "Yes, that is so," and. shortly afterwards he said it was a charge he thought he was entitled to make for the extra trouble and expense he had been put to in supervising the Edmonton property, and that they were made in the course of his profession, I think he said, of a house agent and auctioneer—I called his attention to the affidavit and said, "How could you let me put this before the Court, because I consider it to be a false document?"—I think he said he had not filled the figures up himself, and I should say that they are not his writing; he said he could not remember who filled them up, but they had been done in his office—this is a copy of the affidavit, in which, he swears to the truth and accuracy of all these accounts.

Cross-examined. Mr. Schmidt is my clerk, he is a director of the society—I believe he is not here—he took rather a prominent part in this matter—I was present at the meeting at Hounslow last Wednesday—there was one resolution which I did not see any hand held up against—a committee was appointed to report—the report was only put to the shareholders last Wednesday—criminal proceedings were commenced before the report.—he has a place at St. Margaret's as a house decorator.

Re-examined. The committee only reported last Wednesday, but a case had been submitted to counsel on behalf of the society before proceedings were taken by the Treasury and Mr. Gill was consulted; that was before any summons was taken out at the Police-court.

THOMAS MOSS . I am a builder and house decorator, of 81, Brettenham Road, Edmonton—I was employed by the defendant to do some repairs at 147, Brettenham Road, in the summer of 1889, and submitted to him this estimate (produced) for the work, £3 10s.; he sent to say he

could not give me the price, it must be £3 5s., to which I agreed—an addition was made to the work, "Cleaning the front door, and finding a latch-key, 1s. 6d.," making the whole £3 6s. 6d.—I sent him the bill, but received no answer; and when he collected the rent he said, "You will have to make me out another bill, you will have to give me an unpriced bill"; I said that I did not understand what he meant—he said, "It is only a matter of commission to receive my money from the society"—I made out two bills, one with the amount and one blank, both receipted—I was rather busy, and got my wife to make out the bills; she put them into a letter, and I was going to post them, but I handed them to Mr. Brougham in the High Road; he opened the letter and said, "That will do, I will pay you as soon as possible"—he paid me £3 6s. 6d. about a week afterwards—this is the blank bill in my wife's writing, and she receipted it as I was not at home—I did not authorise anybody to fill up this bill for £3 18s. 6d.

Cross-examined. It took me a week to do the job—the defendant did not visit the job while it was going on, not till I sent him the bill—my shop is in the same street—I was at my door when he called for the rent—I did not go over the property with him—he went away for an hour, and came back and told me he had been over it, and was perfectly satisfied—he did not come down more than once—he paid me by a cheque in his own name on the Hounslow branch of the London and County Bank.

Re-examined. The house to which I did the repairs was one which he collected the rent of; it was empty—he collected the rents all over the buildings.

WILLIAM JAMES CHESSUM . I am a builder, of Folkestone Road, Edmonton—my house is owned by the 710th Star Bowkett Building Society—in July,; 1889, the defendant called to collect my rent, and I asked him to give me a job—he said he would let me know; he called the next week and gave me a job, which I was to do as low as I possibly could, or else the society would send their own man down—he asked me if I would collect rents for him at any time if he did not: come—I said, "Yes"; and he asked me to let the houses for him—I asked what he was going to give me—he said I ought not to ask anything, as I had done the repairs; and then he said he would give one and a half commission—after that I repaired various houses in Edmonton by his order, and collected rents, and sent him Post Office orders for them when he did not come down—before doing the repairs he said I was to send estimates up, because they had to go before the board—I received them back from him with "Passed—W. F. B. "on them—there are three of them—I made out my accounts for repairs to Mr. W. Brougham on a slip of paper for every house; he asked me to do that; and a duplicate bill; I was to receipt them in blank, and I receipted them both—I kept an account in a book of the work I did—I received £1 13s. for doing the repairs at 10, Folkestone Road, £1 7s. 6d. for 6, Folkestone Road, £4 2s. 6d. for 5 and 6, White Hart Buildings, £3 17s. 6d. for 12, Folkestone Road, and £2 2s. 6d. for 43, Lawrence Road, Edmonton—I find here two or three receipts signed by me for letting the houses; four shillings is put down, but I gave the receipts in blank; I

only received 2s.—the last is dated September 30th, 1889—I did not authorise the defendant to fill up all these receipts for a larger sum than I actually received—he came down to Edmonton at the end of September, and asked if anyone had come down from Hounslow—I said, "Yes, Mr. Peake has been down"—he said, "They have been accusing me of receiving too much money for repairs; what questions did they ask you?"—I said, "He asked different things about the society"—he said, "Will you let me have my account back," and pulled his cheque-book out of his pocket, and said he would give me £5 for it—I said I should not do anything of the kind—he asked where it was—I said that Mr. Peake or Mr. Schmidt had taken it away—he said, "They are making a tool of you," and with that he went away—he always settled up my account on Monday—August 11th and 18th were the last times—he paid me £1 11s. 6d.—nothing was deducted from any of my accounts except £5 in August, 1890, when he said he would not give me any more, and if I said anything about it he would not give me any more work; my account was £27 10s.

Cross-examined. The £27 10s. had nothing to do with this society; it was the Ealing District Society—I gave him this estimate, "My prices for material and labour will be £27 10s. "—he introduced this work to me—if you were a builder, and I introduced work to you, I should expect a little bit back, of course; I should expect your bills to be made out so that you got a profit and I got something for the introduction—he only came down on Mondays while the repairs were going on—the £27 job was going on for about a month—he did not always go over the houses—Mr. Schmidt has been to me three or four times—he and a gentleman with him promised me that I should be allowed to collect the rents, and I am doing work for the society now—the defendant used to finance me; when £10 worth of work was done I received £5; that was a regular thing—I did not know that these blank bills were to be filled up by him at increased prices for his commission; I never did such a thing before, and I have been a builder twelve years, and my father and grandfather before me—I put the items in first of all; I cannot say why he asked me to omit them; I did not know that it was for his commission.

Re-examined. I would not have signed the receipts in blank if I had known they were going to be filled up for ever so much more—if a builder receives commission he makes out the bill in his own name; I never heard of a builder charging commission, and putting forward a receipt in another man's name for a larger amount.

By the JURY. In the blank bill I gave in there were no items and no total; I simply signed my name, and this "4s. "was not there then.

By MR. GEOGHEGAN. The defendant sent a plumber down twice to work on these houses—I have three times advanced him £5 on his job after his work was done, that was actually done, which was deducted from the account when it was paid.

The prisoner received an excellent character

NOT GUILTY .

160. WILLIAM FREDERICK BROUGHAM was further charged on five indictments for similar offences. ( No evidence was offered.)

NOT GUILTY .

OLD COURT.—Saturday, January 17th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

161. JOSEPH HENDERSON (50) PLEADED GUILTY to three indictments for stealing bottles of whisky, the property of Spiers and Pond, his masters.

MR. GRAIN, for the prosecution, recommended the prisoner to mercy— Six Days' Imprisonment.

The prisoner was also indicted for unlawfully making false entries in a book belonging to his employers, Messrs. Spiers and Pond, on which MR. GRAIN offered no evidence against the prisoner.

NOT GUILTY .

162. ABRAHAM JULIUS (40) PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining goods and credit from John Edward Kennington and from Daniel McCarthy by false pretences, with intent to defraud; to falsifying books to defraud his creditors, and concealing property and not disclosing to trustee; and to removing property (To other counts he PLEADED NOT GUILTY, charging him with conspiring with Abrahams); also to committing wilful and corrupt perjury before Richard Humphreys, an officer under the Bankruptcy Act to administer oaths— Judgment respited.

163. JAMES BAKER was indicted for unlawfully and knowingly attempting and endeavouring to corrupt and influence a jury sworn to try the issue joined between the Queen and Bernard Boaler, and to incline the said jury to be more favourable to Boaler by persuasions, entertainments, and other unlawful means, and so committing acts of embracery. Another count, for unlawfully intending to pervert the due course of law and justice, and prevent Boaler being convicted, endeavouring to influence and corrupt the said jury, and to incline them to be more favourable to the side of the said Boaler.

The prisoner declined to plead.

MR. BESLEY moved to quash the indictment upon the grounds; 1st, that the jurors who were to he influenced should be set out by name or names. 2nd, that the mode in which they were to be so influenced should be stated; and 3rd, that the addition of the general words "or other unlawful means," without stating the means, was defective. For the definition of embracery he cited the Criminal Code Commissioners' Report of 1879—the Commissioners being Chief Justice Barry, Mr. Justice Blackburn, Mr. Justice Lush, and Mr. Justice Stephen.

MR. WIGHTMAN WOOD , in support of MR. BESLEY'S motion, urged that to use the term "jury" as a descriptive term for a body of men whose names were not mentioned was analogous to alleging in an indictment for bribery in a Municipal or Parliamentary election that an attempt had been made to corrupt a constituency; and as in that case it would be necessary to allege that an attempt had been made to corrupt a particular member or members of the constituency, so in this case a particular juror or jurors must be named on whom the attempt had been made, the offence being that of embracing individual jurors. The expression used with reference to the offence in 32 Henry VIII, in Blackstone's Commentaries, in Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, in Stephens Digest, and in the Criminal Code, 1879, was jurors or jurymen, not "a jury. "Moreover, this was an offence not only in the embracer, but in the embraced, and it

would be impossible to indict a "jury" as having been embraced. The words, "The said Baker did commit acts of embracery" were mere surplusage, and were analogous to the words in an indictment for perjury (Ryles v. Q., 11 Queen's Bench Division, 731). Upon the second point, that the means used were only alleged in general terms, and not stated with sufficient certainty, he argued that more specific information than that afforded by the indictment must be given to the defendant of that which he had to answer; the nature of the persuasion and entertainment should be set out, as in an indictment for false pretences where it was necessary to set out the false pretences alleged to have been made.

MR. FULTON, in reply, contended that the particular jury which the prisoner was charged with attempting to corrupt was named, and that no greater particularity was necessary, as the attempt was made to influence the whole jury, and it would be useless unless they were all influenced so as to acquit the prisoner; as to the second point, he argued that it was not necessary to set out with greater particularity the means employed (Q. v. Fuller, Leach's Crown Cases, 916).

The RECORDER ruled that as the language of 32 Henry VIII., of Blackstone, of Mr. Justice Stephen, and of the Criminal Code Commissioners had been singularly uniform, and had always referred definitely to individuals, this indictment, which charged an attempt to embrace a jury, and did not set out the names of the jurors on whom the attempt was made, was bad, and should be quashed. That being his opinion, he did not consider it necessary to go into the other points as to the sufficiency with which the means were set out.

KENT CASES.

Before Mr. Recorder.

164. JESSE LUKE JONES (36) , Feloniously forging and uttering an authority for the payment of money, with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. FORREST FULTON and HORACE AVORY Prosecuted. COLONEL FREDERICK TREFFRY. I was chief paymaster and colonel at the Red Barracks, Woolwich; I have since removed to Edinburgh—in the ordinary course a form similar to this produced was placed before me for signature when a soldier was claiming deferred pay—in the first place it would have to be signed by the commanding officer of the particular regiment that the soldier belonged to—upon that I should make the calculation as to the amount of the deferred pay, and fill in the amount—in April last the prisoner was employed as a clerk at the Red Barracks in my office—these forms would go through the office in the ordinary routine; such a form might be placed before me by the prisoner or any other clerk—the prisoner would be thoroughly acquainted with the system—this (produced) is not the original form; it is a copy—in April last a form similar to this was signed by me for deferred pay to a soldier named Thomas Brown; I remember the circumstance—I sent four Post Office orders amounting to £39 4s. 9d. to Mrs. Smith, 329, Gray's Inn Road; that is the address at the head of the form—if such a letter as that was returned to the barracks through the Dead Letter Office, the prisoner would, if he desired it, have an opportunity of intercepting it—I always opened my letters of a morning; a clerk could always have access to my office, and could select any letter—I came to the office at ten—the prisoner

would be on duty at nine—Friday, the 2nd May, was the last day the prisoner was at the office—I believe I gave him leave for the following Saturday morning, but I fully expected him back on the Monday; he did not come back then or at any other time—he sent no excuse for his absence.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. The letter was posted on Saturday, 26th April—you had leave from me to be absent on Monday morning for the purpose of reporting yourself to the commanding officer of the Militia regiment to which you belonged—you were absent all Monday—my impression is that you did not come back on Tuesday till eleven or halfpast—I can't remember whether you were late on Wednesday—all the clerks in the office had access to these forms—I do not—think there has been any material difference of late in the mode of receiving deferred pay—any clerk in the office could ascertain the name and number of any soldier at Woolwich, by referring to the pay lists in the office—the record of the service of Thomas Brown on the forged document is not a true record of his service—there would be no difficulty in finding such a record, or in constructing a record—you were one of the smartest men in the office—I cannot say at what time you left on Wednesday, 30th April—a great deal of indulgence was allowed you on account of your being so excellent a clerk—your hours were from nine to five, and half an hour for dinner—you were paid half-a-crown a day by the Government, and I paid you a small addition out of my own pocket.

Re-examined. This (produced) is the original document—the signature to it is not mine—it also purports to be signed E. A. Oliphant, of the F Battery—the name of the claimant is Gunner Thomas Brown, 33,336, Royal Horse Artillery—there is a gunner of that name and number—there were a go 3d. many soldiers enlisting about September, 1888—on the other side it purports to be verified by Major Oliphant's initials—I should not have affixed my signature if I had not believed the signature of Major Oliphant to be genuine.

MAJOR EDWARD ALBERT OLIPHANT . I am a major in the Royal Artillery—in April last I was quartered at Woolwich—the signature E. A. Oliphant on this form is not mine, nor written by my authority—the initials on the other side are not mine; the signature is a very good imitation of mine.

Cross-examined. Any assistant employed in the battery could have access to these forms, and if he wished to construct one similar to this he would be quite capable of doing so—I never had any autograph stamp in my possession—I should say this signature was done by a pen.

THOMAS BROWN . I am a corporal in the F Battery of the Royal Horse Artillery—my regimental number is 33,336—I did not authorise anyone to make any claim for deferred pay—until Shepherd was taken into custody I was not aware that any claim had been made on my behalf for £39 4s. 9d. alleged to be due to me; that was the first I heard of it—there is no other Thomas Brown in the F Battery No. 33,336—each soldier has a distinct number—the four Post Office orders were not signed by me or by my authority—I am not entitled to any deferred pay.

Cross-examined. I am not acquainted at all with Shepherd

HENRY JOHN SHEPHERD . I am at present undergoing a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment for uttering these four Post Office orders; I pleaded guilty at this Court last October—I have known the

prisoner for some years—in April last I was at Woolwich, employed in the dockyard, in the Ordnance Store Department—saw the prisoner in that month at various places and at different times, sometimes accidentally, sometimes by appointment—the front part of this document is in my handwriting—I first saw it on 28th April in Woolwich; the prisoner brought it to me; I met him by appointment on the 28th, and he had this blank form with him—I believe I met him outside the dockyard—the appointment was made two or three days before—he told me he wanted me to fill up this return for him, and I did so—I filled up the front part with the exception of the signatures—I got the particulars from the prisoner—he had another form with him, filled in as far as my memory serves me; the date was altered of Brown's enlistment, that was the only difference—the prisoner told me what date to put—I wrote the words on the back, "On furlough, no advance of deferred pay issued"—also the address, "Mrs. Smith, 329, Gray's Inn Road"—it was necessary for an address to be given to where the letter was to be sent—having filled in the document, I handed it to the prisoner—it was arranged that I should see him the following day; I did so, and on the Monday, 28th April, I went with him to London, and to this place in Gray's Inn Road—it was on the Friday previous that I saw the prisoner, and filled in this form—on the Monday I and the prisoner and a female, whose name I do not know, went to the newspaper shop in Gray's Inn Road—I went into the shop, Mrs. Smith's, 329, Gray's Inn Road; I saw somebody in the shop—I came out and told the prisoner that the letter had been delivered there, but not knowing Brown, to whom it was addressed, they had returned it to the postman—he said it would be returned to the office, and there would be a row about it unless he was able to stop it—we then returned to Woolwich—I saw the prisoner again at midday on Wednesday, the 30th—he then told me he had this letter and the Post Office orders, and he asked me to go up to London with him that afternoon and cash them—I went with him to the post-office in Gray's Inn Road and cashed the orders—I signed the name of Thomas Brown in the post-office—I signed it without the clerk asking me—I got the money, £39 4s. 9d.—I gave the prisoner £20, and kept the remainder—I think I saw him again on 3rd June at Kingston-on-Thames; he simply said that everything was all right—I never saw the signature of Major Oliphant until this form was shown me in Colonel Treffry's office; that was just before I was arrested—the prisoner had told me that he would get it signed.

Cross-examined. I first knew you at Aldershot; you were living there in 1884 for a few weeks—I did not see you again till I saw you at Woolwich in 1889; you brought a document and asked me to make a copy of it—I do not recollect anything about an alteration of the dates—to the best of my recollection the dates were altered—I remember there was an alteration, but I can't say what it was—it was on Friday I met you, I fancy about the middle of the day; I am not certain—it might have been at breakfast time—I was discharged from the service in July, 1888—I received my deferred pay on discharge; I was not acquainted with the system of paying it; as a matter of fact I never saw these forms till this occasion—I knew no one in the Station Pay Office, Woolwich, except you at that time—Wallace is there now; I cannot say whether he was there in April—you told me

a day or two after Wallace went to the office that he had been taken on—I do not know if he was taken on there about 10th April—I have known Wallace a good many years; I have been on stations with him abroad and at Aldershot—possibly he would be acquainted with my writing; he would have seen it in South Africa, but not in Aldershot—I went to 329, Gray's Inn Road, and was told a letter had been delivered there, but they not knowing Brown there, it was returned to the postman—I had not been to 329 before, but I had lived in the neighbourhood before, and was tolerably acquainted with it—I was told the wrong number had been given, and referred to another address—I saw you again on Wednesday, 30th, at one o'clock, when I came home at dinner time—I gave you the £20 in notes and gold—I think there were two or three £5 notes—I think I had an envelope and other papers with it when it was given me to cash—I think an acknowledgment for the receipt of this was forwarded to Colonel Treffery; what became of the envelope I cannot tell; the probability is it was torn up—I did not see you on 3rd May in the distillery in the High Street in company with Mr. Borer; I did not see you again till 3rd June.

ELIZABETH CHARLES . I am a domestic servant, living at 34, Calvert Road, Battersea—I have known the prisoner for eighteen or nineteen years; he is distantly related to me—in April last I was keeping company with him—he told me he was employed as temporary clerk in the Red Barracks at Woolwich—on 18th April last I came to see him at Woolwich, and stayed with him at Greenwich, close by, up to 28th April—during that time he said he expected to receive £20—on Monday, the 28th, I accompanied him and Shepherd to Gray's Inn Road, where Jones said he expected to get a letter with money-orders, coming from the Red Barracks—he told me Shepherd was to get them cashed—Shepherd went into a newspaper shop in the Gray's Inn Road—he came out and told Jones in my presence that the letter was not there; I think he said the wrong number had been put on it, and they had refused to take it in—I don't remember when it was he told me he expected to receive some money; it was between 18th and 28th April—on the following Wednesday, 30th April, I had a conversation with Jones, and he showed me £19 and an envelope—he said the letter had been returned through the Bead Letter Office to the Red Barracks, and he had taken it, met Shepherd, and they had cashed the orders and divided the money; he had £20—on 3rd May I went with the prisoner to Ipswich, and I continued living with him and travelling about with him from place to place up to 3rd September—amongst other places we went to Portsmouth—on 3rd September I waft at Islington, when he left me—he told me he was going to leave me for about three days—I was in lodgings—I did not see him after 3rd September.

Cross-examined. I don't remember the date when you told me you expected £20; it was while we were at Greenwich—I don't remember saying at the Police-court that you told me you expected £20 on 18th April—we went to Ipswich with the intention of returning on Sunday night; instead of that we returned on the following Thursday—you did not tell me the reason you did not care to go was because some one had been inquiring about

me, and the reply was, that I was living with you—when we came back from Ipswich we went to North Woolwich, and stayed there till we went to Shorncliffe with the Militia; we stayed there till June—the rent was about 4s. a week—you had to pawn clothes to pay for the lodgings—we had not been at any expenses during that time—I did not know your expenses at Ipswich were paid; you had £1 from there—it cost us 10s. or 11s. for board and lodging for the whole five days we stopped there—we went to the races there; you won some money; I don't know how much; I don't remember you telling me you won £3—I did not win a sweepstake—I stayed at Cheriton when you were at Shorncliffe, after I left 104, Albert Road—I paid my own expenses there; drawing money out of the Post Office Savings Bank—from there we went to live at Kingsland, and you went to Bisley—we were very short of money till you went to Bisley—there you generally made a good deal of money—before I lived with you I knew you had been employed on jobs that brought you in a good deal of money at times—the £191 saw in your possession I thought had been come by fraudulently.

MARY ANN SMITH . I manage my brother's stationer's shop at 269, Gray's Inn Road—we used to live at 329—in April last a letter came there addressed to Mr. Brown; not knowing the name I gave it back to the postman—the same day someone called for the letter, and I told him what I had done with it.

Cross-examined. The letter was addressed to 329; we did not take it in because we did not know the name.

FREDERICK SMITH . I am a clerk in the Woolwich Post-office—these four Post Office orders, three for £10 each and one for £9 4s. 9d., were issued at the Artillery Place Post-office, at Woolwich, on 26th April last—they are payable to Thomas Brown, at the Gray's Inn Road Post-office—they require the signature of the payee—they purport to be signed by Thomas Brown—on the 30th April they were returned to the central office as having been duly paid to that person.

Cross-examined. I have a fair knowledge of the ordinary routine as to letters returned through the Dead Letter Office; it is not my department; they are generally kept two days at the office in London before being returned—they might be returned by any of the five deliveries during the day in Woolwich; I cannot say if they are forwarded by any particular post or not.

FREDERICK ALEXANDER (Detective R). On 9th December I arrested the prisoner at Newcastle-on-Tyne—I told him he would be charged with stealing a letter containing postal orders for £39 odd from Col. Trefrry's office, Red Barracks, Woolwich, in April last, and also with forging an army deferred pay form, bearing the signature of Major Oliphant, whereby the money was obtained—he said, "I know nothing about it"—he made no reply at the station.

The Prisoner, in his defence, asserted his innocence, and stated that the evidence for the prosecution was inconclusive. He called the following witnesses.

GEORGE HENRY LAVER . I am a staff-sergeant in the Army Pay Department—in April last I was employed in the Station Pay Office at Woolwich, where Colonel Treffry was in charge—we should have more letters returned through the Returned and Dead Letter Offices than any other branch, because we paid about 3,500 reserve men, who were very

illiterate—I think returned letters generally came by the first post about nine o'clock—if anyone wanted to intercept one of those letters he would have to do so before Colonel Treffry or one of the officers arrived in the morning; there would be no chance of intercepting them after the officers had arrived—the Colonel generally came between half-past nine and ten.

Cross-examined. Any clerk could obtain access to the Colonel's table between nine and ten—letters would be laid on his table, and if anyone was disposed to steal a letter there would be no difficulty in his doing so.

JOHN O'BRIEN . I am a staff-sergeant in the Army Pay Department, now stationed at Shoeburyness—in April last I was employed at the Station Pay Office, Red Barracks, Woolwich—I recollect you going out with me at lunch time on two occasions at the end of April or beginning of May—I do not remember you saying as we passed the London and County Bank, "If you had your cheque you would cash it; there is the bank," nor my saying, "To-morrow will do as well"—I should be paid before 30th April—I do not remember on what day I was paid—on the day I was with you you left me at Campbell's distillery; it must have been a good deal after that, I should say—I could not say if it was on the day that I received my pay that I met you; I have no memory as to the day; I should think it was either Friday or Saturday, but I could not say accurately.

MARTIN SPOONER . I am a leatherseller, of 34, Calvert Road, Battersea—I went to the Red Barracks, Woolwich, several times to see you; I think the last time was in April; it was on a Tuesday—the first occasion I saw you we went into the canteen—you spoke about a show; I was there the day previous to the show—I cannot remember the dates.

H. J. SHEPHERD (Re-examined.) You told me you were trying to go out to South Africa in the spring of last year—I may have said in the police cell on 22nd September, "I thought you had gone out of the country?"—I did not say, "If I had known you had not left the country I should have put the right person away"—I swear it.

COLONEL TREFFRY (Re-examined by Prisoner). I knew prior to your coming to our office that you had been in the Army Pay Office in Dublin, ten years ago; you were an exceedingly smart clerk, and I knew nothing against your character; you were in great distress at the time, and I made inquiries from the chief pay officer in Dublin, who gave you a most excellent character—the Army and Navy Stores in Dublin, where you had been employed, gave you an excellent character; the superintending clerk knew you intimately ten years ago, and said he believed you to be an exceedingly straight man.

By MR. FULTON. This document was not discovered to be a forgery till about three months after the payment, it was then discovered at the War Office, London, by the auditors—I did not suspect the prisoner at the time, but he having absconded, I thought it must have been him—instructions were given in the first instance to arrest him—it was not in consequence of anything said by Shepherd that he was arrested—Icould not say whether Jones was there the whole of Wednesday or not; he was absent the whole of Monday and was late on Tuesday, but beyond that I know nothing of his attendance that week, except that he was there up to Friday—I have no doubt he was there part of Wednesday—

we paid the money on Major Oliphant's certificate that Brown was entitled to the deferred pay.

GUILTY.—Strongly recommended to mercy on account of his previous character. — Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

165. BENJAMIN EVANS (50) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Francis Charles Edwards, and stealing a microscope and other articles. Second Count, receiving the same.

MR. PAYN Prosecuted.

FRANCIS CHARLES EDWARDS . I am a medical student, living with my father at 92, Shooters' Hill Road, Blackheath—on 26th November I went to bed shortly before twelve, after seeing that my microscope was in its proper position, and that the two side windows and French windows of the breakfast-room were all closed and fastened, and having fastened the bolt on the outside of that room door—about eight next morning I was told something—I came down, and saw the breakfast-room in great confusion; one of the windows was opened, and various coats were strewn on the floor—the lock of the microscope case, which was there, had been forced; the microscope and its fittings, and a brown bag in which I carried them, and two coats (which had been in a cupboard in the wall) were gone—the value of the microscope was ten guineas.

EMILY RINGMAN . I am housemaid at 92, Shooters' Hill Road—on the morning of 27th November I got up about twenty minutes past six—when I went into the breakfast-room I found the window looking on to the back garden was open, and coats strewn about the floor—beneath the window I found a chair—the window-sill is not far from the ground, so that a person by getting on to the chair could get on to the window-sill—I saw a footmark; some dirt on the chair.

EDWARD CARTER . I am assistant to Messrs. Best and Boyce, pawnbrokers, of Lisson Grove—on 29th November the prisoner pledged this microscope and bag with me—the prosecutor has since identified it.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I asked you to whom it belonged, and you said you brought it for a gentleman—I nave known you as living in the neighbourhood for the ten years I have been there.

By the COURT. He pledged it for £1—I knew his name; he pledged it. in his own name—I should not have taken it in only he said he brought it for another man; I thought there was nothing wrong, or he would not have brought it to us where he was known—he gave the name of Mr. Jones as the man who had given it to him.

RICHARD HOWELL (Sergeant R). On 6th December I made inquiries; I met the prisoner in Stephens Street, Marylebone—I told him I was a police officer, and asked him how he accounted for the bag and microscope which he had pawned at Best's in Lisson Grove—he said, "I was in the Globe public-house on Saturday, I had two or three drinks with a man, and he asked me to go and pawn them for him for £1; I did so, and he. gave me 2s. "—I said to the prisoner, "Can you refer me to any person who saw the man in your company?"—he said, "No, he was a stranger to me"—I said, "Can you give me a description of the man?"—he said, "He was a tall man with a carrotty moustache; that is all I know"—he did not know his name—I took him to the pawnbroker, who identified him—he made no answer to the charge at the station—on the remand he was admitted to bail.

Cross-examined. You did not take me to the pawnbroker's, you came with me there at my suggestion.

By the COURT. I did not ask him anything about the name he gave when he pawned the things—I put no question to him with reference to Jones.

FRANCIS CHARLES EDWARDS (Re-examined). This is my microscope and bag; they were in the room on the night of the 26th.

The prisoner, in his defence, said a gentleman in a public-house asked him to pawn the things for £1 for him, and that he did not know they were stolen.

NOT GUILTY .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

166. JOHN GRIFFITHS (22) , Unlawfully carnally knowing Annie Cook, aged 18 years and two months, and ANNIE STONE (23) , aiding and assisting him in the commission of the said offence.

MR. DOUGLAS Prosecuted, and MR. LAWLESS Defended Griffiths.

GRIFFTHS received a good character. GUILTY .— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

STONE— NOT GUILTY .

ESSEX CASES.

Before Mr. Justice Smith.

167. DAVID CHARLES WHITEAKER (56) , Feloniously setting fine to two stacks of hay, the property of James Bush, with intent to injure.

MESSRS. FORREST FULTON and GILL Prosecuted.

GEORGE SUTTON (J 92) produced and proved a plan of the locality.

BENJAMIN TRICE (Police Sergeant J 11). On the morning of the 24th December, about one o'clock, I was on duty in the neighbourhood of the White Hart public-house, where the stacks were—I passed the stacks, about fifty yards from them in the road; everything was then apparently correct—I did not see anybody about.

JAMES AIRY . I live at 2, Chester Terrace, Oakdale Road, Leytonstone—I am a policeman in the employ of the Great Eastern Railway—on 24th December, about half-past one a.m., I was on duty in the goods yard, about 300 yards from the stacks—I saw a light break out at the stacks, and about two minutes after I saw another one about ten yards to the right of the first—I knew the stacks well, but did not know whose property they were—on seeing this I went with Police Constable Brock to call up Mr. Turner, Mr. Rogers' manager, at the White Hart, and then went and made an examination of the stacks—I found the first stack nearest the White Hart was alight nearly all at one end, the other one had only got a small hole—the first was only alight in one place, it seemed spreading more towards the end, the wind was taking it; the second stack was alight on the further corner from the other one, that was very slightly alight; I tried to knock it out with my stick—the stacks were about eight or ten yards apart, and the two fires were about ten or twelve yards from each other—I sounded my whistle, and sent Brock for the Leyton Fire Brigade, which arrived about three—I did not see anybody about when I arrived, there was snow on the ground—there had been a lot of traffic down

towards the stacks from the White Hart, but I saw no footmarks round them—the stacks were about sixty yards from the White Hart entrance out of Temple Mill Lane—there is a river between the lane and the stacks, and a bridge goes over it; I had to cross the bridge to get to them; there might have been footmarks about the stacks, but I did not notice any.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. If you had passed on the road where I was, after one, I should have seen you; you could go a different way; it was from twenty to thirty minutes past one when I first saw the fire, I don't think it could have been burning long, it was then only about the size of my hat—there is a brickfield at the other side of the canal; I have seen a little heap of rubbish there, and a little flicker on it, and then out again—the railway is about 1,200 yards from the stacks.

Re-examined. I saw no fire in the brickfield on this night—the wind was blowing more towards Stratford, right full on the end of the stacks abutting on the canal, over the brickfield towards the stacks.

WILLIAM TURNER . I am manager of the White Hart, Temple Mills; Mr. Rogers is the owner—there are a few men employed in the brickfield in December; they do not make bricks in the winter, they burn rubbish there—I cannot tell whether they were doing so about 23rd December, but I should think they are always alight; not a fire, but smouldering—I know the prisoner. I saw him on Sunday, 21st December, at the White Hart—he spoke to me about a man named Scott who was employed by Mr. Rogers—he said, "Is that right, Turner, that Rogers stopped Jack Scott four bob?"—I said, "I don't know, I don't trouble my head about Mr. Rogers' business"—I afterwards went to the end of the bar where he was standing, and he again said, "I say, Turner, did Rogers stop Jack Scott four shillings?"—I said, "I don't know. I don't know now you should know; did Scott tell you?"—he said, "I heard it a long way from here. Rogers won't gain anything by it"—on Tuesday morning, the 23rd, I sent for him to do some work, repairing a beer engine—he left about two, and between five and six in the afternoon I saw him, and again at eight, and again about ten minutes to eleven, when the house was closing—about twenty minutes to two I was knocked up by three railway constables; I got up and looked out of window, and I could see that two ricks were burning—I told the constable to go for the engine, and I went out to the stacks about twenty minutes to four—I stood at the gate a minute looking at the turncock doing something to the water—I saw the prisoner standing close to me; I did not notice him till he spoke—he said, "Whose are they?" speaking of the stacks—I said, "You know well enough whose they are"—he said, "I thought they were Rogers'"—I said, "They belong to Bush"—he said, "I am sorry for old Bush"—we stood there a few minutes looking at the fire; I then turned and said to him, "How came you here a morning like this?"—it was very cold—he said, "I came to see the fire"—I said, "But how did you know there was a fire?"—he said, "Bill Payne, the turncock, knocked me up, and I came with him"—I called to Roach, the turncock, and said, "Did you knock this man up this morning, turncock?"—he said, "Me, sir? no; I don't know where he lives"—in consequence of that, I sent for the inspector, and had some conversation with him; I told him what had passed—the prisoner had had nothing to do with making these stacks; he had with

the one at the extreme end of the yard, belonging to Rogers; they were all being stacked at the same time.

Cross-examined. We keep a large dog at our place at night—he barks if anyone touches the doors, not without—the gate is twenty yards from the house, and thirty yards from the stacks—the dog did not bark that night when the engines were playing—I was not asked about the conversation as to Jack Scott before to-day—there was no animosity between you and Mr. Rogers that I know of.

JAMES BUSH . I am a farmer at Marsh Hill, Homerton—I had two stacks standing close to the White Hart on the 23rd and 24th December—between three and four on the morning of the 24th I was called up by a constable—I went to Temple Mills and found two of my stacks on fire—I saw the prisoner there; I knew him—he followed me up to the stacks. and said, "Who do these stacks belong to; do they belong to you or do they belong to Rogers?—I said, "They belong to me, too much to my sorrow"—he said, "I am sorry to hear that, I thought they belonged to Rogers"—they were nearly destroyed by the fire—the two were fired on three sides, in three different places, one end was alight in two places; they were both fired in exactly the same manner—the damage was about £180—these are the fifth stacks I have had burnt since last May; four were burnt at my own place, and I took these to this place to be more out of the way—the others that had been burnt were about three-quarters of a mile away—I have had six burnt altogether, five since last May twelvemonth—these stacks were not insured; they would not insure me.

FREDERICK COOK . I am cellarman at the White Hart—I saw the prisoner on the night of the 23rd December, about half-past eight, and again about ten—he borrowed a shilling of me—he seemed rather strange, he was tripping about and laughing; I thought he seemed jolly.

HENRY KINGSLEY . I am a carbolic paper manufacturer, and live at Temple Mills, Stratford—on 23rd December I was in the White Hart about ten at night; the prisoner came in—he walked up to me and said, "How are you?" and shook hands and said, "I have been over yonder, and seen Mrs. Beresford, of the White House," and then he went and spoke to some one else—I noticed nothing the matter with him—nothing was said about fires—he said he should like to find Billy Simpson—I said, "He knows too much for you, he has got away; I can find you a job, you can set fire to the Monument, that will be a tough job. I don't know that there is any wood in it"—I said it in a jocular sort of way.

Cross-examined. I have known you some years—since that fire they have always joked you about it, and said, "Whiteaker knows all about fires. "

ARTHUR JOHNSON . I left the White Hart with the prisoner about ten minutes to eleven, and going along he said, "Should the White Hart once catch on fire, what a blaze it would be. "

FREDERICK LANCASTER . I live at Victoria Terrace, Stratford—the prisoner lived there—when I went home on 23rd December, five or six minutes before twelve, I heard him quarrelling with his wife for just upon an hour—in consequence of what I heard I went to the prisoner's room—I told him if he did not behave himself he had better clear out of my place; I could not allow any quarrelling in the house—he said he

would go out—I noticed lie was slightly the worse for liquor—I went downstairs—the prisoner left the house—that was about seven or eight minutes to two on the 24th—I found the door bolted in the morning—previous to that the Inspector and two policeman called me, when the old lady, his wife, opened the door, and I bolted it after them and went back to bed—that was seven or eight minutes to one—I left a detective in the house—I saw no more of the prisoner till he was in custody.

JOHN ROACH . I am a turncock, of 3, Marian Cottages, Oliver Road, Leyton—I was called to the fire about 2.30 on the 24th December—I went on the engine—the hydrant is on the White Hart side—I ran the hose out to the stack—after that I had to go to Temple Mill Lane—the prisoner there asked me where the fire was—I told him, "Down by the White Hart"—he said, "What was there?"—I said, "Two haystacks"—he asked who they belonged to—I said, "A man of the name" of Bush"—he said, "I am sorry for the old man; he only went bankrupt a few weeks ago," and "I bought a leg of pork of him three weeks ago, and gave him 3s. 6d. for it"—I said, "This is not Simpson's affair"—he said, "No; I should like to see him; I only got £1; I want £4 off him"—I asked him what he was doing that time in the morning—he said he had been at a concert at Leytonstone, and he saw the reflection from Leyton Bridge—Leyton Bridge was 500 or 600 yards off, and would not be in his way—I asked him why he came that way if he had been to a concert—he replied he had been that wav for a walk—that would be the furthest way round—on the way back from the fire he said he was at Beresford's White House at 8.30 that evening—he did not call me Payne—the turncock-Payne is at Old Ford—I did not ask the prisoner to ride to the fire on the engine—Old Ford is two or three miles away—I did not wake the prisoner up at his house.

CHARLES COLLETT (Inspector J). I was called to this fire on 24th December, about 3.25 a.m.—I saw the prisoner about 3.30 standing with Roach—I was spoken to by Mr. Turner—from what he said, I said to the prisoner, "What have you done with the methylated spirits you had last week in the White Hart?"—he said, "It is at home on my kitchen mantelpiece"—I said, "What time did you leave the White Hart last night?"—he said, "At 6 o'clock I went home, and went again to the White Hart, leaving there at 8.30. I went home and had some tea"—I said, "Did you go out again?"—he said, "Yes, at 10 I went to Mr. Petit's, Caxton House, Leytonstone Road, stopped there about five minutes, and went straight home. I went to bed shortly afterwards, and did not go out again till I was woke up by the engine passing in the morning"—I said, "Is there any one at your house that knows that you were at home at the time you say?"—he said, "Yes, my wife and Mr. Lancaster, the landlord"—I said, "Did you meet anyone on your way here?"—he said, "Yes, Payne the turncock, who asked me to have a ride on the engine, but I refused"—he pointed out Roach then as Payne—I told him I should detain him on. suspicion of setting fire to the two haystacks—he replied, "That is because you know I have done nine months for setting fire to a house; Turner told you about it"—I sent him to the station with a constable—I went to Lancaster's house—I got there about 4.20 a.m.—the prisoner's wife let me in—the door was not open; she undid it—I found this bottle (produced), containing methylated spirits, on the table—I searched the

prisoner at the station afterwards—I found these three boxes of ordinary matches, all nearly full, a little tobacco dust, and a tin box—no pipe.

ROBERT BELTON (Inspector J). I found the prisoner detained at the station—I told him he was detained on the charge of setting fire to two haystacks, and I said, "Can you account for your time during the night?"—he replied, "I will give you an explanation"—the prisoner made a statement, which I reduced to writing—he also said, "I know nothing about it"—he went on to speak of another matter, and added, "My statement to you is true; if you will inquire, you will find it correct"—I ascertained the distance from these stacks to the prisoner's house to be 1,300 yards, and 1,150 yards from where he was met by the turncock to the stacks, and from the stacks to the brickfield 300 yards; but there was no getting across there, Eaton Hall Cricket Field intervenes, and the brick stacks were covered with snow.

HORATIO MILLER (Examined by the Prisoner). You pleaded guilty to setting fire to a gate-house in Carlyle Road, Leyton, on March 26th, 1885—I am superintendent of a fire brigade—I do not remember your speaking to me on the morning of the fire; possibly you did—I did not give information to the inspector about you.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am perfectly innocent of it; it was not me that done it. The snow being on the field would be sufficient evidence if I had gone down there. "

The prisoner, in defence, added that he told the story about the concert because he did not want it known he had been turned out. The methylated spirits he used in his business, and had it not been for his conviction in 1885 he would not have been suspected.

NOT GUILTY .

Before Mr. Recorder.

168. FREDERICK STOCK (33) , Feloniously wounding William Mitchell, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. MUIR Prosecuted, and MR. ELDRIDGE Defended.

The prisoner stating that he desired to PLEAD GUILTY to unlawfully wounding, the JURY found that verdict.— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

SURREY CASES.

Before Mr. Justice Smith.

169. JAMES PENTON (32) , Feloniously wounding James Harrow, with intent to murder. Second Count, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

MESSRS. CHARLES MATHEWS and ELDRIDGE Prosecuted; MESSRS. THORNE, COLE, and LEVER Defended.

JAMES HARROW . I live at 6, Coombe Road, Sydenham—I have been booking clerk at Wandsworth Common Railway Station for two years—I have known the prisoner, and been on friendly terms with him—on Sunday, 21st December, I was off duty—about eleven that night I went into the booking office—I there found the prisoner and a friend of mine, Frederick Ball—the prisoner was slightly intoxicated; I had some sherry; I did not notice the prisoner having any—I remained in the booking-office until the last train had gone—the prisoner produced a

revolver; I did not hear him say much about it, he merely showed it—Ball was in the office; I presume he saw it; it was loaded in two or three chambers—we three left the office together, but before we left Ball went to the signal-box—as we were going along I took hold of the prisoner's arm to assist him—when we got to the door of his house, 2, Earls wood Road, Balham Park Road, he asked us in—we went into a. sitting-room, some gin and ginger-beer was drunk; I had some—I don't know whether the prisoner had any; I fancy he did—we stopped there a little over an hour talking; we were very friendly—then either the prisoner or Ball said something about a gun, and the prisoner said he would fetch one—he left the room, and shortly after returned with a, gun; he pointed it at one thing and another in the room, flourishing it about—he was perfectly peaceable and friendly—the next thing was, he told us to clear out, or he would shoot us—he said it rather laughingly—upon that Ball said to me, "Come along, Jim, I am going," and he left; I remained—the prisoner was looking at the trigger, and playing with the gun—I told him not to shoot me, I was one of his friends—he seemed to be getting more excited—he had had a little beer, and it began to affect him—he never came right into the room with the gun, he pointed it into the room from the door—I began to be afraid, and went into the passage; that was directly after Ball had left—I was then in the passage with the prisoner—I believe I took hold of the gun, it was in his hands—I took hold of it to hold the muzzle above my head; he was not pointing it at me at the time, but I was afraid he would—there was no struggle between us in the road, nothing beyond holding the muzzle to raise it—about this time I heard a woman's voice calling down the stairs—the prisoner was telling me to go—I then went outside, I think the door was left open when Ball went out—I had to go down one step, I think, to get into the garden, and coming out of the gate I turned to the left—I heard the prisoner say something, I don't know what; I looked round and saw a flash, and felt myself shot—I walked a few. steps, and then fell—I heard somebody open a window, I don't know of which house, and ask what was the matter, and I said I was shot—Ball went and fetched the police and a doctor; I became unconscious—when I came to I was in the house of a gentleman who took me in, and I was taken from there to the hospital; my right eye had to be removed, and a shot had to be extracted from the left eye—there were ten or eleven wounds about my head and face—I have two in my arm now—I was in St. Thomas' Hospital a fortnight—I am going on well now.

Cross-examined. I have gone home with the prisoner several times, it is his mother's house, near the station; he has frequently come to the station to see me—I have always regarded him as a kind-hearted," nice fellow—this occurred on the Sunday preceding Christmas Day—I can't say exactly how long I was outside the house; I think it was above a minute—right opposite the house is Blenheim Villa, wide four bow windows and a conservatory being built—I had some drink; it might have taken a little effect upon me.

FREDERICK BALL . I was at the booking-office on 21st December when the revolver was produced—when we got to the prisoner's house it was produced again; it was loaded in three or four chambers—afterwards the gun was produced—after that I said, "I am off," and I left—when

I had got outside, I heard the prisoner say to Harrow, "Go along now, or I will shoot you," and directly after I heard a report, and Harrow called out to me, "Fred, I am shot"; he fell, and I at once went for assistance.

Cross-examined. Harrow had had a little to drink; we were in the house about an hour and a quarter—the prisoner showed us several things besides the firearms—he said he had a beautiful gun he could show us—he let me handle the gun—he pointed it at different things in the room—I had only had a little lemonade in the room; my faculties were perfectly clear—I am a teetotaler—it seemed to me that Harrow remained on the pavement three or four minutes after he came from the house; I asked him to come—the prisoner was at his door, pointing the gun about—there was no quarrel—I have known the prisoner about twelve months—he is generally regarded as a good-hearted man.

SARAH PENTON . The prisoner is my son—on this Sunday night, between eleven and twelve, he came up into my room—he had had too much to drink—he went downstairs—I heard him say to the prosecutor, "Why don't you go out when you are told?"—there was a struggle; I got up and went a little way down the stairs, and I called out to the man, "Do go out when you are told, my good fellow"—I heard him leave, and then heard the report; perhaps that was ten minutes afterwards; I am not sure—immediately afterwards my son came upstairs and said to the servant, "Oh, Ellen, I think I have shot a man"—she said, "Oh, Mr. James, you have never done it in—he said, "I think I have, but I hope I have not," and then he began to cry—he had the gun in his hand—it was my late husband's gun; it had only been in the house about three weeks; it was kept upstairs in a cupboard in my son's room.

Cross-examined. He bears the character of a good-hearted man—when I spoke from the top of the stairs, I said. "I can't have this disturbance at this late hour"—my son stumbled as he went downstairs with the gun in his hand, and I heard a voice say, "Are you hurt?"

GEORGE CULLEY (Inspector V). I arrested the prisoner about two in the morning; he was on the first landing at the top of the stairs—I told him he would be charged with shooting a man in front of his house—he replied, "I will go with you, you have no occasion to hold me"—I found this revolver on the table—I found an empty cartridge, recently discharged, in the left barrel—I took the prisoner across the street to the prosecutor, and he said, "That is the man that shot me"—the prisoner was drunk—Harrow was the worse for drink, he smelt strongly of drink, and his actions were those of a drunken man—I charged the prisoner at the station; he made no reply.

Cross-examined. He expressed great sorrow for the occurrence—at the Police-court, when he heard that the man's eye was injured, he covered his face with his hands and burst into tears—both men were considerably the worse for drink—I have not heard of any windows being broken in the houses opposite—when I took the prisoner in the presence of the injured man he appeared horror-struck, and leaned back.

HERBERT NIX . I was house-surgeon at St. Thomas' Hospital when Harrow was. brought there, a little before five a.m.—he was suffering from gunshot wounds in the face and eye, and from shock—the right eye was so badly injured that it had to he removed the same afternoon—

I found a shot imbedded in the left eye, that was taken out four days afterwards; he is now getting on very well.

The prisoner received an excellent character— GUILTY of unlawfully wounding.

MR. COLE, on the prisoner's behalf stated that he was desirous of making some compensation to the prosecutor.—Three Months' Imprisonment.

170. EVA MARY LONNEN (24) , For the wilful murder of Arthur Edward Lonnen.

MESSES. TICKELL AND STEPHENSON Prosecuted; MR. DUNLOP HILL Defended.

WILLIAM MERRY MACPHAIL . I am minister of the Presbyterian Church at Streatham—the prisoner was in my service from 23rd September last till Monday, 5th January—on Saturday, 3rd January, I told her she would have to go by ten on Monday—I had given her a month's notice the beginning of November—I had complained because she had got careless in her work—she said she had plenty of trouble of her own without doing work for anyone else—she said she was going to Normandy.

Cross-examined. She often used to say she wished she was dead, and she said, she hoped by this time next year she would be in heaven—for the first month everything went on well, she seemed all right; after that she began to get very strange in her manner—I got alarmed on my wife's account, I thought it was dangerous for her to be alarmed—on that ground I said she must go—she had again and again begged my wife to allow her to stay on—I was afraid to leave her alone with my wife—on the Sunday evening before she went away, when I came home from service I found my wife in a very excited state—we had no idea this trouble was hanging over her—she took no interest in her work, and seemed abstracted, going about the house like a hunted animal more than anything else, and used to complain of not sleeping at nights, and pain in her head.

ANN ENNIS . I am the wife of Edward Ennis, of Westwood Ash, Surrey—I have known the prisoner about twelve months—she is a single woman so far as I know—I first knew her at Aldershot—she went to Surbiton, thence to Streatham——Isaw her there five or six weeks before 5th January; I agreed to keep her child Arthur; he would soon have been thirteen months old—the prisoner had written me letters; she brought me the child about five weeks ago—I agreed to take care of it for about twelve shillings a month; I kept it till 5th January—before that I wrote the prisoner that I could keep the child no longer on account of illness—on 5th January the prisoner came to my house about 5 p.m.—she came in with my children from school; she stayed that night—we went to bed at 10.30—I put the boy Arthur to bed with my two children—the prisoner slept in the same bedroom with the children—before she went to bed she placed £1 on. the mantelpiece for the child's keep—I slept in another room with my husband; close on 4 a.m. I heard the prisoner about; about 7 a.m. I got up—I found my two children in the kitchen; a kettle and a large saucepan were on the fire; my boy, who will be ten next April, was dressed; the girl, just turned six, was not dressed—she made a statement—the prisoner had undressed her boy the night before in the kitchen; his clothes were on the back of the chair where I had placed them at night—I went to my husband; then I went

to the bedroom the prisoner and the children had occupied—I did not find the prisoner nor her child; I went out and searched—that morning, the 6th, three gentlemen called between eleven and twelve: Berry, Simmons and Matthews—I did not see the child after it was found till the inquest—it was the child Arthur.

Cross-examined. I received a letter from the prisoner immediately before I went to see her—the envelope was addressed to me, the letter to my husband—I think my husband had a letter the day before the envelope addressed to him, and the letter to me—that was the first time I knew the girl was asking my husband for money—I had agreed to take the child for a little time—the prisoner was to pay me for the child—she was very fond of him, and made a great fuss of him—she was affectionate as a fond mother would be—I had written to her to say I was too ill to look after the child, and that she must take it away—I did not hasten her to take it away; I was ill, but I fixed no time—when she came she did not ask me to continue to keep it—I had made up my mind not to keep it.

EDWARD ENNIS . I am the last witness's husband—I am a signalman, and live in the parish of Ash, Westwood—I returned home from duty on Monday, 5th January, about 11.30—I went to bed about 12.15—in consequence of what my wife said to me the following morning between seven and eight I searched the premises—I did not find the child.

Cross-examined. I had known the prisoner about two years and six months—she used to work near my yard—I had connection with her—she had a child after she left there—I gave her money to assist her—those payments continued after she went to Streatham—my wife received a letter from her asking for money—my wife agreed to take the child in—she knew I had had connection with the prisoner—I was in advance of payment for the year, I think—she agreed to pay 3s. a week for the child—I did not see her on 5th January.

THOMAS MORSE (14 Guildford Borough Police). On 6th January, about 8.30 a.m., the prisoner came to the Police-station—she said, "I have lowered my baby into a well at my niece's house, Maker's Siding, West-wood, Normandy; it was dark when I did it, about 7 o'clock"—I detained her and sent for the superintendent, William Berry—he came and asked in her presence, "What is this charge?"—I replied, "This young woman has given herself up, stating that she has drowned her baby"—she then made a statement, which the superintendent took down, and she signed it in my presence—she appeared very dejected, and trembled very much.

WILLIAM BERRY (Guildford Head Borough Constable). On Tuesday, 6th January, I went into my office in consequence of what I was told shortly before 9 a.m.—I saw Morse and the prisoner—I cautioned the prisoner—she made this statement: "I, Eva Lonnen, 24, a domestic servant out of employment, having been duly cautioned, voluntarily say: I got up early this morning at my niece's house, Maker's Siding, Westwood, and took my baby, Arthur Edward, who would have been thirteen months old to-morrow, and lowered him into the well at the back of the house, and loft him there. The child is dressed in a blue jacket, flannel shirt, as well as his night clothes. I was forced into it, and do not like to mention his father's name. I do not wish to say anything against him. Having heard read over the above statement, I say it is perfectly true"—she signed that in my presence—I went to the County Police-station,

and saw Simmons—I went with him lo Normandy to Edward Ennis's house—I saw Police Constable Matthews take from a sunken tank at the back of the house the dead body of a baby boy, dressed as described by the prisoner at Guildford—some pieces of knitting were tied together, which would enable anyone to lower the body into the well when attached to the clothes of the baby—the well was about eight feet deep, with about two feet of water—it was not frozen—I saw Simmons and Matthews take the body to the Anchor Inn, Normandy—I went with Simmons to Guildford, and gave the prisoner into custody—she replied, "I have nothing to say. "

Cross-examined. Her manner was very sad and mournful—she continued, the whole time I saw her, very dejected.

MARY MORSE . I am female searcher at Guildford Borough Police-station—at 8.30 a.m. on 6th January I searched the prisoner—she said, "They made me do it"—I said, "Who? Your mother?"—she said, "No; the child's father's people"—she said she did not do it because she did not love the child; she did not wish it to be knocked about—she complained of being unwell.

Cross-examined. She had a napkin—she asked for it to be returned to her because she was unwell—she said, "They have had it five weeks, and won't keep it any longer, and I did not want to see it knocked about. "

CHARLES WALTER BARKER (Deputy Chief Constable, Surrey). On 6th January, when I returned from Quarter Sessions, I saw the prisoner in the evening—I entered the charge on my charge-sheet—I read the charge over, and as I entered it on the sheet she began to make a statement, and I stopped her, and told her the consequences of her making a statement—then she made this statement, which I took down, and she signed it in my presence, "I was driven to do it because the father promised to keep it at his own house till he was a certain age, if I would pay 3s. a week. After it had been with Mrs. Ennis she wrote and told me I must fetch it away, as it was so much trouble, and she could not keep it; I wrote to her telling her I would pay her 20s. per month if she would keep it, when she wrote again, and told me I must fetch it away. I came to Mrs. Ennis' house yesterday, 5th January inst. I got up this morning early, I left the child asleep in bed. Afterwards I went upstairs, and I took it out of bed, and brought it out to the back of the house, and put it in the water-tank. I left at once, and came and gave myself up to the police, telling them what I had done. "

Cross-examined. She seemed very sad—I asked her if she would like to write to her friends, and give information, but she refused—on the "Saturday her sister came—she is here—I have heard her mother lives at Portsmouth Infirmary—from Westwood to Guildford is about six miles—on 6th January snow was lying on the ground.

THOMAS WILLIAM MATTHEWS (96 Surrey Constabulary). On the 6th January, in consequence of information, I went to Westwood, to Edward Ennis' cottage—I searched the tank—I found the dead body of a male child about twelve mid-day—it was dressed in a blue serge jacket, white flannel shirt, and two napkins—it had a piece of white blind-cord round the waist and attached to the two scarfs tied together at the back of the child—that would be plenty long enough to lower the child—there were two feet of water—the well was eight feet deep—I removed

the body with the assistance of the other constables to the Anchor Inn, Normandy.

Cross-examined. The tank was about three yards from the back-door entrance.

ARTHUR SIMMONS (Surrey Constabulary). I received information from Berry on the 6th January, about 9.45 a.m.—I went with him to Westwood—Matthews and I took the body to the Anchor Inn, Normandy—I returned with Berry to Guildford, and received the prisoner into custody—I charged her with the murder of her child—she replied, "I have nothing to say"—I took her to the County Police-station—I heard the charge entered by Barker—I heard her statement made.

FRANCIS RUTHERFORD RUSSELL . I am a medical man practising at Guildford—on the 7th January I went to the Anchor Inn, Normandy, about 11 a.m.—I found there the body of a male child between one and two years old—it was well nourished and healthy looking—it was dressed in a blue flannel jacket, white flannel shirt, and a coloured cotton shirt underneath, whole and in good condition—they were frozen on the body—I examined the body to find the cause of death—there were no marks on the body—on opening the chest I found both sides of the heart engorged with blood or distended; the lungs were much congested, and the air passages and the cells of the lungs full of water; the slightest pressure on the lungs caused a frothy mucous to come from the mouth and nose—all the other organs in the body were healthy—in my opinion the cause of death was drowning.

Cross-examined. I was not called in to see the prisoner—I have heard the searcher's evidence that the prisoner was unwell—I have had twelve years' experience—her being so unwell would increase the morbid condition of her mind, especially in cases of melancholia. GUILTY, but insane. — To be detained till Her Majesty's pleasure be known.

171. JAMES ANGEL (30) was indicted for a rape on Fanny Newell MESSRS. CHARLES MATHEWS and HORACE AVORY Prosecuted; MR. GILL Defended.

NOT GUILTY .

There was-an indictment for indecent assaults on various females, upon which no evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

172. NOAH CHEESEMAN (32) , for a rape on Lucy Maynard.

MR. LYNE Prosecuted.

NOT GUILTY .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

173. THOMAS GARE, Feloniously marrying Mary Helwig, his wife being alive.

MR. BAYLIS Prosecuted, and MR. WARBURTON Defended.

THOMAS PATTERSON (P R 35). On Saturday night, December 6th, the prisoner was charged at Walworth by Ruth Gare with bigamy—he said, "I expected it, but I believed she was dead," pointing to his wife, who gave me this certificate—I have compared both these certificates with the originals at Somerset House; they are true copies. (The first certified the marriage of Thomas Gare and Ruth Brown at the Registrar's

Office at Thetford on 15th July, 1866, and the second, the marriage of Thomas Gare, widower, and Mary Helwig, widow, at St. Peter's Church, Walworth, on 22nd July, 1880.)

Cross-examined. I find that the prisoner is a highly respectable man, a boiler-maker—I heard that his wife committed adultery, and that she has asked for no funds for four years.

MARY ANN BALLARD . I am the wife of George Ballard, of 226, Albany Road, Camberwell, and am the prisoner's sister—I was present at his marriage on 15th July, 1866, and signed as a witness—they lived together till 1881, when he went away to Africa—he sent £6 to his wife every month, and returned to England in February, 1884—I saw his wife in the summer of that year, and told him that I had seen her; after that she came and wished us good-bye, and said she was going to Australia, and we saw no more of her—I was present at the second marriage, and signed the register; I understood from what my mother told me that his first wife was dead, or I should not have been present, and my signature would never have been there—twenty months after my brother sailed for Africa I heard that his wife had an illegitimate child; I constantly received letters from him—my mother told him in my presence that she was informed of my sister-in-law's death, and that she died on the way to Australia, and that the information came from an intimate friend of his wife; no letter came from her after that—I have heard that she said, "I have come to show you that I am not dead, as you supposed," and she demanded money—the prisoner has always been exceedingly kind to both his wives and his children—he has six children by his first wife, but none by the second—the only evidence of his first wife's death is what somebody told my mother.

MARY HELWIG . I am a widow, and live at 37, Houlson Street—on 22nd July, 1888, I went through the form of marriage with the prisoner—I took all his children, and lived with him till his arrest.

Cross-examined. He made no secret of his former marriage; his mother told me that his first wife was dead.

NOT GUILTY .

ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9TH, 1891.