Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 6.0, 30 September 2014), March 1891 (t18910309).

Old Bailey Proceedings, 9th March 1891.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

Sessions Paper.

SAVORY, MAYOR.

FIFTH SESSION, HELD MARCH 9TH, 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

Held on Monday, March 9th, 1891, and following days.

BEFORE the RIGHT HON. JOSEPH SAVORY, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir HENRY HAWKINS , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; Sir ANDREW LUSK , Bart., Sir HENRY EDMUND KNIGHT , Knt., Sir REGINALD HANSON , Bart., Sir JAMES WHITEHEAD , Bart., Sir HENRY AARON ISAACS , Knt., Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q.C., Recorder of the said City; STUART KNILL , Esq., GEORGE ROBERT TYLER , Esq., JOSEPH RENALS, Esq., HORATIO DAVID DAVIES , Esq., and ALFRED JAMES NEWTON , 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. FIFTH 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, March 9th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

251. CARL KEILL (20) and RICHARD JAEGER (25) PLEADED GUILTY to conspiring to defraud Her Majesty's Postmaster-General Jaeger also PLEADED GUILTY to forging and uttering a receipt for £4 17s. 9d. There were other indictments against Keill for stealing various articles.—KEILL— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour, JAEGER— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

252. FREDERICK HENDRY (30) , To stealing a post letter and seven postal orders, the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed in the Post Office.— Discharged on recognisances, [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

253. ERNEST EDWARD BEESON (20) , To stealing a post packet, the goods of the Postmaster-General, he being employed in the Post Office.— Discharged on recognisances. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

254. WILLIAM HENRY FRANK (19) , To stealing a post packet and other articles, the goods of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

255. ALBERT BROWN (29) , To feloniously marrying Lucy Wilson, during the lifetime of his wife.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

256. ALFRED JOHN BEST (21) , To forging and uttering an order for the delivery of twenty yards of satin.— Four Months' Hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

257. GEORGE SMITH (22) (indicted with GEORGE DIAS ), To stealing a watch from the person of Thomas Hill; and GEORGE DIAS (20), to assulting James Moulton, a police constable, in the execution of his duty. Smith also PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony in. December, 1882.—SMITH— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. DIAS— Nine Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

258. WILLIAM GAME (28) , To obtaining by false pretences from Charles John Johnson, two watches and a chain, with intent to defraud.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

259. WILLIAM HENRY URQUHART (56) , To stealing a basket and other articles, the goods of Martin Bream; also to stealing a bag, the goods of Francis Gosling and others.— Discharged on his own recognisances. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

260. JAMES THOMAS PRESTON (53) , To marrying Mary Lawford, his wife being alive. Two Days.' [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

(261). AMBROSE DUPREE (64) , To stealing two pipes, the goods of John Solomon Weingott; also to a conviction of felony in May, 1886.— Five Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

NEW COURT.—Monday, March 9th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

262. CHARLES ANCOURT (15) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin three times on the same day.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

ANTOINE MARCOURT (Interpreted). I am a provision merchant, of 34, little Newport Street—on February 10th, about ten a.m., the prisoner came in and asked for three halfpennyworth of cheese, and gave me a shilling—I gave him 10 1/2 d. change, and put the shilling in the till, where there was no other money, and then took it out and put it in my inside coat pocket, where there was no other money—the prisoner left, and returned in a quarter of an hour, and asked for an egg, which came to three halfpence; he gave me a shilling, I gave him 10 1/2 d. change, and put the shilling into the same pocket with the other—I recognised that it was bad, but he had gone then—I knew him before—he came again about seven p.m. for two pennyworth of sausage, and offered a florin; I saw that it was bad, and asked an Italian, who came in, to shut the door, and fetch a policeman—the prisoner could hear that—he said, "Why do you send for the police?"—I said, "It is for you, because you have passed to me several bad coins"—he said, "It is true, I have given you this piece, but I have paid no other "—I said, "You recollect very well you came to my place "—he said, "It was not me "—I am certain he is the man—I handed these shillings and the florin to the police—I saw the prisoner in my shop nine or ten days before; he then bought an egg and paid with a bad half-crown, for which I gave him 2s. 4 1/2 d. change when I found it was bad I broke it with my fingers and threw it away.

JAMES LOCK (C 205). On February 11th I was called to Mr. Marcourt's I shop, who said, "I wish to give this man in custody for passing had money," showing me three coins—the prisoner said, "I own to passing the two-shilling piece, but you have made a mistake about the two shillings "—I found a good florin and two good shillings on him; I took him to the station—he was charged, and said, "I got the money from a I gentleman friend in Piccadilly"—he gave his address, "25, Charing I Cross Road "; that is a common lodging-house—I made inquiry there, and found it correct—the coins were marked in the shop.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to Her Majesty's I Mint—these two shillings and this florin are counterfeit—if a coin is I broken by the fingers it is undoubtedly bad.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I had 8s. given me on Monday night, at 6.30, at Piccadilly Circus, by a friend of Mr. Frederick Mayer.

GUILTY† of the third uttering . Recommended to mercy by the JURY account of his youth.—Judgment respited.

263. JOHN MARNEY (22) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

JOHN MANNING . I keep a coffee-stall on Ludgate Hill—on 3rd

February, about 1.30 a.m., the prisoner came to my stall with another man and asked for half an ounce of tobacco and two cups of coffee, and tendered this florin (produced)—I tried it with my teeth, bent it, and said, "Have you any more of these about you?"—he said, "No, what is the matter?"—I said, "You know what is the matter"—he said, "Is it a wrong one? Perhaps you put it into your pocket and took out another"—I had not put my hand into my pocket—I got a little irritated and said, "Where do you live?"—he said, "I believe it is 131, Commercial Road, East. I am a respectable man; have mercy upon my wife and children"—I said, "Why did not you have mercy on them before you tendered this piece to me?"—he moved off, but I said, "Don't move, I will have you wherever you go"—I sent my boy for a constable, and I gave him in charge—he said, "I am quite innocent."

GEORGE ROBERT SHARP (428 City). I was called to Manning's stall at 1.30 a.m.; the prisoner was there—Manning said, "I wish to give this man in charge for uttering this counterfeit florin" which he gave to me—the prisoner said, "Forgive me this time, governor; have mercy on my wife and children "—I said, "How did you become possessed of it?"—he said, "I don't know "—I said, a Have you any more?"—he said, "No "—I took him to the station, and he was charged; he again begged for mercy, and said he had borrowed 10s. in the morning from a friend, and had been drinking all day, and this was the only coin he had left he was perfectly sober then—I found no other coins on him—he gave his address 50, Gray Street, Waterloo Road, and I found he lived mere with his sister.

WILLIAM JOHN. WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to the Mint—this coin is counterfeit.

Prisoner's Defence. I met some friends whom I had not seen for years, and was very much the worse for liquor.

NOT GUILTY .

264. STEPHEN WRIGHT, Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin twice within ten days.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

HARRY SIMMONDS . I am barman at the London Bridge Tavern—on 29th January, between 5.30 and 6 a.m., the prisoner came in and asked for three halfpennyworth of gin—(I had seen him there previously that morning, but did not serve him)—he gave me a shilling; I gave him the change, and put the coin in the till—the manager came down, went to the till, and showed me a' bad shilling—on 6th February, about 6.30 a.m., I served the prisoner with three halfpennyworth of rum—he threw down this shilling—a constable came in, and I said, "This man has given me a bad coin"—the prisoner then produced a half-crown from the same pocket—I gave him in charge.

JOHN ALBERT FREEMAN , I am manager at the London Bridge Tavern—on 29th January, about 7.30 a.m., I examined the till, and found two had shillings—I showed them to Simmonds, who had been serving, and tried them in the tester, and they broke—the pieces laid at the back of the till and got lost—I have no doubt they were bad.

STEWART GIBSON (Police Sergeant J 1) I was called to the London Bridge Tavern, and found the prisoner detained there—Mr. Simmonds said,

"This man has given me a bad shilling," pointing to a coin on the counter—I examined it, and found it was base—I marked it at the station—the prisoner said, "I don't know where I got it from; I will pay out of this," putting a good florin on the counter—he was given in custody—I found a half-crown in his hand—I searched him at the station, and found a good half-crown and twopence; he gave his address 199, Weston Street, Bermondsey; I went there, and found it correct.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . This coin is counterfeit—a good coin can be broken in a tester, but it depends upon the force used, and you can bend it back into shape, but you cannot a base coin.

The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate and in his defence, stated that he paid with copper on both occasions, and had no silver in his possession. He received a good character.

NOT GUILTY .

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, March 10th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

265. LOUISA DUDMAN (21) PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child.— Judgment respited.

266. HARRY GEORGE SAUNDERS (23) and ALFRED WILLIAM NORTON (39) , Unlawfully conspiring to obtain money by false pretences from William Thomas Madge.

MESSRS. GEOGHEGAN and GERMAIN Prosecuted; MR. GRAIN appeared for Norton, MESSRS. LOWE and WARBURTON for Saunders.

ROBERT HAWKESLEY , I am chief sub-editor of the People newspaper—on 1st November, 1890, I received this letter, signed "Francis Drew"—on receiving such a letter we almost invariably make inquiries, but this letter came at 10 at night and we had no time; we go to press about 12.30 on Saturday night—I requested one of my colleagues to write a paragraph from the letter, and it was inserted. (Letter read: "215, Great College Street, Camden Town, November 1, 1890—Dear Sir,—Kindly insert the following in your issue to-morrow. A young man, age 22, named Harry Saunders, residing at 68, Crowndale Road, Camden Town, shot himself to-day with a revolver. He was a great friend of mine, generally of a cheerful disposition, but in an interview I had with him on Thursday he told me he had recently lost what was to him a large sum of money; he was unmarried. Kindly alter the above to suit paper, and oblige yours, etc., FRANCIS DREW")—this is the paragraph that was inserted: "Harry Saunders shot himself yesterday with a revolver; he said he had recently lost what was to him a large sum of money."

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I have never seen Norton or had any communication with him—I did not employ anyone to interview him.

WILLIAM THOMAS MADGE . I live at Earl's Court, South Kensington—I am the managing proprietor of the People newspaper, in conjunction with Captain Armstrong—on 13th December, 1890, I received this letter six weeks after the insertion of this paragraph. (Read: "72, Wrotham Road, Camden Town—13th December, 1890.—Gentlemen,—I have been consulted by Mr. H. Saunders with reference to the libellous statements contained at the bottom of the third column on page 9 of your issue the 2nd ult.; he has requested me to say that they are quite unfounded,

and asks me to request you to make a public apology in your next issue, and for payment of reasonable damages by Wednesday morning next, and unless this is done, he will have no alternative but to take suck steps as he may be advised. I shall be glad to hear from you on the subject—Yours obediently, A. W. NORTON")—on receiving that letter I made inquiries in the office—I was then shown the letter signed "Francis Drew," announcing the death of Saunders, and also the paragraph alluded to—upon that, I sent one of my clerks to 215, Great College Street, where Drew purported to live—in consequence of what he told me I communicated with Inspector Scandreth—subsequently I received this letter from Norton. (Read: "72, Wrotham Road, January 5th, 1891.—Gentlemen,—I understand that your representative has called to see Mr. Saunders since he had an interview with me last Wednesday. I distinctly told him not to call at Crowndale Road. Saunders has left the matter in our hands. Unless I hear satisfactorily from you by Wednesday morning next, it will be left in the hands of Mr. H. Montague, a solicitor, of 5 and 6, Bucklersbury, E.C., to take proceedings.—Yours obediently, A. W. NORTON.")—on receiving that letter I communicated with my solicitors, after that I wrote to Norton, and received this reply. (This was dated January 12th, 1891, and stated that if ten guineas was paid and an apology inserted Saunders would be satisfied)—I then received this letter of 26th January, from Norton. (This again stated that if ten guineas was sent it would be settled)—after that I knew nothing further until I was called upon to give evidence at the Police-court—I never saw either of the prisoners.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I did not instruct anyone to interview Norton; I consulted the police and left the matter to his discretion, to take Such steps as he thought fit.

JAMES SCANDRETH (Detective-Sergeant E). Mr. Madge spoke to me about this matter, in consequence of which I made certain inquiries—I called on Saunders several times—this letter (marked F) was handed to me by a young lady at 68, Crowndale Road one evening when I called—I gave the name of Edwards—on the 27th I called again and saw Saunders—I showed him the letter I had received from the young lady—I said, "Mr. Saunders?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "I am a police officer from Bow Street. You have had a gentleman from the newspaper office to call upon you several times, and he has not been able to see you"—he said, "I stayed in one night to see him, but he did not come"—I said, "You left a note for him"—he said, "Yes"—I showed him this letter (marked F), and said, "Did you write this?"—he said, "Yes, I wrote that, because I did not know who he was or what he wanted"—I said, "I think Mr. Norton has written to Mr. Madge, the editor, about an insertion in the newspaper respecting your death "—he said, "Yes, I have seen it in one or two"—I said, "Mr. Madge did not know there was a Mr. Saunders; I suppose you are Saunders"—he then produced an envelope on which was written, "Saunders, 68, Crowndale Road," and said, "There is no mistake about my being Saunders. I told Norton not to have anything to do in the matter, it did not hurt me"—I said, "Do you know Mr. Drew?"—he said, "No, I don't know a Mr. Drew"—I then left him—I did not at that time say that I was a Mr. Edwards connected with the paper, he understood so—at five the same day I took him into custody on a warrant for attempting to obtain money from parties with intent to defraud—I told him I had a warrant—he said,

"What for?"—I said, "For attempting to obtain money from the People newspaper "—he said, "I have not attempted to obtain money; I do not intend to incriminate anyone; I did not want Norton to obtain any money"—I said, "The letter of Drew is very similar to the letter you left for Mr. Edwards"—he made no reply—he was taken to Bow Street station and formally charged—I searched him, and upon him I found this letter marked H (Read: "Dear Saunders, I hear that the People representatives have called again to see you; they are no doubt very uneasy, but you need not worry yourself, as I am aware you are busy preparing for the event. I will call on them for the 10 guineas. They ought to think themselves fortunate to get off so lightly; their object, no doubt, is to get you to take less.—Yours, A. W. NORTON. P. S.—Do not work too hard; have plenty of stout and oysters")—I went to Saunders' lodging, and there found these letters marked "I" and "J." (Both these were from Norton to Saunders; the last letter stated: "There is a good chance of making a few pounds")—Saunders was brought before Mr. Vaughan, and Norton was subpoenaed to give evidence against him—I saw Norton on 31st December at his house in Wrotham Road, and had a conversation with him, which I made this note of at the time. (Reading it: "I said, 'I have this from the Globe newspaper office; I want to see you respecting a letter you sent to the editor of the People about a man named Saunders.' He said, 'What has the Globe to do with it?' I said, It is the same people; the report about Saunders is false. Do you know him? are you a solicitor?' He said, 'No; I am Mr. Montague's clerk; I have been with him over twenty years; Saunders had asked me to take the matter up for him; it also appeared in a special edition of the Star.' I said, 'I will tell Mr. Madge what you say; I should like to see Saunders.' He said, 'Don't see him; he has placed the matter in my hands; if the People don't recompense him for the injury they have done him we shall take proceedings")—at that time I had no idea of arresting Norton—after Saunders had been arrested I took Norton—I read the warrant to him—he said, "I can't understand this."

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I believe it is true that Norton has been twenty years with Mr. Montague; he was invalided and in a hospital, and Mr. Montague allowed him a sort of pension—Norton was first summoned as a witness, and then was given in custody—all these letters were written from his correct address, where he lives with his wife and children—at the time of his arrest he was engaged with Mr. Tickell, a solicitor, at 63, Strand—he has been out on bail.

Cross-examined by MR. LOWE. I called several times at Crowndale Road before I saw Saunders; I saw Miss Thompson, the lady who handed me the letter, twice; that is not the lady he is engaged to—I mentioned that I had called from the People—the letter was addressed to me as Mr. Edwards—I have made inquiries about his character, and found it very satisfactory; he is in the employ of Vincent Brooks, Day, and Company, of Gate Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields—they still have the utmost confidence in him—I found on him a bank-book, showing that he had a balance of about £20.

Re-examined. Mr. Madge left the matter entirely in my hands; he was not aware that I had been to Norton.

WALTER DE GREY BIRCH . I am assistant in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum—I have had twenty-six years' experience

there—I have many times been called upon to give evidence as to handwriting—I have examined the letters A and F, signed "Francis Drew "—in my opinion they are written by the same person.

Cross-examined by MR. LOWE. I have examined them with some care, and looking at the formation of the various letters, I say they are written by the same person—I was one of the experts consulted by the Times on the Parnell Commission—if I had been called it would have been by the Times.

JOHN BELL . I know Norton very well, and his handwriting—to the best of my belief all these letters signed Norton, addressed to the People and signed Saunders, are in Norton's handwriting.

Cross-examined by MR. LOWE. I was not called at the Police-court—I do not see any similarity between Norton's-handwriting and the writing of the letter F.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I have been twenty-two years with Mr. Montague in a confidential position; Norton was with him twenty years in a confidential position—in 1889 he had a serious illness, and was in a hospital eighteen months—during that time Mr. Montague continued his salary and paid his expenses—it is only in consequence of his weak state that he has not come back to business—his conduct has been simply irreproachable.

FREDERICK GEORGE NETHEROLTFT . My offices are at 10, Bedford Row—I have had nearly forty-seven years' experience in handwriting—the letters A and F are decidedly written by the same person, it hardly needs an expert to point it out—the similarities are all through; I have not the slightest doubt about it.

Cross-examined by MR. LOWE. I always conscientiously believe that I am right—in a celebrated case the Jury did not agree with me; that was twenty-five years ago.

Re-examined. I was on the right side in the Parnell case; the moment I saw the letters I said they were forgeries.

NOT GUILTY .— There was another indictment against Saunders, upon which no evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

267. GEORGE WEBSTER NEWBERRY (22) , Indecently assaulting Emily Frampton and Martha Andrews. (Seepage 449).

MR. RAVEN Prosecuted, and MR. GILL Defended.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, March 10th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

268. HENRY HALLAM, alias ABRAHAM KAUFFMAN (20) PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully conspiring with James O'Brien to obtain 264 books from Thomas Rawborn, and 34 books from Sampson Low and Company, Limited. Recommended to mercy by the prosecutors, believing him to be the dupe of O'Brien, who has absconded.— To enter into his own recognisances in £30 to appear for judgment when called upon.

269. CHARLES PYWELL** (29) , To stealing a shirt and a pair of drawers, the goods of John Mumford; also to burglary in the dwelling-house of Martha Green, and stealing a shirt and other articles; also to burglary in the dwelling-house of Emily Reed, and stealing a clock and other articles, after a conviction at Maidstone on April 10, 1889.— Twenty Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

270. JOHN JOHNSON** (18) , To breaking and entering the church of All Saints', Finchley Road, and stealing a paten, a cope, and other articles, and 1s. 8d. in money, of John. Richardson and others, after a conviction of burglary at Maidstone in September, 1888.— Twenty Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

271. CHARLES MARCHANT** (38) , To burglary in the dwelling-house of George Frederick Holt, and stealing fifteen coats and a cloak, his property, after a conviction at this Court on 15th September, 1879.— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

272. FRANK SAPSED (17) and JOSEPH FITZSIMMONS (16) , To burglary in the dwelling-house of Starkin George Weld, and stealing 28s., two pairs of spectacles, and a key, his property, Sapsed having been convicted at Highgate on April 28, 1890. SAPSED**— [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] Twelve Months' Hard Labour . FITZSIMMONS Judgment respited. And

(273) WILLIAM ROGERS (40) , To feloniously having counterfeit coin in his possession with intent to utter it, after a previous conviction of a like offence. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

274. WILLIAM ROGERS was again indicted, with GEORGE JOHNSON (38) and THOMAS LARKIN (23), to unlawfully having nineteen counterfeit coins in their possession, with intent to utter them, to which Rogers PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. WILMOT Prosecuted.

ARTHUR CROSS . I keep the Boot public-house, Edgware—on 13th February, about eight o'clock, Rogers came in for half a pint of ale, and paid with a penny—in about five minutes Johnson came in for a glass of mild beer, and paid with a penny while Rogers was there—in a few minutes Larkin came in for a pennyworth of pickles and two pennyworth of cheese, and paid with a bad florin—I said, "This is a bad one; this won't do," and gave it back to him—he went into the taproom, where Rogers and Johnson were, and went up to Johnson—I could not hear what he said to him, but he came back and gave me a good half-crown—I gave him 2s. 3d. change—I saw a purse in his hand—he came back with a good florin, and said, "You don't call this bad?"—I said, "No, it is a good one"—it was not the one he tendered first—I went out for the police, and saw Rogers walking to and fro outside the door—the other two were in the taproom, and when the police came I said, "These men have been trying to utter a bad two shilling-piece to me, and I suspect they have some more about them"—Larkin said he was willing to be searched—Inspector Harris searched them, and took them in custody—I saw Rogers taken by a constable outside.

Cross-examined by Johnson. You were there seven or eight minutes before Larkin entered.

Cross-examined by Larkin. When you gave me the florin I rubbed it and touched it with my teeth—you took it back when you gave me the good half-crown—it was very gritty, but I did not bite it hard—there were a dozen persons in the taproom; I did not see you give any of them the coin to examine—you did not bring the same coin back, you put it in a purse; not a tobacco pouch, it had two little knobs at the top—you showed the policeman your money—at the last examination at Edgware a fresh witness, Mr. Sale, was brought up—I heard his evidence, but I did not alter my evidence to correspond with his when my deposition

was read over. (The words "Rogers had left them" had been altered to "left the bar.")

By the COURT. I did not see either of the prisoners speak to Rogers, but they were in the taproom at the same time—Larkin and Johnson were together, and Rogers was by himself—I could see into the taproom from where I was.

GEORGE PECK . On 13th February, about eight p.m., I was just outside the Boot at Edgware, and saw Rogers come from the direction of the Boot—a constable went towards him and took him in custody, and I picked up this purse on the spot where he stood—I took it to the station and gave it to the police, and they opened it.

WILLIAM LAPWORTH (268). On 13th February, about 7.15 p.m., I saw the three prisoners conversing together in High Street, Edgware—Johnson walked towards the Boot and left Rogers and Larkin talking for about five minutes—I entered a shop close by where they stood, which was about fifteen yards from the Boot.

Cross-examined by Johnson. I was in plain clothes—it was not particularly dark—you were under the light of a linen-draper's shop—I was not a yard from you.

Cross-examined by Larkin. I did not see you go into the Boot.

EDWIN SALE . I live at Edgware—I was in the Boot public-house at a little before eight o'clock in the passage leading from the taproom to the bar, and saw Larkin put a florin on the counter; Cross took it up, looked at it, and said it was bad—Larkin said, "You don't know good money from bad," and went into the taproom and spoke to Rogers and Johnson, but I could not hear what he said—I did not see Larkin give them the money, but he came back to the landlord with a half-crown—I saw Rogers sitting in a corner with a purse in his hand just before Larkin came back from the bar with the florin—the purse had two knobs on it, similar to this—I saw Rogers outside walking about.

Cross-examined by Johnson. You were all there when I went in; I first saw you sitting in the taproom in a corner—I did not see you in the bar—Larkin was not sitting; he was passing backwards and forwards to the bar—I was in the passage, and looked through the corner of the door—I spoke to one policeman about it that night, and the inspector came to fetch me next day—I did not give evidence till the second remand at the Police-court.

AUGUSTINE HARRIS (Police Inspector S). I was called to the Boot public-house about eight o'clock, and saw Larkin and Johnson detained in the passage—Mr. Cross said that Larkin had tendered a counterfeit florin—I searched him, and found a florin, two single shillings, and one penny; and on Johnson a good half-crown, but no base money on either.—Rogers was brought in by a constable shortly afterwards, and in a minute or so Peck came in and handed me this purse; I saw that it contained money, and put it in my pocket—it contains nineteen bad florins, all loose—I searched Rogers in the station, and in his right-hand coat pocket I found a purse containing five single shillings, and in his right trousers pocket ten single shillings, all good, and in his right pocket 10s. 8 1/4 d. in pence, halfpence, and farthings—I told them they would be charged with uttering counterfeit coin; none of them made any reply—next morning, after we went before the Justice, I received information

and went to Mrs. Johnson's shop in High Street, and received this florin, (produced).

Cross-examined by Larkin. I did not find a tobacco-pouch on you, but I handed a small pouch to you—it had Do knobs on it—it had nothing to do with the charge.

SUSAN JOHNSON . I keep a general shop at Edgware—on 13th February, between seven and eight p.m., Johnson came in—he is no relation of mine he asked for 1/4 lb. of cheese, and gave me a florin; I gave him 1s. 10d. change, and put the florin in the till—there was another florin there and a few shillings—my husband took the money out of the till in the evening, and put it in a cupboard in a jug, where it remained till next morning—Inspector Harris came and made inquiries, and there were still two florins in the jar; one was good and the other bad—I swear that the bad one is the one Johnson gave me, because I had doubts about it at the time, and tried to bend it—it felt soft—I did not bite it or notice the weight—I picked Johnson out at the station next morning from about a dozen men, and am sure he is the man.

Cross-examined by Johnson, I did not see you taken down by the policeman, because my shop is lower down—I said at first at the station that I did not see anyone, because I felt confused, but afterwards I said it was you—I said, "I think" at first, but afterwards I said I was positive—my husband did not look at the coin, and I did not tell him.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to Her Majesty's Mint—these nineteen florins are all counterfeit, and from three or four different moulds—the coin Johnson is said to have tendered to Mrs. Johnson is bad, and from the same mould as two of the nineteen—a coin being gritty between the teeth is one sign of it being bad.

Cross-examined by Larkin. One of these coins has tooth-marks on it.

Johnson's Defence. I went into this public-house entirely by myself and had been there ten minutes when Larkin came in. A florin was handed round, and some bit it; I looked at it and said I was sure it was good. I told the inspector I did not know Larkin. As to Rogers, he was not near me, he was never in the room. The constable may have seen three men together, but I was not one. As to Mrs. Johnson, I do not even know her shop; it is clear that she did not know the coin was bad till the next morning; I had no more to do with it than anybody hi this Court. I do not know Rogers, and never was in his company.

Larkin's Defence. I had walked from Watford to Edgware. I bought some cheese. Mr. Cross gave me my florin back, and I paid him with a half-crown. I showed the florin to some men, and they said they did not think it was bad. I took it back to Mr. Cross, and said, "You don't know good money from bad," and sat down in the taproom—when the constable came I went up to him and showed him the coin—I had never seen these two men before.

GUILTY.— Judgment respited.

275. JOHN WINNER (36) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. WILMOT Prosecuted.

SARAH ANN WOODS . I am employed at some dining-rooms, 119, Bow Road—on 13th January I served the prisoner with a pork pie, price 2d; he gave me a half-crown; I put it in the till whore there was no other, and gave him 2s. 4d. change; Mr. Bacon went to the till immediately

afterwards, and spoke to me—I saw the prisoner three weeks afterwards with other men at the Police-station, and picked him out.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner, There were four single shillings in the till—I found the coin was bad immediately I examined it.

JOSEPH BACON . The last witness is in my employ—I saw the prisoner come in on 13th January—he had been in two or three times before—I saw him throw a half-crown over the counter, and after he had gone I went to the till, found a bad half-crown, and showed it to the girl who had taken it; I then took it upstairs and kept it safe till I gave it to the detective—I picked the prisoner out at the Police-court from about twenty, and am sure he is the man—this is the coin.

Cross-examined. I was three or four yards from the counter—it was the only half-crown in the till—there had been four shillings there and some coppers, but she gave you change out of that.

EMILY RAWLINGS . My. father keeps the Smiths Arms, St. Leonard's Street, Bromley—on 18th February the prisoner came in with two women—I served them with drink, and one of the women gave me a florin; I took it to my father in the bar parlour.

ELIAS RAWLINGS . I keep the Smith's Arms—on 18th February, about 9.15 p.m. the prisoner came in with two women and had some drink—my daughter brought me a bad florin, and I said to the prisoner, "How many more have you got like this?"—he made no answer, but put his hand in his pocket and gave one of the women a five-shilling piece, and said, "Pay for it out of this"—she said, "You see I have got blood on my hands, and you give me this on purpose to get me locked up"—I gave them in custody—one woman was his wife, and was discharged by the Magistrate.

Cross-examined. I have known your father a good many years—he is a labouring man, and has worked for me—I never took a bad coin from you.

JOHN DREW (K 132). I was called to the Smith's Arms, and Mr. Rawlings charged a female, who said, "I know I passed it"—she was charged before a Magistrate, and discharged, being the prisoner's wife—I searched the prisoner at the station, and found on him £4 in gold, 17s. in silver, and 10d. bronze, good money, a silver watch with a coin attached, and a pocket-knife—the prisoner's wife said before the Magistrate that the other woman gave it to her, and she knew nothing about it.

Cross-examined. Your wife said that another woman was in her company, but she did not say at the station that she gave it to her; she said so at the Police-court.

ALEXANDER LAUDER . I am thirteen years old—my mother keeps a shop at 2, St. Leonard's Street, Bromley—on 20th December a woman came in for a pennyworth of musk—I did not see what she gave my mother, but she left, and my mother told me to follow her—I did so; she joined the prisoner at the corner of High Street—I said to her, "My mother wants you"—the prisoner said, "What for?"—I said, "She gave mother a bad shilling"—he said, "Go on," and offered to give me a shilling, but drew his hand back again—I walked away, he called me hack, but I would not go—I said, "If you don't give me the shilling I will follow you wherever you go "—she said to the prisoner, "Give him the shilling"—he said, "Go on," and struck me across my face and

made me cry, and said, "You can go"—I said, "I will"—I saw him a little while afterwards at the Bow Brewery, and afterwards at Arbour Square Police-station with eleven other men, and had no difficulty in picking him out.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to the Mint—this half-crown and florin are bad.

Prisoner's Defence. The florin was given to my missus by another woman. I had plenty of money. I know nothing about it. The other woman was intoxicated. My wife was discharged.

GUILTY **— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Wednesday, March 11th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

276. WILLIAM URMSTONE SEARLE GLANVILLE RICHARDS (35) , Unlawfully damaging certain manuscripts of and belonging to the British Museum.

MESSRS. FORREST FULTON and HORACE AVORY Prosecuted.

JOSEPH LEETE . I am a merchant, and live at South Norwood Park—in 1883 I came across a book written by the defendant, a history of the family of Glanville from the Norman Conquest—I had in 1881 published a book called "A Record of the Leete Family"—I was brought into contact with the defendant through my being a co-trustee for a member of his family—on 3rd May, 1883, I received this letter from him, in which he gave an extract from some work referring to the Leete family—on 13th May, 1883, I received this other letter from him, and another on 28th May. (These letters had reference to certain manuscripts in the British Museum, showing a connection of the Leete family with that of Avenel, and expressing a readiness to make research on the subject, adding that he was working hard for his ordination, and that his means were of a limited character)—that letter, I believe, enclosed a scrap of information upon the subject. (Several other letters were put in and read, all bearing on the same matter)—I sent him £5 and other sums on account of current researches—the letter of 16th August, 1883, enclosed what purported to be a copy of part of a manuscript from one of the Harleian Collection, 6164, showing a connection between the Avenel family and the family of Leete—the letter also enclosed a reading-room ticket, it has his writing on it—that letter contained the first and only information from the manuscripts—I cannot remember whether I acknowledged the receipt of that letter; I may have seen him afterwards—I think I was absent from London at the time—I think after that there was very little correspondence—possibly I sent him in all three sums, amounting to £20 or £30, in the course of six months—some time that year his researches on my behalf entirely ceased—the documents were sent to me from time to time while he was making his researches; I put them away—his last letter, of 27th September, suggested that I should recast my book altogether and publish it afresh—some time in the spring of 1890 I handed over all the notes and documents to Mr. Corbet Anderson, and he reported to me the result of his investigation.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I was acquainted with your stepfather;

I was a mutual friend of the family—I have nothing to say against you.

EDWARD JOHN LONG SCOTT . I am the Keeper of the Manuscripts and Egerton Librarian at the British Museum—the whole of the MSS. there are under my charge, I am responsible for them; I am intimately acquainted with the Harleian MSS.—I have before me No. 6,148—turning to folio 108 I find that certain parts have been interpolated; in the right-hand lower corner there are a number of entries in modern ink of the present century of an entirely different colour to the original—the object of that interpolation is to connect the family of Avenel with the family of Leete; that would be the effect of it—it is my duty to have an intimate knowledge of handwriting—I have had placed before me a number of letters purporting to be in the handwriting of the prisoner; I have compared them with the interpolations here, and I say the writing is identically the same, there is not the slightest attempt at disguise—turning to 6,164, folio 64, I find that five generations have been interpolated in modern handwriting and modern ink, and did not form part of the original MS.—they are entirely spurious, the handwriting is the same, but slightly disguised, with a few flourishes and alterations to make it look more ancient and more like the genuine entries on the same page—I find running through the undoubted handwriting of the prisoner that he always makes his capital L like a small h; that is most remarkable; it occurs not in every case, he gradually drifts into it on many occasions, but keeps out of it on some occasions—in the additional MS. 5,937, folios 43 and 44, a whole leaf has been interpolated, two pages; that is absolutely spurious; it is fitted in with tracing paper; if it becomes necessary to insert a page we do not do so, we guard it with a small piece of paper on the left-hand side of the page; this is numbered 44a, we should put 43 and a star—the whole of this is spurious—the effect of the interpolation is to give the family of Avenel an entirely different character—it appears to be slurred and blotted over to give it the appearance of age; it is headed "Avenel and Leete"—these MSS. are useful for the purposes of art and literature, and are of priceless value and curiosity—they are carefully examined by me to detect forgeries—attempts are made to palm off spurious MSS.—I am responsible for their genuineness before they are purchased—the MSS. are allowed as evidence in the Courts of Law—in pedigree cases, the Heralds' Visitations are taken as evidence—the Visitations commenced in the reign of Richard III., and terminated with Charles II.; they were generally made in the reign of Elizabeth, as late as 1634—readers in the Museum have to obtain a certificate of good character—anybody whose name is in the Post Office Directory can give a reference—readers can get out what books they require—in 1883 the MSS. were examined in the,. large room, the same room the readers used; since that they are only used in a small room—a reader requiring a MS. had to get a green ticket, which contained the place named, the number of the seat, the date, and the volume required—the ticket was deposited in a basket and was collected by the attendant; when the volume is returned the ticket is given back to him, and then his responsibility ends—when the MSS. are returned to the attendant they are brought down to the examination department and examined by two assistants the next morning; they are not examined carefully, for this reason, that they only have between ten

minutes past five and ten next morning, and in those fifty minutes they have over two hundred to examine; they turn them over hastily just to see if any damage has been done, which would catch the eye; such alterations as these might very well escape observation unless their attention is particularly drawn to them—seat L 9, which was occupied by the defendant in August, 1883, was as near the door as could be—it is perfectly possible that these interpolations could be made in a short time at the Museum; the double page could not be done there, that must have been' done at home, and afterwards brought to the Museum; it bears traces of haste, the tracing paper is torn.

Cross-examined. Additions have been made to the Harleian MSS., not many, but of this class, more or less, some are invaluable—it would be malicious to add or correct notes—no reader is allowed to make any mark on any MS. or book—I do not say it was gross carelessness on the part of the officials not to have discovered these additions at once; they have so many to look through and so short a time in which to do it—all these MSS. were entered and indexed before they came into the Museum—these insertions are not indexed, showing that they were made subsequently to their coming into the Museum—the MSS. are not all of equal value—the giving up the ticket would not release the reader from all liability—in the winter months the seats are fully occupied; in the summer months the seats are half empty—I have nothing to prove whether these notes are right or wrong—I have merely to say they are additions to the MSS.—we did not purchase these MSS.; they were given to us by the nation—the Government bought them in 1879 as genuine.

By the COURT. These alterations and interpolations are of the very substance of the pedigree; they absolutely destroy its veracity.

Re-examined. No reader has authority to make any addition or alteration.

JOHN CORBET ANDERSON . I have been a student at the Museum upwards of forty-five years—I have given a good deal of time to antique researches, and have written works on the subject—in the course of 1890 Mr. Leete handed to me letters, documents, and notes relative to the pedigree of the Leete family—Mr. Leete's book had been printed two years before—the documents were handed to me for the purpose of going through them, throwing out what was of no interest, and preserving what Mr. Leete thought of interest—I took them to the Museum and examined the records referred to in the letters—I inspected the Harleian MS. 6,164 and 6,148—I immediately detected that alterations had been made in the MSS.—I called the attention of the authorities of the Museum to them—I have studied both ancient and modern handwriting—I have compared the handwriting of the defendant's letters with that in these MSS., and I say they are identical; without a doubt the handwriting is the same.

Cross-examined. There is general similarity throughout, but particularly in the capital L, which is like a small h—I carefully compared the writing before I gave information to the authorities of my suspicions.

WILLIAM ESSINGTON HUGHES . I am a member of the publishing firm of Mitchell and Hughes, of 140, Wardour Street; in 1883 we published a work for the defendant on the genealogy of the family of Glanville—I am well acquainted with his handwriting—I have seen the letters of 16th

August and other letters to Mr. Leete; they are in the prisoner's handwriting; I have sixty of them at the office now—I was in constant communication with him by letter—turning to the Harleian MS. 6,1481 see writing of the prisoner on the right-hand side; there is no disguise about it—one piece is a little more obscure, as to the major portion I entertain no doubt—on folio 64 of 6,164 there are five generations, beginning with John Avenel and connecting it with William Lewitt—I should say that is in the same handwriting as the prisoner's.

Cross-examined. I do not observe any peculiarities in the handwriting; the affinity of the two handwritings makes me say it is yours.

FRANCIS BRIDGES BICKLEY . I am an assistant in charge of the MS. department at the British Museum, in the students' room—on 19th May last year Mr. Anderson called my attention to what he alleged to be alterations in the two Harley MS. 6,128 and 6,124—I examined them carefully, and came to the conclusion that they are spurious additions to the original MS.—Mr. Anderson also submitted to me the pedigree copied from the MS., and various papers—I came to the conclusion that the entries in the MS. were all in the same handwriting as that on the papers he submitted to me.

Cross-examined. The capital L resembles a small h; that is a very apparent peculiarity, also the way in which you make the J, leaving out the loop, both in the papers and in the MS., and at the end of the letter C there is a curious curve, both in your letters and in the MS.—seat L 9 is marked on the ticket; that seat would be near the door.

RICHARD ROBINSON . I am an attendant at the British Museum—in 1883 it was my duty to collect the tickets of the readers in a basket, and obtain for them the MS. they required—a book is kept, known as the issue and return MS. book, in which is entered the particular MS. given out to the reader, the name of the reader, with the initials of the giver out—when the reader has finished with the MS. another attendant puts his initials, for the purpose of showing he has received it—turning to that book, I find that on the 25th of May, 1883, Glanville Richards was handed by another attendant the Harleian MS. 6,148—on the 28th May he had the same MS. out again, and on the same day he had 6,164; on 30th May he again had 6,164; on 18th June he had 6,164 and 5,937; on 12th July he had 6,148, 6,164 and 5,937; on 18th June he had 6,148, and on 15th August he had all three.

ISAAC HERBERT JEYES . I am an assistant in the MS. department at the British Museum—on 16th August, 1883, it was my duty, in connection with Mr. Jeffery, to examine the MSS. Nos. 6,148, 6,164, and 5,967 of the Harleian collection—we had to examine all the MSS. given out the day before—I did not discover at that time any of these alterations that had been made in them; from the character of the examination I should hardly be likely to do so.

Cross-examined. Two examiners are appointed—we are scarcely expected to go through them carefully; we have to see that the binding is not broken, or any tears made,

JAMES AUGUSTUS BURT . I live at 16, Charles Street, Clarendon Square—I am an expert in handwriting—I have nothing to do with the Museum—I have had twenty-five years' experience inspecting MSS. at the Museum—I have seen the letters purporting to be signed by the defendant and the extracts from the MS.—the additions to the MS, 6,148 are in the

same handwriting as the letters, undisguised—in 6,164 there is a very slight attempt at disguise; in the spurious pages there is also a slight attempt at disguise, but in my opinion they are all in the same handwriting.

Cross-examined. I spent some hours over it—there is a peculiarity in the capital L, it is like an h; also in the figure nine, and in the junction of the v and e in Avenel, and there are many others—I have, of course, seen similarities in handwriting, but not such as to mistake one for another; on close examination you see the difference.

JOHN TUNBRIDGE (Police Inspector). At five o'clock, on 6th February, I attended at the Plymouth Police-station, where I found the prisoner detained; I held a warrant which I read to him; it charged him with having committed damage at the British Museum in 1883—he made no reply to the charge; I brought him to London; he was taken before the Magistrate, and has been in custody ever since.

MR. SCOTT (Re-called). I have caused an examination to be made for the purpose of seeing how many times these MSS. have been had out since 1883; they are very numerous, I cannot say for what purpose.

The prisoner in his defence stated that he made his investigations purely out of friendship to Mr. Leete, and not for the sake of gain; he denied that he vet in needy circumstances, that he was studying for the church, that the money he received he considered was merely for his expenses, and he denied that in what he did he was influenced by any malicious intention.

GUILTY .— Two Months, Without Hard Labour.

277. LEONARD HARTING (29), alias CARL MULLER , Feloniously wounding Alice Seymour, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

ALICE SEYMOUR . I lived at 16, Upper Rathbone Place; now I live in Drury Lane—I am an unfortunate—on Saturday night, 21st February, I met the prisoner at the corner of Rathbone Place, Oxford Street, about a quarter to twelve—he was not able to speak English; he put up his five fingers; I understood him to mean would I go with him for five shillings—we went and had a drink, and then I went with him to his room on the second floor at 65, Newman Street—he was the worse for drink—he went into the room first; I followed him; he was at the door—I said, "You no light," and I struck a match—I saw he had this knife in his hand; he kissed it—he took me as if he was going to get hold of me, and he tore my boa to get to my throat; and as he took up the knife I caught hold of the blade and screamed "Murder!"—two lodgers came to the door and burst it open—I had no light in the room till the door was burst open—I then got out of the room and went down the stairs, leaving the prisoner in the room—I remained on the stairs till a constable came about five minutes afterwards—I went to the hospital, where Dr. Soulby attended to me, and then I went to the station and charged the prisoner.

Cross-examined. I was not kept at the hospital; I left there and went to the station the same night—the prisoner was friendly with me when we met in Oxford Street, and had a drink—we had no quarrel walking home—when he kissed the knife and tried to stab me we had had no quarrel—I had done nothing—he had given me no money before he stabbed me—I had not gone to a chest of drawers where there was money—he waft standing by a chest of drawers; he did not take a

sovereign from the drawers and give it to me—I did not go to the drawers and try to get more money—he did not hold up the knife to frighten me—I tried to take it; without any struggle he tried to stab me—I did not strike him in the face when he held up the knife; I did not attempt to rob him—I have been in the hands of the police on fourteen or fifteen occasions, for attempting to rob people—I did not try to take money from the prisoner—I got the stab on the cheek in the struggle; it was accidentally that the knife touched me in the struggle—he kissed the hilt of the knife.

Re-examined. I have only been convicted three times for stealing; the other times were for drunkenness.

MARY ELIZABETH CLEAVER . I live at 65, Newman Street, and am landlady of that house—the prisoner was my lodger; he had had a second floor room since New Year's Day—about twenty minutes to two on 22nd February I was on the ground floor, and I heard him passing up to his room; I only heard his step, no other—about five minutes after I heard cries of murder—I had just gone to bed—I and my husband got up and went up to the room—a young man lodger tried the door—the door was pushed open, it was not locked, and I don't think it was shut, because it moved to and fro as though somebody was at the back of it—when the door was pushed open the prosecutrix came out; she was covered in blood—I did not see the prisoner, there was no light in the room—I had seen this knife before 21st February on the round table in the prisoner's room—shortly afterwards the constable arrived and forced the door open—I think there was a struggle between him and the prisoner; I did not see it.

Cross-examined. I only saw this-knife once before, that was about, two days before this happened; it was on the table by the side of his bed—I heard he came into a large sum of money on 2nd February—at the time he had £70 or £80 in gold in his drawer, that he had drawn out of the City Bank.

FREDERICK HAYES (D 373). On Saturday night, 21st February, I was called to 65, Newman Street—the prosecutrix was sitting on the stairs with her face and hands covered with blood—from what she said, I went up to the second floor—the room door was closed—I tried to open it; someone was leaning against it from inside, and I had to force it open—the prisoner was standing behind the door—this knife was in his left hand—I told him to put the knife down; he made a plunge at me, and I was obliged to draw my truncheon to knock the knife out of his hand; then I struggled with him—after he was overpowered I told him he would have to come with me to the station—I took him there; he walked very quietly—there was blood on the knife, on the floor, and on the door handle—the charge was read over to him at the station by an interpreter, who is not here to-day—another constable took the prosecutrix to the, hospital—the prisoner was drunk at the time.

CHARLES ERNEST SOULBY . I am resident house surgeon at Middlesex Hospital—shortly after midnight on Sunday, 22nd February, the prosecutrix was brought there—her face was swollen, and she was bleeding from the nose; the blood was streaming over the front part of her dress—that was from bruising, not a cut—on the right cheek was a scratch about one inch below the eye; a bruise on the back of the head; on the upper surface of the fingers of the right hand there were some transverse

jagged cut wounds, and on the back of the left hand a bruise—the cuts and scratches might have been caused by this knife, I think—I dressed the wounds, and she was allowed to leave.

Cross-examined. I have seen her since; she is quite healed—the cuts on the hand after washing away the blood were not very severe.

FREDERICK HATES (Re-examined). I searched the prisoner; all I found on him was about 2s. 4d.—a sheath for the knife was lying on the floor in the room.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "All I can say I was drunk, and have no idea how I came to the station and how all that happened; I only saw my position when I woke up in the morning."

NOT GUILTY .

278. JOHN RYAN (35) , Feloniously setting fire to certain papers and bedding in a dwelling-house, persons being therein, and so intending to set fire to the house.

MR. BLACKWELL Prosecuted.

JULIA HAYES . I lived at 207, St. George's Street with the prisoner as his wife—on Saturday night, 8th February, about ten o'clock, the prisoner asked me to come and have a drink; I said, "No," as I had been drinking so much the night before, and I wanted to go to bed—we came out and had a little drop—I left him in the public-house and came home and went to bed, feeling intoxicated; I was regularly muddled with drink—afterwards he came home and said, "Why did not you tell me you were going home?" and I told him to come to bed and make no row—then he went to the door, I don't know where to—I was trying to scramble for my clothes in the dark—he came in and said again, "Why did not you tell me you were going to leave me?" and then he stooped down about ten minutes, and all of a sudden I saw the mattress where me and he were lying all flare up—I asked him if he had done it—he made no reply, and I ran up into the street and met Mr. Flannigan, the inspector—I did not see the prisoner do it, we were in the dark.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You never spoke when I asked you if you had done it—I could not say if the mattress was smouldering, not flaring, I was so drunk; it was alight—I did not stop long enough to see if there was any fire, I ran out to fetch the inspector and sergeant; when I came back with them you had got all the bedclothes and mattress in the fender to try and put it out.

JAMES FLANNIGAN (Inspector H). On 8th February I met the prosecutrix about a quarter past one a.m.—she made a statement to me, and I accompanied her to the house—I found the front kitchen in the basement was filled with smoke—the prisoner was there—the bedstead was broken down to the ground on one side, and the mattress upon it was composed of wood shavings, and they were smouldering—the sergeant with me and I stamped it out with our feet, and opened the-window and let the smoke out—the prisoner was sitting on a chair in front of the fireplace—the bedclothes, rug, sheet, and shawl were stuffed down in front of the grate inside the fender—they were all burned, and were smouldering round the edges—we examined the room, and under the bed and mattress I found a quantity of burnt paper and matches—I said, "What is this?" the prosecutrix said that was paper that he had placed under the bed and set fire to, saying, "I will set fire to the b—y bed and burn you and all

in the house"—the prisoner said nothing—I took him to the station—when charged lie said, "I will not plead guilty, I will go for trial first"—he was searched, and a box of matches was found in his pocket, and some loose matches—he had the appearance of haying been drinking, but the last witness was perfectly sober.

JULIA HAYES (Re-examined by the COURT). I was excited when I saw the bed on fire; I did not know what I was saying to the Inspector—the prisoner did not say, "I will set fire to the b----y bed and burn you and all in the house"—I thought I was on fire myself when I saw it burning up.

By the Prisoner. I saw your pipe come out of the burnt shavings, out of the mattress.

The Prisoner in his defence said he was innocent; that it was done with his pipe.

GUILTY .— Nine Months Hard Labour.

279. EDWARD BURLEY (63) and JOHN CARPENTER (41) PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the dwelling-house of George Thompson, and stealing a watch and other articles and £239 19s. Burley also PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony in July, 1882, in the name of William Crane, and Carpenter** to one in March, 1888, in the name of John Wright.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour each.

280. ALEXANDER SMITH (27) , To burglary in the dwelling-house of Samuel Brewster, and stealing 500 cigars and 5s.— Twelve Months Hard Labour , [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

(281) GEORGE WILSON, To burglary in the dwelling-house of John Collins Macdonald, and stealing a clock and other articles; also** to a conviction of felony in February, 1889.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, March 11th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

282. WALTER COOK (25) and WILLIAM LAMBETH (24) , Unlawfully committing an act of gross indecency, to which LAMBETH PLEADED GUILTY — Nine Months' Hard Labour.

MR. A. GILL Prosecuted.

COOK— GUILTY .

Recommended to mercy by the JURY, being weak-minded— Judgment respited.

283. CHARLES CLARK (51) , Unlawfully attempting to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency.

MR. BLACKWELL Prosecuted, and MR. WARBURTON Defended.

The prisoner received a good character.

NOT GUILTY .

284. JAMES KENT (45) , Feloniously wounding Benjamin Dyas, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

MR. BLACKWELL Prosecuted, and MR. WARBURTON Defended.

BENJAMIN DYAS . I am a plasterer, and live at 6, Garfield Terrace, where the prisoner and I were fellow lodgers—on the 16th February I went home at 7 p.m., the prisoner was at home; he went out to the station and fetched a policeman, and wanted his bag with his clothes, it was given to him, and he went out with it about eight o'clock—his bag

was brought back about nine o'clock, and the landlord said to me, "Will you go to the door, and if it is Mr. Kent do not let him in"—I went to the door and said, "Mr. Kent, you are not to come into this house again to-night"—He said, "I am coming in"—I stood against the door to prevent his coming in, and he stuck a knife into me just under my right breast—I did not see the knife, but I felt it—he ran away to the Victoria public-house—I went there and saw him coming out—I said, "Mr. Kent, I have got you at last," but he got away—I was laid up for three weeks.

Cross-examined. I shut him out because we were all in danger of our lives—I thought the landlord had come home and opened the door—I did not hit him or push him—he did not try to push past me—my landlady told me to shut him out.

MRS. HANKIN. I am the landlady of this house—the prosecutor and prisoner were both lodgers—on 6th February I left home to purchase some goods, leaving my little girl of 14 at home, and the prisoner had got her by the throat when I came back, and I gave him notice to leave at once—he had lodged there on and off for five years as a weekly tenant—I put him out of the house; he was away for an hour, and came back about eight o'clock with a constable; I told the constable what he had done to my daughter, and said I would not have him in my house another night—he told the constable I was detaining his clothes; that was false—his bag was carried to the corner of the road by the constable's order; he was asked to take it, and would not, and it was brought back into my house again—he went away till nine o'clock, when a knock came, and Dyas went to the door—I said, "Don't let him in," he opened the door—I followed him—he said, "You cannot come in here to-night, Mr. Kent"—he said, "I shall"—Dyas said, "No, you cannot"—I said, "No, you will not come into my house to-night"—Dyas said, "Oh, lookout, Mrs. Hankin, I have got the knife!"—the prisoner then made a stab at me—I saw the knife; it was open—I went behind the door to save the blow—the prisoner ran to the corner of the road and hid himself behind a post—I saw a policeman with him.

Cross-examined. Had he been a prudent man I should have given him a week's notice—I did not want to have him arrested; he went to the policeman, not I.

MR. HARKNESS. I attended Dyas on 16th February, and found him faint from loss of blood—I found a punctured wound an inch and a half on the inner side of his right breast, and about an inch deep—the rib had intercepted it—I only saw him twice—he is fairly well now.

THOMAS HILSON (207). I was on duty, and saw the prisoner running from the Victoria public-house to the Seven Sisters' Road, and a large crowd following him, shouting that he had stabbed a man—I caught him, and Dyas said that he had stabbed him—he said nothing—I found this knife in his left trousers pocket—he was drunk, but not mad drunk.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I know nothing at all about stabbing Benjamin Dyas. I was intoxicated when I got home. I had been drinking rum and gin all day. I had fever out on the West Coast of Africa, and when I get a drop of drink it preys on my brain, have a good character on my discharge from the service, and have never been in trouble before."

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. — Ten Months' Hard Labour.

285. JOSEPH DENNY (44) , Forging and uttering a request for the delivery of two and a half gallons of polish and five brushes, with intent to defraud.

MR. BAILEY Prosecuted.

PERCY MILLINGTON , I am a cabinet maker, and did live at 57, Haberdasher Street, Hoxton—the prisoner was in my employ up to January 28th as a French polisher—he had not been in the habit of obtaining goods for me—on February 16th I received this bill, with 19s. 10d. charged for goods which I had never ordered and never received—I had had 11s. 9d. worth of goods—I did not authorise this document, written on a piece of sandpaper—I do not know whose writing it is. (This was to Mr. Waters: "Let bearer have on my account two gallons of polish and four brushes, half a dozen varnish brown and one ditto")—I gave no authority to obtain these goods.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I discharged you on 28th January, or it might have been the 27th—you had fifteen shillings to finish your work, and never came; you came drunk to finish it on Thursday, and I told a policeman to put you out of the place—I never gave you authority to get polish on credit—I always gave you the money to get it.

CHARLES WATERS . I am a varnish maker, of Great Eastern Street, employed by my father—I think I have seen the prisoner before—on February 4th one of our men brought this order, and I went forward and spoke to the prisoner—he said he required the goods for Mr. Millington, and I instructed our man to give them to him—we were not in the habit of dealing with Mr. Millington, but I believed this document came from him—the value of the goods was 19s. 10d.—some goods had been ordered previously, and I added the 19s. 10d. to it.

THOMAS IRWIN (G 157). I received information, and took the prisoner on 16th February, and told him he would be charged with obtaining goods by means of a forged order—he said, "I had the stuff, but I will pay Mr. Millington if he will allow me. "

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I never wrote the order, but I produced it right enough."

GUILTY of the Uttering only. He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at Worship Street on 30th July, 1890— Four Months' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Thursday, March 12th, 1891.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

286. ALFRED JAMES BARTLETT (49) was indicted for and charged on the Coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of Rosina Bartlett.

MESSRS. CHARLES MATHEWS and GILL Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

PETER MITCHELL (J 127). On Wednesday morning, 18th February, about seven or half-past, I was on duty in the Kingsley Road, Hounslow—I was spoken to by a lad named Pearcey, and from what he said I went to No. 6, Lambton Terrace—I there saw the prisoner's wife at the door—she spoke to me, and I went into the kitchen, where I saw the prisoner standing in front of the fire; his wife went in with me, and in his presence and hearing she said, "I went out on an errand this morning,

and when I came back he had killed the baby"—I said to the prisoner, "You hear what your wife has said?"—he said, "Yes, that is right, I did it"—I then went upstairs into the front bedroom, and there saw the dead body of an infant on the bed—I noticed two slight red marks on the right side of its neck—the prisoner came up with me, he said nothing there—I only saw the child, and took the prisoner down again and took him to the station—he said nothing—he seemed strange in his manner, his eyes appeared very strange—I had not known him before—he was sober—I was present when the inspector charged him at the station with the wilful murder of his child—there was nobody in the house but the prisoner and his wife.

MAURICE ELMES (Inspector T). I was at the station about nine a.m. on the 18th, and found the prisoner there—I told him I should hare to charge him with wilfully murdering his daughter Rosina at about 7.30 a.m.—he said, "Yes, I did it with a brace, that I put in the stand at the foot of the bed"—I subsequently examined the room, and in a small wooden stand at the foot of the bed I found this piece of elastic brace; I examined it, but found no marks of any kind upon it—I thought the prisoner appeared strange when I saw him at the station, I thought so by his general appearance, the look on his face; he said very little—he was detained at Hounslow, and was taken before the justices at Brentford next day.

Cross-examined. I told the Magistrate that the prisoner made a rambling statement—that was when he was detained in the cell—he said some years ago he contracted a certain disease, and he was afraid as his children grew up they would inherit that disease—he uttered that in a strange tone—nobody had mentioned anything of the sort to him.

WILLIAM BRAMWELL REED , B. M., 4, Lambton Road, Hounslow—on 18th February, about a quarter to eight a.m., I was called to 15, Lambton Terrace, and in a bedroom upstairs I found an infant on a bed; a little frothy mucus was exuding from the right side of the mouth—the lips were livid; the face was slightly livid, not quite so marked as the lips—the eyes were closed; the body was still warm—the child seemed to be about five or six months old; it was a well-nourished child—there were two little marks on the left side of the neck, where it joins the chest, in front by the side of the windpipe—they were about the size of a sixpence—they were such marks as might have been produced by pressure on the throat by fingers—I saw no other marks on the face or body—it seemed a healthy, well-nourished child—it seemed to me at that time that the cause of death was strangulation; next day, the 19th, I made a postmortem examination—the windpipe contained a small amount of thickish greyish-white fluid—there was some similar coloured fluid in the stomach—there were a certain number of small extravasations on the surface of the lungs—all the other organs of the body were healthy—the post-mortem appearances induced me to modify my opinion as to the strangulation—I came to the conclusion that if there had been strangulation, suffocation had been superadded to it; the appearances were consistent with that condition of things—I consider that there must have been some suffocating agent applied to the face, such as a hand, or a pillow, or anything to stop breathing—if this piece of brace had been put round the mouth that would cause it; it is long enough to go round the neck and over the face; that would prevent the child breathing—I

do not think that the marks on the neck would be occasioned by the brace; they were more like finger-marks; pressure by the fingers might cause them—the post-mortem appearances confirmed my opinion that strangulation and then suffocation were the causes of death.

Cross-examined. I have heard that the prisoner is a wheelwright—the marks on the neck were not larger than would be caused by his fingers; they seemed to be about that size; the greyish fluid in the mouth and windpipe was partially digested milk, slightly curdled; some of it had gone down to the lungs—there was no injury to the interior of the throat—if the child had been choked I should have expected to find injuries inside, and I do not think the milk would have been in the throat—I do not think there was sufficient fluid to cause a fit—there was nothing to point to violent death except the two marks—the skin of a child of five months is very tender—if there had been any pressure round the neck I should have expected to find redness or some signs of it; the marks were bruises—I think they had been caused within twenty-four hours; you might say within twelve hours; I could not say nearer than that—this is the first time it has been put to me about the brace over the mouth having caused death; the slipping of a pillow or blanket would have been sufficient without the brace—I have examined the brace; there is a slight stain on the outside from ink.

Re-examined. The actual cause of death, I think, was suffocation—the neck must have been grasped by some agent, so as to constrict and cause those marks; there was a mark of two thumbs—to cause suffocation the brace must have been held there.

WILLIAM MONTAGUE BALL, M. D . I live at Croxley House, Hounslow—I have attended the prisoner for about eleven years—in October, 1880, he had an accident from a fall in the course of his employment as a carpenter—I attended him down to November, 1880; I saw him on and off after that, but I did not attend him again professionally until 1889—I cannot say that I saw any change in him—in June, 1889, I was again called to attend him, for an epileptic fit—I attended him for three or four days, he got better and went back to work—on 15th March, 1890, he had another epileptic fit, on 1st May another, on 13th July another, and also on 22nd September and 16th December—after that he remained, away from his employment for some considerable time, he went back to it about 13th February this year; between those dates I attended him for disease of the nose—he was not strange at that time, he was in his ordinary health—I talked to him, and he answered perfectly rationally—I should hardly say his mind was unhinged down to that time, only after the fits; after the fit he was always in a profound state of melancholy, you could hardly get any answers out of him the next day; the melancholy would gradually go off, till he began work again, each day he would get better, it averaged about three or four days as a rule—I believe I saw him this year, he used to come to my surgery—I did not notice anything peculiar about him then—a man subject to fits one might come on at any time, there would be a tendency to melancholia without actual fits—during the fits a patient is quite irresponsible for what he says and does—while that condition lasted he would be unanswerable for what he said and did.

Cross-examined. I knew him as a most respectable man and an

affectionate husband and father—he complained of pains in his head and feeling rather funny.

PHILIP FRANCIS GILBERT . I am surgeon of Her Majesty Prison at Holloway—the prisoner has been confined there since 19th February—from that time down to yesterday I have had him under my observation—on his admission I made an examination of him in order to arrive at his condition of mind—he was very depressed; I thought him suffering from melancholia—he was dazed and confused—he did not know where he was, and he had no idea of the flight of time—he did not know how long he had been there, or how long he was to stay—he complained of sleeplessness—that is very often the case in melancholia—he said at times he felt so miserable that he contemplated suicide; that often accompanies melancholia—he said he had thought the night before this occurrence that the child was cold and dead—he said he was very fond of the child—he has improved during his confinement; he is rational now, but is still very depressed—he fits apart, and is disinclined to conversation; takes no interest in what is going on—in my opinion he is not now of sound mind; I do not think he is altogether capable of distinguishing between right and wrong—on 19th February I think he was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of any act he did—I have heard Mr. Ball's evidence—I have no doubt that the prisoner is an epileptic subject—I agree with Mr. Ball that melancholia almost invariably follows an attack of epilepsy, and that during and after such an attack the patient is irresponsible for what he says and does.

Cross-examined. Persons in the condition described sometimes think themselves guilty of crimes which they have not committed.

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY of the act, but being insane at the time — To be detained until Her Majesty's pleasure be known.

287. ELIZABETH WICKENSON (24) was indicted for and charged on the Coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of her newly born child.

MR. F. FULTON for the prosecution offered no evidence on this charge— NOT GUILTY . There was another indictment against the prisoner for unlawful endeavouring to conceal the birth of the said child. To this she PLEADED GUILTY .— Discharged on recognisances.

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, March 12th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

288. CHARLES WILBRAHAM PERRYMAN, Unlawfully writing and publishing three libels of and concerning George Augustus Moore, to which he had pleaded a justification.

MR. COCK, Q.C., on behalf of the prisoner, offered no evidence on the plea of justification, and MR. MURPHY, Q.C., for the prosecution, offered no evidence against the prisoner upon the indictment.

NOT GUILTY .

289. DANIEL CAINE (31) . Robbery, with violence, on Charles William Martin, and stealing £1 10s.

MR. MOORE Prosecuted.

HARLES WILLIAM MARTIN . I live at 29, Filmer Road, Fulham, and

am a watchmaker—about half-past three p.m. on 16th February I was in Gravel Lane—I went into a public-house and got a drink, and then crossed to the urinal—the prisoner and another man, who were in the public-house, followed me—the prisoner put his arm round my shoulder while the other man rifled my right-hand trousers pocket, and took about thirty-five shillings that was loose there—I felt my breast pocket go, and then I felt the other one go—I turned round and tried to hit the first one, and the prisoner turned and hustled me as I was going out of the door—I told him he need not go, and caught hold of him, and then a constable crossed over, and I gave the prisoner in charge—I was not quite sober.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not see you in the Clerkenwell Road—I did not ask you to have a drink—I hardly remember what I was doing—I had a drink about eleven a.m., but I did not continue drinking till dinner time, when I met my brother and had several drinks with him—between half-past two and half-past three I went into two or three public-houses—we did not go into this public-house together—I was not with you in another public-house previously—I do not know the name of the man you were with, I was not calling him Charlie, I am a stranger round there—the urinal only holds three, I think; you were on one side of me, and the other man on the other; I tried to run for the other man—I did not say before the constable came up, "That man has taken my money, and you know something about it"—I charged you with helping the other man—I only took you by the arm; the constable was then in sight, crossing the road—I did not say I lost £1 10s.—I was not hurt in any way.

Re-examined. When I saw the two men in the public-house they were on the best of terms, I should say; they knew one another—they were talking together, and I should say they were drinking together—I was not right down drunk, but if I take two or three glasses it soon gets over me, as I am not in the habit of drinking.

JOHN RUDGE (G 130). At five o'clock on 16th February I saw Martin holding the prisoner by the sleeve of his coat in Beecham Street, Leather Lane, Holborn—I went up; the prosecutor said, "I shall charge this man for robbing me; he put his arms round my shoulders while the other man took the money out of my pocket"—I asked the prisoner what he had to say about it—he said, "I did not take the money, the other man"—I could get no description of. the other man; he did not say the other man ran away—Martin had been drinking; he was quite capable of knowing what he was doing—I charged the prisoner, who was sober; he made no answer—I was about one hundred yards from the urinal, not in sight of it, and I did not see the three people together—my attention was attracted by seeing Martin holding the prisoner twenty or thirty yards from the urinal, and about one hundred yards from the public house—the urinal is about fifty yards from the public-house.

The prisoner, in his defence, said he was drinking with the prosecutor from half-past two, and that the third man showed them the way to the urinal; that when he came out he saw the third man running away, and that he asked the prosecutor what was the matter, and was told the prosecutor had been robbed.

GUILTY of robbery.

He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony in March, 1883.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

290. CHARLES ELLIOT (16) and HENRY NEWMAN (18) , Robbery with violence on Louis Jacobsen, and stealing his watch.

MR. LEMAITRE Prosecuted.

LOUIS JACOBSEN (Interpreted). I live at 8, Sandringham Road, Dalston, and am a journeyman butcher—on a Sunday in February, about three o'clock, I was in High Street, Shoreditch—when going home three men overtook me, chaffed and laughed, and asked me the time—I said, "It is three o'clock"—I had a watch and chain on; I did not pull it out—when I saw they were having a lark with me I crossed on to the other side of the road—two of them followed me across the road—Elliot pulled out my watch, and knocked me down on the ground—I felt very dazed—as soon as I recovered I saw two ladies following who had seen the thing; I and they went up to a policeman and told him what had happened—Newman was only laughing and chaffing with the others, but he did not cross the road with them; he remained on the other side—I was sober.

Cross-examined by Elliot. I did not see my chain and sovereign case in the road—you pulled out my watch and chain, and I ran at once to look for a policeman.

Cross-examined by Newman. You followed at first and laughed, but you did not touch me.

THOMAS HASKETT (G 272). On 15th February, at 3 p.m., I was on duty in Shoreditch—the prosecutor made complaint to me—I went as far as Old Street—the prosecutor pointed with his finger to the prisoners, who were close together, and with other persons, about 100 yards off—when we were about fifty yards off they both ran away—I called the assistance of Diprose, and we pursued them through several streets—they ran into St. George's Square, Hoxton, through No. 2 Block, Mathews' Buildings, and climbed over a fence about eight feet high—Diprose followed them into the rear of No. 1 Block—I went in at the front entrance, and saw the prisoners run upstairs—I went up, and I and Diprose found them in w. c. at the top of the building—I took Newman into custody; Diprose took Elliot, who, while in custody, and outside the w. c. door, dropped this little watch on the stairs—it is the subject of another charge—this pawnticket was found on him—we took the prisoners downstairs; the prosecutor was there—he said they were the men, and we took them to the station; they were charged—Newman said nothing—I chased them about 300 or 400 yards—they did not live in the Buildings.

WILLIAM DIPROSE (G 83). I was in Union Street when Haskett made a statement to me, and at the same time pointed out the two prisoners, who were standing on the pavement in Old Street, forty or fifty yards away—they at once ran away—I followed them over a fence, and afterwards found them in the w. c., Elliot pretended to be doing up his trousers; he had not had time even to undo them—Newman was behind the door—when I took Elliot outside he put his hand inside his waistcoat pocket and took something out—I took hold of his arm, and asked him what he had got—he said, "Nothing," and dropped this watch—in answer to the charge at the station Elliot said he knew nothing about this watch—the prisoners made no answer to the present charge—I found this pawnbrokers ticket on Elliot—he said he had pawned the article himself for a friend.

Elliot, in his statement before the Magistrate and in his defines, said he saw the prosecutor throw his chain and sovereign purse into the road.

Newman said he ran because other people ran.

LOUIS JACOBSEN (Re-examined). I had looked at my watch five minutes before the prisoners spoke to me; my coat was open—I was knocked down from behind, and felt hurt.

NEWMAN— NOT GUILTY . ELLIOT— GUILTY . He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony in June, 1889.— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

291. JOHN CAUSTON, GEORGE CHANDLER , and HERBERT HYDE, Robbery with violence on Edward Fisher, and stealing 3s. Causton and Hyde PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. KEITH FRITH Prosecuted.

EDWARD FISHER . I am a dealer, living at 7, Eagle Place, Mile End—on Sunday night, 1st March, I was in the Whitechapel Road—the three prisoners came up; Chandler caught me by the right arm, Causton by the left arm, and Hyde by the collar—they pulled me to the ground, and Causton put his hand into my pocket and took the money out—I was left on the ground, I called out "Police!"—Constable Elliott came and took hold of Causton, who struggled to get away, and Hyde and Chandler tried to get Causton away—I daresay between 200 and 300 people were there; I was hustled about—another constable came up and asked me what was the matter—Chandler had gone; I made a complaint—I was charged with being drunk and disorderly—I had known Chandler about four months—I had spoken to him once—I am positive he is the man.

Cross-examines by the Prisoner. I had no opportunity of giving you in charge; you left go of me before the constable came.

Re-examined. I gave no description of him when I went to the station; I gave a description of him on Monday morning when the constable came to me.

WILLIAM ELLIOTT (H 140). At a quarter-past eleven p.m. on 1st March I heard cries of "Police!" and went in the direction, and saw the prosecutor lying on his back, being held down by the three prisoners—I saw Causton's left hand in the prosecutor's waistcoat pocket—as soon as they caught sight of me they made off—I went after Causton and caught him—he said, "It was not me"—he turned and gave me a kick on the left leg, and struck me on the chest and head also—presently Hyde came up and made a statement—Causton and Hyde got away—I have known Chandler before; I have not the least doubt he is the man I saw holding the prosecutor down.

WILLIAM MEW (Plain Clothes Constable J). On 3rd March, having received a description, I took Chandler into custody, and told him he would he charged with being concerned with two other men with stealing three shillings from the person of Edward Fisher, and I said I should take him to the station on that charge—he said, "I know nothing about it; I was there; I can tell you the man that did do it"—he did not tell me who the man was.

Cross-examined. When you were brought in to be identified Causton said, "I and Hyde did it, but that man (pointing to Chandler) knows nothing about it."

Chandler called the following witnesses.

JOHN CAUSTON (the Prisoner). I am a stoker, living at 9, Brick Lane—I know you by sight, but not to be in your company—I was coming along the road and a man called out, "I have been robbed"—I never saw you there, you were not concerned with me—I was drunk at the time.

Cross-examined. I and Hyde did not arrange this thing; we were drunk at the time, and did not know what we were doing—there was no violence—I have been convicted as a rogue and vagabond—I was convicted of stealing two and a half years ago—I have been convicted four or fire times, it might be seven.

JAMES MAHER . I am a journeyman painter and house decorator, living at Hewett's Court—we came from the Rodney Road and saw a quarrel; evidently someone had been robbed, as he was complaining to a policeman—there was a crowd of sixty or eighty people—we went on, Causton was arrested, but broke away from the constable—I was in Chandler's company that night till about three in the morning—when we saw the row you I and Kelly went into the Red Cow and then home to supper.

Cross-examined. I was convicted of theft about a year ago—I have not long been out of gaol—this was the first night I was ever in the prisoner's company; I think I had had one drink with him before—I knew the prosecutor by sight, through his being pointed out to me—I have never seen the prisoner and prosecutor together, although I know now they lived nearly opposite each other for some time—it would be absolutely untrue for Elliott to say that he saw Chandler holding the prosecutor down on the ground on that night; it would be perjury.

The prisoner, in his defence, said he was walking along with Kelly and Maher, and that they saw this row, but took no part in it.

GUILTY .—Causton PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony in October, 1888; Chandler** to one in February, 1890; and Hyde* to a conviction of misdemeanour in August, 1886.

CAUSTON— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour, and Twenty Strokes with the Cat. HYDE— Twelve Months' Hard Labour, and Twenty Strokes with the Cat. CHANDLER— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

292. GEORGE BIRMINGHAM (26) and THOMAS HALEY (25) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of John Richard Stevenson, and stealing thirteen chains and eight watches.

MR. DOUGLAS Prosecuted.

JOSEPH BOLTON . I live at 70, Temple Street, Hackney Road—at a quarter-past nine on a Monday night I was in the Bethnal Green Road, standing outside the shop next to Mr. Stevenson's, a watchmaker's shop, which is opposite to the police-station—the shop was open, with gas burning in the window—I saw the prisoners come and bash the window in, and put their two hands in and take some jewellery out and run down the next turning—it was done very quickly—I had never seen the prisoners before—I ran after them down Ponderson's Gardens, Jude Street, Old Bethnal Green Road, Poyser Street, to a model lodging-house, where they went in—a policeman ran after them too, and he went into the house and told me to keep downstairs in the area—I waited there till the policemen had searched the house—they came down by themselves, and I went with them to Bethnal Green Police-station,

and then I went home—next morning, at ten minutes past nine, I saw the prisoners at the Police-station with a lot more men—I picked Birmingham out, but not Haley; he is like the other man, but I cannot say if he is him.

MORRIS ROTHSCHILD . I live at 437, Bethnal Green Road—on Monday, 2nd February, about a quarter-past nine, I was at the corner of Ponderson's Wardens, about twelve yards from Stevenson's shop—I saw the prisoners running out of one corner of Ponderson's Gardens, I was at the other corner—I am sure they are the men—I had known both of them for about three years—they had some chains in their hands; they ran round the corner from the shop—I heard nothing before that—I ran after them to the bottom of Ponderson's Gardens, and then lost sight of them—on Tuesday night I was sent for and went to the Police-station, where I picked both prisoners out of a line of men—the chains were dangling down from between the fingers of both men.

Cross-examined by Haley. I did not see anyone else pick you out—I did not say at first I thought you were one—I was only about twelve yards away from you; it is only about twelve yards from Ponderson's Gardens to Stevenson's; from Gull's Gardens to the shop is about thirty yards.

Re-examined. I have been to the place since—the two men ran close past me, about a yard ff.

FRANCIS CORNISH . I live at 26, Demlow Street—on Monday, 2nd February, about a quarter or twenty minutes past nine, I was at the top of Ponderson's Gardens, and I noticed between fifty or sixty people running round the corner, with the two prisoners running in front—I gave chase a little way round the turning, but I saw I was no use, and I turned back again.

Cross-examined. I did not go to the station that night; I went next morning, and told the police I knew the men that did it; I could have picked you and the other man out of a thousand—I said nothing the same night that it happened—I had previously seen you walking up and down by the Police-station at five minutes past nine.

Re-examined. I did not give my evidence next morning, Mr. Dickenson told me fresh evidence would be taken next week—I gave evidence a week afterwards—on this night I saw the prisoners walking up and down by the Police-station opposite the shop at five minutes past nine—I ran fifty or sixty yards after them—that was about a quarter of an hour after I saw them outside the shop—I was about a hundred yards from the shop then—I saw nothing in their possession.

MARIA STEVENSON . I live at 487, Bethnal Green Road, my brother's shop—on Monday night, 2nd February, I was in the shop—at quarter-past nine as near as possible I heard a tremendous smash; I went round the counter as quickly as I could, and when I got to the door I saw a crowd of people but no one against the window—I saw that all the top part of the middle pane of the window was cleared, the chains had been in the centre—I saw two bricks wrapped in brown paper in front where the ring trays had been, and the ring trays were all pitched back—I missed thirteen gold chains and eight silver watches—I saw a boy pick up one watch, outside the shop, and give it to my brother—one was picked up in Ponderson's Gardens—before I could get round all the things were gone.

WILLIAM MEW (Detective J). On Monday evening, 2nd February, at twenty-five minutes past nine, I received information about this burglary, and I made inquiries and received a description of the prisoners; as the result, at half-past eleven or twenty minutes to twelve I saw Birmingham walking in Cambridge Road, smoking a cigar, and with two other men—he was the worse for drink, and. eating some fish—I saw him throw a fish-bone at a lady, and I took him into custody, and charged him with being drunk and disorderly; and I said, when that was disposed of, he would be detained on suspicion of having broken the jeweller's window in Bethnal Green Road—he said, "Yes, it is all right this time; but you b—, I shall kill you; I will cut your b—guts out one day"—that was in answer to the charge of burglary—I took him to the station and charged him—I left the station and met an informant, and from what he told me at ten minutes to one I apprehended Haley—I told him I should take him into custody on suspicion of having smashed the jeweller's window in Bethnal Green Road, in company with another man—he said, "It could not be me, I have been in the Camden Head public-house, Bethnal Green Road, all the evening"—the Camden Head is immediately opposite Stevenson's shop, next door to the Police-station—he did not say a word about going to the Belmont Music Hall—Haley was taken to the station and detained, and the following morning the prisoners were both placed with other men; Bolton at once identified Birmingham; but he could not say as to the other one—Birmingham was taken to the Police-court to answer the charge of being drunk and disorderly, and an application was made to the Magistrate to discharge him, in order that he might be re-arrested and brought back on this charge—between six and seven the same evening the prisoners were placed among eight or nine other men, and Rothschild identified them—when charged they made no answer—I communicated with Cornish, and met him at the door of the Police-court; he was there to be examined; but the case was remanded, and he was examined on 11th February—I have traced this plan from the parish map hanging in our office—the Belmont Music Hall is about 600 yards from the shop—I could run it in about two minutes—the constable who saw the boy at the dwellings is in the hospital—this watch was found in Ponderson's Gardens, where the prisoners are alleged to have run.

Cross-examined by Birmingham. When I arrested you for burglary you made use of that threat—I don't know anything against you; I know you are a bad character.

Cross-examined by Haley. I did not see you at half-past seven in the Salmon and Ball; I was about 250 yards off—two men were brought in to see if they could identify you, and they described you—I got my information from an informer.

EMMA MULLINGS . I live at 34, Ponderson Gardens, which runs into the Bethnal Green Road, close to Stevenson's shop—my husband is a stationer's assistant at Waterlow's—the next morning, after this shop window was smashed, I found a watch in the roadway in Ponderson's Gardens—I took it to Miss Stevenson. (Miss Stevenson was re-called, and identified the watch).

Cross-examined by Birmingham. A cart wheel had been over the watch by the look of it—I heard a cry of "Thief," and saw a lot of people running.

Haley, in his statement before the Magistrate, said he was at the Belmont Music Hall all the evening.

Haley called the following witnesses.

JOSEPH THORP . I live at 8, Gower's Gardens, Bethnal Green, and am a labourer—on the night of 2nd February we were outside the Belmont Music Hall at a quarter to nine; the door for the second house opens at a few minutes to nine; then we went inside, and we stopped there till a few minutes after eleven.

Cross-examined. I was working with the prisoner that day up to six p.m.—I was with Haley from eight o'clock that night; he lives about five minutes' walk from me—he went to have tea about seven, and then I met him about eight; we went to the Camden Head; we left there about a quarter past eight, I noticed the time, and we went straight to the Belmont—we did not spend the evening at the Camden Head—we got into the Belmont, and I and a few more men were making a noise, and they turned us out at a few minutes after nine—I went to the manager of the hall and told him I was turned out, and he asked me what for, and I told him, and got re-admitted again and joined Haley—I got back into the music-hall about a quarter past nine, I was only out a few minutes—we spent the rest of the evening drinking in front of the bar, and seeing what came on the stage, till a few minutes after eleven—from a few minutes to nine to eleven I was inside or outside the Belmont Music Hall in his company—I work at the London Docks.

WALTER JOHNSON . I am an attendant at the Belmont Music Hall, and live at 8, Well Street, Hackney—I saw you on Monday, 2nd February, at from nine to five minutes past nine in the hall, and you left a little after eleven—another attendant turned your friend out, and he was re-admitted by the manager's consent about a quarter or twenty minutes past nine, and remained till eleven o'clock—other check-takers saw you there; they are not here—the hall was opened at a quarter to nine—there was a disturbance in the pit—Thorp was saucy when I asked him to move up, and I put him against the bar, and he said something to another assistant and he was turned out: he asked the manager to re-admit him, and he was re-admitted—that took about ten minutes—I noticed you at the bar drinking when I spoke to Thorp—as I came backwards and forwards I saw you; I am perfectly certain you did not leave the hall—you were not turned out.

Cross-examined. I have seen Haley at the hall before, but not Birmingham—I have not seen them together at other times; I don't know anything about them.

WILLIAM HILL . I live at 129, Phyllis Road, Bethnal Green, and am a dock labourer—on the 2nd February you were at work with me in the Eastern Dock; we came home at six—I met you at five minutes to nine outs-de the Belmont, we went in and remained there till five minutes to eleven, or a few minutes later.

Cross-examined. I met him a few minutes to nine, just as the house was going to open, and was with him there till eleven, I am sure—he sat down for two or three minutes, and then Thorp, who was sitting there, had some words with one of the keepers, and they turned him out; I stood at the bar with Haley; Thorp was re admitted, and we were there together till the house closed—I am not a friend of the prisoner, I only know him by living in the neighbourhood—

WILLIAM MEW (Detective J). On Monday evening, 2nd February, it twenty-five minutes past nine, I received information about this burglary, and I made inquiries and received a description of the prisoners; as the result, at half-past eleven or twenty minutes to twelve I saw Birmingham walking in Cambridge Road, smoking a cigar, and with two other men—he was the worse for drink, and. eating some fish—I saw him throw a fish-bone at a lady, and I took him into custody, and charged him with being drunk and disorderly; and I said, when that was disposed of, he would be detained on suspicion of having broken the jeweller's window in Bethnal Green Road—he said, "Yes, it is all right this time; but you b----, I shall kill you; I will cut your b----guts out one day"—that was in answer to the charge of burglary—I took him to the station and charged him—I left the station and met an informant, and from what he told me at ten minutes to one I apprehended Haley—I told him I should take him into custody on suspicion of having smashed the jeweller's window in Bethnal Green Road, in company with another man—he said, "It could not be me, I have been in the Camden Head public-house, Bethnal Green Road, all the evening"—the Camden Head is immediately opposite Stevenson's shop, next door to the Police-station—he did not say a word about going to the Belmont Music Hall—Haley was taken to the station and detained, and the following morning the prisoners were both placed with other men; Bolton at once identified Birmingham; but he could not say as to the other one—Birmingham was taken to the Police-court to answer the charge of being drunk and disorderly, and an application was made to the Magistrate to discharge him, in order that he might be re-arrested and brought back on this charge—between six and seven the same evening the prisoners were placed among eight or nine other men, and Rothschild identified them—when charged they made no answer—I communicated with Cornish, and met him at the door of the Police-court; he was there to be examined; but the case was remanded, and he was examined on 11th February—I have traced this plan from the parish map hanging in our office—the Belmont Music Hall is about 600 yards from the shop—I could run it in about two minutes—the constable who saw the boy at the dwellings is in the hospital—this watch was found in Ponderson's Gardens, where the prisoners are alleged to have run.

Cross-examined by Birmingham. When I arrested you for burglary you made use of that threat—I don't know anything against you; I know you are a bad character.

Cross-examined by Haley. I did not see you at half-past seven in the Salmon and Ball; I was about 250 yards off—two men were brought in to see if they could identity you, and they described you—I got my information from an informer.

EMMA MULLINGS . I live at 34, Ponderson Gardens, which runs into the Bethnal Green Road, close to Stevenson's shop—my husband is a stationer's assistant at Waterlow's—the next morning, after this shop window was smashed, I found a watch in the roadway in Ponderson's Gardens—I took it to Miss Stevenson. (Miss Stevenson was re-called, and identified the watch).

Cross-examined by Birmingham. A cart wheel had been over the watch by the look of it—I heard a cry of "Thief," and saw a lot of people running.

Haley, in his statement before the Magistrate, said he was at the Belmont Music Hall all the evening.

Haley called the following witnesses.

JOSEPH THORP . I live at 8, Gower's Gardens, Bethnal Green, and am a labourer—on the night of 2nd February we were outside the Belmont Music Hall at a quarter to nine; the door for the second house opens at a few minutes to nine; then we went inside, and we stopped there till a few minutes after eleven.

Cross-examined. I was working with the prisoner that day up to six p.m.—I was with Haley from eight o'clock that night; he lives about five minutes' walk from me—he went to have tea about seven, and then I met him about eight; we went to the Camden Head; we left there about a quarter past eight, I noticed the time, and we went straight to the Belmont—we did not spend the evening at the Camden Head—we got into the Belmont, and I and a few more men were making a noise, and they turned us out at a few minutes after nine—I went to the manager of the hall and told him I was turned out, and he asked me what for, and I told him, and got re-admitted again and joined Haley—I got back into the music-hall about a quarter past nine, I was only out a few minutes—we spent the rest of the evening drinking in front of the bar, and seeing what came on the stage, till a few minutes after eleven—from a few minutes to nine to eleven I was inside or outside the Belmont Music Hall in his company—I work at the London Docks.

WALTER JOHNSON . I am an attendant at the Belmont Music Hall, and live at 8, Well Street, Hackney—I saw you on Monday, 2nd February, at from nine to five minutes past nine in the hall, and you left a little after eleven—another attendant turned your friend out, and he was re-admitted by the manager's consent about a quarter or twenty minutes past nine, and remained till eleven o'clock—other check-takers saw you there; they are not here—the hall was opened at a quarter to nine—there was a disturbance in the pit—Thorp was saucy when I asked him to move up, and I put him against the bar, and he said something to another assistant and he was turned out: he asked the manager to re-admit him, and he was re-admitted—that took about ten minutes—I noticed you at the bar drinking when I spoke to Thorp—as I came backwards and forwards I saw you; I am perfectly certain you did not leave the hall—you were not turned out.

Cross-examined. I have seen Haley at the hall before, but not Birmingham—I have not seen them together at other times; I don't know anything about them.

WILLIAM HILL . I live at 129, Phyllis Road, Bethnal Green, and am a dock labourer—on the 2nd February you were at work with me in the Eastern Dock; we came home at six—I met you at five minutes to nine outside the Belmont, we went in and remained there till five minutes to eleven, or a few minutes later.

Cross-examined. I met him a few minutes to nine, just as the house was going to open, and was with him there till eleven, I am sure—he sat down for two or three minutes, and then Thorp, who was sitting there, had some words with one of the keepers, and they turned him out; I stood at the bar with Haley; Thorp was re admitted, and we were there together till the house closed—I am not a friend of the prisoner, I only know him by living in the neighbourhood—

I do not know Birmingham—if anybody said Haley was seen near Stevenson's shop at a quarter past nine, he is telling a falsehood—I have been convicted once—I was convicted of being drunk and disorderly, I was discharged on my own recognisances—I have had several rows with the police—I got two months for assaulting the police—I had four months for stealing a watch from the person.

THOMAS ANDREWS (J 45). I saw you go into the Belmont at half-past nine, as near as I could say; others were going in at the same time—people go in later than half-past nine.

Cross-examined. I was special duty at the door of the hall; the second house opens at a quarter past nine, and the late door at nine—I was inside at a little before nine, the doors were shut; both doors are at the same place—I saw Haley go in—I did not see him before nine—I saw Thorp—I do not remember seeing him go in—I assisted to eject Thorp, that was past half-past nine—I did not notice Thorp when I saw Haley go in at half-past nine—Haley did not go into the hall before half-past nine, as near as I can say—I do not know Birmingham.

Re-examined. Another policeman pointed you out to me as you went in.

The prisoners in their defence asserted their innocence.

FRANCIS CORNISH (Re-examined by the JURY). When I saw the prisoners at five minutes past nine, opposite the shop, they looked perfectly sober—I did not notice that they were carrying anything.

GUILTY —BIRMINGHAM* then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony in January, 1883, and HALEY** to one in May, 1888.— Five Years' Penal Servitude each.

For Cases tried in Old Court, Friday, see Surrey Cases.

NEW COURT.—Thursday, March 12th, and Friday, March 13th 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

293. PERCY BENT (18) , Stealing three postal orders, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.

MR. BAGGALLY Prosecuted.

JANE SIMENSTER . I am single, and am receiver at the post-office, Twickenham Common—on 19th January, about 5.45 p.m., the prisoner came and asked for one postal order for 10s., and two for 5s.—I stamped them, and was holding them in my left hand, when he asked for a shillings-worth of stamps, and with his left hand snatched the orders from me and ran out—I followed him to the door, and Mrs. Billings, the assistant post-mistress, ran out, and I telegraphed to the post-master at Twickenham and the other offices—I next saw the prisoner at the Police-court—these are two of the three stolen orders.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not see you the next day—I picked out another person at the Police-station, but Mrs. Billings picked you out—she was in a room adjoining the shop, and could see you through a glass door—there is a short blind to the door—the counter you came to is opposite the door, and there is a desk—there is a good light; you wore a brown hat.

REBECCA BILLINGS . I am a widow, and am in partnership with the last witness—on 19th January I was in a room adjoining the shop, the glass door of which was open—I both saw and heard the prisoner, and have no doubt of him—he asked for a 10s. order, and two fives, and one shillings-worth of stamps—he put his hand in his pocket, and then snatched the stamps and ran out—he was two or three minutes under my observation—I picked him out at the station.

Cross-examined. I had a better view of you than the last witness, because she was busy serving, and I had nothing to do but to look at you.

MARY VIOLET GWINER . I am assistant to the post-mistress at Sudbury—in consequence of a telegram about stolen orders I was directed to look at every order which came in—on 20th January the prisoner brought an order for 10s. and another for 5s.—I am quite sure of him—noticing by the numbers that they were two of the stolen orders, I rang for the post mistress—I asked the prisoner where he got them; he said, "My brother sent them to me"—I asked his brother's name and address, and he wrote down, "G. Clements, 6, Colne Road, Twickenham"—I asked if he could call again; he said, "What time?"—I said, "Three o'clock"—he did not call at three.

Cross-examined. I saw no one outside.

SERGEANT GOOD (Police Sergeant V R 5). From information I received I took the prisoner on 12th February at Lower Marsh, Lambeth, for stealing postal orders from a post-office at Twickenham—he said, "That is quite right; I shall be glad when it is over"—I placed him with five other persons, and Miss Simenster and Mrs. Billings identified him.

Prisoner's Defence: The witness who identified me was in the other room with a curtain to the window, so she could not get a good view of the person. I was asked to cash the orders, and did not know they were stolen. Of course, as they were not cashed I told her I should not call again for them. One witness picked out a short stout person as the man.

GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at Richmond on March 5th, 1890 —Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

294. FRANCIS GWYN (26) , Stealing a sack and a cask of whisky, the property of John Stewart.

MR. KERSHAW Prosecuted.

ROBERT WATSON . I am barman to John Stewart—on February 3rd, about 7.15 p.m., I was at the bar; a customer spoke to me, and I went out and saw the prisoner drawing a truck with a cask of whisky on it covered with a sack—they were my master's property—I took hold of him and gave him in custody—the cask had been standing inside the first bar, and he had taken it fifty yards away.

SOPHIA MIDDLETON . I am the wife of Joseph Middleton, of 6, Horse and Groom Court, Newington Butts—the prisoner came to me and borrowed a barrow on a Monday, and said he had a little job to do—my husband brought the barrow home.

SWINFORD BUTCHER (308 City). I saw Watson holding the prisoner, who had a truck and a cask there—he charged him with stealing the cask of whisky—he said nothing, but when the charge was read over at the station, he said, "Two men were going to give me two shillings, but I did not know where I was going to take it to"—he said they, were

strangers to him—he gave a correct address—the barrow was handed to Mr. Middleton at the station.

GUILTY — Six Months' Hard Labour.

295. GEORGE THOMPSON (19) , Stealing an ulster, the property of Richard Spurgeon.

MR. GRIFFITHS Prosecuted.

RICHARD SPURGEON . I am a mantle maker, of Kingsland Road—this ulster is mine—on 12th February, about four p.m., it was hanging about four feet inside the door—I did not miss it till a detective came about 4.45—it has a ticket on it.

ALBERT COOK (J R 31). On 12th February I was on duty in De Beauvoir Town, about a quarter of a mile from Kingsland Road, about 4.45, and saw the prisoner and another man acting in a very suspicious manner—I watched them, and it being foggy I lost them—about 5.55 they came back and passed me under a lamp—the prisoner was very stout on the chest, and I took him in custody, and asked what he had about him—he threw this ulster on the ground, and called to his companion to pick it up—I put my foot on it, and said, "If you come near it I will knock you down"—going to the station he said, "It was not me who stole it."

Cross-examined. It did not drop when you undid your coat to show me what you had got; you threw it down, and said, "Pick it up, Charley, and get away with it."

The Prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate and in his defence, said that a man asked him to carry the ulster, and he did so, not knowing that it was stolen.— GUILTY . He then PLEADED GUILTY**† to a conviction of robbery with violence at this Court on February 24th, 1890, having then been before convicted.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

296. FREDERICK CHAPPLE, Unlawfully disposing of certain property, which he had not paid for, within four months of his bankruptcy; and CHARLES BOLINGBROKE , aiding and assisting him in the same. Other Counts, for conspiracy.

The Prisoners, by the advice of their Counsel, declined to plead, upon which the COURT directed a plea of NOT GUILTY to be entered.

MR. BESLEY and MR. STEPHENSON Prosecuted, MR. GRAIN and MR. BIRON appeared for Chapple, and MR. H. AVORY and MR. P. TAYLOR for Bolingbroke.

CHARLES L'ENFANT . I am a clerk in the Bankruptcy Court—I produce the file of proceedings in this matter—Chapple described himself as of 1, Pall Mall, cigar merchant, and of 29, Oxford Street—he was adjudicated bankrupt on 18th October, 1890, and Frederick Geoghegan was appointed trustee on 23rd October, 1890—the public examination was on March 12th—on November 17th there was a private examination of Bolingbroke—Mr. Reaford was appointed receiver.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. Bolingbroke was examined merely as a witness, he was not a bankrupt—there are no proceedings on the file taken by the trustee, for the purpose of setting aside the transfer of the premises, nor have any been taken that I am aware of.

PERCY ROBERT CHANDLER PULLEN . I produce the receiving order an the file of the official receiver, also the answers to the Board of Trade

questions. (These gave Chapple's statement of his debts, property, and policies; he stated that his betting debts were £410 and £276; that he had traded at a lots for the last three years, and offered his creditors 6s. 8d. in the pound.)—I have also got the statement of affairs. (This showed liabilities £3,651 15s., creditors partly secured £200, assets cash £9 6s. 1d., stock in trade £600, plant and machinery £150, life policy £30, book debts £419, betting debts£410 and £276, etc., leaving a deficiency of £1,900 2s. 6d.)—I had £9 from the bank.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. A day is fixed for a bankrupt to go before the official receiver or one of his officers, who reads out the printed questions and writes down his answers, and the creditors propose a trustee, and if his name meets with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court and Board of Trade, he becomes trustee, and takes over all that the official receiver has received.

Re-examined. When the answers are taken down the bankrupt reads them, and states, "I have carefully read over the foregoing questions and the answers thereto," and signs or initials every page. (The transcript of the shorthand notes of Chapple's examination was here put in and partly read; also the examination of Bolingbroke, and an agreement between the two defendants for the transfer to Bolingbroke of the lease of 29, Cockspur Street, for twenty-seven years, with goodwill, stock-in-trade, and fittings, subject to a mortgage.)

CHARLES L. BARBER. I am an official of the Bankruptcy Court—these are the stock sheets—I think Mr. Nethersole, the solicitor for one of the defendants, produced them—they begin with 3,400 cabanas. (Reading the list of cigars and cigarettes)—it goes to four pages, and comes out £335 17s. 9d.—the fixtures are carried out at £170 in the summary.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. Bolingbroke was examined as a witness—there was no caution that he might be charged with a criminal offence; that is not the practice.

Re-examined. Private sittings are for the purpose of getting information; there is nothing unusual in them; they are conducted in the same manner as all other private sittings.

SPIRO DAMBURGI . I am a cigarette manufacturer—I first knew Chapple in May, 1890—I went to 1, Pall Mall and found him there—he asked for samples of my cigarettes, and said he had another shop at 29, Cockspur Street, and wanted some goods there—next day I went to 29, Cockspur Street, and Chapple said he wanted some cigarettes, rather a good quality, as he wanted to make a good show, but did not want to buy a large quantity, and suggested having them on sale or return; he fixed the quantity at 33,000—I agreed, and sent them to Cockspur Street on June 2nd—I went there once or twice afterwards and saw them there, and later on I went to know how many he had sold, but got no return—I did not receive a farthing payment, nor did I get back any of my goods—I saw Bolingbroke there after the bankruptcy; I heard that he was Chapple's brother-in-law.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I have proved in the bankruptcy for about £96—I was very anxious to introduce my new brand of cigarettes; he said he would push them as much as he could.

ARTHUR ROGER CARTER . I am manager of the Alexandra Cigarette Company, 4, Arthur Street—early in January, 1890, I supplied Chapple with 5,000 Dragoony cigarettes, value £15, at 1, Pall Mall; and a similar lot afterwards—I delivered altogether at Pall Mall about £60 or £70

worth, and in May my traveller brought an order for 20,000 for Cockspur Street—I went and saw Chapple, and told him I did not care about the account being so large, and I asked him to reduce it; it was then £70 or £100—he said that he was not particularly flush of money, having spent a large sum in doing up the new shop—I do not think he had opened for business, but there was some stock there, and the fixtures were in—I said I should like the account reduced before I sent in more goods—he said he had always paid twenty shillings in the £, and he always would—that was between May 22nd and June 1st—he said, "The lease of this place is worth £1,000; I could walk out of here to day and have a cash offer for it"—I believed that statement, and sent him £40, with more goods, on June 13th on the ordinary three months' account, but he promised me a cheque within two or three weeks; I believe there was a small parcel after that—my debt is about £130—I never got a penny from him, but I have had a small dividend to-day—I passed Cockspur Street shortly after the business was transferred, and saw "Bolingbroke" very small over "Chapple" very large, and the window was dressed with my cigarettes—no information was given to me of the transfer of the business.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I have received a dividend of 2s. in the £, I hope it is not a final one; I sued him about September 13th, and issued execution; the Sheriff went to get possession and found two persona there before him—I then saw Chapple and offered to take £25 in cash and the remainder in bills to assist him, believing he was only temporarily embarrassed—the reason I complain of him is that he obtained credit from me by saying that he was a richer man than he really was—before I parted with the goods I told him I did not believe he was worthy of £60 credit.

Re-examined. The £60 was before I parted with the 20,000 cigarettes—I offered to take £25 in cash and the remainder in bills, to assist him, but he came next day and said he would not do it—he offered 6s. 8d. in the £, but the Official Receiver said it was evidently a case for bankruptcy.

JAMES LEWIS BLUMFELD . I am a partner in the firm of Fracknell and Co., of Queen Victoria Street—we had dealings with Chapple, at 1, Pall Mall, for a good many years—at the beginning of 1890 he owed us about £300, there were several bills running, but they were allowed to fall in; they were for goods supplied before the Cockspur Street shop was open, and after it was opened we supplied £380 worth of goods—at the time of the bankruptcy £320 was owing to us; the debt had not been diminished—it was represented by a bill—the earliest parcel sent to Cockspur Street was £160 15s., and to the other shop £360—the Cockspur Street goods were settled for before the bankruptcy, except £10—we never sued on the dishonoured bill—we got a charge on Cockspur Street of £500 which we were supposed to advance on the lease; he kept the remainder: that left £380 unaccounted for—the £500 was paid off in January this year—we have not deducted that, we have proved for the goods at Pall Mall—Cockspur Street account has been settled except £10, which was provided for—the loan of £500 was owing at the time of the bankruptcy—about the end of August I heard that Chapple had sold his Cockspur Street business to his brother-in-law, and I asked him if it was true; he said it was, and that Bolingbroke had given him

three bills, but he had not received any cash—I asked why he had sold the shop, because he had been very keen in getting possession of it; he said, "One never knows what may happen, and I wish to protect the shop"—he at first said that the bills would be met, and in further conversation he said if things went on all right the sale would be regarded as null and void—I said, "It seems to me to be a bit of sharp practice"—he said it might seem so to the uninitiated, but he had one of the best solicitors in London to act for him, and he was on the safe side of the law—Mr. Fracknell, who put the questions to Bolingbroke at the private sitting, is a member of the bar. and a relative of my partner.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. We have dealt with Chapple some years—he knew at that time that we were his creditors—we are not the largest creditors, we are second or third—he knew my father held the lease of the Cockspur Street shop, and he kept repeating that it was in my fathers interest to overlook this—his bills were all renewed, and were ultimately honoured—all he owed us was £320—the equitable mortgage of the lease was made out in February, 1890—my father in his private capacity lent £500 on the deposit of that lease, Chapple then owed my father £320, and he selected goods value £360, and said he would give us the difference—we have proved for the £320—our credit was for three months, subject to arrangement—a legal mortgage was executed before the bankruptcy.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. About the end of October we gave seven days' notice to Bolingbroke, who was in possession of Cockspur Street, to pay off this mortgage—I believe it was payable on demand—he paid us £500 in January, we then had to take possession if he did not.

Re-examined. £350 and £500 came back to my hands—the first goods were sent to Cockspur Street on 11th May—I believe we got security at once by deposit of the lease—after saying that the bills would be met, Chapple gave me the impression that the whole thing was to be cancelled—I am quite sure he spoke of the sale being nil and the bills being met.

AMOS THOMAS COLLINS . I am clerk to Sidney Chapman, solicitor, Pancras Lane—Thomas Porter and Sons are their clients—this writ marked C was issued against Chapple at the suit of Porter and another by my directions—it claims £364 12s. 6d. principal and interest on a bill payable on July 1, 1890—I am instructed that that was a renewed bill that writ was served on February 9th, and he called on the 17th and said that he did not intend to enter an appearance to the action, but he was desirous of arranging terms—I said that before any terms were entered into my clients were annoyed at the business being transferred—he explained that Mr. Bolingbroke was his brother-in-law, and that the transfer was made to protect his wife and family in view of impending difficulties—I asked him the particulars; he said that his brother-in-law was a steady man, but that he himself had been betting and got himself into trouble, and wanted to protect his wife and family; he had been neglecting his business for betting, but his brother-in-law was a steady man who would keep things going—I asked him the consideration; he said, "Bills to the tune of £579"—I asked him the dates; he said, "At six, twelve, and eighteen months"—I inquired why he took bills at such long dates seeing he was pressed by his creditors, and referred him to one of the penal clauses of the Debtors' Act, in reference to selling goods for which he had not paid, and I read the sub-section; he said he

had no idea of that section, but it was done and he must abide by it—he said he held the lease of the Pall Mall shop, and the landlord wanted possession of the premises, and he thought he should get some respectable compensation, and should be able to pay his creditors; that the lease was charged to the extent of £200, and he was willing to charge it to Messrs. Porter, to secure their claim of £364 and a bill coming for a greater amount—I arranged to see Messrs. Porter, and to communicate with him again, and in the evening I called at Pall Mall and informed him that Messrs. Porter were willing to give him time, provided he could secure their plan; I suggested that he should give a second charge on the lease, and he arranged to obtain it for my inspection, and I told him if he could induce Mr. Bolingbroke to accept bills at a shorter date, so as to become marketable, Messrs. Porter might accept them—he said he would send the lease, but he did not send it till after I issued execution—I made myself acquainted with it, and returned it as valueless; I asked him how much of Porter's goods were at Cockspur Street—he said, "About £300"—this is the judgment-paper for £365 4s. 5d.—another bill fell due shortly after that—I did not see Chapple after judgment was signed, but after the bankruptcy he called and made the proposal of 6s. 8d.—Porter and Son's debt was £680.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I went to the Pall Mall shop on the Monday after 17th September, not November; that is a mistake in copying; the petition was before November—I was quite willing when I first saw him to take Bolingbroke's bills on behalf of my clients, and did not know then that Chapple could not meet his liabilities; he was unable to pay his debts as they fell due—I wanted to have my clients preferred over the other creditors, and was putting pressure on to get as much as I could for them—I heard that the only bill that has come due was met on the day it came due—before he agreed to any proposition to endorse the bills to me he said he must consider the matter—he did not say that he must consult his solicitor—if he had said he would not be a party to giving my clients a fraudulent preference I should certainly have recollected it—I will not swear I did not say that my clients would take the risk of that.

Re-examined. At that time £600 was owing to my client.

ROBERT THOMAS WEST . I am managing clerk to Wilson, Bristow, Carpmael. and Co, solicitors, of Copthall Buildings—they act for the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company—I produce the assignment of the lease of 29, Cockspur Street, dated 3rd January, 1891; Francis Broomfield and Bolingbroke joined in it; the consideration was £600—this does not refer to the fixtures—the other papers are an equitable charge of February 24th, 1890, by Chapple, and another equitable charge of May, 1890, and a mortgage of August 20th from Chapple to Bloomfield.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. My clients did not give more than the lease was worth; I believe Bolingbroke was in possession at the time, carrying on the business.

ROLAND ELLIS DE VESIAN . I am a solicitor, of Crown Court, Cheapside—I was the solicitor to Mr. Bloomfield in the legal mortgage; the other two were put into my hands after they were executed—I prepared the mortgage of August 20th—I did not then know of the agreement of 16th August by which Chapple handed over to Bolingbroke the whole of the stock—I was not present when the £350 was paid on the equitable

mortgage—no money was paid on the actual mortgage, Mr. Chapple executed it; he was not represented by a solicitor—he said nothing whatever about Bolingbroke—after the bankruptcy I conducted the negotiations resulting in the sale to the Royal Mail Steam—this assignment is the deed in reference to it—the £600 for the lease was paid, and I believe £30 for fixtures, but that is not expressed in the deed—the balance was handed over to Mr. Tuff, the solicitor—I am acting for Mr. Geoghegan—I advised the trustee in this matter.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. Bolingbroke's solicitor had the balance, £80 or £90—it is possible that Bolingbroke did not receive a farthing of it after paying the solicitor's and agent's costs—there was £509 mortgage money, about £9 4s. for interest, and £13 9s. my costs—I know nothing about the auctioneer's charges—I should think £31 very excessive—I know nothing about taxes to be paid; there were probably Mr. Tuff's costs—I had given seven days' notice to pay off the mortgage, and threatened to foreclose if he did not—I subsequently took proceedings in Chancery to foreclose, and Bolingbroke had ultimately to pay £21 costs; he should not have defended it if he had no defence—I do not think that Bolingbroke would have been there still carrying on the business but for the proceedings on my part; he desired to get rid of the premises.

Re-examined. Before the sale there had been the examination of Bolingbroke at the private sittings, and I was aware of what he had stated there—Chapple's bankruptcy had occurred before I gave the seven days' notice—at the time of the mortgage of 20th August I knew nothing about it; I gave seven days' notice shortly afterwards—the foreclosure action was in November—the policies on his life, which had been in existence twelve years, were handed over by Mr. Tuff about November 20th to the trustees, after some bother, after Bolingbroke's examination—the policies have been surrendered.

By MR. AVORY. When the legal mortgage was executed by Chapple to Bloomfield he mentioned the transfer which had been made to Bolingbroke; if I had been aware that he had assigned the lease I should have doubted whether it was of any value—I am aware now that the assignment to Bolingbroke was subject to the mortgage, but I knew nothing about it then—it made no difference to my client whether Chapple mentioned Bolingbroke's name at all—I called on him to make the legal mortgage in pursuance of his undertaking.

LOUIS MOLLET . I am employed by Thomas Porter and Son, cigar importers, Great Tower Street—I produce a list of the transactions between the firm and Chapple—the bill of £365 10s. is for goods supplied up to February 19th inclusive—on 28th April a large parcel of cigars, value £184 16s. 6d., was delivered at 1, Pall Mall, and on May 1st, £131 12s. 3d. at Cockspur Street, and there was 6s. for a small item," making £356 15s. 9d. due at the time of the bankruptcy—some of the cigars correspond with the description of those sent to Cockspur Street, and some with those sent to Pall Mall—I went to Cockspur Street on November 10th and saw 1,500 cigars of different brands, which had been transferred there.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I knew that Chapple was carrying on business at Cockspur Street—I actually supplied some goods to Cockspur Street—when I saw the goods there I only went back and told my

employers what I had seen; I did not make a complaint—I do not mean to suggest that anybody else did.

SYDENHAM HALL . I am a clerk in the Bill of Sale Office of the Queen's Bench Division—I produce a copy of the original affidavit under the Bill of Sale, dated January 1st.

THOMAS LAPTHORNE . I am a builder, of High Street, Lambeth—about the middle of April, Chapple instructed me to fit up his shop in Cockspur Street—I finished it about June 1st; the account came to about £160, but only £120 was for Cockspur Street, the remainder for Pall Mall—I proved for the debt in bankruptcy—I put in ordinary shop fittings at Cockspur Street, mahogany, and silver plate-glass of the best class.

FRANK GEOGHEGAN . I am a chartered accountant, of 8, Old Jewry—I was appointed trustee on 23rd October in Chapple's bankruptcy—the official receiver collected £110, and handed over £64 or £65, which came over after he had deducted his expense—I proceeded to realise the estate; I sold the stock-in-trade at 1, Pall Mall for £329; Mr. Harroway was the nominal purchaser—Mrs. Chapple conducted the business, but she did not have the stock, a lot of stock was transferred from Cockspur Street, since the sale to the Royal Mail, I believe—the policies realised £24, and there are £50 or £60 worth of debts—we have declared a dividend of 2s. in the pound—£3,415 debt was proved—I expect to pay another 2s. 6d. in the pound if Bolingbroke's two other bills are paid, which are due next year—I have had all the assets from the first bill; they formed part of the 2s. in the pound—the landlord had to be paid, because he had a preferential claim on 1, Pall Mall—no household furniture was delivered up to me—I never had possession of the stock-in-trade and fixtures at 29, Cockspur Street—I took Counsel's opinion as to setting aside the sale of 29, Cockspur Street and taking possession—I was aware of the circumstances of the transfer before Bolingbroke's examination at the private sitting; but I found he was selling the stock and not replenishing it—I had a committee of inspection to assist me—I applied through my solicitor for the order to prosecute both the defendants—but for this transfer I should have received whatever the stock at 29, Cockspur Street would have fetched, and the balance of the mortgage to Fracknell and Co.—the lease at Pall Mall was nearly out, but there was a bankruptcy clause; I tried to get a fresh lease.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. But for the bankruptcy clause, it would have been reasonable to assume that the lease of 1, Pall Mall was worth something—pulling down that corner block has been talked about, but a person having that lease would not be entitled to compensation with that clause in the lease, it is open to some doubt—I might, if I chose, have carried on the business till I saw it necessary for the beneficial winding up, and I did so for a fortnight—I sold the stock-in-trade—I made no objection to Mrs. Chapple carrying on the business; the only point was as to the transfer of the stock from Cockspur Street there—I actually sold the stock at Pall Mall, and had nothing more to do with the business—if the Cockspur Street business had come into my hands as trustee I could have made more than £600 out of the lease and stock—I sold the fixture and such of the stock as remained, as a going concern, at much higher than I could have sold it at a bankrupt sale—I do not suppose I could

have got more than £630 for the lease and fixtures—I knew there was a mortgage of £500 which I should have had to pay off—I should have had the solicitor's costs, but not the auctioneer's, if the Cockspur Street business had formed part of the assets; I should not have earned on the business—I said at the Police-court, "Considering all the circumstances, 1 cannot say whether I should have adopted or disclaimed the lease if it had been in the possession of the bankrupt when I was appointed trustee"—if a lease is charged, that is one of the things which would influence me in disclaiming it—it was in conjunction with the committee of inspection that I decided not to take any proceedings in bankruptcy to set aside these transfers to Bolingbroke after Bolingbrokes private examination and after legal advice, and the committee of inspection would not give me leave; they said they did not consider it advisable, as the stock was reduced so low, to run the risk of being beaten—there always is a risk of being beaten—I have no reason to dispute and no reason to believe that Bolingbroke paid £100 to Chapple for the furniture—the bill for £120 was the first bill of Bolingbroke's, which was met in February, made payable at and honoured at the Consolidated Bank, Charing Cross; that is Bolingbroke's bank—the other bills are mad payable at the same bank—beyond the furniture and the stock sent to Cockspur Street I do not think there is any other asset which has not been delivered up to me—one reason of my complaint of this transfer and of my not taking over the business is that the stock has been reduced at Cockspur Street—there was not so much stock there when Chapple was bankrupt as when the place was originally stocked—if Chapple had been carrying it on all the time, I do not think the effect of keeping up the stock would be simply incurring more debt, because he would have to buy cheaper than he sold, and would make a profit.

Cross-examined by MR. BIRON. I calculated the book debts at Pall Mall at about £210—that does not include the £50; there were two amounts of £30 each, which were incurred during minority—the £200 I have collected does not include them—there is £50 in good debts still outstanding—that £200 is outside the £150—I have attempted to collect that, and have not succeeded—I said, "There were legitimate debts due to Chapple"; according to his books—I estimated the £250 due to Chapple, and the £200 which I have collected, and there is another £200 due to Chapple which I doubt whether I can collect—I did not estimate that as assets in estimating the dividend—I wanted to get a continuation or renewal of the lease of 1, Pall Mall for a purchaser—Mr. Tod Heatley is the landlord—I applied to his agent, and among the reasons why he would not give me a lease was because alterations were contemplated, and he wished to keep the property in his hands.

Re-examined. Chapple's lease from Mr. Tod-Heatley is subject to six months' notice, so that if the block was pulled down there would be no compensation at all—all the betting debts are put down as doubtful Chapple might have been bankrupt if he had kept Cockspur Street but the deficiency would have been a small one—I cannot say that all the stock was removed to Pall Mall—I do not know that any of the stock I sold went back to Pall Mall—my sale at Pall Mall was about November 30th—I had been instructed to prosecute on December 15th, and they were actually before the Magistrate the day before, and the day after the hill fell due—I have the two bills in my possession.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I am not prepared to say that Chapple's house at Balham was more than an eight-roomed house at £40 a year—the house was not assigned, but the furniture was—I cannot say that it is not fourteen years old; I have not looked at it.

Re-examined. This is the schedule to the bill of sale; I received nothing in respect of furniture, plate, linen, or glass.

MR. AVORY submitted that, as Chapple presented his own petition, all the counts charging offences within four months of his bankruptcy were bad, namely, the 1st, 5th, 10th, 11th, and 12th, as the Debtors' Act of 1869 only applied to cases where a petition was presented "against" a man; and although the Act of 1890 contained the words, "after the presentation of a petition by or against him" that Act did not come into operation till January 1st, 1891, and consequently did not apply to this case. MR. BESLEY submitted that the reasonable meaning of the Act of 1883 was that "by or against" was to be incorporated. The RECORDER stated that he would consult MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS, and reserve the point if necessary.

GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour each, concurrent, upon each Count of the indictment.

MR. AVORY then submitted that if these Counts were bad, a general verdict having been returned upon the whole indictment, the verdict was bad and should be quashed; Q. v. Burden, 21 Q.B., p. 24; and Q. v. Fuidge: Lea and Cave; Beg: v. Gibson, 18 Q.B.D. 537.

The RECORDER, after hearing MR. BESLEY and MR. STEPHENSON in reply, stated that he would give his decision at the next Session.

THIRD COURT.—Friday, March 13th, 1891.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

297. RICHARD DUGGAN (27) , Robbery, with violence, on Thomas Heath, and stealing two shillings and fivepence from him.

MR. BEARD Prosecuted.

THOMAS HEATH . I am a cabinetmaker, living at 31, Bridport Place—about one o'clock on Sunday morning, 15th February, I was in the New North Road, just against Christ Church, when the prisoner and two others accosted me—the prisoner called me a dirty dog, and said I had indecently assaulted a woman on the New North Road Bridge—I had not seen any woman—the prisoner caught hold of me by the throat and threw me to the ground, and knelt on my chest, while his two confederates rifled my pockets, and took two shillings and fivepence from my left trousers pocket—when the prisoner caught me by the throat it prevented me from calling out—I did not suffer very much pain, but just enough to know it was so—I felt it next morning, and I merely put it down as a cold, as I suffer very much with my throat—the two men got away—a constable took the prisoner off me—Page was in the roadway at the time.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. The three men who molested me came either from Pitfield Street or the East Road; I was coming in the opposite direction from Essex Road, and they met me—you threw me down—I was in drink, but I knew perfectly well what I was doing—the inspector said he should detain me for being drunk, but he let me go.

when lie saw I could put my name down all right—you said, "The prosecutor is drunk"—the inspector said, "You hear that the prisoner says you are drunk."

EDGAR COX (G 438). On Sunday, 15th February, about 1 a.m., I was on duty in New North Road—I heard cries of "Police!" and "Murder!" coming from Christ Church, the darkest part of New North Road—I ran across the road, and saw the prisoner kneeling on the top of Heath, and holding him down by the throat with his right hand—I caught hold of the prisoner and said, "What is this? what are you doing with that man?"—I dragged him up—he said, "The bastard has been taking a liberty with a woman, putting his hands up her clothes"—I said, "What woman?"—there was no woman in sight—Heath got on to his feet—he said, "Look at me, sir; him and two others knocked me down and robbed me"—I said, "How much have you lost?"—he said, "About 2s. 5d. "—his trousers and waistcoat pockets were turned inside out, and his waistcoat was torn from the waist up to the armpits; there were marks on his throat, as though the pressure of the nails had broken the skin on the right side of the throat—he had been drinking, but was not drunk; he knew what he was about, and walked to the station without assistance, and signed the charge-sheet all right—he was not detained there for being drunk—the prisoner said the prosecutor was drunk.

Cross-examined. Heath was on his back when I came across the road—you did not say three men ran away who accused him of feeling up a woman's clothes—I said to the inspector at the station, "The prosecutor is under the influence of drink; do you think it necessary to charge him?" and the inspector said, "No; he has signed the charge-sheet all right; I shall not detain you. "

FREDERICK PAGE . Hive at 15, Victoria Chambers, Finsbury—about 1 a.m. on 15th February I was near Christ Church, New North Road—I heard screams of "Police!" ran towards the spot with the constable, and saw the prisoner kneeling on Heath's chest, with his right hand round his throat—the constable pulled the prisoner off Heath's chest, and said, "What are you doing here?"—the prisoner accused Heath of feeling up a woman's clothes, and called him a dirty bastard—we looked both ways, no man nor woman was in sight—Heath's trousers pockets were turned inside out; his waistcoat was torn up to the armpits—theprisoner was kneeling on him, not lifting him up.

Cross-examined. I came up with the constable—he did not ask me if I saw anything of it, nor did I say, "No, I saw nothing of it"—I bad no idea of going to the station—I said to my friend we will walk on the other side, because we saw a plain clothes constable, and we thought he was the-prisoner's confederate, who might struggle with the policeman to try and get the prisoner away, and we would walk on the other side in case of accident, to assist thepoliceman—the constable came and asked me for a light, and my friend said, "Don't have nothing to do with him; he is his pal"—I came from Essex Road, along the New North Road, by the bridge—my friend bad a banjo on his arm—I do not know if you saw me and my friend a mile and a half distance from where the robbery took place, or if you got in advance of us—I came out of the turning where the Peabody's Buildings are—we were coming over the bridge when we heard the cries, and you

were by Christ Church—we were walking very sharp, and you must have run to get in front of us—I did not see you near the top of the Essex Road.

The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate and in his defence, said he saw three men knock Heath down, and as they passed him (the prisoner) thy said Heath had indecently assaulted a woman; that lie (the prisoner) teas trying to assist Heath up, and fell on to his chest, and that then the constable came up, and that Page had been bribed to give the evidence he had given.

EDGAR COX (Re-examined). Nothing was found on the prisoner—I was about thirty yards off when I heard the cry; I was in sight of the spot, but it was dark, and I could not see till I got across the road; the prisoner had not time to get off Heath till I was on him—Heath was not assisted to the station, a plain clothes constable walked behind him.

FREDERICK PAGE (Re-examined by the JURY.) I did not see the prisoner pass-me.

GUILTY —He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony in August, 1889— Twenty Months Hard Labour and Twenty Strokes with the Cat.

298. ALFRED PRESTON (27) , Breaking and entering the ware house of George Becker, and stealing a banker's cheque-book. Second Count, Receiving the same.

MR. BEARD Prosecuted, and MR. PURCELL Defended.

THOMAS ABBOTT (City Detective Sergeant). On 6th February I went with other police officers to 27, Howe Street, Kingsland Road, about nine a.m.—the prisoner was getting out of bed—I said, "That is the man"—Lythell said, "We are police officers from the City; we are going to take you into custody; you will be charged with breaking and entering an office on the second floor of 34, Aldermanbury, between the 15th and 16th December last, and stealing a banker's cheque-book. You will be further charged with forging and uttering a cheque for £7, well knowing the same to be forged, on the 5th" (that would be the night previous, Friday). "Before we take you from here we are going to search the room"—he said, "I know nothing of it"—Lythell said, "We are going to search the room"—he began to search—I went into the back room on the first floor, and after about two minutes I heard screaming; I came down and saw Lythell and Wackett holding the prisoner—Lythell said, "He has got it in his mouth"—I said, "Got what?"—Lythell said, "A cheque"—we threw the prisoner on a bed; I pinched his windpipe; I could see paper in his mouth, but not the colour of it—we had held him for about a minute when he said, "It is gone"—I said, "What has gone?"—he said, "The receipt for the last quarter's rent"—I said, "You said a receipt for the last quarter's rent; what do you mean?"—he said, "For the house round the corner"—we continued the search, but found nothing of importance—the prisoner was taken to Moor Lane station, placed among ten or eleven others; a lad, Russell, was fetched into the yard, and he at once pointed to the prisoner and said, "That is the man that give me the cheque last night"—other lads saw the prisoner, but failed to identify him—the prisoner said nothing in answer to the charge.

Cross-examined. A woman followed us into the room, and she and a child were there as well as the prisoner—the prisoner said, "I know

nothing whatever about it" in answer to the entire charge—I left the prisoner, the woman, Lythell and Wackett in the room—she was there when I came back; she must have seen whatever took place about the piece of paper—I am always careful to place a prisoner among men who fairly resemble him, for the purpose of identification—I took part in this—he was placed among men of his own complexion and build as near as we could get them; he did not complain that he was placed among boys or persons who did not resemble him—I had five boys to see if they could identify him—Russell said afterwards in the charge room, "I believe he had an overcoat on"; he said he was positive he was the man—the other boys did not pick any one out.

SAMUEL LYTHELL (City Detective Sergeant), On February 6th, about nine a.m., I went with Wackett and Abbott to 27, Howe Street, and the prisoner was charged with house-breaking and with forging, uttering, And receiving—he made no reply then—I said, "You will also be charged with forging and uttering one of those cheques to the landlord of the Old King Harry public-house, Mile End Road"—he replied, "I can prove that I was not there"—I said, "You gave a cheque to a boy last night about half-past six or a quarter to seven, and he took it in the public-house, but you did not get the money"—he said, "I can prove I was not there" a second time—I said, "You were there also at about nine o'clock last night"—I told him we should search the room—while Abbott was out of the room I looked towards the mantelpiece, and found a cheque there similar to this, for £7, signed "J. Barlow," and on the London Trading Bank, Coleman Street—that is the same bank as that on the cheque sent to Mr. Yates—while I was looking at it the prisoner suddenly rushed from the bed where he was sitting, pushed the table on to me, and snatched the cheque from my hands, tore it, and put it into his mouth, and threw himself face downwards on to the bed—I, Abbott, Wackett, and the prisoner struggled; we could not get the cheque out of his mouth—as soon as we released him somewhat he said, "It is gone"—my hand was injured—when he calmed down a little I said, "You have done yourself no good by that act"—he said, "What do you mean? It was the receipt for the last quarter's rent"—he was conveyed to Moor Lane Police-station, and later in the day he was charged; he made no reply to the charge—this cheque for £3, purporting to be signed by Becker, was brought to me on 16th December, the day it is dated, and the day following the robbery—these cheques, signed "H. Barber and Co.," for £5, dated January 13th, 1891, and "W. E. Brooks," for £5 9s., dated January 31st, 1891, came to me through the bank.

Cross-examined. The prisoner did not say, "I don't know anything about it at all"—he did not say, when I had finished describing the warehouse-breaking, "I can prove where I was then"—very likely he said. "I don't know what you are talking about"—I don't think he did; if it' is on the depositions, no doubt he said it—he twice said, "I can prove I was not there"—I can hardly say if his answer to the entire charge was, "I know nothing about it"—the cheque on the mantelpiece was concealed from view, folded behind something—the woman in the room did not say it was a receipt, that she could show me one like it—after the struggle I said, "He has got it," and Abbott said, "What?"—I said, "A cheque"—the prisoner said, "That was a receipt for the last quarter's rent," and I think he said something about a house round the

corner; but I was doing something else at the time, and do not remember what was said about it—m opportunity for seeing the cheque was momentary; I merely picked it up and opened it—when we were told it was a receipt the woman did not say, "I have got another," nor did she show us another piece of paper—I said, "Never mind that, I have got some more in my pocket exactly like it;" when the prisoner said it was a receipt for the last quarter's rent; I referred to the other cheques I had in my pocket—it was in answer to the man, not to the woman—she said, "That is a receipt for £5, part of a loan I owe," mentioning to whom she owed it.

JAMES WACKETT (City Detective). I was with Lythell and Abbott at 27, Howe Street—Lythell told the prisoner he would be charged with breaking and entering the office, and stealing and receiving a cheque-book, and forging and uttering cheques from the book—the prisoner made no reply, but went on dressing himself—Abbott went upstairs—Lythell found something, which I took to be a cheque like this, with a pink part about an inch wide, behind the glass on the mantelshelf—the prisoner jumped, pressed the table towards Lythell, and snatched it, tore it, and put it into his mouth, and dived into the bed face downwards—Lythell said, "Stop him, he has got a cheque," and before I could do so, I called to Abbott—we struggled violently for some time, and then the prisoner said, "It is gone"—afterwards at the station Russell picked out the prisoner from twelve others without difficulty.

Cross-examined. The paper behind the chimney-piece was doubled up—Lythell opened it; it was in his hands for a minute or two—I distinctly heard the charge, but I heard no reply, I was busy searching the room; I don't remember any reply—the woman was talking much—she said the paper was a receipt for the last quarter's rent; she did not say she had got another like it, or anything of the kind—Lythell did not to my knowledge say, "Never mind, cheque or no cheque, I have got some more here," tapping his pocket—I asked the prisoner if he would place himself among the men for identification, and he did so—I don't think the tallest was more than two inches taller than the prisoner; none of them were boys—he made no complaint to the inspector—Russell was taken away the moment that he had identified the prisoner, and had no conversation with anyone.

Re-examined. The prisoner might have made an answer to the charge at his house without my hearing it.

GEORGE BECKER . I am an agent and importer, at 64, Aldermanbury—in December I was at the second floor of No. 34—about five minutes to six p.m. on 15th December I left my boy Croucher in charge of my office—my cheque-book was locked in a drawer in my private office with my paying-in and pass-books—next day, 16th December, I got to the office about 1.30—my boy made a communication to me, and I found my desk broken open, the drawers out, and papers scattered all over the room—I missed my cheque-book—this cheque, dated 16th December, was afterwards shown to me; it purports to be signed by George Becker; it is similar to those I had from the bank—the signature is not mine.

HENRY WILLIAM RUSSELL . I am an office boy, and am fifteen years old—I live at 41, Three Colts Lane, Bethnal Green—on 5th February, about 6.15 p.m., I was in Grafton Street, Mile End Road—the prisoner stopped me and said, "Will you take a letter up to the top

for me, and ask Mr. Yates to wrap it up in paper?"—I took the letter in an envelope and gave it to Mr. Yates in the bar of the public-house at the corner of Grafton Street—I did not know he kept that public-house till I asked—the prisoner said it was the public-house at the top of Grafton Street—the envelope was addressed in pencil—Mr. Yates opened the envelope, and took out a letter and a cheque of a kind of reddish colour—I could not say if it was like this one—Mr. Yates gave me a message to take back that he had not got enough cash now, and if I came back at nine o'clock he could let me have it—I went to the corner where I had left the prisoner, and waited a few minutes; then the prisoner came, and I delivered the message—he sent me again, and told me to ask Mr. Yates to let him have all he could, and he would draw the balance to-morrow morning—I delivered that message to Mr. Yates—Mr. Yates gave me no money; he told me he could not let him have it—I went and told that to the prisoner—he asked me whether I should be by that way at nine o'clock; it was then 6.30—he said, "I have not got any coppers now; shall I see you at nine?"—I said, "No"—he had promised me twopence the first time, and when he sent me back a second time he promised me sixpence, and then he said as he had not got any money perhaps he should meet me another time—I was talking to him about five minutes, or a little longer—I noticed his face—I saw him the next day at Moor Lane Police-station, and I picked him out—I am sure he is the man that spoke to me about the cheque.

Cross-examined. I had never seen him before the Thursday—I saw him afterwards at Guildhall—there were four boys and one tall man among the men with whom he was placed—some of the men were roughly dressed working men, not dressed like the man I had seen in the street, and quite unlike him—I saw him on the Thursday on three different occasions, for a little over a minute each time—when I picked him out he was dressed differently to when he gave me the cheque; I don't recognise him by his dress, but by his face—the man who gave me the cheque had an overcoat on; the prisoner had not when I picked him out—I said nothing about a muffler, I did not notice it—I don't think I said to one of the officers, "I don't think that is the man, because he had an overcoat on when he gave me the cheque. "

Re-examined. I said at Moor Lane that the man that gave me the cheque had an overcoat on; I identified him by his features—the boys standing with the men were older and bigger than me; none of them had hair on their faces.

HENRY YATES . I am a licensed victualler, and keep the King Harry public-house, Mile End Road, at the corner of Grafton Street—on February 5th, about 6.30, the prisoner Russell came in and gave me an envelope which contained this cheque and letter—the letter signed "H. H. Gomm" asked me to cash the cheque—I knew a Mr. Gomm very well—I knew the prisoner years ago—the cheque, No. 404944, was for £7 on the London Trading Bank, Limited, dated February 5th, payable to H. H. Gomm or order, and signed "J. Simmons"—I had conversations with the boy, but did not part with any money—I handed the cheque to Sergeant Lythell.

FRANCIS GOMM . I am a mineral water manufacturer, and carry on business as F. and H. Gomm, at 20, Water Street, Bethnal Green—I never saw this cheque before I saw it at the Police-court—I knew

Mr. Yates—I have known the prisoner for a good many years about the neighbourhood to speak to, but I have not seen him for a long time—I do not know Mr. Simmons, by whom this purports to be signed—I sent nobody with this cheque—I never received it from Simmons, nor did I send the prisoner to get it cashed at Mr. Yates's—this is not my letter, nor my writing.

WIGHTMAN COOPER . I am manager of the London Trading Bank, 12, Coleman Street—Mr. Becker has a banking account with us—these cheque forms were issued by us early in December; they are all out of one twenty-five book "to order," and all close together.

GUILTY of receiving , lie then PLEADED GUILTY* to a conviction of felony in June, 1888.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

299. WILLIAM PRESCOTT and HENRY DANE, Stealing a purse and £4 5s. 1 1/4 d., the goods and money of Henry Ryder, from the person of Elizabeth Ryder; Second Count, receiving the same. PRESCOTT PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted, and MR. KEITH FRITH Defended Dane.

ELIZABETH RYDER . I am the wife of Henry Ryder—we live at Rotherham—we were staying at the Temple Hotel, Strand—about 3 p.m. on 24th February I was in Queen Victoria Street—I hailed a Liverpool Street omnibus, and was attempting to get in; there was a little crush by more than three or four people, and I felt someone push at my right side; I glanced quickly round, and a man ran across the road—I felt for my purse, and it was gone from my dress pocket—this it is; there was £4 5s. 7d. in it—I called, "Stop thief!" and "My purse has gone, the man has got it"—I ran after the man; very quickly he was out of my sight—I met a policeman and made a communication to him, and he took up the pursuit—I did not come up when the prisoners were caught; I went to the station and charged them—I could not recognise either of them—they were about the height of the men—the man who ran was dressed in brownish clothes, but I could not identify either the man or the clothes.

HENRY CLARK . I am a waiter at the City Liberal Club, Walbrook—at nearly 3.30 p.m. on 24th February I saw Prescott running from round the Safe Deposit way into Bucklersbury—I followed him, and a policeman also did so—he was stopped in St. Pancras Lane by a gentleman—the constable and I came up, and the constable took him—he had his left hand in his pocket until we had gone half-way down St. Pancras Lane; then Dane came up with his hands together in front of him, and Prescott went to put the purse into his hands, and as he did so I snatched it with my right hand and caught Dane by the collar with my left—I gave the purse to McVittie—Dane was handed over to a constable—he mumbled something, and seemed rather indignant—both men were taken to the station and charged.

Cross-examined. I did not stop at the station—I saw Mr. Bartlett at the Mansion House; he was not examined—I know nothing about him—I did not see the actual robbery—there was a great crowd when the purse was passed—I was not very much excited—I could not have made a mistake—I was not asked about the hands at the Police-court; I said I seized the purse and Dane at the same time.

Re-examined. I said before the Magistrate: "Prescott had his hand

in his left-hand pocket, and the other prisoner Dane came up in front of him, and Prescott took his hand out and handed the purse to Dane. "

FREDERICK HILL (City 539). On 24th February, at 3.30, I was on duty in Walbrook—I heard a cry of "Stop thief!" and saw Prescott and the prosecutrix running through Bucklersbury towards Queen Victoria Street, and up St. Pancras Lane—I took up the chase—a gentleman whose name I don't know stopped Prescott—I came up directly after—the prosecutrix had communicated with me—I took him into custody; I had gone with him eight or ten yards, I should think, when Dane came up from the crowd that was following towards Prescott in a sly manner, and took the purse from Prescott's left hand with his left hand, I believe—I saw it—I said in a loud voice, "Look out for the purse"—Clark said, "All right, I have got it," and he had the man as well—McVitty was there, and he took Dane into custody from Clark, I believe—both prisoners were taken to the station.

Cross-examined. A gentleman came to the Police-court and gave his name and address; he is here to-day—I did not hear him say he did not want to see an innocent man put away"—I cannot say if he was absent when Dane was committed for trial.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. No witnesses appeared, and so he was committed for trial.

ROBERT MCVITTY (City 69). On 24th February I was in Queen Street, Cheapside, heard a cry of "Stop thief!" went down Pancras Lane, and saw Prescott running and others running after him—a gentleman stopped him, and Hall took him in custody—I went up, and Clark said, "I have got the purse; I took it out of that man's hand"—I saw Dane by Prescott's side, and called out to Hall, "Keep the people back"—I took this purse out of Dane's hand.

Cross-examined. I did not take Dane till Clark had handed me the purse.

Witnesses for the Defence.

CHARLES DEXTER BARTLETT . I am an electrical engineer, and live at Silverdale—I come here very much against my wish; I have been subpœnaed—I was in Queen Street a little after 3 p.m., and as I passed the end of Pancras Lane I heard a cry of "Stop thief!" and saw Prescott running away, followed by Hall; I turned round to intercept Prescott, but Hall got up to him first and collared him, and commenced to walk with him towards the station—Sergeant McVitty, who was very close to me, started running also—a little crowd gathered round, and I saw Clark pounce upon Dane and call out to McVitty, "Here, take this man," and handed the sergeant a purse—Clark was as excited as a cat with her first mouse, and he kept hold of him all the way to the Police-station, although he was in Sergeant McVitty's custody—I went to the station, because it struck me as strange that Clark should pounce on a man who was already in custody.

Cross-examined. I did not know who Clark was.

WILLIAM PRESCOTT . I have pleaded guilty to stealing this purse—I do not know Dane—he had no part in the robbery whatever—I do not know how the purse came into his hand—Clark said, "Give me the purse," and I gave it to him—if it was ever in Dane's hand I know nothing about it.

Cross-examined. I had never seen Dane in my life before—it the time

I handed the purse to Clark I was in custody—I was first stopped by a gentleman—the policeman said, "Give me that purse;" I made no reply—I handed the purse to Clark instead of to the constable, because I was excited—I did not notice Dane at that time, I felt too much for myself.

GUILTY on the Second Count. He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of a like offence at Clerkenwell on January 14th, 1884. DANE—GUILTY.— Nine Months' Hard Labour. sentence on PRESCOTT— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. The Court commended Clark's conduct.

OLD COURT.—Saturday, March 14th, 1891.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS.

300. ALBERT JOHN CAROLAN (27) , Feloniously wounding Albert Ernest Moore, with intent to murder him; Sixth Count, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. HUTTON Prosecuted, and MR. PAUL TAYLOR Defended.

ALBERT ERNEST MOORE . I live at 6, Turner's Road, Burdett Road, Mile End—I was sixteen years old last February—I was apprenticed to the prisoner as a printer—I went every day to him to work at 7, Cromer Street, Gray's Inn Road—legal proceedings were going on between my father and the prisoner about my apprenticeship—I went as usual to work on 27th, at 8.30—I worked in the back room on the first floor; I saw the prisoner about 9.15—he asked me why we had sent so many solicitor's letters—I said I did not know—he said it was all lies—he took this hammer (produced) out of the table drawer, and he struck me on the head with it fifteen times—the handle is broken—it was not broken before he struck me with it—I had nothing on my head—I put my hand up and tried to save my head, and he broke my finger with the hammer—he went out of the room and locked the door—I went to the back room window and called to some workmen—Mr. Woodhead came and took me in next door—there was much blood—I was taken to the hospital—I am there now.

Cross-examined. I have told you all that happened—I had been apprenticed two years—I have seen the prisoner suffer from drink—I saw Mr. Palmer at the hospital—I told him the prisoner suffered lately from drink—he suffered from drink later in the day—the dispute with my father was about my removal—I had a composing-stick in my hand—I was setting up some type, and he told me to put some "dis." in a case, and I was doing it when he struck me on the head—I did nothing but set up type with the stick—I gave the prisoner no provocation.

EDWARD SAMUEL WOODHEAD . I am a carpenter, living at 1, Alexandra Villas, Alexandra Park—between 9.15 and 9.30 on 26th January I was at work in the back room of 13, Cromer Street, St. Pancras—looking out of the window I noticed a boy leaning out and calling, "Help, help! open the door!" at 7, Cromer Street, in the first floor back—the house is on the same side, and I looked along—the boy's head and half his body were leaning out—I ran downstairs and went into No. 7—I saw the prisoner and his mother in the back parlour—I said to him, "Do you know your boy's head is all bleeding?"—he mumbled something I dm not know what, then said, "All the doors are locked," and gave me the key—I went out at the side door, and opened the door where the boy was

locked in; he was leaning out of the window, and all over blood—I got a man to help me—the boy was taken to the hospital.

Cross-examined. I only know the prisoner by being in his shop—I have been working on the. shops and buildings about there—he appeared cool and collected—I cannot say when I had previously seen him.

ERNEST SOLBY . I am resident medical officer at the Royal Free Hospital—on 26th January Moore was brought there—I examined him—he was suffering from fifteen scalp wounds, three of which went to the bone; at two places the skull was broken, and the fragments of bone driven in; and one finger of his right hand was crushed—his condition was extremely serious—an operation had to be performed at once—I immediately sent for the surgeon on duty, and removed the loose fragments of bone—but for prompt interference the boy would have died—he progressed favourably for a time, then became worse—I considered there was great risk of his dying or becoming unqualified to give evidence—he is not out of danger—this hammer would have caused the injuries—I should think the round end was used, the juncture in the vault of the skull being angular.

ONSLOW WAYFORD . About ten o'clock on 26th January, in consequence of information I received, I went to the prisoner's house, 7, Cromer Street—I went on the first floor that looked on to the back, a compositors' room with a small table in the centre—there was a great quantity of blood; it was a shocking sight, like a slaughter-house—I received a telegram, in consequence I sent a telegram, and an officer was sent to Windsor.

THOMAS HARPER . I am a clerk in the Post-office at Windsor—the prisoner handed in this telegram, at 11.58: "Deer, 337, Gray's Inn Road, London. Is Carolan's apprentice living?—Williams, General Post-office, Windsor. Waiting answer. See Mrs. Carolan. "

ROBERT HAMILTON (E 1). At ten o'clock on 26th January I went to 7, Cromer Street, and in the first floor back room I found this hammer.

JOHN FRANKLIN (Windsor Borough Police). On Monday afternoon, 26th January, I received a telegram, in consequence of which I made inquiries, and saw the prisoner in the High Street at 1.15—I asked him if his, name was Carolan; he said, "Yes"—I said, "I have received a telegram from London to arrest you on a charge of murderous assault"—he replied, "Is the lad dead?"—I took him to the station—I made the charge against him, and he said, "I admit striking the lad. "

Cross-examined. He did not say he did not know that he had committed murder—I have told everything that passed.

ALBERT PEDDER (Detective E). On 26th January I arrived at Windsor Police-station between six and seven—I asked the prisoner if his name was Albert John Carolan; he said, "Yes;" I told him I was a sergeant of the London Police, and should arrest him on a warrant for feloniously bounding and causing grievous bodily harm to one Albert Ernest Moore, with intent to commit murder; he said, "I have an action in. Clerkenwell Police Court against the lad for absconding from his work. I have also received several insulting letters from his parents. This morning the lad laughed at me when I gave him orders to do a job. I think that is all I have to say"—after that he said, "I did not know I committed murder"—he was brought to London and charged, and when the charge was read over he made no reply.

Cross-examined. I have made inquiries about the prisoner—I do not

know of his being in trouble before—I believe he is a peaceable man—he is a master printer—a man of regular habits—he drinks a little—he did his work too cheaply, and failed.

Witness for the Defence.

PHILIP FRANCIS GILBERT . I am the surgeon attached to Holloway Prison—during the time the prisoner has been there he has been in the infirmary—he has complained of pains in the head—his nervous system is unstrung; I should say impaired—he is not insane—drink would render him abnormally irritable—trifling circumstances would irritate him more than a man in a healthy state.

By the JURY. His nervousness would be increased by a charge of murder hanging over him—he was nervous before I saw him—I cannot say for how long—certainly the nervousness was of some standing.

GUILTY on Second Count .— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.

301. ANNIE WATTS (14) , Feloniously setting fire to a dwelling-house, with intent to injure.

MR. PAUL TAYLOR Prosecuted.

GEORGE COMPTON AUSTIN . I live at 51, Charlton Road, Earlsdon—on Saturday, 2nd March, about 6.5 p.m., I was called in to 53, Charlton Road by Miss Buckmaster, the lady of the house—she directed my attention to some smoke issuing from a cupboard underneath the stairs—I went into the kitchen, got some water, and attempted to put it out—I partly extinguished the fire—I called in Mr. Griffin—in consequence of hearing a scream I went to the upper part of the house—I found the bedding in the top bedroom on fire—I sent Mr. Griffin for the fire engine—I partially put out the fire—the bedding was carried down into the garden—I assisted Mr. Buckmaster to carry it down—it was smoking—Miss Buckmaster, whose scream I heard, was in a bedroom on the first floor—the house has two storeys.

WILLIAM GRIFFIN . I live at 55, Charlton Road, Earlsdon—on Sunday evening, 1st March, I saw the prisoner about 6.3 p.m. passing my window, next door to Miss Buckmaster's, No. 53—I heard violent tapping at the bedroom window of 53, when I looked through the window I was sitting at, and saw the prisoner pass—afterwards Mr. Austin called me in—I saw the cupboard on fire—I went up to the top bedroom—it was filled with smoke, and fire was in several places—I saw Miss Buckmaster; she is 82 years of age—I found some rags on a box in the cupboard—I removed them into the back yard—they were put out—I was present when the fireman came—I pointed out the rags to him.

CHARLES BEESON . I am a fireman, in charge of the fire-brigade at the Police-station—at 6.20 p.m. on 1st March I was called to 53, Charlton Road—I examined the premises—I found there had been two fires, one on the stairs on the ground floor, and one on the second floor back room, used as a servant's bedroom—I examined the bedding in the back yard—I detected paraffin very slightly on the bedding—I examined the rags—they smelt strongly of paraffin—I gave information to the police—I returned to the house with Inspector Marsh—we further examined the house—I noticed some rags on a box, which smelt strongly of paraffin, but they had not been on fire—also this carpet, which smelt of paraffin—I saw traces of paraffin on the box—the box is not here—it is bulky—I saw a mark where the paraffin had run down the front of the box—

it had had time to dry—it was not a large quantity—I examined the front room second floor—I found traces of paraffin, but no fire, on some papers like these (produced) on the top of a box—Marsh took the papers away in my presence—I have described it as lumber—there were green rags—I saw rags taken out of the kitchen drawers.

Cross-examined. Half a pint of paraffin would make a terrific smell—it spreads very quickly, and a little goes a long way.

SAMUEL MARSH (Inspector X). On Sunday evening, 1st March, in consequence of information, I went to 53, Charlton Road—I examined the premises with Beeson and Mr. Buckmaster—I waited some time for the prisoner—I met her at 8.30, some distance from the house, and she walked with me—I asked her what time she left the house; she said twenty minutes to six—I asked if there were any other persons in the house at that time, and what condition the house was in—she said the house was all right, and there were her two mistresses in the house—I said from what I saw and heard I should take her into custody—she was trying to conceal a gold watch—I took her to the station—on the way she said there was only a lamp in the house—she was in a very distressed state—she said the oil-can had upset in the kitchen, and "This morning I wiped it up with some rag; I put it under the stairs; I went upstairs and wrung it out on some boxes, and threw the rag on the bed. I then upset the candle and set it alight; I was so frightened I went downstairs, lit the gas in the hall, and threw the match into the store cupboard. I did not do it purposely"—at the station I took the charge, and read it to her—she made no reply.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am guilty about the fire, but not about the watch; I did it purposely." She received an excellent character.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Saturday, March 14th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

302. JAMES BAKER, Unlawfully attempting by persuasions and solicitations to corrupt, influence, and instruct certain jurors sworn to try the issue between the Queen and Bernard Boaler, and to incline the jurors to be more favourable to the side of Boaler.

MESSRS. FORREST FULTON and MUNRO Prosecuted, and MESSRS. BESLEY and WIGHTMAN WOOD Defended.

HENRY PIERCE (City Policeman 867). On Tuesday, 28th October, I was on duty at the Old Court in this building—about three p.m. the prisoner came to me at the witnesses' entrance to the Old Court and asked me to let him in as being a witness for the prosecution in the case of Boaler—I let him in—he might have been there ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, when I requested him to leave the Court, because he kept getting out by the side of the jury-box, and when I asked him to keep the passage clear he said he wished to see the jury, and made other remarks, some of which I did not catch—among other things, he said that the directors were as artful as a wagon load of monkeys, and that the matter of £1,000 was all a swindle—I took that to refer to some of the evidence in Boaler's case; I was in Court during the trial—I said if he wished to see the jury he must go round to the other side—he then left

—I went round in front of the dock to Constable Atkins at the other door and told him something—a few minutes afterwards on the same day the prisoner came back and asked for readmission; I refused it—afterwards I saw him in the gallery, but I cannot say whether it was on that day or on the 3rd November.

Cross-examined. On 3rd November I heard that a complaint had been made by a juryman of his having been spoken to, and then this matter of the 28th October presented itself to my mind as being serious—statements that persons are witnesses are very often made for the purpose of getting admission—I did not know the prisoner before—I made no note of the conversation on 28th October—I had just a few words with him on the two occasions on that day.

Re-examined. It is not usual for persons to set up that they want to go into Court for the purpose of looking at the jury—I never heard that stated before—I have been in charge of that part of the Court for four or five years.

SIDNEY ATKINS (550 City). On 28th October I was in charge of the door of the Old Court on the right hand side of the dock, the door by which solicitors and their clerks are allowed to enter—about three p.m. I saw Baker at the door—I said, "Who are you?"—he said, "I am a witness in the Boaler case"—I said, "Have you a subpoena?"—he said, "No"—I said, "Then I cannot let you in there," and closed the door again—a few minutes afterwards I saw him sitting, as if he were a juror, in the place where the jurors-in-waiting sit—I had had a communication from Pierce, and in consequence of that, and of what had passed between myself and the prisoner I went to the constable at that door, and in my presence the prisoner was requested to leave that place—he did so—about two minutes afterwards I happened to look up in the gallery, and saw him sitting in the front, leaning over.

Cross-examined. The door on the right-hand side of the dock where solicitors go in is very rarely used by witnesses—officers of the Court and solicitors' clerks go in and out there—a partition divides the passage to that door from the jurymen's seats—sometimes the jurymen are let into the seats from that passage, but only if the top box is full—we never allow persons who are not jurymen to sit in the seats for jurymenin-waiting—when the prisoner was told to go out he went out—the Court was not full.

GEORGE THOMAS STEVENSON . I was a juror on the trial of Bernard Boaler in October last in this Court—I was duly empanelled and sworn with the other jurors to try Boaler's case—two of the other jurors were Mr. Hasted and Mr. Perry—I live at Hammersmith, and am a visitor to the London School Board—I first saw the prisoner on the first or second day of Boaler's trial in this Court—he first spoke to me on 28th October—after the adjournment on that day Mr. Hasted and I left the Court, and were walking towards Ludgate Hill, when the prisoner came up and said to us that he thought Boaler was badly treated, or was a badly used individual—he volunteered that statement—I had seen him in Court before, but I did not know him, and I had never spoken to him—I believe I asked him who he was, and he said he was a former policy-holder in this company—I said it was a wonder the policy-holders had not supported Boaler by finding him counsel—we said this going down Ludgate Hill—he rather vilified the directors, calling them, to the best of my belief, b----y

rogues or blasted rogues—he said Boaler had done a good deal of good in unravelling these matters; he thought he had gone a little too far in. this case, that he was wrong in this case—when we got to the bottom of Ludgate Hill the prisoner asked us if we were going to have a glass,. and I had had the intention previously of going into the King Lud to have a glass of refreshment—we rather hesitated at first when he invited us, but Mr. Hasted, myself, and the prisoner went in; I had a glass of ale, and Mr. Hasted had some ginger beer or something of that kind; the prisoner paid—we continued in conversation for a few minutes—the prisoner asked us where we lived, and I told him at Hammersmith—just as we got outside the door coming out (we were only in there about two minutes) he told me that if I went and saw Mr. Piatt, of Hammersmith, he would be able to tell me all about it, all about the company—he told me Piatt was an auctioneer, and described where he lived; he did not tell me the number of the house—he said, "If you will go and see Platt, the auctioneer, at Hammersmith, he will tell you," or "give you information about the company"—I told him I might go an A see him—the prisoner said he could see that the jury were against Boaler very much, and he was very sorry to see it—Mr. Hasted said to me in the prisoner's presence that if he lived as near Mr. Piatt as I did he should go and see him; that he thought it was a pity, if Boaler were innocent, that he should suffer—I did not go and see Mr. Piatt—I went away then—on Monday morning, 3rd November, the day the trial was resumed, I saw the prisoner just outside the door of the Court in the Old Bailey, about 10.15—he came up and asked me if I had been to see Mr. Piatt—I said. No, I had been better advised—I also advised him not to have anything at all to say to me or to any of the rest of the jurymen, or he would probably get into serious trouble—he pooh-poohed the matter, thought it was rather a light matter, he did not think anything of it—then I left him—I had no further conversation with him till the case was over and we had returned our verdict, and were coming away—he was coming into Court, and he asked me what the result was—about the middle of the day that the verdict was given the prisoner was in the gallery of the Court, and I told the Recorder that I had been spoken to on the evening of 28th—something had cropped up previously that made me volunteer the remark.

Cross-examined. When the prisoner asked me the result of the trial I said, "Guilty"—he went out of the gallery previous to our verdict being given—I won't swear he was there when I mentioned the matter to the Recorder, but he was there a few minutes previously—I was the first person to complain to the Recorder about it—I said, "I think it only right to mention that I have been spoken to"—then Mr. Cock, Q.C., who appeared for the company, asked my name and address—I parted perfectly good friends with the prisoner after going into the Bong Lud with him—I am sure he paid—I spoke to no solicitor between 28th October and 3rd November; no one connected with the prosecution spoke to me—after saying I thought I would go to Piatt I thought about it going up Fleet Street, and afterwards said I had been better advised and had not been—I did not think at the time that any attempt had been made to corrupt or bribe me; I did not think much of it—my full statement was first reduced into writing on the morning of the hearing at the Mansion House—a fortnight or three weeks after the verdict in Boaler's case

Mr. White came to see me, and I gave him an account of it, which was put into writing—I gave no further account till I was at the Mansion House—preparatory to my giving evidence there on oath the statement I had given to Mr. White was read over to me to see it was all right—it took Mr. White about half an hour or a little more to take down the statement at my house; he merely asked me questions and I answered—he read over what he understood to be my answers at his office previous to my going to the Mansion House, to see whether it was correct before I swore to it, I concluded—since I was at the Mansion House I have recollected seeing the prisoner here on the first or second day of the trial—when I swore at the Mansion House that I first saw him on the 28th I swore what I was then asked—the trial commenced about 22nd October—I first saw him in the Old Court on 28th October—I would not swear to the date, but I saw him in this Court on the first or second day of the trial, I will swear; I was not asked that question at the Mansion House; I may have told it to Mr. White; I cannot swear I did—I think I served about nine days on Boaler's trial—now I come to recollect I think it was five—when I saw him on the first or second day he was standing in this Court where the witnesses are now; it was between ten and twelve o'clock; the trial was going on—I saw him from time to time, more than for a minute—he did not speak to me nor I to him—when I swore I saw him first on 28th October I meant that was the first day he spoke to me—he said, "I think Boaler is wrong in this action," or "in this case in libelling the present directors of the company; he has made a mistake in that, and I told him so"—until to-day I have not used the expression that the prisoner said the directors were blasted or b—rogues—I did not care about mentioning it, and suppressed it purposely; I did not want to make use of the expression, and did not want to make the thing worse for the prisoner than possible—I have no personal feeling against the prisoner—I used the expression this morning because I was asked the question—I was asked the question at the Mansion House—I said there that Mr. Hasted had whisky; that was a mistake; I thought he had—before the prisoner spoke to us I was talking to Mr. Hasted about the case—the prisoner said nothing against the existing management; rather the other way—I cannot remember if he said they were highly honourable men—to the best of my recollection he said he did not think that Boaler could substantiate his statements—besides Mr. Piatt he mentioned the names of other people at Hammersmith who had nothing to do with the matter, and asked whether we knew them—he mentioned the name of Ringwood; I said I knew him sixteen years ago—he mentioned the names no doubt with the object of knowing whether I knew his friends at Hammersmith—after something came out in the examination of Mr. Clay by Boaler, and someone said something about a juryman being spoken to, I spoke to the Recorder—we were a few minutes altogether in the King Lud—we were about ten minutes to a quarter of an hour after leaving the Court, and talking to the prisoner, and his joining in the conversation—I had never heard of embracery before; I did not know I was embraced, and I am very sorry I was.

By the JURY. I was not acquainted with the prisoner before the trial

—I noticed him by his whiskers, which were rather peculiar, as he stood down there.

WILLIAM ROBERT HASTED . I am a butcher, at Twickenham—I had the misfortune to be one of the jurymen on the trial of Bernard Boaler—on 28th October I was leaving the Court with Mr. Stevenson, when the prisoner came up and began a conversation by saying it was rather a rough time for Boaler, or "things are going rough," something of that kind—he addressed his conversation to Mr. Stevenson mostly; I heard what he said—he said he had been a policy or a shareholder in this company, and that he had lost £400 or £500 in it through the directors, and he said something about a rough time for Boaler and about the money that Boaler had lost—Stevenson asked why, if he had such an interest in the affair, he did not have counsel—the prisoner said he was too poor, the shareholders ought to support him or something—this conversation was going down Ludgate Hill—he asked me to have a drink, and I refused—he asked Stevenson, and he said, "Yes, come on," and we went into the King Lud, and I had ginger-beer and Stevenson had beer, and the prisoner, who paid for it all, had something—in the King Lud he gave us an account of how the directors came to get into the position they were in; he said something about b----thieves or scamps or something of that kind, and that one of the leading men in the Chancery matter owed the company some money—there was some conversation about the affairs of the company, and he suggested that Stevenson had better see two or three men belonging to Hammersmith or Hounslow—he mentioned Mr. Piatt, of Hammersmith, and said he should see him to know the position of affairs of these directors of the company, and about Boaler—I said if I lived as near as Stevenson I should go, it would be a shame to see an innocent man prosecuted—he also spoke of Boaler losing £11,000 through this affair—I or Stevenson asked where he had got the money from—he said it was not his money, it was his wife's money—we came out, and he went away—on 3rd November, the day our verdict was returned, just before we came into Court, a little after ten, I came up Ludgate Hill and turned into the Old Bailey, and saw the prisoner speaking to Mr. Perry—I went and had a word with Perry, nodded, and beckoned to him—I did not hear what the prisoner said to him; I know he was speaking about the case—I and Perry then went into a public-house, and left the prisoner standing there—when we came out of the public-house I saw the prisoner again; Perry was not with me then—the prisoner told me he thought the case would fall through, as the opposition pr prosecution thought of compromising it; something of that sort—there was something about offering £8,000, and Boaler wanted £10,000, and he said, "I did not get the information through Boaler; I got it through some of his friends"—I cannot say if Mr. Clay's name was mentioned—I went into Court, leaving the prisoner in the street.

Cross-examined. About ten days or a fortnight afterwards a gentleman came from Messrs. Rowcliffe, of Bedford Row, to see me about the matter—I told him as little as I could—I don't think there were any persons round me and Stevenson on 28th October when the prisoner spoke to us; only he and I—we were talking about the case, I think; I would not swear we were—the prisoner joined in the conversation—he said he thought Boaler was quite wrong in libelling the directors—he

did not say Boaler had lost his wife's money in joint stock companies, but through this company—he spoke of the Grosvenor Bank, and said Boaler had brought the directors to prosecution and got them fourteen years—I believe £11,000 was mentioned going down Ludgate Hill as the sum Boaler had lost through buying shares in this Briton Company and being done out of them; I reckoned that was what he was trying to impress on us; that the £1 1,000 was lost by the directors being dishonest and doing him out of his shares—I cannot say if he said Broadhurst and Holman were highly honourable men—he said that Boaler had overstepped the mark that time, and had gone too far—I and Stevenson were going to have a drink; we usually did when we came out of Court—the prisoner being a stranger, I refused when he asked me to drink with him, but when we got further down the Hill he asked Stevenson, and Stevenson said he would, and he said to me, "Come on, old man" and we went in—I should not think a bottle of ginger-beer would buy me—he asked us to have another drink, we refused and came away—on 3rd November, I believe, I spoke to the prisoner before I went into the public-house with Perry—I did not want to have anything to say to him, and I gave Perry a wink and went away—on 28th October Stevenson told the prisoner he thought he would go and see Piatt, after my suggesting that I should go—I was not there on 3rd November when the prisoner spoke to Stevenson.

Re-examined, I recognised the prisoner on 3rd November as the man who spoke to me on 28th October—he was talking to Perry something about the case, I cannot say what he said—I did not want to have anything more to do with him, and went into the public-house with Perry.

WILLIAM PERRY . I am a jobmaster of Albert Road, Plaistow—I was one of the jurors duly sworn and empanelled to try the case against Boaler—on the last day of the trial, 3rd November, I believe, I first saw the prisoner outside the Court in the Old Bailey, before the Court was opened, between 10 and 10.30—he spoke to me first; I had never seen him before to the best of my knowledge—he said, "The cases are all over, aren't they?"—I said, "I wish to goodness they were"—he said "Oh, are you on this Boaler case?"—I said, "Unfortunately I am"—he said, "I know Boaler well, he is a good fellow"—I believe I said, "I don't know where the goodness comes in; he said he would prove everything up to the hilt. As far as I can see, I cannot see that he has proved anything"—he said, "Well, you know, he has lost all his money in public companies"—I said, "Had he any money to lose?"—he said, "Oh, yes! it was his wife's money"—I said, "These directors at all events seem very honourable men"—he said, "Oh! but I know, I was on the committee of inquiry "or" the committee of investigation, and I know them well; they are far from what they should be, "or" not what they should be"—a great deal of evidence was given as to the committee of inquiry—the prisoner said, "I always opposed the sending out of that circular, it was a mistake"—he asked me if I recollected the Grosvenor Bank affair; I said, "I have some recollection of it; was not there a conviction in that case?"—he said, "Yes, and Boaler was the man that brought conviction home to those directors, only, unfortunately, he got himself entangled in the matter, and got himself two or three months," I forget which—while I was talking to the prisoner Mr. Hasted came up and gave me a slight push, or he may have stopped there half a minute or less and then given me a push, and he said,

"Come on, let us have a drink; it will be dry work inside"—I left the prisoner then and went across the way with Hasted—nothing was said to me by the prisoner about a compromise of the case—while I was talking to the prisoner I saw Mr. Clay and Mr. Hardy outside the Court.

Cross-examined. I looked hard at the prisoner because I thought he was one of the jury before he spoke to me; I was looking out for my brother jurors—the trial finished on Monday; on the Tuesday I went to Hull on business, and did not get back till the following Saturday, and on that day a solicitor from Bedford Row, I believe, came to me about the case—I refused to give him any account of the matter at first, and said I did not want to be bothered with it—I regarded the whole conversation as ordinary chit-chat; I was not surprised at its occurring—he did not say the directors were honourable men—the circular that he was opposed to was the libel—I had. some recollection of Boaler's having had the two months before the prisoner mentioned it—I believe his words were, "I always opposed the sending out of that circular; it was a mistake"—he said his wife's money that had been lost in public companies was £10,000 or £12,000, I forget which—I said, "Had he any money to lose?" because I had heard that Boaler was always a pauper when it came to paying expenses, and he never paid anything—I did not think I was doing wrong in talking to the prisoner—I heard a great* deal of talking about Boaler's case outside when we were hanging about, not wanted—it did not affect me in any way; I gave my verdict on the evidence in Court.

FREDERICK CHARLES WHITE . I am a solicitor and managing clerk to Messrs. Rowcliffes, Rawle, and Co.—I know the prisoner by sight—I have seen him since 1886 in connection with the Briton Medical Company—I have seen him repeatedly in Court when proceedings have been taken by and against the company by Boaler and others—I first saw the prisoner in connection with this matter on 28th October in the Old Court, sitting looking on at the case—on Thursday, 30th October, I saw him at the Law Courts as I was coming out of Mr. Justice Stirling's Court, where Boaler had been making an application—I met the prisoner coming towards that Court; Boaler walked behind me, and met the prisoner, and they talked together—afterwards I saw him and Boaler sitting talking together in one of the windows—I took a proof from Mr. Stevenson on 5th November at his house at Hammersmith.

Cross-examined. I know the prisoner's face perfectly well—I may have spoken to him, he was on the Consultative Committee—I was present every day during Boaler's trial, instructing counsel for the Briton Medical—I don't remember seeing the prisoner on 22nd, the first day, or on 23rd or on 27th; on 28th I did for the first time to the best of my recollection—two days ought to have been a reasonable time for the trial to have lasted; but I thought it might be long, knowing Boaler's verbosity.

Re-examined. On 22nd and 23rd the trial took place in this Court; then it was adjourned, and on 28th it was in the other Court.

ROBERT KEATING CLAY . I have been chairman of the Briton Medical and General Life Association since 1888, after the death of Colonel Duncan—the prisoner was on the Consultative Committee with me; before that he had been on the Central Policyholders' Committee—Boaler was clerk to the Central Policyholders' Committee—a great

many legal proceedings were taken against the company by Boaler prior to his prosecution—I had to attend at many of those proceedings as a witness—I very frequently saw the prisoner there; I should say I saw him at about twenty of those proceedings with Boaler; I cannot fix the number—his connection with the Consultative Committee was put an end to by the committee—I was one of the principal witnesses in Boaler's case—on 28th October I saw the prisoner once in the body of the Court and once in the gallery—on the 3rd, before the Court opened, I saw him in the archway over here by Chapman's public-house, looking over to the door where I was standing—I saw him a second time at a few minutes past ten speaking to Perry and Hasted outside the Court, and subsequently on the same day I saw him somewhere about the Court—I have heard Perry's evidence—on Sunday night, 2nd November, I was staying with a friend in London; Boaler called there to see me, and I had an interview with him—Mr. Webber, who was acting as Boaler's solicitor, was with him, and we three had an interview.

Cross-examined. The committee was brought to inquire into the robbery by a secretary of the company of £120,000 and interest paid on mortgages, altogether about a quarter of a million; the robbery extended over about twenty years—it was found out after his death—I was only connected with the company at that time as a policyholder—I think Boaler was not interested in the matter till after the death of that secretary; I am not sure there were not proceedings earlier—the result of the loss of a quarter of a million was that the policies were reduced in value by order of the Court—Boaler did more than harass the company, he lost about £30,000 for the policyholders—he was prosecuted by order of the board—after Boaler's conviction and the mention in open court of this matter by a juryman, it was determined to lay the facts before the Treasury solicitor, who said that if the association would issue a summons and get a committal, the Treasury would take the matter up—the board on that got a committal—since the indictment against the prisoner in January was quashed there has been no resolution of the board to go on; we have nothing to say about it.

Re-examined. The matter passed out of our hands into those of the Public Prosecutor, who has done the matter ever since—I have attended here only as a witness at serious loss.

RALPH PRICE HARDY . I am secretary and actuary of the Briton Medical—I attended as a witness throughout Boaler's trial—before the Court opened on 3rd November I was with Mr. Clay and saw the prisoner outside—Mr. Clay drew my attention, and I saw him in conversation with Perry and Hasted—after the jurymen had gone towards the Court I, being then alone, saw the prisoner; I kept observation on the prisoner in consequence of instructions from Mr. Clay—when Perry and Hasted went into the public-house opposite the Court, before going into Court, the prisoner planted himself on the other side of the way, right opposite the public-house—I observed him from the archway through which the judges enter—when the jurymen came out of the public-house the prisoner walked across and spoke to them—afterwards as Boaler was coming into Court the prisoner saw him and took him into the vestibule, and they had a lengthened and evidently important conversation for three or four minutes.

Cross-examined. I did not hear a syllable of their conversation—I saw

it was important by the way they whispered together; I think their faces were a fair index—Mr. Fulton was counsel for the company when Boaler was prosecuted.

The prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate, said that he had no intention of influencing the Jury.

ALFRED REED . I am one of the officers attached to this Court—I produce the indictment and plea of justification in the case of Bernard Boaler, who was convicted and sentenced to twelve months before the Recorder in November.

GUILTY .— Fined £100.

303. LESLIE FRASER DUNCAN (70) PLEADED GUILTY to various offences under the Debtors' Act.— Five Days' Imprisonment.

OLD COURT—Monday and Tuesday, March 16th and 17th, 1891.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

304. ELIZABETH JANE MAY (40) , Feloniously setting fire to certain bed and bedclothes on 23rd February, under such circumstances that if the house had been set fire to she would have been guilty of felony. Second Count, for attempting to set fire to the house.

MESSRS. HORACE AVORY and BIRON Prosecuted.

ALICE COLES . I am a widow, and live at 49, Adolphus Road, Finsbury Park—the prisoner has been in my service as cook for about eighteen months—on 9th January last there were eight children in the house, my niece, my sister-in-law, and myself—I have three sons; they were away during the day—at half-past two that day I was in the breakfast-room—the children called down from upstairs; I could not exactly say at first what they said; then it was "Fire!"—I went upstairs to the top room—the house consists of a ground floor, first floor, and a second floor—the prisoner and my sister-in-law and two children slept in the top room; it is a large room—there are three rooms at the top, and this was the front room—when I got into the room I saw the prisoner's bed on fire, also a curtain, the venetian blind, a short blind, and a valence round the dressing-table, which was a large box; that also was on fire—the prisoner and myself principally put out the fire—the prisoner said she could not tell how it happened; she said she thought she had trodden on a match when she went to make the bed—we considered it was an accident; it was spoken of as such; I can't say what was said; it was discussed generally—the prisoner said she heard something crack under her feet when she made the bed, but she could not see anything, and thought nothing of it until the fire, but she supposed afterwards it was that—she said she had made the bed about half-past twelve—an unburnt match was afterwards found on the floor; I don't know who picked it up—on 20th February, about half-past eight in the evening, I came home from church—the prisoner and my daughter Ethel let me in—the prisoner said there had been another fire, and she had put it out—I went up to the top front room, the same room as before—some of the clothes had been taken down into the garden; the room was in a state of confusion—the place had been on fire, the mattress and the bed were very much burnt, but it had been put out—I still

thought it was an accident, that some one had been careless, I did not think of any design—I found some of the things still burning in the garden, and we put them out afterwards—the prisoner went upstairs with me, and she put out the fire in the garden—she said she had put out the fire entirely by herself—when I left the house on Friday, 20th February, my sister-in-law, my daughter Ethel, and the prisoner were in the house—next day, the 21st, about two o'clock, I went into the drawing-room—my niece, Miss Templar, was there; after we had been sitting there some little time she said she smelt burning—I immediately got up, I went up and found the same room on fire again, the smoke was coming down the stairs—I found the two beds on fire, the beds were six feet apart—I put it out as before, with counterpanes and heavy things—there was nothing between the beds—that was no accident, it was done purposely, the straw palliasses were principally fired—the fire had burnt on the entire length of the bed on the outer side—on that evening, after the fire, I made a communication to one of my sons, and on the following day two constables came to the house; the prisoner was there then, and the entire household—I told the constables what had taken place—I believe the prisoner let the constables in on the 23rd, about half-past six—they were in the dining-room; they remained about three-quarters of an hour—while they were there one of the children called out, "There is another fire"—the constables went upstairs, and I followed; they put it out—that fire was in my son's room on the top floor, next to the prisoner's room—that fire was the same as the others, along the entire side of the bed—nothing but the beds was on fire—the room was lighted by gas, it was the prisoner's duty to light the gas; the prisoner was still in my service at the time of the last fire—she said several times that she did not like the house; she liked the people, but not the house.

By the COURT. I never had any difference with her—she was supplied with wooden matches—my sons have wax matches at times.

JAMES CHARLTON (Police Sergeant N 21) proved and produced a plan of the premises.

ETHEL COLES . I am a daughter of Mrs. Coles, and am thirteen years of age—on 9th January we had dinner at one—after dinner I went into my aunt's room at the top of the first flight of stairs, on the half-landing—I remained there about three-quarters of an hour—I then went upstairs to the first landing, and I saw smoke coming down the stairs; I went back to my aunt's room and told her, and then went with some of my sisters, and saw the bedroom on fire—afterwards my mother and the prisoner came up—the prisoner said she thought she had trod on a match while she was making the bed—on Friday, 20th February, I remember my mother going to church—my aunt, the prisoner, and myself were left in the house—about five minutes afterwards I went upstairs, and then came down to the breakfast-room; I stopped there a little time, and then went into the kitchen—I think the prisoner was then in the kitchen—I then went up into the hall, and thought I smelt smoke—I went and told the prisoner—she said it was nonsense; she came out with me, and said she smelt it, and then we both went upstairs, and I saw that the prisoner's bed was on fire, at the side of the bed—the prisoner put it out—next day, the 21st, there was another fire—I was in the kitchen when it was discovered, before that I had been in my aunt Fanny's room for about half an hour

—I had been in the kitchen about ten minutes when I heard the alarm of fire from my mother—I don't know where the prisoner was then—I did not see her come into the kitchen—on Monday, the 23rd, I remember the prisoner coming to the house about six o'clock—we went upstairs and washed our hands, I, Lillie, and Bessie; we then went into aunt Fanny's room—in about three-quarters of an hour Lillie called out that she smelt smoke—I had not been put of my aunt's room at ail—I did not set this bed on fire on either of these occasions.

Cross-examined. When I came into the kitchen I said I thought I heard some one upstairs—that was while the prisoner was in the kitchen, about ten minutes before the fire—it was while I was in the breakfast-room that I heard somebody upstairs—I afterwards went into the kitchen and found the prisoner there at needlework—it was five or ten minutes after that that I smelt smoke—I did not hear anybody upstairs after I found the prisoner in the kitchen—I told the prisoner that I heard somebody; she said I was nervous.

Re-examined. The breakfast-room is on the same floor as the kitchen, on the ground floor—I had let my mother out of the house.

FRANCES COLES . I am the aunt of the last witness, and live at 49, Adolphus Road—I occupy a sitting-room on the half-landing on the first floor—on 9th January I was occupying the same bedroom with the prisoner, with two of my little nieces—on that day I left the bedroom about half-past two all right, made my bed and dusted the room—on Friday evening, 20th February, I went out about twenty minutes to eight—before doing so I went up to my bedroom to put my bonnet on—it was perfectly safe when I left it—I came back about ten minutes past nine—on 23rd February, about half-past six, I was in my sitting-room with my three nieces, Lillian, Ethel and Bessie—they had been there about three quarters of an hour when I noticed that something was burning.

Cross-examined. On Friday night when I went to bed I said I was very glad Miss Emily was not at home, because there would have been one more bother—I said that because Mrs. Coles said she thought I might have dropped a spark, but I had not, I was very careful, I never went near the bed, and I brought the candle down with me—I use wooden matches—I have seen wax matches there.

LILLIAN COLES. I was in the house on Monday, 23rd February, when the last fire took plate—I went to my aunt's room after tea, at a little past six; my two sisters, Ethel and Bessie, went with me—I went up with Ethel to wash our hands, and we then went to my aunt's room—we remained there until somebody smelt fire.

HENRY JOHN COLES . I am a son of Mrs. Coles—on 23rd February I arrived home about six; I occupied a bedroom on the first floor, one of my brothers occupied a room on the top floor—I saw the police arrive, and was with them when some one called "Fire!"—I went upstairs and was" in the room first, the gas was alight in the room—I saw the bed burning along the side—the prisoner was there, we all ran up together—after the fire had been put out, and we were in the dining-room, I said to the prisoner that she had done it; she said she was innocent—I heard one of the detectives say that he had picked up a match, or he said something about a match.

ARTHUR RAPSON (N 365). On 23rd February, about half-past six, I "went with Prince to 49, Adolphus Road—the prisoner let us in—we went

into the dining-room, and there saw Mrs. Coles and one of her sons—we remained in the dining-room about three-quarters of an hour—one of the daughters then attracted my attention, and I went upstairs in company with Prince, and in the top bedroom I saw the bed alight all along the mattress—we extinguished the fire, it was in the son's room—at that time the prisoner was downstairs—we went down, and then I and Prince and the prisoner went up again, and I said to the prisoner, "This seems very strange"—she said, "I swear it was all right after I let you in, and I came up to light the gas"—the gas was alight—I saw Prince find a piece of match just at the bottom of the foot of the bed, on the floor—there was a carpet on the floor, that was not burnt.

WILLIAM PRINCE (Detective N). On Sunday, 22nd February, I went to the house to make inquiries—I saw the prisoner there among others persons—I asked her what time she was in the room on the 21st; she said half-past eleven—I asked about the other days; she could not give me any decided answer about the other days—I don't remember anything she said—I asked her who was in the house—she said, "Me and Miss Ethel"—on the 23rd I went to the house with Rapson about half-past six; the prisoner let us in—there was an alarm of fire, and we all went upstairs—we put the fire out and came down again; I saw the prisoner there—she said, ' It was all right when I came up to light the gas, either before or after I let you in"—I told her the suspicion was very strong against her; Mrs. Coles said she would have her out of the house before she would allow us to leave—I told her I was a police-officer, and should arrest her on suspicion of causing these fires—she said, "I will go with you, but I am innocent"—Rapson asked her where were the matches that she used to light the gas with—she said those that she used she took downstairs and threw on the fire—when we were upstairs I said to her, "Where are these matches, where is the box?" and she took this box from the window ledge on the top landing; they are safety matches—I picked up this piece of match in the room on the 23rd; it is a wooden match, similar to those in the box; I picked it up on the floor about a foot from the bedpost, immediately under the side of the bed—the prisoner was taken to the station and charged—she said, "I have not done it. "

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am not guilty. "

Prisoner's Defence. I am innocent of the fire. I know no more about it than the ladies; if I did I would tell the truth, but I don't know anything about it.

NOT GUILTY .— There were three other indictments against the Prisoner with reference to the other fires, upon which no evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

305. GEORGE CULMER (25), RICHARD CAPSEY (30), GEORGE LOVEDAY (44), and ELLEN WHEELER (70), were indicted for unlawfully conspiring to cheat and defraud certain fire insurance companies.

MESSRS. C. F. GILL, MUIR, and A. F. GILL Prosecuted; MR. ROCKINGHALL GILL defended Capsey.

The prisoners were tried at the last Sessions for feloniously setting fire to various houses: Culmer and Wheeler were then convicted and were sentenced,

Culmer to Twelve Years' Penal Servitude, and Wheeler to Five Years' Penal Servitude.

The evidence on the present occasion was substantially identical with that which was given on the previous trials, as fully reported in the Sessions Paper. Wheeler was found NOT GUILTY . The other prisoners were found GUILTY , and were each sentenced to Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. The sentence on Culmer to be concurrent with the former one.

NEW COURT.—Monday, March 16th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

306. GEORGE HILL, Unlawfully carnally knowing Mary Jane Baswell, age 14 years.

MR. HUTTON Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, March 17th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

307. CHARLES HENRY LOVEJOY and EDWARD LAIN, Unlawfully conspiring with others to cheat and defraud the Great Eastern Railway Company; also stealing certain tickets and obtaining money by false pretences.

MR. F. FULTON Prosecuted MR. HUTTON and MR. SANDS appeared for Lovejoy, and MR. GEOGHEGAN for Lain.

CHARLES ROBERT CAMPBELL (G.E.R. Detective). I received instructions, and on February 9th, shortly after 9 am., I saw Lovejoy leave the Queen's Music Hall, High Street, Poplar; I followed him to the Midland Junction Station, and saw him go into the ticket collector's box and sit down—Cook, the ticket collector, was apparently sorting tickets—Cook came out of the box and cancelled some tickets—Lovejoy went to the desk and appeared to be sorting tickets—an up train then came in, and he came out of the box with his hands in his pockets and assisted to shut the doors—he had no business whatever in the box—he travelled by the 8.40 train to North Greenwich, where I got out with him—he passed the ticket collector, Inspector Coote, and gave up no ticket—he went into the ticket office, and came out and crossed the ferry, and gave up a single ferry ticket—about six o'clock that evening I was watching at South Greenwich Station—he lives there—he crossed the ferry and gave no ticket to the pierman; he went by the 6.15 train to Millwall Junction, where Cook was again on duty, and gave up a single buff ticket—next day he did the same; the process was repeated, but he did not go into the box at Millwall Junction—Mr. Lee, the stationmaster, handed me the ticket he gave up on February 9th—he knew who I was—it was a green ticket, No. 7,228, dated February 9th, and available to the 18th—on 11th January I again saw him shortly after 8 a.m.; the same thing occurred, and he went into the box—no ticket was given up, but he went into the ticket office at North Greenwich and booked for the ferry, which belongs to the Steamboat Company—on 12th February the same thing occurred; Herbert was with me—on getting to

South Greenwich he gave up ferry ticket 9,565—I went up to him and said, "I am a detective officer; I want you a minute"—he said, "I hope so, I hope so"—I said, "I am going to give you in custody for stealing the half of a ticket from the ticket collector's box, Millwall Junction"—I knew nothing of Lain then—I told him I was also going to charge him with travelling without a ticket—he said, "Don't you usually send a letter in cases of this kind?"—I said, "Not if it is a case of felony"—he said, "What would you do if the tickets were planted?"—I understood planted for him—I handed him over to the detective sergeant, and he was taken to the station and charged—coming back in the train he said, "There are more in this besides me"—I said, "You know best"—on the same day, in consequence of information, I saw Lain at Poplar Station about 12.30—he was a collector at Millwall Junction and Poplar Station—it was his duty to receive tickets—Herbert was with me—I said, "Your name is Lain?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "A man named Lovejoy, a fireman at the Queen's Music Hall, has been arrested this morning for stealing a ticket from the ticket box at Millwall Junction; he has made a serious accusation against you; I think you had better come with me and clear yourself"—he said, "Very good"—I said, "Lovejoy says you have sent him tickets to enable him to travel without paying his fare; do you know him at all?"—he said, "Yes; I only know him as a frequent passenger going through"—I said, "Have you ever written to him, or given him tickets?"—he said, "No; I have never written to him or sent him tickets in my life"—on 12th February Lovejoy made the written statement, in my presence, to Superintendent Robinson, which is attached to the depositions—I cautioned him; it was read over in Lain's presence—it was signed in my presence. (Read: "I, Charles Henry Lovejoy, fireman, Queen's Palace, Poplar, state:—I have been travelling by the Great Eastern Railway from South Greenwich to Millwall Junction backwards and forwards daily. I come to Millwall Junction in the evening and return in the morning, as I am night fireman at the music-hail. For a little over the first two years I paid my fare, but J. E. Searle, booking clerk, Millwall Junction, one day said to me as I was giving my ticket up, There is no occasion for you to pay your fare, as the other firemen, policemen, and postmen do not pay theirs; we shall make it all right for you. ' and he then gave me three or four tickets (green) to enable me to travel from South Greenwich to Millwall Junction, and said, 'When I am not here go to Lain, and he will give them to you. ' Shortly after that I heard Searle had left, and J. C. Lain has supplied me ever since with tickets, two or three of a morning when going home. I have occasionally given those tickets to others who were employed at the hall with me, and others I have destroyed. I have never given money to Lain, but I have occasionally given him drink, and passes when he wanted them for the hall. When Lain was on evening duty he has sent the tickets to me at the hall by a boy (a dock messenger known by the name of Punch). The last time was on Tuesday evening, 10th instant, when he sent me three, two green ones, and the yellow one found in my possession with the date clipped out. I used the one yesterday, and the other is the one found on me with the yellow one I have mentioned. The green tickets are available from South Greenwich to Millwall Junction, and cover the next day; and it was some of those, that were given up in the morning, that Lain

gave to me which enabled me to come back the same night, The baff tickets are available from Millwall Junction to South Greenwich. I used to obtain these tickets from the boatman, but recently I have been unable to do so, and have got tickets from Millwall Junction to North Greenwich from a porter whom I can identify at North Greenwich station. The last occasion this man gave me a ticket was on Monday or Tuesday last. I have no recollection of receiving any railway tickets from Inspector Coote, but I have received boat tickets from him; I always pass him without giving a ticket up. I thought he must have known that I received tickets, as he allowed me to pass without giving tickets up. There was a porter, Franklyn, at the Millwall Junction, who used to, give me tickets, but he left some time ago, and I understand that he was at Fenchurch Street. I have never given any tickets for the hall to either the stationmaster at North Greenwich, Millwall Docks, or Millwall Junction, or any other station.—CHAS. H. LOVEJOY. "

Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. Lovejoy made that statement in the warrant officers' room—before that I said to Lovejoy in the passage, "This is Mr. Robinson, superintendent of the Great Eastern Police"—he said, "I will make a statement and clear myself"—I did not say that if he did it might be beneficial to him; I said, "Well, come into this room, and I will take it down; this is of your own free will"—I gave him no other caution than that—I did not tell him I wanted to catch one of the officials of the company—I did not say that if I could get a statement out of him I might be able to prosecute the people who had been doing wrong—I took a note of the conversation day by day—nothing was said from the time of his arrest to the time he was at the Police-court about his knowing Lovejoy—I arrested him on the 12th, twelve or fifteen minutes after I saw him take a ticket out of the office; I was about three and a half yards from him when he took it—I did not take him at once, because I knew a conspiracy was going on; I knew he never booked, and I allowed him to pass to see what he would do with the ticket, and as soon as he left I took him in custody.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. This statement was made by a Metropolitan officer; Lain's name was added afterwards—the persons whose names are mentioned are still in the company's service pending the result of this trial—I do not know whether Inspector Coote is, pending the result of this case—I have not read this statement to Searle, I never saw him, nor to Franklyn—I read it to Lain because he was mentioned in it—Franklyn is at Fenchurch Street Station now; I did not tell him his name had been mentioned.

Re-examined. I had an interview with the company before I saw Lain—he was called before the Magistrate.

JOHN HERBERT . I accompanied Campbell, but only on the 12th—I have heard his evidence, it is correct—I was present when Lain was arrested.

SAMUEL PARLETT (Police Inspector K). On 12th February, about 10.30, I was at Poplar Station when Lain was charged with stealing tickets—he made no reply to the charge, and was placed in a cell—about half an hour afterwards he sent for me and asked me to let him have a piece of paper and a pencil, which I gave him, and he wrote this statement, saying, "if you hand that to the constable,. they will soon see

through it" (Read: "February 12th, ‘91.—Sir, this is to certify that I never stole any ticket since I travelled on that line, for why, because their own officials have given them to me and others, which I will prove on oath; not only has one given them to me, but two or three of them. I hope you will give me time to explain this, and you will see I have been led into this after bearing such excellent certificates.—I am, etc., C. H. LOVEJOY, Fireman, Queen's. By J. Lane, collector, and the porters, whose names I am not aware.")—I put my name to it as a witness—I read it, and said, "It is doubtful, you don't mention any name"—he said, "I can give you that; Lain, the ticket collector, is one, and the other porters I do not know by name. Now only last Tuesday evening a little chap they call Punch brought me some to the Queen's in an envelope, which Lain sent him with, so they can easily find out where I get them from. Punch is the boy that carries the bags from one train to the other"—those are the dock dispatch bags—he wrote of his own accord, "By J. Lain, collector, and the porters, whose names I am not aware"—I had never heard of Lain—I was on duty when Lain was bought in on the 19th, and asked him if he knew Lovejoy—he said, "No"—I said, "He has made a statement implicating you, and in fairness to you I will read it"—I then read the statement B, I did not read A—I also read to him two further statements, C and D, which I got from Campbell, purporting to be signed by Huck and Rawlings—he made no reply—I asked if he knew them; he said, "No" (These statements were copies of the evidence of Huck and Rawlings).

Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. The Queen's Music Hall is a very popular place—Lovejoy bears an excellent character—he was in the Navy, and was discharged with an excellent character.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I was present when Campbell took the greater part of Lovejoy's statement, and I told him I should inform the Magistrate how the statement was got from Lovejoy—he held out very great inducements; when Lovejoy hesitated in going on with his statement, he said, "Go on; this won't be used against you," and when I heard afterwards that they were going to use it, I told him I should inform the Magistrate—that is not the way in which I would have approached a prisoner.

Re-examined. I did not make a statement to Mr. Dickenson, the Magistrate, because he objected to the statement: I do not know who told me that—Campbell told the Magistrate that he did not caution him—the statement was put in afterwards—I was not present when it was read to Lain—I took statement B; I held out no inducements—no official of the Great Eastern Railway was present.

WILLIAM STEPHENS (Detective-Sergeant). I was present when statement A was read over to Lain by Campbell at the Police-court on the 20th before the case came on—he said, "I have never sent him any tickets; the only thing I have sent him was two books, which he lent me. "

GUY ARCHIBALD WILSON . They call me Punch—I am a messenger in the employ of the Millwall Dock Company, and travel about on the line carrying bags and so on—I know Lovejoy by sight riding up and down the line for about nine months—I was going info the music-hall last August, where he was on duty, and he said, "Go to ticket-collector Lain at the station and he will give you a letter to bring to me"—the examining ticket inspector was on the line at that time, the person who comes and

demands people's tickets—I went to Lain who I knew, and said, "Charley the fireman sent me for a message"—he gave me an envelope, stuck—I took it to Lovejoy in the evening, and got a free entertainment—that occurred ten or twelve times—the last time I went was about 8 p.m.—on those occasions I always gave him the envelopes when on duty as fireman at the Queen's, and I always got a free pass into the music-hall.

Cross-examined by MR. SANDS. No friends of mine were passed into the music-hall, but it is not unusual—Mr. "W. H. Smith's paper boys have been passed in.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. People who exhibit bills in their windows are given a book of free passes, and when they present the book at the theatre the person on duty tears out a pass—when he gave me the envelope—I do not remember his telling me that there were passes in it to give to the fireman; he may have.

Re-examined. I went ten or twelve times; I do not suggest that he made a statement like that every time; they were buff envelopes.

RICHARD HUCK . I am a bill poster at the Queen's Palace of Varieties, Poplar—last December I had occasion to use the line from North Greenwich to Mill wall Junction for about a fortnight—I know Lain by sight, and know his name by hearing Lovejoy speak to him—I said, "Good afternoon, John"—he said, "Good afternoon; are you going up?"—I said, "Yes"—he said, "Have you got your ticket?"—I said, "Yes"—he said, "Here is one that will do for the morning," giving me a half return-ticket from North Greenwich to Millwall; they are available the next day—this was about three p.m.—that only occurred once on that line, but he gave me two or three from Stepney—I did not give up the tickets next day; I did not use them, because I used to travel on my bicycle—I made a statement to Mr. Campbell.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. Campbell came and said he had been informed that I had tickets—he did not say that it would be better for me to tell the truth—I did not think I was doing any wrong—I did not give Lain a glass of beer or a penny, nor promise him admission to the music-hall.

Re-examined. I am ticket-taker in the gallery; I have been there three years, but not ticket-taker all the time.

CHARLES RAWLINGS . I was a waiter at the Queen's Palace of Varieties in February—I had been there some months, and had to travel from Fenchurch Street to Millwall and back—I know Lain by seeing him as a ticket-collector—just before Christmas he said, "Good afternoon," and remarked that it must cost me a great deal for riding up and down—I said it did—he said, "Here is a half-ticket which will bring you down from Fenchurch Street to Millwall," and he gave me two or three on other occasions—I did not use them, I had no occasion; I only took my return. tickets from Fenchurch Street—I made my statement to Sergeant Campbell.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. Campbell came to me and told me he had heard I was getting tickets—he did not say that I might stand in the dock—I did not think I was doing right—the prisoner and I have drank together—I never passed him into the music-hall—I made away with the tickets; I may have burnt them—I am now engaged at Barrett's ginger beer manufactory.

LOVEJOY— NOT GUILTY. LAIN received a good character— GUILTY of conspiracy. — Four Months' Hard Labour.

308. CHARLES HENRY LOVEJOY and EDWARD LAIN were again charged upon three indictments with stealing certain railway tickets.

No evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

OLD COURT.—Wednesday, March 18th, 1891.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

309. THOMAS GOLDING (16) and STEPHEN NEAL (16) , For a rape on Elizabeth Harriet Papworth; Second Count, for unlawfully and carnally knowing her, being under the age of sixteen.

MR. SANDS Prosecuted.

GUILTY on Second Count. — Six Weeks' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Wednesday and Thursday, March 18th and 19th, 1891.

Before Mr. Recorder.

310. ERNEST JAMES READ, ROBERT CORY HANROTT , and ARTHUR NIGHTINGALE BUTT, Unlawfully conspiring to cheat and defraud Sir Eustace Fitzmaurice Piers, Bart., of money and property, Other Counts, charging Read with wilful and corrupt perjury in the Queen's Bench Division.

MR. COCK, Q.C., and MR. FILLAN Prosecuted; MR. WILLIS, Q.C., and MR. CRANSTOUN appeared for Read, MR. GRAIN for Hanrott, and MR. WINCH, Q.C., for Butt.

MR. WILLIS and MR. GRAIN submitted that it was an unheard of proceeding to charge perjury and conspiracy in one indictment; that it was calculated to embarrass the defendant, and that the prosecution ought to elect upon which charge they would proceed. MR. WINCH made a similar application. MR. COCK stated that he would proceed upon the perjury against Read alone.

WILLIAM ELEY . I am a solicitor, of 55, Old Broad Street, and have acted for Sir Eustace Piers, who brought an action for an account and several other things against the defendants—this is an official copy of the writ—there was an order on 29th May, 1889, that it was to be tried by Mr. Ridley, the official assignee—this is it—it was tried on 29th July and. subsequent dates, and Read was called as a witness on his own behalf, and said that he had paid Sir Eustace Piers a cheque for £812 14s., dated. September 1st, 1887, in discount for a promissory note for £1,212 14s.—lie said that the £400 was for his profit. (The promissory note was here put in; it was for £1,212 14s., repayable by instalments, and in default of one instalment the balance was to become due; it was endorsed 26,619)—I had inspected Bead's books, and he afterwards admitted that no cash had passed in respect of it—the £812 14s. appeared on each side of his bank pass-book—he said he had cashed the cheque himself on 3rd September,. 1887—he was asked how he cashed it; he explained that he had debited Sir E. Piers with the amount of an overdue bill and some expenses and interest, and had paid him the balance in cash, £275 3s. 6d.; he also said he had not enough cash in the office, so he

paid him £75 3s. 6d. and filled up a cheque for £200,. which he produced, and sent it to the bank, and gave the money to Sir Eustace. (This was drawn on the City Bank for £200, to 26,619; pay E. J. Bead, cash or order)—when Bead handed that to the official referee he said, "I see it is ear-marked on both sides"—Read repeated that over and over again on cross-examination—I obtained an order to inspect the books of the City Bank, Ludgate Hill Branch—Mr. Aitchison is ill in Scotland.

THEODORE WALDRON HAY . I am a shorthand writer—I took notes of the examination of Mr. Read in the case of Piers v. Bead, before Mr. Ridley—I did not take all the notes—this (produced) is a transcript of the part I took.

JAMES FREDERICK DUGGETT . I am a shorthand writer—I took notes of Read's examination on, I think, July 9th. (The notes were. partly read.)

Cross-examined by MR. WILLIS. I also took notes on 31st July and August 1st.

SIR EUSTACE PIERS . I am the prosecutor—before 1885 I was the proprietor of, and the only existing partner in, St. George's Mineral Works—the name of the firm was Ormerod, Grierson, and Co.—they are extensive works, the aggregate income up to 1887 was between £5,000 and £6,000 a year profit for the whole works—in 1885 I decided to raise some money—I became acquainted with Mr. Hanrott, a solicitor, who introduced me to Read, the defendant, who was a money-lender, at 71, Fleet Street, under the name of the London Bank—I had advances of money from him—on 15th July, 1887, I raised £500 from Read and Hanrott, for which I gave two deeds securing in form a bonus of £3,500 for the £500 that was lent me for two years, afterwards the. £3,500 was reduced by letter to £2,500. (An indenture, dated June 17th, 1887, between E F Piers and E. J. Read was here put in; also another of July 15th, between the same parties.)—bills were given for £1,750, but the amount really advanced was £250 each—the debentures are of the nominal value of £3,050 each—having given those securities, certain advances were made to me on the hypothecation. of the debts, and on September 1st I saw Read at his office in Fleet Street about some executions which there were in the works at Manchester—an arrangement had been made for paying them out, and I required to raise money for the purpose of carrying out that arrangement—Read. arranged to advance me £812 14s. on my promissory note for £1,212 14s., and a charge on debentures which he had—this is my promissory note—I signed it and handed it to him, and he drew this cheque for £812 14s. (produced)—I endorsed it, and he took it back—I received no money from him—Mr. Read and Mr. Hanrott went to Manchester to pay out the execution, and I went down next morning and met them—one of them, in the presence of the other, said that the arrangement of the day before would not be carried out; he gave no reason, but said that Mr. Hanrott would purchase out and out, the £5,000 worth of debentures which had been mortgaged for the advance at 9s. in the £1, and an account of £2,250 was produced—Mr. Hanrott's costs were £200—other payments had been made, that left a balance of £1,849, and £1,430 was wanted to pay out the execution creditors—Mr. Bead was to advance that to Mr. Hanrott, provided I guaranteed the repayment

of £2,000 which Mr. Hanrott was to borrow from Mr. Read to carry out the transaction—this guarantee was drawn up; it is in Read's writing—they had got that ready when I went down to Manchester. (Dated September 1,1887. By it the witness agreed to pay £2,000 on the promissory note at maturity, on condition of Hanrott discounting the promissory note)—upon that £1,400 was advanced—I never received a penny with regard to the cheque for £812—it is not true that I made any arrangement that in regard to that cheque any old account should be deducted—no accounts were gone into, and no suggestion was made of any payments being made under it—it is false that a balance of £275 3s. 6d. was drawn up; I never heard of it—it is false that I received £75 3s. 6d. in cash as the proceeds of a cheque for £200 alleged to be cashed—I never heard of that cheque till it was produced in the proceedings—I had no transactions with Aitchison, Marks, Whitley, Nash, or Head and Son; I never paid them any bank notes; I do not know them—after this transaction I applied to Read many times for an account of what was due, but he would not give me one—I had arranged for raising a mortgage of £35,000 on the premises, and applied to him again for an account—this is a copy of the one general account of 5th April, 1888—Mr. Read knew that I was consulting a solicitor—he made out this document and presented it to me. (This was a statement of amounts due from Ormerod and Co.)—advances had been made to the company weekly—I do not know what this £912 14s. is; I thought it referred to "bills; I made no observation to Read about it, he read out some bills—we went into the account, and I accepted his figures, and signed this statement that the company were indebted to Read £588 2s. 10s.—the company had nothing whatever to do with the note for £1,212—an indenture was signed by the company on April 10th, giving Read security for the balance of £281.

Cross-examined by MR. WILLIS. I was sole proprietor in Ormerod, Grierson and Co. in 1885—I have been in the business since 1868—I was thirty years of age when I joined it, and until then I had had no experience of the business—it was returning from £5,000 to £6,000 a year; it was in a bad condition when I joined it, and it improved—it went from bad to worse when I got into the hands of your clients, not before—I cannot swear that the profits were £1,600 per annum, or an average of three years, because I have not the books before me—it was not being carried on at a loss from 1885 to 1888; between £5,000 and £6,000 a year was the average profit for ten years—I think the first time I saw Mr. Read was at the close of 1886—I have known Hanrott since 1883; I did not press him to find me money on almost any terms, but I paid very exorbitant terms—in 1886 I had a good many writs served on me for the claims in the business—I think the Sheriff first entered into possession of my premises at the end of 1886—I cannot tell you whether it was early in 1886—he was in possession for I should think a dozen writs in 1886; he was never out of possession from 1886 to September, 1887; he stayed in more than a year; I think the sum he was in for was £3,040; there were about thirty creditors; I daresay some were under—I was not pressed for my own private uses—I could not meet the wages of the men at the concern at Manchester, and before I met Mr. Read at the end of 1886 I could not keep out the writs and executions, or provide for the wages of my men—I had moved in a good position in Manchester,

and was apparently in the possession of a good business, and it is a good one now—I had bankers at Manchester—I had not tried everywhere to raise money before I had transactions with the London Bank, Fleet Street—if I had called my creditors together I should have had all the money—I had applied to my banker before I went to Mr. Bead; he did not do it because he objected to my transactions, because I had got mixed up with money-lenders, and then, I am sorry to say, I decided to have transactions with Mr. Bead—I ceased to have a banking account anywhere about 1st September, 1888—I was in the hands of money-lenders—I had not been to eight or nine loan offices to try and raise money before I went to Mr. Bead—I turned the business of Ormerod, Grierson and Co. into a limited company in January, 1887; the capital was £100,000—Mr. Hanrott and I signed the articles of association—I regarded him as my friend—the capital consisted of 500 debentures at £60 each, and £75,000 in shares—I took the whole of that for the business which I assigned—the trade debts of Ormerod and Co. were between £5,000 and £6,000, but there was £28,000 altogether—the debentures were to be allotted to me under the contract; I do not know whether the contract was obliged to disclose that—I first knew Mr. Eley, the solicitor, about 1882 or 1883, and I am glad to bay he has been acting as my solicitor since then—he was also to be secretary to the company at £3 a week; it was a private company, and did not require much of his time—thirty signatories constituted the board of directors-two formed a quorum—Mr. Hanrott did not do much—Mr. Eley, Mr. Hanrott, and Mr. Rowbottom attended to the business, but with the exception of signing, Mr. Rowbottom did not attend to it—I sold some of the debentures at four shillings in the £ to a client—I cannot give you the date—I believe I wanted £200 on 12th February, 1887, and sold some debentures I believe at over five shillings to the Sheriff's officer—Mr. Collis was my manager for many years both before and after the formation of the company—in 1887 I was still further pressed, and it is quite possible that I agreed on 25th April, 1887, that if £5,000 could be raised for six months on debentures I would pay Mr. Hanrott £2,000 for procuring it—Mr. Ward was the Sheriff's officer—I asked Mr. Hanrott to get me money; I was not particular upon what terms—Mr. Ward was still in possession in the spring of 1887—in 1887 I pressed Mr. Hanrott to see Bead to help me—Bead always insisted that before he made a further advance the Sheriff must go out of possession—I got the £500 in July, for which I promised to give £250 premium—the arrangement may have been made in June—I was pressed on 23rd June, 1887; I believed they were going to make me a bankrupt, and again in July, so much that I was willing to pay £7,000 if I could get a loan of £2,500—I was also very much pressed in private matters during July and August—I understood that £1,300 was wanted in September, 1887; that was not to get the Sheriff out—Mr. Turnbull is a solicitor—possibly Mr. Read told me that he had received a telegram from Mr. Turnbull, that £1,300 was required to make the Sheriff withdraw, but my mind is a perfect blank about it—I cannot tell you whether he also said that Mr. Turnbull required him to go to Manchester that night to make arrangements—I did not then ask Bead to let me have some money on my own private account—I daresay I did in

the middle of August—I will swear I never had anything for my own private affairs except some small sums—this bill for £240 money borrowed (dated February 11th, 1887) was in Read's hands at the end of August, and was unpaid; I will not swear that £52 was not owing on a promissory note of mine at the end of August; how can I? I know nothing about it—I have had no account of interest outstanding in respect of three transactions at the end of August—I cannot produce a single cheque of mine for payment of interest between February and September, 1887—I will not swear that there was not £200 at the end of August owing for interest or money which had been lent me—Read did not tell me with respect to the advance of money on the private account that there would be about £512 due and owing for outstanding items, expenses and costs, and that there was about £301) which I could have—I agreed to pay £400 for the company's purposes—on September 1st I signed a promissory note for £1,212, and endorsed a cheque for £812—I did not produce the guarantee of the company—I did not say that although this was for my private business the company guarantee could be procured—I never procured the company guarantee, Mr. Read produced one signed by Mr. Hanrott on September 1st—this is it (produced)—I gave him a charge on that day on certain debentures—I do not think some of them 'had been charged four times; you have got the documents—I also gave this further charge on my debentures of September 1st (produced)—Mr. Read got all the security he could out of me—I believe I gave him a transfer on November 1st of certain shares standing in my name—before going to Manchester on 2nd September, in addition to the arrangement made with respect to the £812 matter, there was also a discussion with Hanrott to meet the claims at Manchester by a sale of debentures—the whole of the claims, including the Sheriff's, were not to be met by a sale of debentures to Hanrott; there was no such proposal—£1,300 was all I thought was requisite at Manchester—I had negotiations before going to Manchester to raise the money by a sale of debentures to Hanrott; they fell through—I had previously seen Hanrott and Read—I went to Manchester on the 2nd—I had left the promissory note and cheque in Bead's possession, with the documents—he was not to keep those for the private advance until the claims at Manchester had been paid off—all the money Read was to take to Manchester was £812 14s.—it was not arranged on that occasion that Hanrott was to raise the money from Read if he purchased; it was arranged at Manchester—it was not proposed that Hanrott would purchase, and Read supply the money for the purchase, before I went to Manchester—when I got "to Manchester I learnt that Read took over £1,400 in bank notes there; that was not by arrangement—I found when I was there that £1,300 would not do; another £150 was wanted, I believe; I cannot say the exact amount—I asked Read for another £150 at Manchester to meet certain claims; I did not press him; there was no discussion about it—he said he would let me have it if he could be paid out of the moneys that would come to me when I returned to town in respect of this promissory note for £812—the money to come from Hanrott for the purchase of the debentures was not sufficient to meet the claims we found when we go to Manchester—on 2nd September there was a balance of, I think, about

£150 short, and Read said he would advance that money, provided he was paid back by weekly instalments at the rate of £10, which I agreed to—£150 was to be paid him in respect of money coming for the £812 cheque; it was out of the £812 for a particular purpose—it certainly was not to come out of the moneys coming from the £812 cheque; the £812 formed part of what was to go to the creditors—my case is that that transaction of 1st September, which contemplate! one method of raising money to pay claims, was abandoned because of what took place at Manchester, and did not become operatives—it was not agreed that the £150 required should come out of the money from the £812 cheque; I misunderstood your question before, when I said it was—I came back to London—I will not swear I did not visit Mr. Bead on 3rd September; I don't think I did—it is quite possible I called at 71, Fleet Street on 3rd September, because Read paid the wages weekly; I should say I did not, but if I did I may have gone to see if the wages were paid—by what took place at Manchester the whole of the negotiations of the 1st September came to an end, and all these documents of 1st September became of no value—the cheque and promissory note became of no value—I ought to have had them back again—I never asked for them, and never got any documents back—it would not be right to give effect to any of them—the transfer for shares ought to be given up to me—I don't know whether within five days of being at Manchester I effected a transfer of those very shares to Read—the transfer given on 1st September being of no avail, Read was not entitled to call for a transfer of those shares into his name or that of his nominee—I should say I did not on 8th September, as chairman, pass that transfer into Read's name; I don't know from memory unless you show me the document—Eley acted as secretary to the company; I was chairman—I have not seen this document before; I should say it is in Mr. Eley's Jerk's writing—I don't remember that the transfer of shares from 12,301 to 13,800, dated 1st September, had come to the office of Grierson and Co. for registration and transfer into the name of Read—I suppose as chairman I ought to know of transfers taking place—the charge on the debentures equally fell through—this is the instrument I gave on 1st September for interest on debentures, where Cochrane's name appears; it is null and void—I find on it Cochrane's name as the person who had had a charge on the debentures in respect of which I was going to charge Read—MESSRS. Hepburn, Son, and Cutcliffe were solicitors acting for Cochrane in September, 1887, within two or three weeks of my return from Manchester; I know them—interest was in arrears in respect of the debentures—I don't know if I asked Cochrane to take promissory notes for the interest; I think not, they would not—I think that a bill was given, because they would not wait—I don't remember if Cochrane were willing to do it, if other persons who had a charge on their shares would not object; I have a good memory—I think I have seen Mr. Lord, an accountant, on this business; I don't think I met any member of Hepburn, Son, and Cutcliffe till afterwards—I saw a member of the firm with Mr. Lord, about the end of September, I should say—I daresay I wished that gentleman to ask Mr. Cochrane to give a receipt for the interest on the debentures on Ormerod, Grierson, and Co., taking a bill for the amount; it is possible—I don't remember if the gentleman from Hepburn's informed me that

the middle of August—I will swear I never had anything for my own private affairs except some small sums—this bill for £240 money borrowed (dated February 11th, 1887) was in Read's hands at the end of August, and was unpaid; I will not swear that £52 was not owing on a promissory note of mine at the end of August; how can I? I know nothing about it—I have had no account of interest outstanding in, respect of three transactions at the end of August—I cannot produce a single cheque of mine for payment of interest between February and September, 1887—I will not swear that there was not £200 at the end of August owing for interest or money which had been lent me—Read did not tell me with respect to the advance of money on the private account that there would be about £512 due and owing for outstanding items, expenses and costs, and that there was about £300 which I could have—I agreed to pay £400 for the company's purposes—on September 1st I signed a promissory note for £1,212, and endorsed a cheque for £812—I did not produce the guarantee of the company—I did not say that although this was for my private business the company guarantee could be procured—I never procured the company guarantee, Mr. Read produced one signed by Mr. Hanrott on September 1st—this is it (produced)—I gave him a charge on that day on certain debentures—I do not think some of them had been charged four times; you have got the documents—I also gave this further charge on my debentures of September 1st (produced)—Mr. Read got all the security he could out of me—I believe I gave him a transfer on November 1st of certain shares standing in my name—before going to Manchester on 2nd September, in addition to the arrangement made with respect to the £812 matter, there was also a discussion with Hanrott to meet the claims at Manchester by a sale of debentures—the whole of the claims, including the Sheriff's, were not to be met by a sale of debentures to Hanrott; there was no such proposal—£1,300 was all I thought was requisite at Manchester—I had negotiations before going to Manchester to raise the money by a sale of debentures to Hanrott; they fell through—I had previously seen Hanrott and Read—I went to Manchester on the 2nd—I had left the promissory note and cheque in Read's possession, with the documents—he was not to keep those for the private advance until the claims at Manchester had been paid off—all the money Read was to take to Manchester was £812 148.—it was not arranged on that occasion that Hanrott was to raise the money from Read if he purchased; it was arranged at Manchester—it was not proposed that Hanrott would purchase, and Read supply the money for the purchase, before I went to Manchester—when I got "to Manchester I learnt that Read took over £1,400 in bank notes there; that was not by arrangement—I found when I was there that £1,300 would not do; another £150 was wanted, I believe; I cannot say the exact amount—I asked Read for another £150 at Manchester to meet certain claims; I did not press him; there was no discussion about it—he said he would let me have it if he could be paid out of the moneys that would come to me when I returned to town in respect of this promissory note for £812—the money to come from Hanrott for the purchase of the debentures was not sufficient to meet the claims we found when we go to Manchester—on 2nd September there was a balance of, I think, about

£150 short, and Read said he would advance that money, provided he was paid back by weekly instalments at the rate of £10, which I agreed to—£150 was to be paid him in respect of money coming for the £812 Cheque; it was out of the £812 for a particular purpose—it certainly was not to come out of the moneys coming from the £812 cheque; the £812 formed part of what was to go to the creditors—my case is that that transaction of 1st September, which contemplate! one method of raising money to pay claims, was abandoned because of what took place at Manchester, and did not become operative—it was not agreed that the £150 required should come out of the money from the £812 cheque; I misunderstood your question before, when I said it was—I came back to London—I will not swear I did not visit Mr. Read on 3rd September; I don't think I did—it is quite possible I called at 71, fleet Street on 3rd September, because Read paid the wages weekly; I should say I did not, but if I did I may have gone to see if the wages were paid—by what took place at Manchester the whole of the negotiations of the 1st September came to an end, and all these documents of 1st September became of no value—the cheque and promissory note became of no value—I ought to have had them back again—I never asked for them, and never got any documents back—it would not be right to give effect to any of them—the transfer for shares ought to be given up to me—I don't know whether within five days of being at Manchester I effected a transfer of those very shares to Read—the transfer given on 1st September being of no avail, Read was not entitled to call for a transfer of those shares into his name or that of his nominee—I should say I did not on 8th September, as chairman, pass that transfer into Read's name; I don't know from memory unless you show me the document—Eley acted as secretary to the company; I was chairman—I have not seen this document before; I should say it is in Mr. Eley's clerk's writing—I don't remember that the transfer of shares from 12,301 to 13,800, dated 1st September, had come to the office of Grierson and Co. for registration and transfer into the name of Read—I suppose as chairman I ought' to know of transfers taking place—the charge on the debentures equally fell through—this is the instrument I gave on 1st September for interest on deben-tures, where Cochrane's name appears; it is null and void—I find on it Cochrane's name as the person who had had a charge on the debentures in respect of which I was going to charge Read—Messrs. Hepburn. Son, and Cutcliffe were solicitors acting for Cochrane in September, 1887, within two or three weeks of my return from Manchester; I know them—interest was in arrears in respect of the debentures—I don't know if I asked Cochrane to take promissory notes for the interest; I think not, they would not—I think that a bill was given, because they would not wait—I don't remember if Cochrane were willing to do it, if other persons who had a charge on their shares would not object; I have a good memory—I think I have seen Mr. Lord, an accountant, on this business; I don't think I met any member of Hepburn, Son, and Cutcliffe till afterwards—I saw a member of the firm with Mr. Lord, about the end of September, I should say—I daresay I wished that gentleman to ask Mr. Cochrane to give a receipt for the interest on the debentures on Ormerod, Grierson, and Co., taking a bill for the amount; it is possible—I don't remember if the gentleman from Hepburn's informed me that

that could not be done unless the fifth mortgagee, the London Bank, would give a letter agreeing that Cochrane should not be charged with such payment till he actually received the cash—I don't know if I agreed that a letter should be written in respect of it—I don't remember if I went on 26th September to get Read's consent to his allowing the receipts for interest to be given by Cochrane on the terms that he should not be charged with cash until the bill was paid—I went to Read to ask him to take up the debentures—Read, Mr. Lord, and I went to negotiate taking up these debentures which were held by Cochrane, Mr. Hepburn being Cochrane's solicitor, and Mr. Read subsequently took up the debentures—I don't remember if I treated with Read as having the fifth charge on the debentures held by Cochrane—the securities were not valid—I had not asked for any of them back—I paid no £10 a week—it would have been very wrong to have paid £10 a week under that security, which was signed by me and Hanrott of 1st September, to take Hanrott's money for my purposes—I found out after some weeks that Read had deducted £10 a week under that agreement of September 1st; that was quite wrong—I may have been at Read's on 3rd September; I believe not—we had no settling up on that day with respect to the £812 cheque; no conversation about it—the outstanding interest of £199 3s. 10d. was not calculated and fixed; nothing of the kind—Read was at Manchester on the second—he incurred expenses going to Hull and Manchester; I don't know about other places—the costs and expenses were not agreed at £46 6s. 8d. on that or any other day; nor that there was a balance left to me of £275 3s. 6d. under that £800 cheque—I know a Mr. Rand by sight—I have often seen that gentleman now in Court—Read has a little box, his own office, at his offices—I did not converse with Read on 3rd September, and therefore Mr. Rand did not come in; if I was there Rand might have come in, but I don't remember—Read did not in my presence give the items £199 3s. 10d. and £46 6s. 8d. to be entered by Rand in the book on that 3rd September as amounts due for interest and costs and expenses; I swear that Rand did not bring into the room where Read and I were a sum of money which purported to be £273 2s. 6d., nor any money at all—Read did not on that day sign a cheque for £200 in my presence; I never had any money—I had forgotten all about the cheque for £812 till about March, 1889, when a discovery was obtained in the proceedings, and I saw the document and recognised this amount after some time, and I said to Mr. Eley, "This amount is wrong"—I did not on 3rd September agree either that it should be taken up by money out of the £273 cheque or hand back myself the sum of £150 which had been advanced by Read at Manchester—I did not take away the remainder of the £273—m August, 1888, a petition to wind up Ormerod and Grierson was presented by Read, a petition by Mr. Willans, and a petition by Mr. Eley to save my property—I allowed him to obtain judgment—the writ was served on me personally at the office of Eley—he presented ten other petitions week after week; it was the same petition re-presented ten times—I commenced proceedings against Mr. Read on 11th March, 1889, for an account of what was due and owing to me; and in March, 1889, I also caused an action to be commenced against him in the name of Ormerod, Grierson and Co. on behalf of the company—Read's liquidator would not go on with that latter action—Read took £700, and would not go on with it—I suppose,

technically, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution—I don't know if Read's costs were taxed at £103 11s.; he has got £500 out of me which he has not yet accounted for—I suppose none of the costs were paid—I heard Read give his account of the transaction before Mr. Ridley—he said I had £275 3s. 6d. on 3rd September, and took it away in my pocket—I was called to deny it—that suit ended by a compromise—not nearly all the accounts were gone into—I gave my account of what had been received under the £812 cheque, and I heard Read's account—I think it was compromised before he was re-examined—Read's counsel said they thought of making inquiries at the Bank to ascertain to what extent, if any, trace could be made of the notes and gold which had been got under that cheque—Read presented a claim against me in that action of £7,218—I made an affidavit denying that I owed Read a farthing—I don't think I can find in this claim any reference to the promissory note for £240 of 11th February, 1887, or to the £52 balance in respect of the promissory note of 26th February, 1887; it is not here, nor is there any claim in respect of interest, £199; the general claim is all made up of interest—I can find no claim for costs and expenses—the claim for £1,250 by way of premium is in—the inquiry before Mr. Ridley lasted three and a half days—the terms of the compromise were entered into between Mr. Bovill (my counsel) and Mr. Kent (Read's counsel)—I don't know what Read agreed to give up; 1 don't think he agreed to give up the £1,250; I know we agreed certain amounts—Read consented to take a judgment for £5,200 in respect of his claim of £7,218—the costs were to come out of £500 that I had. paid into Court, and the balance was to go against the principal. (MR. WILLIS read an extract from the shorthand notes)—I was in Court when Mr. Bovill addressed Mr. Kent, and said, "The charges on all sides are to be withdrawn," and Mr. Kent said, "oh, yes"; but I distinctly and Openly said that I would not withdraw—my counsel said that I had not the money—I agreed to what my counsel spoke for me—in August, 1889, Mr. Read said that he was a judgment creditor for £5,200—terms were actually signed between us, stating the conditions on which I could have the debentures for my own use—I nave never paid a farthing of that £5,200—I brought an action against Bead in November to restrain him from dealing with the debentures he held as security for the £5,200, on the ground that I had complied with the tonus; it was referred to Mr. "Wolstenholm, and he decided against me; the costs have never been paid—after the order of Mr. Ridley, Mr. Butt was appointed to act, and he parted with the debentures, and they gave power to seize the business—he got Mr. Nightingale turned out—I had mortgaged the whole of the land and the fixed plant to the University Life Insurance for £20,000, with incumbrances—all the debenture-holders could take would be the patterns, the stock-in-trade, the fixtures,. and £4,000 in cash—a bogus company was formed with £35,000 capital—in August, 1889, I had 200 debentures standing in my name; I do not snow whether they were mortgaged—on 29th July, as soon as Alderman Phillips had read the statement of claim, he adjourned the whole proceedings for six months, to allow the litigation to be concluded before he would deal with the matter—I became bankrupt in July, and got the whole of my property—Justice Stirling did not dismiss the suit against St. George, nor did he invite every debenture-holder to take up proceedings—there was no person who would take it up; Mr. Eley was not

invited to do it; he received, as a debenture-holder, a portion of the money which was paid for the purchase of the loose plant and patterns, the proceedings having all been stated in the civil action—you came before Alderman Phillips at the end of January and on the 5th, 19th, and 23rd February, and at the end of the four days' hearing he dismissed the case without you asking me a single question; you declined to cross-examine me, you said you would reserve it—the Magistrate dismissed both informations, and then I had myself bound over in £500 to prosecute—I swore in an affidavit of March 2nd, 1889, that it was untrue that Mr. Hanrott purchased the debentures for me, and never paid me any money for them—this account was made out by Mr. Hanrott and signed by me. (This mentioned the purchase of 900 debentures at nine shillings in the pound)—that was brought down from London prepared—I did not see it in London, but I went down by the 5.45 a.m. train, and it was already there—it is dated the 1st, and they went down on the 2nd—it is written on paper belonging to a gentleman at Manchester—I knew on 4th April, 1888, that Mr. Read was writing to Mr. Eley about the account; he wanted it settled—Mr. Rowbottom and I signed this account between Read and the company—we went through several items of it; Mr. Read counted up the amounts—the £914 overdue is a wholly fictitious item in it—Mr. Read read out the number of bill s, and I took down the amounts—he did not give me £26,619 as the item—the bill was not overdue—I did not ask him what he meant by "Overdue, £914"—if he had produced the bill I should have spotted the fraud—he did not go through it with me and explain the £914—I know now that 10 per cent, deducted brought it to £912 14s.—I came forward two years afterwards and charged these men when I discovered the fraud. (A verdict of NOT GUILTY was here taken as to Hanrott and Butt)—I find no trace in this list (produced) of the amount borrowed at Manchester—that money was deducted from the weekly amount—I did not borrow £150 at Manchester, I only borrowed the difference, which I repaid—there was an assignment of the debt due to Ormerod and Co. to Mr. Read, on which he made advances—the accounts were sent to Manchester, and I was credited with the money sent down—those advances took place weekly—I negotiated with Mr. Read the advances each week, and saw him upon them; Mr. Corless sent me a list of accounts to be hypothecated, but not an account of the money sent down—before September I sent the money down myself, but after September a cheque was drawn payable to Ormerod, Grierson, and Co. for the amount to be paid in respect of the hypothecation, and returned to Mr. Read, who sent the money to Manchester himself—at that time I received £3 weekly from Mr. Read—he told me he would not let me send the money any more because I took from it more than I ought to take—he deducted £40 or £50 the first week, and £10 which was short on the settlement of Manchester, which was early in 1881—he deducted forties, fifties, and twenty-fives—(looking at some cheques) £161 and £138 are deducted here—I never saw this letter before. (From Mr. Read to Mr. Corless, dated 30th September, 1887)—I was not informed of its contents—I believe I knew that £10 a week was to be deducted on the overdue money—that letter was not written in my presence by Mr. Read and sent down to Mr. Corless—I did not inform Mr. Corless that I had a loan transaction on

my own account with Mr. Read—£10 was deducted for Earle; his account belonged to the old firm.

Re-examined. I never heard till Mr. Willis put it to me that £10 a week was to be deducted from the £1,200 loan; it was not alluded to in the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of Mr. Read before the Official Assignee—he did not say that one single penny had been paid in respect of that loan—from the beginning of the proceedings it has never been suggested to me that instead of having £275, which I took away in my pocket, that £100 was retained by Head by my consent—I never heard it till yesterday—Mr. Read did not say a word about it before the Official Receiver—I was present before the Magistrate when it was said that the bank notes had been traced; it was not suggested then nor when I was cross-examined before the Official Referee—my solicitor has inspected the defendant's books, and there is no such entry in them, as far as I know—the promissory note, with £240 due upon it, and £50 balance due on February 5th, was not referred to in any way on the 1st or 31st September—I never heard of £199 3s. 10d. for interest till I was before the Referee, or £146 6s. 8d.—no such account has been delivered to me—Mr. Read made a claim of £7,000 against me, and I agreed to £5,200—I have never admitted receiving the £275, or a penny or it; when it was drawn to my attention I repudiated it at once. (The reading of the transcript of Mr. Duggett's notes was here continued.)

MR. STILES. I am a cashier at the City Bank, Ludgate Hill branch—the London Bank had an account there—I have an examined extract from the books—no cheque for £812 14s. of September 1st was mentioned in my subpoena, and the matter has not been looked into—a cheque for 1200 countersigned by Mr. Read was presented for payment on 3rd September, for which I paid seventeen £10 notes, 44,382 to 44,398, and £30 in gold—on 5th September we changed note 44,398 for Mr. Read, and to the best of my belief this is his writing on the back of it; it is one of the notes given for the £200 cheque—I have no record before me of any notes credited to Mr. Marks. (The witness was directed to go to the bank and search for the notes.)

GEORGE NASH . I am a pianoforte dealer—about September 7th, I borrowed £15 from Mr. Read—my partner was with me when, a £10 and a £5 note were handed to me by a dark young man—I forthwith paid them into Williams, Deacon's Bank, to the credit of Kent and Nash.

Cross-examined. My partner is in Africa, and having retired from business our books have practically been destroyed; the other day I found his petty cash-book—I cannot swear at this distance of time I did not receive £18 10s.

WALTER PACEY . We had no customers named Kent and Nash in September, 1887—I produce a copy from the cash-book of entries on 7th and 10th September, of payments to Ashby and Co., Staines, of £10 notes No. 44,390 and No. 44,383—those were paid into our London and South-Western Bank.

SARAH BOYCE . On 6th September I received from Mr. Whittey a £10 note No. 44,383, which my husband endorsed—I paid it to the station-master at Sunningdale.

JOHN MARKS . I am a clothier—on 5th September, 1887, I obtained a loan of £100 from Mr. Read—I cannot swear if I received part in notes—this writing is not mine on this note—I have not the slightest idea

whose it is—I can show you my writing if you wish—I kept a banking account; I always pay my moneys into the London and South-Western Bank, Bermondsey branch—of the entry £113, £13 would be interest.

ALFRED MAINWARING . I am a clerk in the Bermondsey branch of the London and South-Western Bank—on September 6th, 1887, five £10 notes were paid into Mr. Marks' credit, Nos. 44,392 to 44,395 inclusive, and 44,382 and a £50 note—the writing on this note is our manager's.

ALFRED GEORGE HAYMAN . I am manager of the London and South-Western Bank—on 10th September Mr. Aitchison paid in four £10 notes, Nos. 42,770, 44,389, 44,396, and 44,391.

CHARLES JOHN WILLIAMSON . The notes produced have been duly returned to the Bank of England.

Witnesses for the Defence.

EDWARD JAMES RAND . I have been Mr. Read's cashier since 1883, in a business known as the London Bank—Mr. Ernest James Read was the manager—there was a committee of management: James Charles Bead, John Searls, Henry Darking, and Mr. Beckett—there were two other clerks in 1887—there were two rooms at 71, Fleet Street—a portion of the large office was partitioned off as a private office for Mr. Read—I kept the cash—it was my duty to balance the cash each day, and to make entries in the cash-book—I kept the book of repayment of loans—I entered them into the day-book, and the total into the cash-book in the evening—this is the cash-book—I had balanced by cash-book on the previous day, and brought the balance forward as the first item of September 3rd—I made an estimate of what money I should require during the day for management—I got it by cheque from the manager, sometimes over-night and sometimes the first thing in the morning—on 3rd September, 1887, Sir Eustace Piers came to the office early in the morning—call-books are kept—he saw Mr. Read in his private room—whilst he was there I was called in—Mr. Read said he wanted £275 3s. 6d. in cash, and referred me to the till—I found I could not spare it—he drew a cheque for £200, which he handed me—Sir Eustace Piers was present whilst this was going on—I sent and got the cheque cashed—the money was brought to me—I took £275 3s. 6d. into the room where Mr. Read and Sir Eustace Piers were sitting—I cannot say whether that was before or after I got the £200 cheque cashed—I put it on the table at which they were sitting—I received from Mr. Read papers relating to it; a promissory note for £1,212 14s., a cheque for £812 14s., and a rough slip showing how £812 14s. was made up, including £46 6s. 8d., £199 3s. 10d., and two items in the day-book of £240 and £52—I was instructed to debit Sir Eustace Piers with a loan of £1,212 14s.—the day-book entries are mine—I made the entry to show the difference between the payment made direct from Ormerod and Co. and the payment made by debtors; I had as security a £365 bill—I debited myself with the £812 14s. cheque as having received it and paid it into the bank—this is the slip—I got credit as appears in the cash-book—the difference between what I debit and credit myself with is £275 3s. 6d., which I charge in payment of the debt—I found the cash, balance properly that Saturday afternoon—I did not touch or see that £275 3s. 6d. again—I got £150 from Mr. Read after Sir Eustace Piers left—I gave credit to Mr. Read for £1,950, which was made up of this cheque for £1,800, and the balance would be this £150, probably in noses—on the 1st Mr. Read took £1,450 to Manchester—I went through

the account 26,619 with Piers and Rowbottom when they called in April. (The witness explained where he had commenced, and showed the items in the books)—I also showed them the promissory note for £ 1,212, and the items that made up the £912—I have conversed with Piers as to the weekly £10 payments on account of hypothecated debts—he asked that they should be suspended, as he wanted the money for wages—we referred to the £1,212 promissory note and the balance of Earle's contract.

Cross-examined. I can show in the books the settlement of the £240 bill—the item as entered shows it—the bank keeps a separate ledger account with each customer—each item is separate—that has always been our system—it is not mixed up. (The witness pointed out several items)—"Solr." means the matter is in the solicitor's hands—Mr. White was the solicitor—he is not here—the only entry is £240 as paid at some time—we sometimes have a settlement drawn up and signed; not generally—we do not keep a book of statements—the statements are entered, filed, and put away in the office—I do not think there is any statement showing the settlement of the £1,212 14s. bill, the receipt of £125, and the rest going off old debts. (The witness here explained further items in the book)—the £52 is entered as paid—it was merely a payment on account—I gave no receipt for it—I do not remember giving up the £240 bill—if we have produced it I did not; possibly because Piers did not ask. for it, or it may not have been handy—I have no entry showing how the £199 3s. 10d. was made up, nor the £46 6s. 8d.—I do not know of any receipt for it—I have no entry of the Manchester transaction—it was not our transaction—I have only an entry on the 1st where Read took the £1,450—that is debited to Read on 1st and credited to him on the 3rd—I have no entry showing the debenture transaction—Piers understood the books when I explained them—there is no entry to trace the £150, except that I received it from Read—I think the £150 was debited to Mr. Read as a private matter, and then he is credited with it—there is nothing to show the receipt by Piers of £125; if you are right in that amount—I paid the whole £275 over—I have no receipt for it.

Re-examined. Read accounts to me for the money he takes away—he accounted for the £1,450—I have also credited him with £150 which he handed me on 3rd September—that had nothing to do with any loan to Piers by a bank—on 3rd September Hanrott is debited with £1,800—that would be in the loan-book. (Pointing it out)—the loan on the 3rd was carried out by Reads going to Manchester—I have no doubt I took the £275 3s. 6d. into that room, where Piers and Bead were sitting—I had no other money than the £150 I referred to from Bead that day.

MR. SEAL. I am the solicitor for the defendant—I was his solicitor in the matters which came before Mr. Ridley—there was an inspection of documents, and everything was scheduled—Sir Eustace Piers with his solicitor came to my office on more than one occasion, and inspected such hooks as I had, and the books in my client's possession were inspected at the bank—I furnished a copy of the particulars to Mr. Eley, Sir E. Piers' solicitor, in respect of the £1,214 bill, also particulars in respect of the £2,000 transaction; and with respect to the £2,400, they were ordered by the referee, and I delivered them—my client was not reexamined, before the conclusion of the case his counsel asked that his cross-examination might stand over till Sir E. Piers had been examined, after which I got instructions from my client to make inquiries, and I

sent my clerk at once to do so, but a compromise took place, and there was no necessity—I was present when the settlement took place in August, 1889; Sir E. Piers did not intimate in any way his dissent to Mr. Bovill's withdrawal of the charge.

NOT GUILTY .

ESSEX CASES.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

311. ALFRED RUDD (47) was indicted for, and charged on the Coroners inquisition with, the manslaughter of Sarah Ann Pedder.

MESSRS. CHARLES MATHEWS and C. F. GILL Prosecuted.

CHARLES C. LEWIS . I am one of the coroners for the county of Essex—on the 16th January I held an inquest as to the death of Sarah Ann Pedder, in order to ascertain the cause of death—on that day the prisoner was called as a witness; he was sworn and cautioned—this is his deposition—(Read:. "The deceased was a single woman, and forty-seven years of age. I have known her between six and seven years past. I first met her in a public-house, the Custom House; and I have been living with her off and on since then up to a fortnight since. I am married, but have been living away from my wife thirteen years. I have had three rooms at 36, High Street, North Woolwich, on the first floor. I and the deceased slept in the middle room, my mother occupied the front, and we all used to have our meals in this front room. Nobody slept in the back room where the body is now lying. I have six children, all grown up: two sons at sea, one son at Capetown, one is at Yarmouth, one son employed in a fish-shop at Canning Town; one daughter married, one single, now living with my mother; a man comes to see her, but he has not stopped there all night to my knowledge. The deceased was of drunken habits, and had been drunk every day for a fortnight before she died. I last slept with her on 29th December, in the middle room; she had had some drink. We had some beer in a glass bottle in the room. On Tuesday afternoon, 30th December, I went to the Royal Standard about three; I found her there drunk. I went out and left her there, and I have not slept with her since. I returned home very late at night, about half-past twelve; whether she was in the house I don't know, she did not sleep with me. I did not see her again till the Thursday following; I found her at Mrs. Collins's, the Prince Albert. I put my hand on her shoulder and led her out, and gave her a good talking to and left her. I did not see her again till about half-past eleven last Sunday morning, 11th February, when I went into the back bedroom, lying on the floor, she had the pail under her head for a pillow; she had her dress bodice on, but unfastened from the waist. I said, 'Come, get your things on, and go out of this. ' I called a policeman, one came, not further than the passage, and advised my going to a Magistrate. I told my mother what I had done; she advised me to go for another constable; one came and roused her; he tried to get her on to her feet, but she could not stand; she was the worse for liquor. I went to my mother and slept till nearly five; I then went to look after the deceased again, and found her dead. Since the 1st of January I don't know where she had been sleeping;

since then I have been sleeping in the same front room with my mother. The deceased's nose was disfigured, as it is now, when I first met her. I have never kicked her or knocked her about; I can't account for any bruises or blows on her legs. On the Sunday morning she kept calling out, 'Take these dogs away'; there were no dogs there.")

MARY ANN SUSSOMS . I am the wife of Thomas Sussoms, 21, High Street, North Woolwich; he has an off beerhouse there, opposite No. 36, where the prisoner lived—I have known him over six months—he lived with the deceased and his mother—on 19th November last the deceased came to me and handed me a bag containing £46 to take care of; I did not receive it from her, I received it from my servant—on 29th December the deceased came to me, and I handed her £1 of the money—I knew Mrs. Rudd, the prisoner's mother; I saw her occasionally, and spoke to her—I saw her on the Monday following—on 26th, 27th, and 29th December the deceased came to me, and on each of those occasions I gave her £1—on 5th January I saw the prisoner's mother, and had some conversation with her—same day in January the prisoner's daughter came to me.

EMMA WILIIAMS . I live at 36, High Street, North Woolwich, on the ground floor—for six months past the prisoner and the deceased occupied the first floor, that would be the floor directly above me: I have heard quarrels, and have several times seen him strike her; the first time was about a month before the 29th December; he struck her with his hand in several parts of the body and head—about a fortnight before 29th December he said if she did not get money she should not come into the house again—on 29th December he pulled her out of my room by the hair of her head; he called her foul names, and said she was to get money from Mrs. Sussoms—I had heard them quarrelling in their room that morning, and I heard him say he would kill her if she did not get him some money; she ran upstairs to my room, and he followed her, and it was then he pulled her out by her hair—on the 31st, in the evening, I was at home, and saw the prisoner pull her downstairs by her shoulders from the middle room; his daughter, Nellie Gray, was helping him, and she only came there that afternoon, and she stayed on in the front room—the deceased had no boots on at the time, her bodice was torn, and she was half-naked—it was a bitter cold night; I got her boots, and gave them to the prisoner, and he threw them into the street—I don't know how she got into the street; she got over a neighbour's fence and through the window into her own house, and went upstairs into the middle room—at half-past twelve that night the prisoner came home and went upstairs, and I saw no more that night—on Friday, 9th January, he sold the bed and bedding from the middle room, where the deceased slept—she came down and spoke to me late that evening and warmed herself, and then went up to lie on the bare boards—the next day, 10th January, she was in my room all day she was perfectly sober—she was not in the habit of getting drunk—I have seen her the worse for liquor occasionally, but not drunk—she washed herself in my room on the 10th—she had no marks on her face or knees then—next afternoon, the 11th, I saw her about half-past two, when the constable was there; she was lying on the ground in the back room—there were no marks then—about ten minutes past six I saw her in the back room dead; she then had a blood mark on each temple; She was almost naked from her feet to her thighs—I put an old coat on her.

Cross-examined. She was not drinking in my room on the Saturday morning—you took the money from her and beat her—your mother did not send her away for drunkenness—I did not take her place for a little while—I used to assist your mother when you were out drinking and spending her money—you fetched the police on Sunday morning; that was the day she died—she was not drunk; she had nothing but cold water.

ELIZABETH HENLEY . I am the wife of William Henley, of 34, High Street, next door to the prisoner—my rooms are on the first floor; there is just a partition between our rooms and his—I have known him seven or eight months, and the deceased and the prisoner's mother; they all three slept in the front room—about three weeks before Christmas the prisoner's daughter came there—on 22nd December I saw the prisoner kick the deceased twice in her behind; that was in the street; she went indoors, shut the door, and shut him out; he was cursing and swearing that he would kill her when he got in if she did not open the door—I have repeatedly heard their voices in their room, when he has thrown her down and telling her to get up, and there was a moan from her—I have sometimes heard her say, "Don't do it any more, Alf" and he has said, "Got up you b----."—on 31st December, between six and seven, I heard him tell her to go, and he threw an old piece of carpet out, and told her to go and make a bed as best she could—I did not see him on that occasion—on 9th January I was in my bedroom, and I heard him throw her down, and she said, "Oh, Alf, you brute, you beast!"—just before that I heard her go bash on the stones—on Sunday morning, the 11th, I heard a moaning in the back kitchen, and I heard the prisoner's voice telling her to get up; she did not answer, only by groaning and moaning, and in the evening I heard she was dead.

MARY ANN AMOS . I live at 38, High Street, North Woolwich, that is next door to 36—I had known the deceased some ten years—I was well acquainted both with her voice and the prisoner's—last December I very frequently heard their voices in the house next door, jangling and quarrelling—I have heard and seen blows from 8th of December—I have heard it as early as four in the morning—I could not say who was striking the blows, only I heard—the words; I heard the deceased saying, "Oh, Alf, don't, don't!"—I have heard that frequently—on the 8th January I was in my back room, the deceased was in the water-closet, and the prisoner went there and said, "Come out, you b—cow," and he pulled her out by the hair of her head, and kicked her once on the bottom part of the loins—she went out at the back door, and went into Mrs. Williams's part of the house—on the 11th, between twelve and one, I went into my back yard; I had previously heard the prisoner say, "Get up, you b----cow," and I heard her say three times, "Oh, Alf; don't, don't, don't!"—I threw a stone at Mrs. Williams's back door or window, and she came out, and I spoke to her about it—between twelve and one the same day I was again in my back yard—I then heard the deceased cry for mercy, and beg him not to hit her again—I did not see him; I heard his voice—between one and two I went to the police-station and gave information—I did not see the deceased after she was dead—on the evening of the last day of last year I saw her between my window and the prisoner's window—I could see the front door of his house from where I was—I

did not see who threw the deceased out; but I saw that she was thrown out of the door, and the door was closed upon her—she went to Mrs. Hissey, and came into my passage, and then took refuge in Mrs. Williams's room.

Cross-examined. I was not drinking with the deceased in Mrs. Williams' yard the day previous to her death—I have not taken anything to drink since August two years.

AMELIA HISSEY . I live at 34, High Street—I have known the prisoner and deceased for some months—I knew their voices, I have heard them rowing—I have not heard them say anything in particular, I am rather hard of hearing—on 31st December she came to my house in a very poor condition, very cold and half clad—she asked me to let her go into the back yard; I did so—she had no boots on—she fainted at the door; I brought her about—she made a statement to me—her face was very ghastly—I never saw her under the influence of drink—I have never seen him strike her.

MARY ANN GREEKS . I am the wife of Thomas Greeks, of 32, High Street, next door but one to the prisoner—I have been there during the six months they have been living there—on Wednesday, 31st December, between six and seven in the evening, I was standing at my door, and I saw the prisoner throw the deceased out of the house into the street on her back; he threw her out with all his force; he took her by the shoulders and threw her out; I did not see him throw her out—I heard him call to her, but what he said I could not say—as she fell I heard her call out, "Oh, Alf, you beast and brute!"—she was on the ground then—I heard the prisoner say, "Here is your hat and your boots"—I then went indoors—on Sunday, 11th January, I went into Mrs. Ames' back yard—I heard the deceased moaning; she was in a little back room over the washhouse.

Cross-examined. I never saw you strike her—I know it was you who pushed her out—I knew your voice.

WILLIAM VANCE . I am a surgeon, of High Street, North Woolwich—I did not attend the deceased in her lifetime—I was called to her by the prisoner on Sunday afternoon, 11th January, about half-past five—I went with him and found the deceased in a small back room on the first floor at 36—she was dead and cold, she was dressed—she had on her boots and her bodice—there were marks of dried blood on both temples—they were recent, I should say within a few hours—I took a cursory glance round the room—it was very dirty and foul-smelling—there was no furniture and no fire—the window was closed—I noticed on a shelf a few dried crusts of old bread—on Thursday, 15th January, I made a postmortem examination—externally she was a well-developed woman—I saw marks of bruises on her leg, arm, and head—those bruises had been created within a fortnight—they were in different stages of development, some more recent than others—they were such bruises as would be effected by blows and kicks—I saw a contused wound below the right knee about an inch long, probably caused by a kick—I opened the head, the brain was healthy, there were old scars on the head, whence had come the dried blood; when I was removing the scalp there was a strong adhesion which bound it down—blood came from each temple—those bruises were probably caused by blows, might be by a fall, by any violence—on opening the chest the pulmonary pleura were adhering to the ribs on

both sides, particularly the right, indicating old attacks of pleurisy; the heart was fatty, its muscular tissue degenerated, a weak heart; the left side was full of fluid blood, and a little on the right side too, hut particularly on the left—the abdomen was distended with gas, and when opened it was merely gas; it was perfectly empty—the intestines were empty except gas, there was no sign of taking food—the liver was pale and enlarged; that might be caused by excessive drinking, if taken singly, but taking it in connection with the other organs it might also be caused by the condition of the heart, by natural causes—the kidneys were normal—the conclusion I came to was that the died from syncope produced by a weak heart, accelerated by violence, exposure and want—I have heard the evidence; if that is true I am decidedly of opinion that such treatment accelerated the death.

Cross-examined. The blows on the temples might be caused by falls.

By the COURT. I think she had been in the habit of drinking—I think the violence I have heard stated would be almost fatal to her, considering the weak state of her heart; I would say it was calculated to accelerate death—the heart was in a very far gone state of disease; her life was in peril at any moment from that; she might have died at any moment from natural causes; the only thing that surprises me is how she could have gone through such an amount of violence, exposure, and excitement; the heart was very much degenerated and fatty; but for the violence to which she was subjected I do not think she would have died; I cannot say she would not; there was no reason why she should have died; sooner or later the diseased heart was likely to terminate in death.

NOT GUILTY .

312. ALFRED RUDD was again indicted for assaulting the said Sarah Ann Pedder, and occasioning her actual bodily harm.

The witnesses in the former case were re-sworn, and their evidence teas read over by the shorthand writer, to which they assented.

The prisoner, in his defence, denied that he ever assaulted the deceased; but on account of her drunkenness and misconduct he had put her out of the house. He called

PRISCILLA RUDD . I am the prisoner's daughter—I have often seen the deceased intoxicated—I have never seen him ill-use her, he has used bad words to her—my grandmother said she would not have her in the house, and he said, "You will have to go; you are nothing but a b----drunkard"—I have lived with them for months.

Cross-examined. He turned her out the last night of the old year; it was very cold—I saw her go out; I can't say whether she had boots on—Mrs. Williams said, "Are these her boots?" and I said, "I don't know"—Nellie Gray is my companion, she came there before 31st December; she slept with me in the front room, and grandmother also; father slept in the back room.

GUILTY .— Thirteen Months' Hard Labour.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

313. THOMAS PHILLIPS and CHARLES COLE, Unlawfully using personal violence to Michael Wall, to prevent his doing a lawful act.

By the advice of their Counsel the prisoners declined to plead, upon which the COURT directed a plea of NOT GUILTY to he entered for them.

MR. LEONARD Prosecuted; MR. WARBURTON appeared for Phillips, and MR. LAWLESS for Cole.

JOHN BRADLEY (K 6). I was before the Magistrate when the prisoners were charged with using violence and intimidating Michael Wall—they objected to be tried summarily, and elected to go for trial

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I put the charge on the chargesheet myself; it was: "Being concerned with another man not in custody in using violence to Michael Wall by striking him in the chest and knocking him down"—there was nothing about intimidation—the words "unlawfully, wrongfully, and without legal authority" were not on the charge-sheet.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. The charge before the Magistrate was: "With a view to compel Michael Wall to abstain from doing an act which he had a legal right to do. "

MR. WARBURTON applied to the Court to quash the indictment on the ground that the defendants had not had the chance of electing to go for trial on the charge of intimidation. MR. LAWLESS submitted that his client coming before the Court with a new charge against him, which was never before the Magistrate, vitiated the indictment. MR. LEONARD contended that both Counts were the same, and that there was only a change of verbiage. The COMMON SERJEANT (having consulted the RECORDER) declined to quash the indictment.

MICHAEL WALL . I am a stevedore, in the employ of the Shipping Federation—on 25th February I was employed on the steamship Scotland in the Albert Docks—on 25th February, between 10 and 10 30 p.m., I was returning to the Scotland with Coleman; about twenty yards from the dock gate Cole and two other men came across the road and wanted to know where I was going—Phillips was one of them—I said, "Home"—he said, "What home?"—I said, "The Scotland"—he said, "I will give you b—Scotland," and knocked me down; and when I got up Phillips hit me and knocked me down—Coleman holloaed out "Police!" and a policeman ran out from the dock gate and got hold of Cole—Phillips ran away, and a policeman fetched him back—the third man got over the fence and got away—I had a hard blow, and had to knock off work for two days through the pain in my chest.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. Coleman has not been talking to me about his experiences of last Session—Phillips was quite a stranger to me—there were not six others behind us—I did not call Phillips a "b—picket"—I had no revolver or knife—I have been a Union man, but have been out of it six months—Coleman did not say "You b—picket, take that"—it was dark.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. I am a fireman, I do not go voyages, I work in the docks—I live at Deptford—I am not a pugilist nor is my brother; his name is John—he works for the Federation—he is not known as Toff Wall, that is another Wall—I had been with Coleman two and a half hours—we came out at the gate at 7.30—we had about five drinks—I daresay there was ill feeling between the Union men and the Scotland men—I did not hear Cole say it was a lucky thing the police came up, or he should have been murdered—I did not see any doctor—I did not strike Cole back.

TIMOTHY COLEMAN . I am in the employ of the Shipping Federation—on 25th February, between ten and eleven p.m., the prisoners and another man who I do not know accosted me and Wall in Connaught Road—Cole said to Wall, "Where are you going?"—Wall said, "I am going home"—Cole said, "I want to know what do you call home?"—Wall said, "If you want to know what I call home, I call home the Scotland"—he said, "I will give you Scotland, you b—blackleg," and struck him on his chest, and knocked him down, and as he got up he was struck again by Phillips; I halloaed out "Police!"—a policeman ran out at the dock gate, and I held Cole till he came up—Phillips ran away, but another policeman caught him—a book was found on each of them, and I think there were two blue tickets.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. We went out between seven and eight o'clock, and went into one public-house—I receive thirty shillings from the Federation Society, including overtime, and I am kept—this was not a trap between me and six friends, there were only two of us, but six men came from the other side of the road; I don't know whether they were working on the Scotland, or whether one was Wall's brother—Cole said to the police, "If you had not come up I should have been murdered."

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. I said before the Magistrate, "Some other mates came up"—I call a mate a man who works with me on the Scotland—I was in three cases last Sessions, and used the same expression in each, "I will give you b—Scotland"—we only went to one public-house; we had three drinks, it was not five—I was not quarrelsome, three pots of beer would not make me drunk—Wall knew that I had been a witness in cases before—I did not tell him that I scored off the Counsel—I am in danger of my life, or else I would not be here now.

ABRAHAM PERCIVAL (K 423). On 25th February, between 10 and 10.30, I was on duty at Connaught Dock Gate, and heard cries of "Police!"—I went to the gate, and saw Cole held by Coleman and Another man—Wall came up, and said, "This man and two others stopped me and my mate," telling me the conversation, and that he then struck him in his chest and knocked him down, and that the other two men struck him, and he would charge him—Cole said, "I am innocent"—I searched him and found a pocket-book and a blue card, which I handed to the Sergeant.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I know nothing against Phillips—this is a rough quarter, but there are not many people about as a rule.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. Cole said, "I am very glad you have come up. or I should have been murdered"—on the road to the station he said that he had been set upon—this took place about two miles from the station—Wall did not tell me that Cole said, "I will give you b—Scotland."

FREDERICK FRENCH (K 131). I was on duty near Connaught Grate, heard shouts of "Police," and met Phillips running towards me—stopped him—he said he had been set on by a lot of blacklegs, and pretended to cry—I took him back, and saw Percival with Wall, who pointed to Phillips, and said, "That is one of the men who assaulted me and knocked me down"—Phillips made no answer.

JOHN BRADLEY (Re-examined by MR. LAWLESS). This is a prosecution

by the Federation—I found some discharges in Cole's pocket-book, and have no reason to doubt they belong to him—I have not got them; I handed them to him—the last one was up to December, 1890—he is a fireman.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. Cole said, "It is not me; I did not assault him, sergeant"—nothing was found on Phillips but a knife—I did not find these discharges on Phillips; I found them in Cole's pocket-book, but the name is Phillips—I did not search either of them; out I was present when Adams searched them.

MR. LAWLESS submitted that the 38 and 39 Victoria, c. 36, sec. 16, laid down that nothing in the Act should apply to seamen or persons in the sea-service, and therefore did not apply to the defendants. This point had been taken in Reg. v. Wall (Sessions Paper, vol. CXII, p 880), and upheld. MR. LEONARD contended that the Act only applied to sailors who were actually on the muster roll of some ship.

MR. LAWLESS called

WILLIAM EDWARD WARD . I live at the Tidal Basin, Victoria Docks—I am a fireman—I have been at sea some years, but now keep a boarding-house—I have known Cole twenty years—he was a fireman on board ship till just before Christmas, before the strike—I have known Phillips seven or eight years; he is a fireman—I have never known them do anything except on board ship—it is a seaman's strike.

After consulting MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS, the COMMON SERJEANT decided to follow the RECORDER'S ruling in Reg. v. Wall, and directed a verdict of NOT GUILTY .

SURREY CASES.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

314. MARGARET DAVIS (28) , Unlawfully and wilfully neglecting Frank Foster, under the age of eighteen months.

MR. HUTTON Prosecuted.

ELIZABETH FOSTER . I live at 134, Larkhall Lane, Clapham—on 15th April I was confined of a male child in the "Wandsworth Workhouse Infirmary—the prisoner also had a child—her child died, and she adopted mine—there was no money arrangement—I did not pay her a farthing—I handed her my child outside the infirmary fourteen days after I was confined, on 16th April—it was in good condition; a large-sized child—I next saw it on June 11th, at 3, Jew's Road, York Road, Wandsworth—it looked all right, but very thin—it had plenty of food—I did not see it again till after its death.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. When I came out of the infirmary the doctor examined the child, and its vaccinated arm was well—you did not know I was coming to inspect it—it had only the workhouse clothes.

By the JURY. I handed the child over because the prisoner took to it—she said she should like to have it, my father did not know anything about it; if she did not want it she had no call to take it, I could have managed—she lived in Wandsworth—I knew her home—she gave me the privilege to go and see it whenever I liked.

CHARLOTTE OVERALL . I am the wife of Abraham Overall, of 60,

Arkley Road, Penge—the prisoner lived with me about four months from last August—she was there in January—she came with a baby—for the first month the child was very well treated—it was not quite half a year old—it was not healthy, it always seemed to be a delicate little thin baby, it was never a big fine baby—the first month my old mother minded the child—after the first month Mr. Davis came home and said. he had been hopping, and the child was given up to them in their own room—the prisoner used to leave it in her husband's care, but sometimes it was left alone from one to three or four hours or longer in the evening—that occurred every week—more than once a week it made a mournful noise—I went to it several times—the husband sold the bed, but she had a mattress or palliasse, with a little flock or something, on which the baby used to lie, on some rags—sometimes it would have a bottle of food, sometimes not any—this went on to about Christmas—she came home drunk—she was very intemperate—when she returned sober was when she could not get the money—she returned in this state without her husband—her husband was supposed to look after the baby, but he was occasionally as she was, and when she went to sleep you could not wake her—I have seen her husband go out for the night—the child was extremely dirty—I used to wash it the first month—when I went to her room the child was filthy—I first noticed its dirty state a week or two after they took it; it was not changed after the first month—I did not often go into her place; when I did the child was dirty—after Christmas I took it to the station—I first noticed its condition the end of August or beginning of September—the prisoner seemed afraid to wash it; she seemed timid of it when it was ill—I took it to the station because Mrs. Davis was so drunk—she brought another man in the house, and Davis broke the doors, and she broke the windows and threw the furniture through the windows—when she came into my room with a broken finger I was frightened—Mr. Davis turned the man out of the house—I gave the baby a bottle of milk, and went straight with the child (as my neighbours said I ought to take it) to the Police-station—she was very drunk—the child had wasted to nothing since September, and boils broke out—six weeks or two months after they took it it got so very bad—that was between October and November, it seemed to go worse when the cold weather set in—she used to buy for it brandy and condensed milk—I saw them—there was plenty of food, but it was not given to the baby in a proper manner; it might have food one hour and for seven or eight hours have nothing—I have seen it very hungry when she has been out drinking, and it has grabbed at the food when I made it a bottle of milk—when she was there she was not able to feed it—she was often tipsy—I took it to the infirmary on the Wednesday, and it died the following Tuesday—I went with the prisoner to the doctor's the Saturday after Christmas—she got no medicine that night—she got a bottle before that, at least she had it in the place—one teaspoonful was given it as I went upstairs to go to the doctor's, I got it myself—that bottle of medicine was some time in the house—she gave it some arrowroot on one occasion—the policeman took the child to the infirmary after I took it to the station.

Cross-examined. Before you came to live with me we had lived a hard life together—your mother managed—I gave her 1s. a night to mind the

baby—my poor old mother minded it once—I went out for the same purpose as you—I do not remember your sending for three doctors when Doctor Midwinter was at church or somewhere—Dr. Lawrie saw your baby when I washed it—he said, "The child is very bad," and "What is the good of fetching me to a dead child?"—I went with you to a doctor, but not always; Lydia went—I do not recollect except going one morning with you to Doctor Midwinter—I do not recollect the doctor seeing to your thumb at the same time—I did not take the baby to the station out of spite because you would not let me rob a man—he threw an iron bowl after me, and your husband threw you in the street—I never saw you put the child in a bath—you did not bathe the child in front of my fire; you wiped its little face, and said it was so thin you were frightened to touch it—you never washed it; you undressed it and dressed it again—we were not all drunk downstairs—I did not come into your room when you were feeding it with beef-tea, and say, "Don't torment him with it; he won't keep it down"—you went out and got tipsy, and left it with three pennyworth of beef-tea—I was not always drinking with you.

ELLEN OVERALL . I am the last witness's daughter—I shall be fourteen in May—I live with her at 16, Arkley Road, Penge—I remember the prisoner coming with a baby—she used to go out and leave the baby with me—mother went with her sometimes—I did not know what she went out for—she was out sometimes in the daytime drinking—I never saw men brought to the house—her husband came home from hopping—she used to go out and leave the baby alone very often for three or four hours at a time—it used to cry and moan—I used to get it a bottle of milk—it was hardly ever washed—it used to lie on the mattress on a few rags—it was dirty—it had milk from a condensed milk tin—the prisoner came home nearly always drunk—I saw the baby was different before it went away—it was dirty, but just as stout.

Cross-examined. I remember Mrs. Kennedy coming—I do not remember your buying a bed of her only a week or two before the baby was taken away—it was not bathed—you had a tin hand bowl—I never saw you give it arrowroot, nor nursery biscuits, nor beef-tea—it pulled the teat about, but never put it in its mouth.

EDWARD JAMES HENRY MIDWINTER , M. D. I live at 77, Croydon Road, Penge—I attended the child on August 27th, 28th, and 30th, and September 1st—nothing then attracted my attention—on 8th December I attended it at 60, Arkley Road on behalf of the prisoner—the child was very thin, but it was clean; it had a great deal of boil irritation, and from inquiry of the prisoner I considered it had been fed improperly—that would produce violent irritation—she had given it bread and biscuits—it had no organic disease—it had one or two boils about its body—I next saw it on 7th January at my surgery—the prisoner brought it—it had more boils—that would arise from its weakly condition—it was naturally a weakly child—it was well dressed and clean—on 8th December I advised the prisoner to get some charitable or parish medical relief—I gave her instructions how to treat the child—I was under the impression they had not been carried out; I could not say for certain—I did not see it again till after death—I assisted Dr. Thompson in making a post-mortem examination—the child died of pneumonia—inflammation in the left lung—it was very emaciated and devoid of fat—the stomach was thin and attenuated and semi-transparent;

the mesenteric glands were slightly enlarged—that indicated want of food and improper food—the child having been seven days in the infirmary the irritation from both insufficient and improper food would then have subsided.

Cross-examined. I do not remember saying that it had consumptive bowels—it had diarrhœa—you did not tell me you gave it arrowroot with brandy—I told you not to give him arrowroot—you told me you fed it on biscuits—I advised condensed milk and brandy, and to leave off cow's milk and cornflour—I have no reason to doubt that was carried out—I remember some conversation about the boils—I thought it was sheer weakness—that condition was partly inherited and partly from improper food.

REGINALD WILSON, M. D . I am Medical Superintendent of the Croydon Union Infirmary—on 14th January I received a male child from P. O. Ford; it weighed 7 lb.—I was told it was nine months old—as to the normal weight of a child of that age 14 to 16 lb. would not be excessive—it was dirty and emaciated—I noticed a boil on the abdomen the size of a small walnut—I attended it till its death—I assisted Dr. Midwinter in the post-mortem examination—I agree with him as to the cause of death—pneumonia, induced by the impoverished condition of the child, possibly had something to do with it—I should not like to say death was due to its treatment.

FREDERICK FORD (P 188). On 14th January Mrs. Overall brought the child Frank Davis to the Police-station—I took it to the infirmary—I went to the prisoner's house—I saw her—I told her I should take her into custody for cruelly ill-treating a child named Frank Davis—she said, "Bleeding old Mother Overall has done this for me"—on the way to the station she said, "The child does not belong to me, but I don't divulge who it belongs to"—she was taken to the station and charged—she made no reply.

Witnesses for the Defence.

MARY ANN WEST . I live at 42, Arkley Road—I looked after the child three months from June, when the prisoner came to me—then she went to live with Mrs. Overall—she was very kind to it—she went out to get her living in the street—I took charge of the child when she was out; it was kept perfectly clean and well nourished, and had plenty of clothes—I bought clothes for it—she gave me 4s. 6d. for keeping it—when it was ill we had Dr. Midwinter, and Dr. Robertson Gardner would not come because she could not pay 3s. 6d. a visit, so she bought it rabbit and oyster, and took pains to feed it; it was a delicate baby, and never got on—I am not a nurse—I am the mother of a family—there was no thought of murder—the baby swallowed small pieces of biscuit and drank port wine, and we gave it some brandy when the doctor ordered it—she seemed a good mother, and was always very anxious about the child—she said, "Frank, I wish you would live; I wish you would get on a Little fatter"—but it was a very thin baby, and did not seem as if it would get on.

CAROLINE STITCHMAN . I live at 33, Arkley Road—I first knew the prisoner two or three years ago—I first knew the baby when the prisoner came to Mrs. West's—I saw her generally every day—she seemed very fond of the child and always treated it very well—she fed it on Nestlé's milk—it was very weakly—the prisoner used to drink a little on the last day of the old year—when I toot charge of the baby she went to bury

her aunt—she left a tin of milk and food and gave me 3d. for brandy—I gave it brandy and milk—she borrowed money of me to get nourishment for it, and I never refused her—I keep a shop, and always let her have coal, so that the baby should not be cold—she asked me if she should give it beef-tea, and I said it would not hurt.

JOHN FROST BLAKE . I am a grocer—I furnished the prisoner with Nestle's milk every day—there was only the baby to feed—she paid for it—I also supplied her with Brighton and nursery biscuits, and feeding bottles, and brushes to clean them.

FRANCIS JOHN DAVIS . I am the prisoner's husband—when my wife has gone out the baby has been left with me—she has never neglected it—the fire has not been let out, and cost 10 1/2 d. a day, because the doctor ordered the room always to be kept warm—the windows and doors have been barricaded up—during this hard winter I have been snow sweeping—she has not been out lately—this charge has been raked up against us to see what we should get for it—we did not want to lose the baby; we loved him too much, as we loved the one we have lost.

Cross-examined. I say the child was never left alone—my wife went out—I did not go out at the same time—I did not always look after it—I knew how she got a living—I did not consent to it—sometimes I used to go in the country.

The prisoner handed in a written statement to the effect that she intended to bring the child up as her own, having lost one of the same age; that she bought him plenty of clothing, and did her utmost to save his life; that her neighbours recommended her to give the child different things, hut it was continually breaking out with nasty boils. She used to be guided by what people said, and never wished his death; and that the mark on its head was caused by the use of Russian tallow on it.

NOT GUILTY .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

315. DANIEL LEVY (23), JOHN JACOBS (33), and JOHN ABRAHAMS, Unlawfully conspiring to obtain money from divers persons by false pretences.

MR. C. F. GILL Prosecuted; MR. BURNIE appeared for Levy, MR. GEOGHEGAN for Jacobs, and MR. LAWLESS for Abrahams.

TOM JONES . I am a general dealer of 9, Charles Street, Blackfriars Road—in October, 1889, Abrahams and Levy came together to my shop and asked if I had a bit of string to tie some canvas up; Levy was carrying a shade of flowers; I said I had not got any string—Abrahams went out to get a drop of brandy, and meanwhile Levy pulled the canvas off—Abrahams asked if I knew Captain Clark—I said, "Where does he live?"—he said, "Somewhere about Blackfriars Road, I can't exactly say where"—he said he had saved his life when he was going out to South Africa, and he promised to make him a grand present when he came to England again; he said the present was the shade of flowers; he said he had brought it from South Africa—Levy said that they had called in Waterloo Road, and were offered £8 for the shade, that Abrahams would not take the money because a Jew offered it, where they called in Waterloo Road to buy the canvas; he said they had paid £8 for duty on the flowers, and if he could not get that back he would throw the flowers away—he said the nuns in South Africa had made them, and it took

them twelve-months to make; that another party had offered £5 and some clothes for them, and if I liked to pay £5, he should be glad of a jacket—while this was going on Abrahams came in now and then, and he said, "If you like to have the flowers you shall have them for £8"—I said, "They are no good to me—he said, "What will you give me for them? I cannot find Captain Clark, and rather than smash them or let a Jew have them you shall have them for 50s. "—Levy said it was a very good thing—he said if I bought them he would come back in half an hour and go and get the man who would give him £5 and a jacket—he said he was a porter, and carried the things for Abrahams from the station, and Abrahams had just come from Liverpool—I gave him the 50s., and Abrahams went on his knees and wanted to kiss me, because I was a Christian—I did not know his name at that time—he was dressed the same as he is now—he did not say what he was—these are the flowers—it was placed on a chair with paper over it, and I only saw the front part—he said he did not want to have the trouble of taking them back—he took his hat off and began to beg and pray me to have them, and he would come and see me again—I believed his statement, and parted with my 50s. on it; I next saw them at the Court.

Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. I believed Levy to be a porter from the station—it was Abrahams who spoke about the nuns in Africa, and whose life* had been saved by Captain Clark—Levy told me about the £8 being offered; I believed that, and that they would not sell them to a Jew—they don't look much like Jews—I agreed to give the 50s. because Abrahams went on his knees and prayed—I am a Londoner—I believed that the flowers were worth £8—if I had made £2 10s. by them I should have given Abrahams some of it, if I saw him again—I had not been long in the general line, I had been a fishmonger—I thought I had a bargain "till I pulled the paper off; he would not let me take it off; I had no presence of mind at the time; of course his talk did it.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. I was for some years a fishmonger—I never sold Dutch oysters for natives—he did not tell me that the flowers were at the back as well as the front, but I expected they were all round—I have not been much in the country; I have never seen flowers like these—if there had been flowers at the back they would have been worth double the money—I deal in furniture; I never sold a veneered table for solid mahogany.

ELIZA HARLAND . I live at 45, Doddington Grove, Kennington Park—in December, 1889, I was in business as a draper at Kennington Park Road, in partnership with Mrs. Newton—about eleven one morning I was called into the shop and found Abrahams there and another man, neither of the prisoners; he was very much like Jacobs, but younger; he had a vase of flowers similar to these—Abrahams was seemingly in very great grief; he could not find a certain man who, he said, had saved his life on board ship—he appeared very much concerned, and there were almost tears in his eyes—he said he had brought him home a present, and he was living somewhere in Kennington Park Road—he went out and left me with the young man with the shade, and came back and said he could not find him—while he was away the young one said he had been offered £8 for the vase, but would not sell it to the party because he was a Jew, and they had had him several times through giving him drink, and had taken his gold watch, and given him a brass

one, and he wanted to get back to his ship at Liverpool; that he brought the flowers from Africa, and it took the nuns three years to make them, and cost him £10 to bring them over here—they were all done up at the back, but he said they were the same all round—he went out again to have another look—I think he went out three times—he said rather than sell it to those cursed Jews he would break it up—he named Harris at the corner of the London Road as the man who offered him £8 when he said he would break it up—he said if he could find a poor Christian woman he would give it to her—Mrs. Newton, who was there, asked him what he wanted for it, and after a while he said he would take £4, as he wanted to get back to his ship, and he had got to pay the young man who had been carrying it about two days for him—the young man said rather than let him break it up he would very likely find a customer who would take it off our hands—I was cashier—I handed the money to Mrs. Newton, and she gave it to Abrahams—she had to swear that she was a Christian before he would do that—Abrahams gave the man 1s., and gave us all his blessing—he had a short pilot jacket and a cap with two little things in front, just as I have seen firemen on board ship—it was laced up so elaborately that we could not get the back undone; but not ten minutes after he was gone I found it was a fraud, and they hunted the neighbourhood but could not find him.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. The fraud was that there were no flowers at the back—the money came from the partnership at first, and we have refunded the money into the partnership to make our accounts straight—Mrs. Newton was there when he first came in.

MANNUS GODFREY . I am a hairdresser, of Penton Street, Pentonville—about twelve months ago Levy and Jacobs came in on a Saturday night, and asked me for the name of a captain which I cannot remember, who he said had saved his life, and he wanted to give him a present, which he had brought from Africa—they had three pairs of horns with them—Jacobs went out to look for the captain, and Levy said that a Jew had offered them £8 for the horns, but he did not like to sell to a Jew because they had done him a lot of harm, and if he could not find the captain he would rather break them up, because he could not carry them home, or he would sell them to a comb-maker—they both said I could have them for £8; I said I would give £4—I gave them £2, and pawned my watch for 50s.—of course I believed him, or I should not have bought them—Jacobs looked like a sailor—two men afterwards came about two pairs of the horns, and I went with them to a house in Essex Road, and left the horns there—I went to the house in the evening, but the governor had gone, and was coming in the morning—I went again, but only saw a woman.

Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. I am a Jew—Levy said that he was offered £8 for the horns, but would not sell them to a Jew—I did not know that he was a Jew—they very likely took me for a Christian—it was Jacobs who talked about smashing the horns.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I thought I should sell them and get more for them—he said they were buffalo horns—I should have sold them for as much as I could get.

JOHN CONNELLY . I am a bird-cage manufacturer, of Manchester Street, King's Cross—in April last Jacobs came to my shop, dressed like

a ship's steward, and inquired for a captain who had saved his life in Africa—I told him to inquire at the greengrocer's or butcher's, as I had only been there two years—he called Abrahams in, and I said to him, "What have you got there?"—he said, "Some very handsome horns; I have just paid five shillings for this canvas to tie round them"—Jacobs, who had left, came back, and said, "I can't find him; I would give any mortal thing to find him "—I said, "Go to the Square; there are lodging-houses and private hotels"—he went out, and by the time he came back Abrahams had undone the horns and laid them on my counter—he put down five shillings for the information I had given him—I said, "I don't want your five shillings"—Jacobs then said, "I will sell them for £4"—Abrahams said, "Why, the Jew offered you £6 10s. "—he said, "Yes, but he is a b—Jew, I will not sell them to him"—there were three pairs—he said, "I would sooner let this old gentleman have them, because he is a Christian"—I thought if I could earn £1 by them I would, and I eave him the £4—I believed they did not know each other—he said he picked him up by the railway—directly Jacobs got hold of the money he went out and said, "I must make haste and see the gentleman"; and Abrahams said, "I will go and get the £6 10s., I won't be many minutes gone; if I do you shall have half"—I never saw him again till I picked him out at the Police-station.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I got three pairs of horns for £4.

CAROLINE GOUGH . I keep a general shop in High Street, Lambeth—on September 1, about 11.30, Levy came there and asked if I knew the name of Edwards; I said "No"—he was carrying a shade of flowers, which he said was a present for Mr. Edwards—another man came in and said the canvas which was wrapped round it cost half-a-crown; it was wrapped round so that I could only see the front—another man came in who is not here; he said he came from Australia, and that the shade was for Mr. Edwards, a captain, and that he was a captain himself, and Edwards had been good to him when he was a child, and he wanted to show him some gratitude—when he could not find Edwards the other man said he would rather smash it up than take it away, and that it took three years to make—I said that it was a pity—he said he would take £5 for it—I said, "I have not got £5 "—he said, "You being a Christian, if you have got £2 I will take it," and Levy said, "For God's sake, woman, give him the £2, for he was offered £8 by Mr. Levy, of Lambeth Walk"—I said, "Why did not you take the £8?"—he said, "Because he is a Jew, and I have been done by Jews years ago"—Levy said, "If you give £2 for it I know somebody who would like to have it"—I gave the £2, and they left the shade with me, and when they had gone I undid it, but I did not think I had been duped till my husband came home—Levy never brought the man—one morning in February Levy came again with some buffalo horns, and I recognised him—he asked for some name belonging to the Buffalo Lodge—I spoke to my husband, who fetched a constable—I told Levy while my husband was gone what had happened in September—he said it was not him—he was taken to the station—a man was walking up and down outside, and Levy went and spoke to him, and he went to the station.

OTTO MARTIN . I am a cigar dealer of Shaftesbury Avenue, Charing

Cross—on January 1st Abrahams came in and asked for a brand of cigars which I had not got—I saw a man outside—Abrahams went out and returned immediately to say that they would do—I gave him a cigar, and he treated some people in the shop to cigars, and then asked me if I knew a captain, but I nave forgotten the name—I said I did not—he said he had come from Africa, and the captain had saved his life five years ago, and he had come to bring him a present of some magnificent horns, which the man had outside—the other man came in—Abrahams said he must have a drink, and went out, leaving the other man there, who said that Abrahams was a very rich man—Abrahams came back and asked if I knew a comb-maker, where he could have the horns cut into combs, as it was no use looking for the captain, having to go back to Liverpool, as his ship might sail for Africa tomorrow—I said I did not know a comb-maker—he said he had been to Phillips, a furrier, who offered him £12 for the horns, but as they were Jews he would not have anything to do with them, even if they offered him £20, as lie had formerly been swindled by Jews—he went to the door, and said, "Well, I must go now"—the other man turned to me and said, "Are you a Jew?"—I said, "No"—Abrahams said, "Are you not a Jew?"—I said, "No"—he said, "If you are not a Jew I will let you have these horns for £4 "—there were three—I said I had only £2—he said, "I will take £2, and take the rest in cigars"—he said he could not write; so I wrote a receipt, to which Abrahams made a cross, and the other man signed his name—I think it was Jacobs—I threw it away after some time—I afterwards picked out Abrahams at the Police-station—I sold the horns to a neighbour for 25s. Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I do not identify Jacobs. Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. There were three pairs of horns—I thought they were worth the money—I gave him £2 and the best cigars I had, real Havannahs.

DANIEL CLARK . I am a horn polisher, of Stevens' Court, Bermondsey—I have been ten years in the trade—I have examined these three lots of horns; they are made up on a wooden base, and this black part is dyed sheepskin—they are not buffalo horns, but Spanish cattle—they are worth about £2 for the three pairs—the small ones are South American bullocks' horns.

Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. They are worth £2 to sell, and they would be worth more if they were my work.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I would sell the set for £2 4s. to the wholesale trade—a retailer would take £10 or £15 if a man was fool enough to give it—I sell a good many to Buffalo Lodges and to travellers.

WILLIAM JONES . I am warehouseman to Eugene Cockrell, glass shade merchants—they manufacture similar shades of flowers to these—these are worth from 13s. 6d. to 16s. 6d.—they are made in London—I do not know of any which are made by nuns in South Africa.

Cross-examined by MR. BURNIE. Those are the prices we sell at to hawkers and pedlars, and they have to make their profit afterwards.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. These flowers are made of silk braid on wires—our price includes the glass shade, all complete.

HENRY JUPE (Detective Sergeant L). On 4th February Jacobs and Levy were brought to the station on a warrant, which I read—Jacobs said, "If they kept a Buffalo Lodge then I might have sold them"—

I found on Jacobs a pedlar's certificate, and some cards with "John Jacobs, naturalist, 8, Florence Street, Mile End; Buffalo Lodges supplied with horns on moderate terms "on it; also a bill for three pairs of horns, bought of Cole Brothers, of some alley, Bishopsgate Street, for £2 7s. 6d.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. The address on the cards is correct; I have been there—he has been out on bail a portion of the time.

JOHN HILL (Policeman). I received Levy in charge for conspiring with a man not in custody to defraud Charles Gough—he said, "They have made a mistake"—I received Abrahams in custody on February 20th, charged with conspiring with Levy and Jacobs—he said, "They ought to be in the place I am in; they are as bad as receivers."

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. When he said they ought to be in his place, he meant the people who bought these things.

GEORGE JONES (L 169). On 4th February I was in Lambeth Walk, and Mrs. Gough stopped Levy and Jacobs, and pointed Levy out to me as having obtained £2 10s. from her last September—he said, "It was not me, I never travelled with shades in my life," and Jacobs said, "She has mistaken us for someone else"—they had some buffalo horns with them; I took them to the station.

LEVY— GUILTY on the Second and Sixth Counts only. JACOBS— GUILTY on the Sixth and Eighth Counts only. ABRAHAMS— GUILTY on the Second and Eighth Counts only. — To enter into recognisances to appear for judgment when called upon.

316. MARY ANN HART (50) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin twice on the same day.

MR. WILMOT Prosecuted.

ANN EVANS . I am the wife of Henry Evans, a dairyman of 75, Oakley Street, Westminster Bridge Road—on February 11th, about 5 p.m., the prisoner came in for two ounces of tea, which came to threepence, and gave me a florin—I said, "This is bad," and went to bend it—she said, "Don't bend it, as I wish to take it back to the lady I got it from"—I marked it, and gave it back to her—she was sober—she said, "I will have an ounce," and paid me with coppers—in the evening I went into Mrs. Bannister's, who showed me the same florin as I had had from the prisoner—my mark was on it—this is it.

MARY ANN BANNISTER . My husband keeps a shop next door to Mrs. Evans—on February 11th, about 5.30 p.m., just after Mrs. Evans had gone, the prisoner came in and bought an ounce of tea and two ounces of butter, and gave me a florin—after she left I looked at it and found it was bad, and took it to Mrs. Evans; and in consequence of what she said I went after the prisoner, who lives just round the corner, but she was out—she afterwards came round, and I told her she had given me a bad florin; she said, "Don't say that"—I said, "Yes, you have"—she said, "Well, I will pay you twopence at a time"—I showed her the coin, and gave it to the policeman—she was sober when she tendered it, but not the second time she came—I gave her one shilling and eightpence halfpenny change.

JAMES YOUNG (L R 20). I was on duty in Oakley Street, heard some conversation going on in Mr. Bannister's shop, and went in—she said

in the prisoner's presence, "This woman has tendered a bad 2s. piece"—I said to the prisoner, "Where did you get it?"—she said, "At Camberwell, where I have been working as charwoman"—Mr. Bannister handed me this florin, but declined to give her in charge—I then went to Mrs. Evans, and she and Mr. Bannister both came to the station, and after the prisoner was charged she said that her husband gave her the money.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to Her Majesty's Mint—this florin is counterfeit.

The Prisoner, in her statement before the Magistrate, and in a written defence, said that she was suffering from the use of chloroform in her confinements, and was told not to drink, but that she had been drinking on the day in question, and did not know what she was doing.

JAMES YOUNG (Re-examined). She was under the influence of drink, but she could talk all right, and she walked to the station.

GUILTY of the Second Uttering. Recommended to mercy by the JURY.—— Discharged on recognisances.

Before Mr. Recorder.

317. ALFRED JOHN CHILD, Unlawfully omitting to enter the receipt of various moneys received by him on account of John Barrow, his master.

MR. PAUL TAYLOR Prosecuted, and MESSRS. C. F. GILL and COLAM Defended.

JOHN JAMES HEWITT . I am a chartered accountant, and live at Briar Bank, Wandsworth Common—on 6th August last I was indebted £317s. to the Arm of E. Richards and Co.—I paid that sum by this cheque; it is endorsed "E. Richards and Co. "—at the same time I received this receipt, signed "E. Richards and Co., per A. J. C. "—I think I saw it written.

Cross-examined. I saw the prisoner on that occasion—my impression is that I paid him there and then—I knew him as representing Richards And Co., and I believe I paid him the cheque—I had seen him repeatedly About the business he did for me.

JOHN COURT . I live at Alma Villa, Balham Park Road—in August lass I was indebted £3 14s. to E. Richards and Co.—I paid that amount by cheque on 14th October—I destroyed the cheque when it came back from the bank—this is the receipt that was given to me by the prisoner. Cross-examined. I saw him several times about the business—he was the only person I knew as Richards—I thought he was the principal.

HENRY FLETCHER . I am a tailor, of 6, Bolingbroke Grove, Wandsworth Common—in October last year I took my present house from Richards and Co. as agents—I paid £4 2s. 6d. for fixtures—I sent that by this cheque on 22nd October to Richards and Co., payable to order—it is endorsed "Richards and Co.'; this is the receipt.

Cross-examined. I saw the prisoner several times about this business—I treated him as Richards and Co.—I know of his starting on his own account, because I received a communication from him asking me to do business for him—I think that was about a fortnight before he was prosecuted—I cannot give the date.

DANIEL WHITE . I live at the Headquarters of the London Scottish Volunteers, and am the secretary—in August last I engaged a furnished

house on Wandsworth Common—I saw the prisoner in connection with it—on 5th November I sent a guinea by post to Richards and Co., and this receipt was left at my house in the evening.

JOHN HENRY BARROW . I am a son of the prosecutor; I was engaged in the business at the branch office of which the prisoner was the manager—on 1st December I received £1 1s. from Mr. Meets, due to the office; I gave it to the prisoner shortly afterwards—I have examined the ledger with my father, and find no record of it—during the whole of the time the prisoner was managing the branch office at Balham and Wandsworth Common I was engaged there assisting him—this account (produced) is the prisoner's writing—I see in it the names of Dr. Clark, Rogers and Clarkson, Steel, and Hodges—the prisoner claims commission of £17 10s. as doing business for them, and £7 10s. for Hall, £50 for Barrow, £2 for Dut on, £41 5s. for Steel, and ten per cent, commission on £30 due from a Mr. Hodges, and ten percent, on £13 15s. due from Dr. Clark in December last—during that month no business occurred with Rogers and Clarkson, or Hall or Dutton or Steel, Hodges or Clark—I don't know what the Barrow £50 refers to.

Cross-examined. I was principally at the Balham office; I was there all the time the prisoner was there, and at Wandsworth—during that time I had the opportunity of being continually in communication with my father—I had access to the books sometimes; they were locked up sometimes, sometimes they were with my father—the prisoner was sometimes at Wandsworth, sometimes at Balham, and sometimes going seeing people about letting houses, or attending appointments with regard to fixtures and distraining in different places—I cannot say that he had difficulties with my father about money matters—I don't know of my own knowledge, only from hearsay, that he has given the prisoner cheques which have been dishonoured; I have not heard my father say so—I have not heard the prisoner press my father to go into the question of commission—the prisoner used to keep small memorandum books in his pocket, and made entries in them—my father came there once a week—the books were sent to him sometimes; I never told my father that the prisoner was going to start in business for himself; I told him I had heard so about a week before he gave notice to leave—I never heard my father tell him he had better look out what he did, for if he barked he would bite—I believe he was going into business with Lewis Stoner, who had been in my father's business some time; he is in business at Clapham—I don't know that he sued my father for wages—I don't know when the prisoner started in business—we have had two managers since the prisoner left, one now and one before, not satisfactory—I don't think I have ever been present when the prisoner has discussed money matters with my father—commission is paid when the purchase takes place—the prisoner claimed commission upon all work done at the office—I know he had some negotiations with the post-office at Balham; not a long one, he wrote a few letters and saw them once, I believe—I know the prisoner claims a commission on some property in Ramsden Road—we have not been doing anything striking in business lately, about £10 a month; it has dropped, certainly—Mr. Clark let his house to Mr. Truefit, with the option of purchase, for £1,200—that was through the prisoner's introduction—I don't know that Truefit has purchased, I will not swear that

he has not—the prisoner paid the petty cash—he used to complain of my father's method of doing business—I know that my father applied for a warrant against the prisoner—one Magistrate said he had better get a warrant; another Magistrate said he would not grant it, that it was not necessary—I know my father did have him arrested early in the morning, without any summons or notice.

Re-examined. With regard to the option of purchasing Mr. Clark's house, no purchase has taken place to my knowledge—our firm has never received any commission on such purchase—I have not known my father give any dishonoured cheques—proper books were kept at the head office.

JAMES BARROW . I am the prosecutor—I am a house agent and auctioneer, at 189, Victoria Street—I took the auctioneer's license out in the prisoner's name; I have not been in the business very long—in August, 1889, I appointed the prisoner manager of my branch offices at Balham and Wandsworth Common at a salary of £2 a week, and 10 per cent, commission on all gross commissions earned at those offices, less bad debts—I don't think there was a written agreement—these are copies of our letters. (One of these was the prisoner's letter of 10th August, accepting the appointment at 10 per cent, commission on the gross amount of moneys earned by him)—I specially excepted bad debts afterwards in conversation with him—he was entitled only to commissions on the amounts actually received by the firm—his salary was afterwards raised to £2 10s. a week—I have not given a large number of dishonoured cheques, only a very few—I never gave the prisoner a cheque which was afterwards dishonoured—his duties at the branch offices would be to take the general management and superintend the collection of accounts, as I paid all the wages except the prisoner's, and all the accounts from the head office; he would simply retain in hand sufficient for daily disbursements of stamps and fares—afterwards I allowed him to keep enough in band to pay his weekly wages and something on account of commission, but excepting those all accounts, and expenses, such as printing, advertisements, rents, rates and taxes, were paid from the head office—he was entitled to deduct money for his wages and petty office disbursements from cash only; I gave him cheques from week to week as he happened to be short—cheques he received were to be sent to the head office and not dealt with by him in any way—he had no authority to endorse cheques or to use them for the expenditure of the local office; I constantly gave him money, either by cash or cheques, on account of the local office—on 15th December I had an interview with him at the Wandsworth Common office—J complained very much of his being away on the Saturdays when I went down there to get the cash account; and also of his being away from the office for the previous two weeks, and I told him I was informed that most of his time was spent with Stoner; I complained that the cash-book and ledger had not been made up, and I told him peremptorily that I must insist on the books being made up, especially the cash-book and ledger—these are the two books I refer to; they are kept in his writing—on one side of the page is an entry of every business transaction and the amount charged—on receiving money his duty was to enter it in the cash-book, and then post it to the person's, account on the other side of the book—on 16th December, the day after our interview, I received one of these books

through my son from the prisoner as being made up and showing the state of persons' accounts, and the other was left at the office several days afterwards—I have never had the cash-book at all—I requested the prisoner in very strong terms to send it to me—about 3 p.m. on 17th December I met him with Stoner in Basinghall Street—I said, "I am very much surprised to see you here, Mr. Child, in Stoner's company after what took place on the 25th. I have not had the cash-book, and I must insist on having it, as I wish to post up my own books and know the state of parties' accounts"—he said he had not had time to attend to it, but that he had the book at home, and he would make it up that night and send it to me—I have never had it—on 19th December I heard from the prisoner, giving me notice—he did not send nor refer to the cash-book—after other correspondence on 29th December I received this letter—previous to receiving it I had made inquiries with reference to certain entries appearing in the ledger, and found a number of sums of money bad been received which had not been entered—my son directed my attention to the case of £ 1 received from Mr. Meets; no entry of it appeared in the ledger—there was no entry of £1 1s. paid by Mr. Whyte on 15th November, or of £4 2s. 6d. paid by Mr. Fletcher—I pressed the prisoner several times to know why Fletcher had not paid for certain fixtures in a house he took; he said he had applied for it several times and could not get it—I found no entry of £3 17s. paid by Hewett on 6th August, or of £3 15s. paid by Court on 14th October—the endorsement "E. Richards and Co." on this cheque for £3 17s., drawn by Hewett, is in the prisoner's writing; he had no authority to endorse in that manner or to use the firm's signature in any way—the endorsement "E. Richards "on this cheque for £4 2s. 6d. from Fletcher is the prisoner's writing, and also the endorsement "E. Richards and Co." on this cheque of Baxter for £5 5s.—the receipts for those cheques are signed by him; Whyte's receipt is signed "E. Richards and Co.," Hewett's is "E. Richards and Co. per A. J. C," Baxter's is "E. Richards and Co.," and Court's is "Richards and Co., per A. J. C. "—this account attached to the letter of 29th December is in the prisoner's writing—on the first page I see among accounts received, Best, £4 3s. 6d.—there is no entry in the ledger of that nor of Ferguson, £1 Is.; Camden, £2 17s.; Holmes, £3 12s.; Kerrinden, £2 2s. 6d.; Wise, £1 16s.; Farlow, £3 10s.; Orm, £1 Is.; Muir, £1 Is.; Bryant, £1 Is.; Cooper, £1 9s.; Brown, £1 6s.; Lambert, £1 5s.; Hobbs, £5 5s.; Gilchrist, £1 Is.; Lidicot, £1 14s.; Williams, £1 12s. 6d.—none of the people on the list are entered in the ledger; there are thirty-one accounts, amounting to £72 16s., not entered, and which have not been accounted to me for—the prisoner never complained to me of his inability to get on without more money—there were no bickerings about money; we never had any bickering till after 15th December, when the thing was ripe—he was entitled to deduct from the cash money for wages, petty expenses, and part payment of commission; he usually drew £1 a week—at the end of every month he sent me a commission account; I produce them from August, 1889, to September, 1890; some are in his writing, and others in the clerk's—I have compared, as to the majority of items, the monthly statements of account furnished by the prisoner with this account, which he forwarded with this letter of 29th December—I am ready, if necessary, to point out discrepancies between them—I checked the

prisoner's commission account in my private ledger upon the basis of his monthly accounts, with the necessary modifications and corrections; I should correct it by the accounts themselves—I and the prisoner never came to any settlement, but I intimated from time to time that he was overdrawing the account, and charging items on which he was not entitled to commission. Cross-examined. The account I have given to-day is, as far as I know, the same as I gave before the Magistrate—I was told that the prisoner was going to start in business for himself just prior to my interview with him on 15th; while he was in my employment and drawing my money he was spending his time at Stoner's office—I told him on 15th December, in reference to his accounts, when I found they were so bad, that he had better take care what he did; if I barked I should bite—I found his accounts were so bad just at the time I found he was about to start in business—I got this letter from him on 20th December. (This said that he had put up with the prosecutor's irregularities and the odium attaching to his name for some time, but that after his disgusting treatment it teas impossible to remain as his manager and he would take a week's notice)—I first went to the place where he was carrying on business at the end of the first week in January; I went to Stoner's place; I did not know it was the prisoner's place, or that he was connected in business with Stoner—I went there with a detective in the daytime—Stoner was there; he had been in my service; he had summoned me at the Police-court—he sued me at the County Court for his wages—I paid one week's wages into Court, and he took it out; he did not recover what he sued me for—I think that was last spring—within a day or two of my going to Stoner's office with a detective I saw the prisoner's brother, a solicitor; he said if I had any complaint to make about him the prisoner would be willing to go to the Police-court; he did not say he had gone—it never crossed my mind that by going to the prisoner I might be able to frighten him out of the neighbourhood—having heard from his brother that he was willing to attend at any time, I applied for a warrant against him; it was not granted—he was taken into custody by the sergeant, who had the conduct of the case, by the Magistrate's advice; I was present—I never asked the Magistrate for a summons, he said I could arrest him—I gave sufficient evidence that day to get a remand; it was read over to me, and I signed it as correct—"I always paid him his salary, and never told him to deduct it from the amounts he received," is a mistake—I said I could not find the cash-book—the two charges I made against him then were embezzling £1 1s. in the case of Mr. Whyte, and £1 1s. in the case of Mr. Meets—I heard from his brother that he offered to attend at the Police-court at any moment I chose to appoint—I did not hear it from the man who arrested him—I heard the man swear at the Court about his going to the Police-station, but not prior to that—I have a letter which the prisoner wrote to me on 29th November, 1890, before this matter arose. (This stated that as the prosecutor still had the prisoner's petty cash-book, the prisoner sent with the letter a rough statement for the last few weeks, and also receipts for rent and a demand note for taxes)—that rough statement was handed back to the prisoner with the cash-book, that he might enter it into the cash-book—no third person was present when the cash-book and statement were handed to the prisoner—I swear these two amounts of Meets and Whyte were not

set out in the statement, because Meets's account was paid subsequently—Whyte's was on a piece of loose paper—I read the statement—I have seen one memorandum book of this kind which he kept, and checked it—the rough statement was not the same as this—I see an entry here of Whyte, but this book has been mutilated—I handed the cash-book to the prisoner at the Wandsworth Common office on 15th December, with the memorandum, containing two or three weeks' entries, about 10 o'clock a.m.—I had made a special appointment by letter for him to meet me—I was examined on each of the remands at the Police-court—I swore on the second occasion that the prisoner was not represented as Richards and Co. at auction sales; the meaning I intended to convey was that he had no authority to represent the firm as its principal—I swore he did not sign the contracts; he signed some with A. J. C. under the signature—after I swore it I remember contracts were produced; I do not remember after that swearing that he did not sign them—I know he kept memorandum books of his own, in which he made entries from day to day—before the solicitor representing the prisoner produced these books I said I did not know of the existence of these latter books—he would make entries in a book of his own, and post them up when he had the cash-book—I did not know he kept a duplicate of the cash-book—I said, "In the small green memorandum books the initials pointed out to me are mine; I may have seen that book from time to time; right through that book my initials occur "—it was a slip of memory when I said I did not know of any memorandum book being kept—I said, "Of course the prisoner was authorised to deduct his salary from the money he received; any statement that I made last time that he had no such authority is false;" it was a mistake, the word "false" is too strong—it was a mistake to swear he had no right to deduct his salary—I swore, "Whenever he had not enough in hand to pay his salary I gave him a cheque on the Saturday; he never made disbursements on my behalf out of his own pocket to my knowledge"—two or three weeks there was a balance of a few shillings against me—he was not entitled to claim commission for matters that were in the office while he was there, when the money was paid after he left my employment; I was so advised—by his letter before he entered the employment he stipulates that he is entitled to commission on every matter—if a house were let or a purchase completed after he left he was not entitled to commission—I said, "I told him I did not often show my teeth, but when I did I bit"—I don't think I swore, "In no single instance has a cheque that I have given been dishonoured"—if it is on the depositions I must have sworn it, but it is a mistake—I afterwards said, "I gave a cheque which was brought back in consequence of the irregularity of the signature "—that was the case of Simmons—I said one cheque on my private account had been dishonoured; that was one I lent him to pay his rent—he did not say he must have money on his commission account—he did not at that time ask me for money on his commission account; his commission account was overdrawn—my private account for domestic matters is at the Peckham branch of the Imperial Bank; I have had it there for three or four years—I have only one account—I have one for business at the Victoria branch—I don't know how many of my cheques have been dishonoured—when I swore that no cheque of mine had been dishonoured I had not thought anything about the getting a copy of a

banking account; I was not aware that there was a process by which a copy could be got—I don't know if from 1st May, 1888, to the present time bills and cheques of mine to the number of seventy, amounting to £2,253, have been dishonoured—they have all been paid since—I have no means of checking this bank account now; it is a respectable bank—the cheques were taken up directly afterwards—the prisoner has not from time to time pressed me for money for expenses—I have not told him I had no money to give him, nor have I told him when he asked for money that he must go out and get money somewhere—I must have said, if it is on the depositions: "When he has asked me for money for petty expenses I have told him to go out and get money"—I did tell him that—I had no recollection of sending him for money, because I knew money must be provided to carry on the business—I gave him. money from time to time—I do not remember once when he asked for money saying I had. only got ten shillings, and changing that and giving him six shillings out of it—I said, "I did not tell him to got out and collect some accounts "—he had no authority to sign the name of Richards—I did not invariably sign myself at auction marts—contracts were shown me which the prisoner had signed "Richards" in my presence; they were private sales, not in auction marts—I remember a memorandum of the sale of 123, St. James Road being produced to me signed by the prisoner, and saying I had never seen it, because I never had; he conducted the transaction privately—I saw the contract in the case of Roseneath when it was produced in Court, not before, because that was sold privately—I did not say before the Magistrate that when he asked me for money I gave him £10, and told him to do as well as he could to put matters straight—I am not in the habit of changing everybody in my employment with being a rogue as soon as he has a dispute with me—I never make a charge until I have occasion to do so—I did not charge Stoner with being a rogue; he was only with me a fortnight—I received this letter from him after this prosecution was started. (This complained of the prosecutor coming into and prowling about Stoner's office)—I returned it after writing on it, "I return you this with the answer that you are as great a rogue as Child "—I sent back this tradesman's account after writing on it, "You must be a rogue or a fool or a compound of both to send in this *** You ought to go where Child is"—that was because he applied for an amount that had already been paid—I have never signed the prisoner's name to any cheque to my knowledge—I endorsed this cheque of 20th December, 1890, in the prisoner's name; because it came to me after he left my employment, it was my money—I used to have business transactions with Harvey and Richardson, of Leicester—there was a dispute with them about the signature to acceptances many years ago—I aid not then go to Spain; I went to Paris, and through France and Spain, and back to England—I was away about eight weeks—the question of the acceptances was not settled by my brothers in my absence; I settled it myself before I left England.

Re-examined. The cheque which I endorsed in the prisoner's name was made payable to him, and sent in after he left my service for an account due to me—I never saw him after he left my office on 19th December—I did not sign his name to any other cheque—the cheques I received from the prisoner in connection with the branch office I paid into the banking account of my firm, and never into my private account—on 5th.

August there was a balance due to him from me of £4 2s., on 11th August £2 2s. 11d. on 18th August £2 2s. 11d., on 25th August £ 1 0s. 5d.; on each occasion I discharged the balance as soon as I saw it—I never kept him waiting for money, nor was he unable to go on in the office without it—I still bank at the Imperial Bank; they have not closed my account, but have paid every cheque that has been paid in—in the private sale of Roseneath the prisoner was authorised to use the firm's name, with A. J. C. under it; never "E. Richards and Co."—it is quite untrue that he had frequently pressed me for money—when I made the statement about his not being entitled to deduct his salary from the cash received by him at the office, I had no legal assistance—on the second Saturday that Stoner was with me he came into the office half drunk, and was very abusive and insolent, and I discharged him—I offered him his wages for the current week—he took out a summons for two weeks; I paid one week's wages into Court, and he took it in satisfaction—I have heard that he and the prisoner are now carrying on business as "J. Chester and Co. "—it is untrue that I am in possession of the cash-book—I had not seen it since 15th December—I only heard of the suggestion at the interview of 15th December and in the letter of 20th December—I applied to Mr. Denman for a warrant, and then to Mr. Partridge, who said it was unnecessary to have a warrant, I could give him into custody at once, as it was a case of felony—at the office there were all the ordinary books for such a business as I carry on.

EDGAR HUGH SANDS . I was formerly in the prosecutor's employment at Wandsworth Common—I made out under the prisoner's direction a good many monthly statements of account which were forwarded to the head office—these are in my writing, March, April, May, June, July, August, and September—the rest are in his writing.

Cross-examined. I was at the Wandsworth office nearly all the time—the prisoner was backwards and forwards there—I believe the prosecutor "had the cash-book sometimes—I heard there was difficulty in getting the book before any question of this kind arose—I once went to the railway station with the prosecutor in order that he might change half a sovereign and give me 6s. to bring back to the prisoner—I think that was a Saturday, I don't remember the exact amount—the prosecutor's son was sometimes at Balham, sometimes at Wandsworth—he had full opportunity of seeing what was going on.

Re-examined. I am not in the prosecutor's employment now.

GEORGE THORLEY (Detective V). I arrested the prisoner at his house at Wandsworth Common on the morning of 9th January—I told him I was a police officer, and should take him to Wandsworth Police-station, where Mr. Barrow would charge him with stealing £1 1s. paid him by Captain Whyte for and on account of his master, Mr. Barrow—he said, "All right; I hear there have been inquiries made about me; I went last Tuesday to Wandsworth Police-station and made some inquiry, but was unable to gain any information"—I took him to the station, and wired for Mr. Barrow, who came and charged him, and signed the charge-sheet—the prisoner made no reply when the charge was read.

Cross-examined. I acted entirely on Mr. Barrow's instructions in arresting the prisoner—I ascertained the prisoner had been to Wandsworth Police-station to make inquiry.

NOT GUILTY .

There were three other indictments against the prisoner for embezzlement, forgery, and uttering, upon which no evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

318. WILLIAM NUTTING PLEADED GUILTY to various offences under the Debtors' Act. There was another indictment against him for having: committed wilful and corrupt perjury, to which he pleaded NOT GUILTY .

He received a good character.— One Month's Imprisonment.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

319. ALICE REEVES (40) was indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's inquisition with, the manslaughter of Stephen Simmons.

MESSRS. CHARLES MATHEWS and HUTTON Prosecuted, and MESSRS. BURNIE and MUIR Defended.

ELLEN SIMMONS . I am in service at Windsor—I have a sister named Emily, she has been travelling with a lady, and returned last week—she gave birth to a male child in July, 1889; it was baptized in the name of Stephen Simmons; she supported it herself until last September, it was then 14 months old; in the second week in September she took it to the care of the prisoner at 16, Eastlake Road, Camber well; I did not go with her—I saw the child in the last week in August, when my sister had the care of it; it was then in very good condition and very well in health—I had seen it from time to time from its birth; it enjoyed good health—my sister went abroad the second week in November—I first saw the child at the prisoner's on 16th December; it was then in a very bad condition, very thin—I wrote to the prisoner to say I was coming on the 17th—I received a reply, in consequence of which I went on the 16th—I destroyed the letter; it was only a note in pencil, asking me to come at once, as Stephen was very ill—I had received a letter from her before that, saying that the child had diarrhœa through teething, but she did not say he was very bad—I went on the 16th and saw the child and the prisoner in the front room ground floor—she said it was suffering from intense diarrhœa through teething, and also fits—she said she had had medical attendance for it, two doctors—she did not give me their names she said they had been in daily attendance—I paid her then for the child up to 6th January at 6s. a week, and 2s. for postage stamps to write and let me know every day how the child was—she told me she had paid for the doctors, and that she had to spend money for what she could buy; she did not say how much—on the following day I received this letter from her. (This requested the money she had paid for the doctor, by return of post, as she had to pay the poor rates; that the child 'was a little better, but required expensive nourishment)—I replied to that, and sent £1 15s., and received an acknowledgment—on 27th December I went and saw her and the child again—she said she had received the money; that she had stopped having; the two doctors, and had got a physician—the child had got a slight colour then, but he was no better—I was not there more than a quarter of an hour—on the 30th I received this letter, dated the 28th (This asked for the child's money, as she had paid 15s., and stated that the child had been in pain all night)—in consequence of that letter I wrote enclosing a postal order for £1, and on the Saturday following I received this letter—en 3rd January I went to the house; Stephen had then been removed—I saw him in the Shelter that same day, and again on the 8th at the

unquest, and identified his body—an each occasion that I went to the house I saw the prisoner and Stephen in the front parlour—the last time I went there she was taking another child out of the room as I entered that was on the 27th—that was the only occasion on which I saw any other child there—she told me she had three of her daughter's children whose husband was abroad.

Cross-examined. The last letter I received was on 16th January; when I went that day she told me she had given the child eggs and brandy, and she was doing all she could for him—I don't remember her saying that she had sat up all night with him; she may have done.

PATRICK GEORGE SIMPSON . I am a surgeon, of 199A, Coldharbour Lane, Camberwell—on 10th December last I went to 16, Eastlake Road—I went into the front room, and there saw the prisoner with a child in her arms, wrapped in a blanket—this was my first visit—she told me her husband was a sailor in the Navy, and he had just sailed from Plymouth—she said the child had been ill, and was ill with diarrhœa and sickness, and that it was teething—she said that she herself had been away from home for a month; that her daughter had looked after the child, and getting alarmed at its condition had telegraphed for her to come home—I asked her if any medical man had been attending the child; she said no—she also told me that it was her own child; that she had another infant which was her own, and another child three years old, and that they were all three extremely delicate from birth—I then wished to examine the child—I found the clothing in an extremely filthy and disagreeable condition from the vomit and from the diarrhœa—the face was thin and dirty and terribly emaciated—I did not examine its body that day; it had an extremely disagreeable smell—I told the prisoner the first thing she must do was to wash and reclothe it, and I would send some medicine for the diarrhœa, and call next day and examine it thoroughly—I then left; the child was about sixteen or-eighteen months old—I sent the medicine, and next day, Thursday, 11th December, I called again; the child was then clean both as regards the body and clothing—the prisoner said it was suffering from teething and diarrhœa—on examination I found it extremely emaciated, it had evidently been ill for three or four weeks; it had bronchial catarrh, diarrhœa, and sickness—I asked her to send round for some medicine for it—I gave instructions to keep the child clean, and that for the present she should simply feed it on milk, and give it nothing but milk and lime water until I saw it next day; it was slightly better that day—it was extremely ill on the 11th; I told her so—she sent for the medicine—on the 12th I went again—the child seemed a little better—I repeated my instructions as to cleanliness and diet, and next day, Saturday, the 13th, I went again; it was not so well, as far as I can remember the diarrhœa had returned—I did not, that I remember, alter my prescription, but went on much the same as before—on that day I saw two other children in the house—that was the first time I had seen any other child, with the exception of her own child, a boy of fourteen; one of these children was an infant about four months old; the prisoner said that was her own child, and that it also was suffering from diarrhœa and sickness; it was extremely emaciated, the clothing was pegged with vomited matter, and was most offensive—she then brought a third child into the room; she

called it Nellie, it was about three years old—she said this child Nellie had fits, and asked me to prescribe for it; it was markedly emaciated, but clean, and its clothing, it had evidently been washed and dressed that day—I told her to send for medicine, which she did—I went again on Monday, the 15th, and saw Stephen and the infant in arms, but not Nellie—Stephen was worse again, there was a good deal of vomit and diarrhœa on his clothing, and in an offensive condition again, and the same with the infant in arms—each time I went I insisted on the importance of keeping the child cleanly—she said she was doing her best—on that day she paid me 8s. 6d., my charges up to that time, from the 10th to the 15th, including the visit I was to pay on the 17th—I had arranged with her to attend for that week at 7s. 6d.—then there was the extra medicine for Nellie—I called again on the 17th, and again saw the infant and Stephen; the infant was then in a dying condition—Stephen was the same as last time, no better; he was still in the same offensive condition—I spoke to the prisoner very strongly about it once more, and told her I did not consider the children were being properly attended to—she said she was doing her best for them—I said I would come next day, the 18th—on that morning some one came from the house to say that the infant was dead—I went to the house, but could I not get in; I tried for some time; there were people in the house, I heard them moving about and talking, and I heard a child crying—not being able to get in, I went away—I returned next day, the 19th—I was admitted, and saw Stephen, and the prisoner with an infant, two or three months old, in her arms—I asked her whose child that was—she said it was her daughter's, who had been left a widow with five children, and had come to reside with her, and this was the youngest—Stephen was worse as regards his health, and in the same disgusting condition—I told her she ought to send him to the hospital at once, that she could not properly attend to him in the condition he was—she said she thought there would be a difficulty in getting the children admitted to the hospital, because she had not a letter—I said I would myself write a letter to the house physician of St. Thomas's, which would no doubt get the child admitted at once—I told her the child would die if left under her care; I was certain it would, that was my opinion—I said I could not undertake the responsibility of attending any longer, unless the child was sent to the hospital—she said she would send for the letter at once—on getting home I wrote the letter—someone called for it; her son brought it back unopened the same morning, with a message from the prisoner that the grandmother of the child refused to have it removed to the hospital—I sent word back that I could not accept the responsibility of attending the child any more, as it had not been sent to the hospital—I did not attend again—on Christmas Eve I considered it my duty to give certain information to the police—and afterwards, on the 6th or 7th January, I saw the child at the Harpur Street Shelter, belonging to the Society for the Protection of Children; it was then suffering from pneumonia, and was practically in a dying condition—it died on 8th January—I attended the post-mortem examination on the 13th; it was made by Dr. Pepper and Mr. Gabe, Dr. Reid and myself being present—pneumonia was the cause of death, probably accelerated by neglect and cold—the body was extremely emaciated—there was no disease to account for the emaciation; it was due either to improper

feeding or want of food—it was not properly clothed or kept clean—on one occasion I had ordered milk and lime water, and I subsequently found that the prisoner had thickened it with a little gruel—I spoke to her very strongly about it, and said it was not right, that she must obey my instructions implicitly.

Cross-examined. Pneumonia was the immediate cause of death—pneumonia was common with children last winter, produced by cold—I found that where there was no neglect bronchial catarrh would predispose to pneumonia—improper feeding would produce symptoms similar to those from having no food—diarrhœa would produce emaciation, but not quite so extensive as I found here—I may have said that I saw the prisoner give the child eggs and brandy—I saw her give the infant the juice of beef steak; that would not be improper, but the way she prepared it I considered wrong—the bone of the meat was extremely dirty and greasy—the prisoner asked me if she should get beef-tea for Stephen—I said, "No, not for the present"—that was about the second or third time I saw him—she said all she gave him he brought up again—she expressed great anxiety about him—she asked if she should get a bronchial kettle for him—I said it was not necessary.

Re-examined. There were distinct signs of starvation, after death—the emaciation was not due to pneumonia—the starved condition predisposed it to pneumonia.

By the COURT. I think the pneumonia was brought about by the emaciated condition, and when pneumonia set in death was certain—it terminates fatally sometimes even in well-nourished children.

DAVID PATTEN . I am an officer employed by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—on Tuesday, 30th December last, I went with Sergeant Cockerell to 16, Eastlake Road—I rang the front door bell three times; I got no admittance, and I then went down into the area and knocked—I went into the kitchen, and saw two young women, sitting one on each side of the fire, and five children; two of them were sitting on the knees of the two females, the other three were sitting on chairs—I saw the prisoner, and told her I was an officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I had called to see the children; I asked how many she had; she said, "I have these you see here, and there are two others in another room"—the room was in a very confused condition, very dirty, and smelt most offensive—I asked whose children they were—she said three of them were the illegitimate children of her daughter Frances; I asked her which three, and she pointed out Nellie and Lewis—I asked whose children they were; she said the children of Eleanor—I saw Stephen there—I asked whose child he was; she said he was the child of a person who was travelling with a lady in Switzerland, that she was a widow, but the lady was not aware that she had a child—I asked her the name of the child; she said, "Stephen"—I asked the surname; she said it had no other name than Stephen—she said it was suffering from diarrhœa and teething—I asked if she had had a doctor for it; she said yes, she had Dr. Bourke, and after that she had Dr. Simpson; that he did the child no good, and she had Dr. Bourke again—she did not say that he was attending him then—I asked who the other children belonged to; she said Albert was the illegitimate child of her daughter Frances—I asked her whose the other children were—she pointed to one and said, "That child is a

Fletcher"—I asked the name—she said, "Agnes Fletcher"—Stephen and Nellie were sitting on the knees of the females; they were in a very dirty condition, partly dressed; a very offensive smell was coming from the child, also from the atmosphere of the room—I went into the other rooms—there were four cribs and a cradle in the room the children slept in—the bedding and blankets the children slept in were in a very dirty state; there was not a dry or clean article amongst them; the smell was most offensive; every blanket and pillow was covered with excrement—all the beds and bedding I saw in the house were in a very filthy condition—altogether I saw eight children—I went next day again and saw the prisoner, and on a third day I went again and saw her—Dr. Reid was called in on the first occasion; I called him in in consequence of the condition of the children, and he made an examination—on the evening of the 1st January Stephen was removed. to the Shelter, and on the 2nd all the children were removed to the same place.

Cross-examined. When I went on the first occasion three of the children appeared to have been washed—I did not see any milk on the table-when I went back with the doctor she was feeding them with milk.

FRANK REID . I am a surgeon, of 304, Walworth Road—on the afternoon of 3rd December I was called by the last witness to 16, Eastlake Road, and saw a number of children in the kitchen, among them Stephen Simmons—the prisoner told me he was about two years and a quarter old—I weighed him; he weighed ten pounds and a half; the normal weight of a child seventeen or eighteen months old would be between twenty and twenty-one pounds; he was most unduly light and weak—he was in a very emaciated condition; he had a pinched old man's face—there was not sufficient organic disease about the body to account for the emaciation—I concluded that he had either insufficient or improper food—he was taken to the Shelter on the night of 1st January, and died there on the 8th—I saw him on the 6th—I attended the post-mortem examination by Mr. Simpson and Dr. Gabe—I have heard Mr. Simpson's evidence, and entirely agree with it, and with the conclusions to which he came—I saw a number of children in the house on the 30th December; among them a little boy named Lewis, about thirteen months old; he was very emaciated; he weighed eleven pounds; his normal weight should have been between eighteen and nineteen pounds—he has since died—I saw Nellie, aged about two years and nine months; she was very emaciated, only weighing eleven pounds and a few ounces, the normal weight being twenty-five to twenty-six pounds—I believe she has since, died—I saw Albert, aged one. year and eight months, very emaciated, weighing twelve pounds, the normal weight between nineteen and twenty pounds; he has since died—I also saw a little girl named Alice Major, aged a year and three months, very emaciated, weight ten pounds, normal weight between nineteen and twenty pounds—she was given back to her parents—I don't know whether she is still living.

Cross-examined. Alice and Albert died from pneumonia—I was not present at the post-mortem—in Stephen's case the pneumonia must have been recent; he was not suffering from it when I first saw him—I take it it was just coming on—he had a little bronchial affection; improper food would cause pneumonia as much as insufficient food—when there I saw some boots being removed—I asked where they were going—

the prisoner said they were going to the pawn-shop to procure food for the children; that was on the 30th.

HENRY HODSON . I am in the service of the Tower Furnishing and Finance Company, in Great Tower Street, City—we supplied the prison with some furniture on hire; part of it went to Balls Pond Road, an part to 16, Eastlake Street—there was a small balance of about £3 or £4 left; it was removed from Balls Pond Road clandestinely.

JOHN REES GABE , M. D., 16, Mecklenburgh Square. On 2nd January I went to see a number of children at the Shelter of the society in Harpur Street (my assistant had seen them the night before)—I examined all of them—they were in a very emaciated condition—that applied especially to Stephen Simmons; he remained there under my care between the 2nd and 8th January, and then died—on the 13th I assisted in the post-mortem—I have been present to-day during the examination of Mr. Simpson—I entirely agree with the evidence he has given with regard to the condition of the child and the cause of death, and to the contributing causes of death—there was no organic disease to account for the emaciation—the pneumonia was of about eight days' standing—the emaciation was due to insufficient or improper food; most likely to insufficient food—the child had no chance of life; it appeared to me to be dying, before the pneumonia came on; it was in a dying condition on the 2nd January—on the 16th Lewis died; on the 20th Albert died; Nellie died, I think, one day last week; she was removed to the hospital in Great Ormond Street for an abscess on the thigh.

Cross-examined. I don't know what she died of—Lewis and Albert died of measles, but we came to the opinion on the post-mortem that it was accelerated by want of proper food—there was no measles in the Harpur Street Shelter; it was not contracted there—it was brough in by the children—when I saw Stephen on the 2nd he was not suffering from pneumonia—when he was dead he had pneumonia of eight days standing—he had a little bronchial catarrh when admitted, that would predispose to pneumonia, and exposure" would cause it—it is a very fatal disease in infants; recovery is not sure.

Re-examined. In Albert's case pneumonia followed the measles—he was in such a weak condition that he could not withstand the illness; it was brought about by want of care and want of food.

By the COURT. In Stephen's case I could not detect any pneumonia on the 2nd—exposure to a child in his condition would cause bronchial catarrh, and that would lead to pneumonia; it is impossible to say for how long emaciation had been going on, possibly several weeks; the child was simply skin and bone—the fact of a healthy child becoming emaciated would be noticed by anybody about children.

AUGUSTUS JOSEPH PEPPER . I am a Fellow of the College of Surgeons, Master of Surgery, and late Examiner in Forensic Medicine in the London University—I have had very considerable experience—I made the post-mortem examination of the child Stephen—I have heard the evidence of Mr. Simpson, Dr. Reid, and Dr. Gabe—I agree generally in the opinions they have expressed, with slight exception, not so much by way of correction as by way of addition—there is one condition on the postmortem which has not been mentioned before, that there were acute tubercles in the apex of the right lung; a small group of tubercles, in the same lung, affected by pneumonia, probably of a fortnight or three

weeks' standing—I think that probably determined the localisation of the pneumonia in the right lung rather than the left—beyond that I have nothing that I desire to add; with the exception of the lung there was no organic disease anywhere—I noticed the emaciation—I weighed the child, it weighed 12 lb. 2 oz.; the normal weight of a child 18 months old would be 20 lb.—there was no sufficient disease to cause that emaciation—I think the disease of the lung might probably account for the wasting of three or four pounds—I take it that the lung had been affected about a fortnight; I don't think the pneumonia had lasted so long; I think that had been there from about eight to twelve days; it is a very insidious form in such weak children, and progresses slowly; it gradually spreads throughout the lungs; the emaciation was obviously due either to insufficient or improper food—I came to the conclusion that it had not been properly fed, and that was a contributing cause to its death—it would render it more liable to pneumonia, and much less liable to recover from it—its chance of life would be next to none.

Cross-examined. The same symptoms of starvation are produced by improper food as by absence of food; it is quite impossible to distinguish between starvation caused either way; I may qualify that answer to this. extent, it is not quite impossible, because if a child is habitually fed with improper food it is usual to find signs of irritation in the stomach and intestines, and my notes say there were no such signs—the most common cause of chronic diarrhœa in young children is improper food—chronic diarrhœa will produce it—I carefully examined the intestines, and there were no signs of inflammation—if the improper food were discontinued for a few days, the signs of irritation would disappear—I have known a child under pneumonia waste half a pound a day—pneumonia is a very fatal disease in young children—cold weather would be hostile to recovery.

Re-examined. The emaciation was consistent with death from insufficient food, and strongly suggestive of it—my attention was specially directed to the stomach and intestines; they showed no signs of irritation—I am certain that the emaciation was the result either of improper food or insufficient quantity.

JAMES SPENCER ATKINSON . I live at 49, Essex Street, Strand—on 13th October I went to 16, Eastlake Road with the father and mother of the child, Albert Reeves—£20 in a lump sum was handed to the prisoner.

Cross-examined. We were shown some other children, under the age of three; they were in very good condition, very well nourished.

Re-examined. I was examined before the Magistrate on 16th January, and I was describing the children, and I understood the prisoner to say that they were the same children that she is now charged with neglecting—I asked the prisoner her occupation, and she said she was the wife of Henry Reeves, an architect.

CAROLINE MAJOR . I live at 59, Harrison Street, Gray's Inn Road—I am married, but am living apart from my husband—on 23rd October I went to the prisoner's house with my baby Alice Annie Major, and made an agreement to pay her 5s. a week for looking after her—she said her husband was at sea, that she had the house, and that she wished to adopt the child—I paid her the 5s. every week until 2nd January.

Cross-examined. I did not see any other children; I went subsequently en the Sunday, and saw that my child was nice and clean—I had written to say I should come on the Sunday.

DANIEL O'SULLIVAN (Inspector P). On 2nd January I saw the prisoner at her house 16, Eastlake Road—I told her I held a warrant for her arrest for neglecting children she had under her control, and I should take her into custody—she said, "I have not wilfully neglected the children. It is a shame; there is a conspiracy against me. It is that Dr. Simpson, because I have not paid him. I have done my best for the children; I have not slept for the past three nights, attending them. I took one to the hospital three weeks ago, but they would not take it in "—I took her to the station; the charge was read over to her—she said, "I have said too much, I shall say no more; if you want to know any more you must find out"—on 16th January she was charged at the Policecourt with the manslaughter of Stephen Simmons—she made no reply.

GUILTY .— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.

There were other indictments against the prisoner for manslaughter and neglect of the other children, upon which no evidence was offered.

320. CHARLES STANLEY MAY was indicted for unlawfully neglecting the various children named in the last case, and causing them injury to their health.

MR. C. MATHEWS offered no evidence against the prisoner.— NOT GUILTY .

321. In the case of CHARLES LYDDON , for murder (moved from the Assizes), the JURY found a verdict of NOT GUILTY .

ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, 6TH APRIL, 1891.