JOSEPH STANTON.
31st January 1859
Reference Numbert18590131-296
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment

Related Material

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Navigation< Previous text (trial account)

296. JOSEPH STANTON (39), was indicted (with Charles Roberts, not in custody) for unlawfully obtaining 62 yards of India-rubber elastic spring sides for boots, of John Isaac Ferdinando, by false pretences.

MR. RIBTON conducted the prosecution.

JOHN ISAAC FERDINANDO . I am an India rubber manufacturer, and live at No. 3, Fort-street, Spitalfields—I know the defendant acting as foreman to Mr. Roberts, living at No. 27, Prior-place, East-street, Walworth—I did not know his name—I first knew him on the 17th of March last year—I was passing Roberts' shop, and I called there with a view of leaving my card—Roberts was at the door speaking to some gentleman, and on my presenting my card, Roberts said, "Walk into the counting-house"—I did so, and Mr. Roberts said, "Have you some samples?"—I presented to him some twenty samples, and while Mr. Roberts was looking at the samples, the defendant came into the counting-house, and said to me, "Are you in a position to take a large order?"—my answer was, "Yes, to any amount; I can execute any order to any amount"—upon my saying so, Mr. Roberts presented me with an order on the back of his card—I saw him write it, "2 pieces of 4 1/2 inch at 2s. 4d.; 2 pieces at 2s. 9d. and 2 pieces at 3s. 6d." 6 pieces altogether—the cost of the whole would be about 28l—I took his card and this order on it—I said, "Thank you"—the defendant opened the door for me, and he said to me, "Be quick and deliver those goods, because we

want to send them to our manufactory in the country"—on the following Saturday, 20th March, I took 63 yards at 2s. 4d. and 2s. 9d.—that was about one third of the order Roberts had given me—it came to 8l.—I saw the defendant, he was there, Mr. Roberts was not—I left them with the defendant—he said Mr. Roberts was not in the way, I had better call in any time that I might be passing, and he would get him to give me an order every time I looked in, because Mr. Roberts was in a position to want a great quantity of goods, and he said, could I supply them with cashmere and linings, and other things, I said, no, the elastic trade was the only thing that I had anything to do with—I then left—I did not execute any further portion of the order—I went on the Wednesday following, which must have been the 24th, and I saw something that excited some suspicion—I saw my six pieces of elastic placed on a high stool, and I saw no other goods there—the defendant had told me that the elastic was to be sent to the manufactory in the country—I then began to make inquiry—I never called at the place again till I had sent, a letter which I addressed to Mr. Roberts—this is a copy of it; "Mr. Roberts, I beg to inform you that the order you were pleased to give me will be completed in a few hours I shall be obliged if you will favour me with one or two London references." To this I received an answer, dated Prior Place, April the 3rd, and signed "C. Roberts:" "MR. Ferdinando,—Sir, I beg to refer you to Mr. Talk, No. 5, St. Dunstan's-hill, Lower Thames-street, and Mr. Stanton, No. 10, Hampton-street, Walworth"—in consequence of this I went six or seven times to No. 5, St. Dunstan's-hill, Lower Thames-street, but I was not able to see Mr. Tulk—I went to Hampton-street—I there saw a woman who called herself Mrs. Stanton—I have found since it was Mrs. Stanton—I had some communication with her—I went to Hampton-street, and not being satisfied, I wrote a letter to Mr. Stanton, to which I received this answer—I have seen the defendant write since, and he made an admission that he wrote this letter—the defendant came to me on the day after I received this letter, and I said to him. "I received a letter from Mr. Stanton, which is not to my mind satisfactory" (I did not know the defendant then by any name, I only knew him as foreman to Mr. Roberts)—I said, "Will you be good enough to tell me what his position is in trade"—he said he was a man of the highest position, he frequently would have goods in to the amounts of 100l. to 500l., and always paid ready money, he was quite an independent sort of man in trade—he said he had served Mr. Roberts for a period of four years with various kinds of leather—I made a remark that it was strange I had never seen him, and I asked what sort of a man he was in appearance—he said, "A man somewhat like yourself, small in stature, dark complexion"—I then said, "What is the position of Roberts in trade?"—he said Mr. Roberts was a man of considerable property, and he had a large factory at Wellingborough in Northamptonshire—in the course of that conversation I addressed the defendant by the name of Mr. Roberts—he said, "My name is not Roberts"—I said, "I know that very well, but as I don't know your name, I address you by the name of the firm; it is usual to do so; we always do so in the City"—he seemed a little annoyed by my calling him Roberts, and I said, "Pray, what is your name"—he said, "My name is Smith"—we had some further conversation, and he left my house at No. 3, Fort-street.

HENRY JAMES DELL , (a prisoner). This letter received by the last witness, is very much like Stanton's writing—it is not exactly his style—I do not know Mrs. Stanton's writing—I do not think this is Stanton's writing.

JOHN ISAAC FERDINANDO (re-examined). Q. What was the day of this interview with the defendant? A.on the 2d April—I said to him, "Is this letter Stanton's handwriting; do you know his writing?"—he said, "Yes, I know his writing; that is Stan ton's handwriting;' 'Read: 10, Hampton-street, Walworth. Sir, We received yours this morning; I beg to state I have always found Mr. Roberts a very respectable tradesman, and I should have no objection to credit him to any amount that my means would allow"—on the day after I received this letter, the defendant came to me, and we-remained together good friends two or three hours—I addressed him by the name of Smith—he told me he lived in the New-cut, Lambeth, but he said I might address a letter to him at 27, Prior-place, in the name of Smith—he wanted me to let him have the goods—he said he was prepared to take the goods: would I consent?—I said, no; I could not see my way clearly—he told me that Stanton had supplied Roberts for three or four years with top leathers—I said I did not see my way clearly—he said, "you are a man of the world, you could not do wrong in trusting him a month"—I still objected—I he said, Mr. Roberts was a very generous man, and if I could make friends with him, he would assist me in getting machinery, and in other ways—I still made the same objection, that there was something I could not understand, and I said I would call and see Mr. Roberts on the following day—on the following day, I went to Prior-place—I saw Mr. Roberts and the defendant—Mr. Roberts seemed very much incensed—he seemed in a passion—he said that he was a respectable trades-man, and I had humbugged him, that he had given me an order, and good references—he said Mr. Tulk was a merchant of long standing in the City of London, and that Mr. Stanton was a highly respectable man, and he had always paid Mr. Stanton for whatever goods he had had of him—I said it was painful to my mind, that I could not understand the references, and that I must decline bringing the other portion of the goods—he then accused me of detaining his foreman—I said, "Your foreman appears to be a man of intelligence; I could not detain him"—he still persisted that I had done so—I said, "Well, Mr. Smith, I am sure, could not tell you so"—he then went into a violent passion, and said, You did, Sir; Mr. Smith told me that you detained him, and made him drunk"—I said I should feel obliged if he would pay me for the goods he had had, 8l. 12s., or return them—he said he should not do that; when he had references respecting me, he would then pay me, and not till then—he said, "You have demanded references of me, and now I demand references of you; when I have those references, I will pay you"—I could get neither money nor goods, and I then left—this was on the 8th April—I did not send any more of the order—I went again on the 20th April, but in the interval, I had sent a letter to Roberts, to which I got no answer—I went on the 20th, but I did not see Roberts—I went again on Saturday, the 24th, expecting to receive my money—I found the place shut up and all gone—I went from Prior-place to Hampton-street—I did not see the defendant there—I saw the woman I had seen before who called herself Mrs. Stanton—I saw Roberts about two months afterwards on the pier at Hungerford—I did not speak to him—he jumped on the steam-boat, and I went on the same boat but I could not get at him—I saw the defendant again on the 24th June, in the Borough—I had a considerable conversation with him—I made a remark that it was very unmanly to come down to me in a fictitious name, and give me a glowing description of Stanton, when he was the real man all the while, and that he had said that Roberts was a man of large property;

and I told him I did not believe he was worth 2d.—I said it was a very strange thing for a man to have a large property and bolt away 6l. 10s. in debt to his landlord—he said I had been running about making a great fool of myself, and exposing them all over London, and if I would only keep quiet from that time I should have my money—I said I was not in the habit of doing that sort of thing, but if anybody kicked me I should be sure to holloa about it, that I looked upon it as a bad debt, and I should never have any portion of it—he said, "If you get any part of the money it will be like a gift to you"—I said, "No, not a gift, it is my own money"—I said, "Where does Roberts live now?"—he said, "I see him every day, but I refuse to tell you where he lives"—we went into a public-house and had a glass, as it was a warm day, and I saw no more of him.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. How long did you and the defendant who had been swindling you, stay in the public-house? A. I should say something like a minute—we had our talk outside—there was not a word spoken in the public-house—we had two glasses of ale—I went to the police-station, but I went on my own account.

Q. Was that when you went to Hampton-street, and expressed yourself rather freely about the loss of your money, and were you required to go down to the police-station by Mrs. Stanton? A. No; the police were not called in—I said several times it was a swindle and a conspiracy—that was to Mr. Stanton and to a man of the name of Weston, who was put there to personate him—a policeman was not called—I was not required to go to the station in consequence of the disturbance I made—I mean that on no occasion when I went to Stanton's that a policeman was called and I was taken to the station—I swear distinctly, No—I see this officer P 87—I swear that he did not interfere at Mr. Stanton's, because of the noise I was making, and accompany me to the station—I swear nothing of the kind ever took place—no policeman were called in—there were one or two standing there, but they were not called in—I did not go with them to the station—I went to Hampton-street—I can't remember the faces of two or three policemen who were there—they did not interfere—there was no complaint made to them by Mr. Stanton—I had one policeman, and they had one or two—there were two little knots formed—I had my policemen and they had their's, but they did not interfere: not at all—there were two little knots, and my policeman said to me, "My good fellow, come away," and I went with him—I went to the police-station the following night to lodge a complaint about the robbery—I called it a robbery—I swear deliberately once for all that I was not taken out of No. 10, Hampton-street, to the police-station—the first person I ever saw at this establishment was Mr. Roberts—the house had a private window with a board, "C. Roberts, wholesale boot and shoe maker,"—I saw no stock—I was taken into a handsome counting-house, fitted up with dummies all round—I was there the first time, I should say, ten or twelve minutes and on that occasion, the 17th March, he gave me this order—on the 20th I took in a portion of the order to the amount of 8l. 12s.—the reference to Stanton was at No. 10, Hampton-street—I never saw Stanton there at all Q. When you had this interview with Roberts, and he complained to you, had you the day before been with Stanton at a public-house drinking for two or three hours? A. There were some five or six of us; we were there I should think about an hour and a quarter, having a friendly glass—I spoke to Roberts of Stanton as Smith, and Roberts spoke of Stanton as Smith—when I saw Roberts on the pier and the steam-boat I did not give him in custody—he went on the steam-boat, and I followed him, but that

was previous to my receiving instructions to take him in charge—I laid the whole matter before the police, and they said, "Do not interfere till you receive further instructions from us"—when I had the interview with the prisoner I did not give him into custody instead of going to a public-house, because I was advised not to interfere with him till I caught the other man: I was looking after the other man at that time—Stanton spoke to me first—the man who was swindling and defrauding me came and spoke to me—I did not give him in custody because I had been instructed not to interfere with him till I caught the other—I never gave the defendant in custody—he prosecuted Dell in Southwark—I was not there on the first occasion; I was on the second—Dell had called on me a day or two previous to that—I did not commence proceedings against Stanton till after I had a communication with Dell, and I can tell you why: on attending this investigation, and finding that Roberts was out of the way, I could not catch him, and therefore I proceeded against this man—I knew that Stanton was the proprietor of the Crystal Palace beer-shop, I called upon him there—I looked in one day and saw him, but I had no conversation with him—he endeavoured to hide himself—I should say that was two months before I took a summons out against him—I knew he was living in the new Out, Lambeth—I did not know he was the proprietor of that beer-shop—the name of Collins was up—on going there I saw Stanton trying to hide himself; I never went there again—when I heard about the prosecution of Dell, the police were down on me directly—I did not prosecute Stanton until he was prosecuting Dell—I was not repeatedly with Dell at public-houses between the times that Stanton was prosecuting Dell—I went one night with Mr. Probin to a public-house, and I saw Stanton there—I spoke-to him the next day at the police-court, that was before the summons—I did not enter into conversation with Stanton about the prosecution; he entered into conversation with me—I knew he was the person who had swindled me—he would force his conversation upon me—I refused to drink with him—he said, "If you dare to prosecute or dare to interfere with me, I will ruin you"—I knew what he meant by it—I did not say, "Prosecute me if you dare, here I am;" he never said so—he did not say, "Here I am; if you have any charge to make against me, give me in custody; "I have got a witness to prove he did not—I got a summons for him three days after I made application for it—I went to the public-house with Probin a day or two before the summons came off; it was purely accidental, it was no connivance—after the taking out of the summons, and before it came on for hearing, I went to a public-house with Probin, and I saw the defendant there; that was somewhere near his own house—I don't know that neighbourhood—it was somewhere in Blackfriars-road—it was in the evening—I was not in Stanton's company, I was in Probin's, and Stanton happened to be there—when I went in Stanton was in the room—I walked out of the room and went to the bar, and he followed me—I should say we were there together some two or three minutes—I Probin invited me to go to that place, and he invited Dell to go there—I might have two or three words with him about the summons I had taken out—he said to me, "Whatever occurs to-morrow I have one favour to beg of you, that you would not mention that we have met together to-night; this was on the day before Stanton was examined on my summons—I did not appear on that summons, I was not well—I believe I mentioned this before to a number of persons.

MR. RIBTON. Q. On the Saturday that Roberts' place was closed you went to Hampton-street, and saw Mrs. Stanton? A.. Yes; she

said, "Come in and be quiet, you will have your money; it has been arranged that you shall have your money"—she said, "Do you know the other creditors?"—I said, "I do not;" a man of the name of Weston was there—I went to Carter-street station on the Tuesday, and also on the Wednesday—I made a communication in reference to this matter, and it was in consequence of the instructions I received that I did not take this defendant, because I could not find Roberts—my acquaintance with Dell began by his calling on me—I attended then at Southwark, and Stanton was then prosecuting Dell, and after that, in consequence of what I heard, I got a summons against Stanton—I saw very clearly that I could not get Roberts, and I determined to go against Stanton—I was determined that both should not escape me.

SARAH ELIZAETH FERDINANDO . I am the wife of the last witness—I recollect seeing the defendant at our place—I heard a conversation between him and my husband—he said Mr. Roberts was a gentleman of property, and had an establishment at Wellingborough, and he thought Mr. Ferdinando would be quite justified in trusting Mr. Roberts with his goods—there was a letter produced, and the defendant said that was Mr. Stan ton's writing, and he said that he was in a good way of business—he passed by the name of Smith—my husband addressed him by the name of Roberts, and he said, "My name is not Roberts, it is Smith."

Cross-examined. Q. When your husband addressed him as Roberts, he said, "My name is not Roberts, it is Smith? A. Yes; I did not hear my husband say, "What is your name?"—the defendant did not say, "You can call me what you like"—he never said so in my hearing; I was there almost all the while—we had some tea—Mr. Stanton said he had had no dinner—he said, "I see you have got your kettle on, we will have some tea and something with it," and I went out and got some bacon.

JOHN SMITH . I am a shoemaker in Crab-tree-row—I know Mr. Ferdinando—I never saw the defendant at his house—I have been at Mr. Ferdi-nando's house several times—I know the defendant's voice—I heard his voice, but I did not see him; there is a partition—I am able to say it was him only by his voice—I had not heard him before, but I heard a voice similar to what I heard at the Court afterwards.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you mean to say that the defendant is the man that you heard? A. I can't swear that that is the man, but I believe it was the same voice that I heard at the Court at Southwark, and at other places since.

MR. RIBTON. Q. What did they say? A. was in the adjoining room, and I heard them speak about some goods that Mr. Ferdinando had sent to Mr. Roberts—I heard a voice similar to the defendant's say that Mr. Roberts was a very respectable man, and he had got a factory somewhere in the country—I heard something about the name, and he said, Smith.

Cross-examined. Q. Were these persons laughing and joking? A. They seemed speaking what I call familiarly—I did not hear the person who I think was the defendant say, "My name is not Roberts"—I can't say that I heard him say, "call me what you like; Smith if you like"—I can't say I did, being rather deaf myself, and there was a partition between us—I heard the name Smith—I came here to identify him by his voice—I was in the room about twenty or twenty-five minutes—it was about the centre of the day.

BENJAAMIN CLUFF . I am an elastic web manufacturer in Brick-lane—I recollect the defendant coming to my place with Mr. Ferdinando about the

middle of April—the defendant said his name was Smith, and he was fore-man to Mr. Roberts, and he said he was a very respectable man.

WILLIAM MILLS . I live at Ivy-cottage, Albany-road—I am landlord of No. 27, Prior-place Walworth—I knew Roberts, I let him that house a few days after Christmas 1857; he was to pay 26l. a year—he left in April last—he commenced in December 1857, and paid half a quarter's rent in advance—he never paid any more—he owed me a quarter's rent—This letter was left at my place—I knew his handwriting from what he wrote in my house—it is addressed to Mr. Mills, Albany-road—it is the same handwriting as I saw my tenant Roberts write when he took the house—"April 25, 1858. Mr. Mills, Sir—I am sorry to inform you that in consequence of business losses, I shall not be able to keep on longer the house No. 37, Prior-place, therefore I send you the key: in consequence of being declared an insolvent, I think myself justified in doing as I have done."

JOSEPH BROWN . I live in High-street, Newington—I am agent to the landlord of the house No. 10, Hampton-street—I recollect the defendant applying about that house in 1857; he took the house from me in the name of Stanley—I asked him for a reference, and he referred me to No. 30, Moor-street, Chelsea—I went there, and saw Mrs. Gough; she knew him in the name of Stanley—I asked her if he was a responsible person to take a house at 30l. a year—she said, "Yes," and she was very sorry to lose such a person—I let him the house in the name of Stanley, and he continued nearly three quarters of a year.

Cross-examined. Q. You collect the rent of that house? A. Yes; I can't say that the defendant owes me one farthing respecting that house—I wrote the agreement for that house, in three or four lines in the name of Stanley—I don't know where that paper is, I have looked for it—he was rated at that house in the name of Stanley.

MR. RIBTON. Q. Did he sign the piece of paper you have looked for in the name of Stanley? A. He did—I will swear it.

FREDERICK BURLEY . I am a baker—I live at No. 27, Prior-place—when Roberts carried on business there about this time last year, I saw the defendant there frequently—he was acting as Roberts' foreman—I never saw any boots or shoes manufactured there—I saw stock there—I recollect their leaving—whatever stock was there was all taken away.

Cross-examined. Q. How long did you know Roberts? A. Nearly three months—during that time he was carrying on business—I saw a good deal of stock there—I always thought it had the appearance of being a respectable establishment—I had no reason to think otherwise—Stanton was acting as his foreman there—they appeared as master and foreman—I knew of Stanton living in Hampton-street, at last—I never went there myself—Roberts has left Stanton's wages with me two or three times—he left with me the last week's wages to pay Stanton—that was on the Friday before he left on the Tuesday—I should think he left with me about 2l.—he told me to give it to Mr. Stanton when he came back—he said that was Stanton's week's wages.

EBENEZER POCOCK . I am a shoemaker in Southwark-bridge-road—I bought some elastic web at the latter end of March, or beginning of April last year—I gave Mr. Ferdinando a piece of what I purchased as a pattern—I purchased sixty-two yards at 2s. 3d. of Weston—that was a fair price—it may be worth more, but that I cannot swear to.

JOHN ISAAC FERDINANDO (re-examined). This pattern which I received from the last witness, I swear is a portion of the identical web which

I sold to Roberts at 2s. 9d. a yard; 2s. 3d. is under its value—I knew Weston acting as servant to the defendant, at No. 10, Hampton-street, and also at the Crystal Palace beer-shop—Weston was the man that opened the door to me when I went there—On the Tuesday night, he ran out and said, "If you don't go away, I will give you in custody."

Cross-examined. Q. Did not Weston give you in custody of a police-constable then and there? A. I will swear distinctly he did not—I was never given in custody in my life.

HENRY JAMES DELL (re-examined). I was tried here last sessions on a charge of stealing some boots from Mr. Stanton, and sentenced to be imprisoned for six; months; I come now from Wandsworth house of correction (See page 351)—I was formerly in the police for five years—I left it—I have known Stanton about two years—I knew him first under the name of Stadden—I knew him while he was at Mr. Roberts in Prior-place, in the name of Stanton—he told me he had commenced business in Prior-place with a man of the name of Roberts in the boot and shoe and leather line—he afterwards told me he had ordered about 40l. worth of webbing of a foreigner of the name of Ferdinando, and he expected to get it—he said he had got a portion of it—I saw him shortly afterwards, and I asked him how he was getting on with the webbing—I said, "Have you got the whole of it?"—ho said No; he did not think he should be able to get it, he was going again to see about it—I recollect when they left Prior-place, and in about a month afterward I saw him in Essex-street, Strand—I was then living in the New-cut, and was a potatoe salesman—he told me they had got a place for boots and shoes—he told me they had commenced in Essex-street, as they could do no good in Prior-place—he said he had got a friend at Northampton, and he and Roberta went down—Roberts went down, as master, and he went down as buyer, as Roberts did not know anything of the shoe business—he told me they had got about 300l. worth of boots and shoes of Payne and Clark, and they had got a large quantity of leather from another person;—he was continually telling me they were receiving goods from Northampton—I received some goods from him to take charge of—his wife brought six hampers of goods to my house—I put them away for him—he called on me to deliver them up—I told him there was a difference between us, and if he would settle the difference he should have them—a portion of them were pawned; I was convicted for that.

Cross-examined. Q. He was at that time removing to the Crystal Palace beer-shop? A. No; he was removing to No. 25, Duke-street, at the very time he hired a room at my house—it is false that I stole his boots and shoes; and I did not pawn them either—I was convicted of stealing them here—Payne and Clark did not lay claim to a single boot or shoe that I was charged with stealing—I became acquainted with Ferdinando about three days after my first examination at the police-court, Southwark—I was admitted to bail—I did not go away together with Ferdinando—I got his address during the week and called on him—I did not go with him and his wife to Worship-street to take out a summons—I knew they meant to prosecute Mr. Stanton—before the summons was taken, we went over the matter together, and discussed the prosecution—I watched Mr. Ferdinando to come out of the police-court, and I spoke to him respecting Stanton's character—I never went into Worship-street when Stanton appeared there—I waited outside the court—my wife was inside the court—I was at a public-house.

FREDERICK BARNETTF . I live in Stewart-street, Spitalfields—I am a

manufacturer of boots and shoes—I know the defendant—I saw him at Mr. Ferdinando's brother's house on 31st December—I heard him offer Mr. Ferdinando's brother 10l.; no 7l. to compromise, something that was coming on—he said he would give seven sovereigns, and he wanted a receipt made out for that seven sovereigns in the name of Roberts—it was to compromise this matter.

COURT. Q. What did he say? A. I took a note from Mr. Ferdinando to Mr. Stanton at Mr. Ferdinando's brother's house—I saw Mr. Stanton, and gave him the note—he said it was a bad job that Mr. Ferdinando would not accept his terms, and he was very sorry he had come there on that occasion, and he would not have come only his wife advised him—he said, "Will you take this 7l., and give me a receipt in the name of Roberts, as if Mr. Roberts had sent it"—I did not see any money at all.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you ever been in any other Court about this matter? A. No; this conversation was on 31st December at Mr. Ferdinando's brother's in Spital-square—I took the note from Mr. Ferdinando to his brother's house, and there I met the defendant—I know what the contents of the note were, it was open—it was written on my premises—I am a boot and shoe manufacturer—I had no acquaintance with Mr. Stanton before this—I have never told any policemen or any person except my own friends of this evidence—I gave the attorney the particulars about my evidence on first taking the brief to Mr. Ribton—I think it was before last session—I was not here at the time that Dell was tried—I did not state that I was coming here—I did not know I was to be called as a witness here—I may have said what I am telling you now.

Q. What made you say it was 7l.? why did not you say 10l. as you did in the first instance? A. I corrected myself: momentarily—Mr. Ferdinando's brother was present at this conversation, and Mrs. Ferdinando was present, but not during the whole of the conversation—Mr. Stanton ordered both the women upstairs—she was not there the whole time.

MR. RIBTON Q. Are you quite sure it was 7l.? A. Yes; I said 10l. accidentally.

JOSEPH FERDINAND . I am the brother of the prosecutor—I recollect the last witness coming to my place one evening—the defendant was there—Mr. Barnett brought a note down for him—I read it—I know partly what was in, it—the note was given to the defendant—it was all read out—the defendant put it in his pocket and said, "Well, I wish he had come down himself, I wanted to go into Court with clean hands to prosecute a man named Dell," and for me to give him a receipt as for Mr. Roberts—the sum was mentioned—it was 7l.—he did not say anything more—this was on 31st December—I mentioned this to nobody.

COURT. Q. When did you, after you heard this conversation, mention it to anybody? A. I did not mention it after that—the case was mentioned because the 7l. was offered to me previous to that in the morning, when only me and the prisoner were present.

MR. RIBTON. Q. What occurred in the morning? A. He said he wanted to go into Court with clean hands, and would I interfere with my brother—I said, "In what?"—he said, "If your brother will not swear to the depositions to-morrow I will bring him 7l.—I spoke to my brother about it—in the evening the defendant came again—he had made an appointment—he said he would call to see me in the evening to ascertain whether I had seen my brother, and what he said about taking this money—he came in the evening, when I told Mr. Stanton that I had seen my

brother, and he objected to anything of the kind—Mr. Stanton said would I send to him again, and I sent my servant down to his house, and Mr. Barnett came with the note—I told my brother what passed on that evening, and he told me to come here.

Cross-examined. Q. Who was present in the evening beside yourself and Mr. Stanton and Mr. Barnett? A. No one else that I am aware of—Mrs. Stanton came with her husband, but she was on the stairs or in a room—I don't know whether she heard—he said he wanted to go into Court with clean hands—I can't remember that he said that this was a scandalous prosecution on the part of my brother, and only intended to make him drop the matter against Dell—I can't swear he did not—I can't remember that he said, "If I have done anything wrong, your brother had an opportunity to prosecute me months ago"—he said, "It is a mere plant here to trap me"—he said, "I have lost money myself by Roberts, and it is a cruel thing to come down upon me for his debt likewise—I did not go to the police-court—I knew the case was coming on against Stanton—I had no evidence to give—this conversation took place after Mr. Stanton had had his hearing at the police-court—the depositions were sworn the next day—I did not go the next day.

MR. RIBTON. Q. Did you give that letter of your brother's to Mr. Stanton? A. It was given him by Mr. Barnett—I heard Mr. Stanton say that it was a bad prosecution, because he was prosecuting Dell—that was the substance of it.

JAMES HENRY VAUGHAN . I live in the Kent-road, and am a solicitor—several witnesses are here who were not called before the Magistrate—as the evidence was given to me, I furnished the names of the witnesses and the minutes to the prisoner's attorney—I believe the first minutes were on Friday last to Mr. Neal's brother, and copies of the letters—that I furnished last Friday to Mr. Neal's brother—that was all the evidence I was then in possession of—Mr. Ferdinando said something about his brother giving evidence—he gave it to me last night, and I furnished a copy of it last night to Mr. Neal's brother outside this Court—the evidence of Dell I was not able to get this morning—the moment I obtained the evidence I made a copy and furnished it.

MR. SLEIGH called the following witnesses:

CHARLES BALLARD . I am a boot and shoe maker, at Notting-hill—I have known the defendant six or seven years—his character has been nothing but good for what I know—I gave him credit—I never heard anything against him.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. Q. Under what name have you known him. A. Stanton or Stadden—I gave him credit in the name of Stadden—I expect he had a shop when he lived in the New-cut—I lived in the country at that time—I sent him up goods from Northamptonshire in the name of Stadden to the amount of 20l. or 30l.—I sent them up to him to the New-cut—I think that was before he became insolvent—I knew Roberts—I never sent him goods—I came to town before I knew Roberts—I do not know when the defendant took the name of Stanton—I supplied him with goods in the name of Stadden—I knew him when he was foreman to Mr. Roberts—I supplied the defendant with goods when he lived in Hampton-street—I sold them for ready money, and entered them in the name of Stadden—when I went there I asked if the governor was at home, or Mr. Stadden—I knew by seeing it in the paper that his name was Stanton—I

took it from that—I never knew him by the name of Stanley—I never knew him living at Chelsea—I never knew him by the name of Smith.

MR. SLEIGH Q. He was insolvent four years ago? A. Yes; I have heard he was—I never lived at Wellingborough—I lived about thirteen miles from it—when I supplied the defendant with goods he was keeping a boot and shoe maker's shop—here is his card.

THOMAS BURROWS . I live at 37, Pitfield-street, Hoxton—I am a boot and shoe maker—I have known the defendant about sixteen years—he is by trade a boot and shoe manufacturer—I have always found him an upright honest man—I knew him when he had a shop in the New-cut—his name at that time was Stadden—since his insolvency I have heard he has gone by the name of Stanton.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you ever know him when he lived at Moor-street, Chelsea? A. No, I heard that he lived at Hampton-street, but I never saw him there—I have known him the last twelve months by his calling at my house to know if I wanted goods—I never knew him by the name of Smith.

WILLIAM BROOKS . I am a boot and shoe maker, and live in Broad-wall, and I have an establishment in Long-acre—I have known the defendant three years and a half—I do not know where he was living—he has bought goods of me—as far as I know he has borne a respectable character—he has done business with me very honourably.

Cross-examined. Q. Was he introduced to you? A. Yes; by a Mr. Johnson, who has two boot and shoe establishments, one in the New-cut and one in Shoreditch—the defendant had some leather to sell—I looked at it, and after that he bought goods of me—I sent the goods to Hampton-street under the name of Stanton—I was paid for them—I have had various transactions with him—I never knew him under the name of Stanley—I saw in the paper that he was insolvent.

THOMAS ESBURGER . I am a licensed victualler out of business, and live in Regent-street, Lambeth—I have known the defendant five year—his name was Stadden—I do not know that he changed it—he has borne the best of characters for honesty.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you know of his living in Moor-street, Chelsea? A. No; I do not know where he was living—I knew him while he was living at Chelsea, but I did not know where he was living—he lived in the New-cut before he lived in Hampton-street—he kept a boot and shoe ware-house under the name of Stadden—I never knew him under the name of Smith.

THOMAS KELTON . I am a leather cutter, and live in Baalzephon-street—I have known him ten or twelve year—I knew him in the name of Stadden—I knew him when he was insolvent—he was a customer at a house where I was journeyman—I never heard any imputation on him.

Cross-examined. Q. When did you hear he was insolvent? A. About the time he was so—I read it in the newspaper—about this time last year he met me in the street, and he said "If you call at Mr. Roberts', I am foreman there, I can get you a job"—I went, and Mr. Roberts said, "My foreman tells me you are a leather cutter"—I said "Yes," and he gave me some work under the superintendence of Mr. Stadden—I have called at his house in Hampton-street—I never knew him in Moor-street, Chelsea.

HENRY GILBERT . I was a grocer in the New-cut—I knew the prisoner when he lived there, three or four doors from me, and I have known him since—he always bore a very respectable character—I never heard the least imputation on him.

Cross-examined. Q. What name did you know him by there? A. I never took notice—he was in the habit of dealing at my shop, and when the fire destroyed my place I went and took two rooms of him at Hampton-street—I do not know where he went to from there—I did not know him at Chelsea in the name of Stanton—I did not know him in the name of Stanley—I lodged with him two months.

GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.

ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, FEB 28, 1859.


View as XML