The Proceedings of the Old Bailey

 

183.   WILLIAM HARREL JOHNSON (39) , was iudicted for unlawfully conspiring with   Robert Vere and others to defraud   Josiah Johnson, of 295l. Second Count—for obtaining an order for 150l. by falsely pretending that he was one   Thomas Rees , a solicitor. Other Counts—varying the mode of charge.

MR. R. T. COLE, Q.C., with MR. M. WILLIAMS and MR. STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; and MR. TORR, Q.C., with MR. CROOME the Defence.

  JOSIAH JOHNSON . I carry on business as the proprietor of some Turkish baths at King's Cross—I am a member of Tattersals and make books on races—sometime before February, 1873, I had been acquainted with a man named Vere—we had had betting transactions together, and I had lent him a sum of 100l. for which he gave me a promissory note—he called on me in February, 1875, and on 23rd March, I attended at some offices at 52, Chancery Lane—prior to that, in February, 1875, I had been introduced by Vere to the prisoner—he introduced him to me as Mr. Rees, his solicitor—in consequence of that representation, I handed to Vere certain sums of money; I did not advance it on the guarantee produced—this letter was not shown to me; I never saw it before I saw it at the police-court—on 23rd March, I had an interview with the prisoner and Vere, at 52, Chancery Lane—I went there with Vere and saw the defendant there—I believed him to be Mr. Rees, the solicitor, as he had been previously introduced to me—Vere said in his presence that he wanted to borrow 150l. of me, and would Mr. Rees be guarantee for him—I cannot give the exact words, but that was the meaning of it—he said he would—I said they must go to my solicitor, Mr. Apps, and have the business transacted there—Vere and I went to Mr. Apps, and I had a conversation with him in Vere's presence—Mr. Apps went back with us to Rees' office—there was no one in, we waited there a few minutes and then the prisoner came in—Vere said to Mr. Apps "this is Mr. Rees," meaning Johnson—Johnson assented, he did not say anything to the contrary—Mr. Apps asked him if it was true that he, Rees received 800l. a year on Mr. Vere's account—he said "Yes" it was—he then asked him if he would accept the bill with Vere—he said he would do anything to oblige Mr. Vere—Mr. Apps then drew out this promissory note. (Read: "March 23rd, 1875, four months' after date I [altered to "we"], promise to pay to Mr. Robert Vere on his order 260l. for value received. Thomas Rees & Co. Payable at 52, Chancery Lane.") I know nothing about the "I" being altered to "we"—the prisoner signed "Thomas Rees & Co."—I handed to him a cheque for 150l., ho had previously had 85l. from me, and 25l. he promised me for the accommodation—this (produced) is my cheque for 150l., I was induced to part with it by the prisoner representing himself to be Rees, Vere's solicitor, and I thought he was so, I thought it was quite right, as I asked the prisoner when I first went to the office how long he had been Vere's solicitor, and he said two years, and that he paid Vere 800l. a year for two years—the 260l. promissory note was never paid—subsequently, in April, a fresh application for money was made to me by Vere, while the promissory note was still running; I attended again with Vere at the office of Rees & Co.—I there saw the defendant—I said "How do you do," and he said "Very well thank you," and he appeared to know what business we had come on—Vere said that I had come to lend him 150l.: I asked Rees if he would accept a bill,

and he said "Yes"—a bill was drawn (produced)—I do not know whose writing it is, but this is the prisoner's signature—Rees or Vere produced the bill already drawn—the prisoner wrote the acceptance in my presence; I handed this cheque for 95l. to Vere—the bill was for 150l.—he offered to give me 10l. for the money, and I handed him the balance, 45l. in notes. (The bill and cheque were read, the acceptance to the bill was "Accepted at our office, Thomas Rees & Co.") I parted with my cheque and notes in consequence of Mr. Rees guaranteeing it, I understanding Johnson to be Rees & Co., and he said that he had the money quarterly, and he would see that I was paid, I believed him to be Mr. Rees, a solicitor—I thought him to be Vere's solicitor, and that Vere received from him 800l. a year—that bill" was never paid—I subsequently gave instructions to Mr. Apps, my attorney, for the purpose of recovering the money; I then discovered Rees to be the prisoner—when I gave the first cheque, I saw Vere and the prisoner coming towards the bank at King's Cross, on a bus together, 200 yards up Gray's Inn Lane—that was about an hour after I had handed over the cheque—I have seen Vere since—the last time I saw him was on the Sun day night, before the summons was taken out against Vere and Johnson—this case was four or five times before Mr. Vaughan at Bow Street—Vere did not appear on any of the occasions; I have not seen him since, or been able to ascertain where he is.

Cross-examined by MR. TORR. lama betting man—I have known Vere about five years—he is not a member of Tattersal's; I never saw him there—I will lay you 100l. to 6d., that he is not a member, and put the money down—I know he is not a member—I am there every Monday, and I never saw him there—I should think his age might be thirty—we were not very intimate—I did not find out who his relations are—he represented himself as having high connections—I have heard him suggest that he was somebody, and I took it for granted—he told me he had a sister who resided abroad, and that she was a person of considerable wealth—he told me that he had 800l. a year from her that she could not touch, and that he had about 2,500l. that was put under restraint and he sent it away—Johnson said she would, no doubt, send him whatever was owing—I now have reason to disbelieve that—I do not know that his sister, Mrs. Grant, does not exist, but I think if she supplies money to the amount of 800l. a year I should have got some money—Vere told me that he was connected with a young lady—he did not say he was paying court to her and was desirous of being engaged, and that her sister objected to the contract; I have heard nothing about it—what young lady; is she a young lady, tell me? She did not go to Mr. Apps' office, but I have seen her—I saw him go and speak to her in Holborn; I cannot tell whether going to or coming from Mr. Apps'—I know nothing about the sister not liking the proposed engagement; if I did hear of it I have forgotten all about it—to the best of my knowledge I know nothing about it—I might have heard of it, if I did I do not see that it has anything to do with this—I have not squeezed anything out of Vere, whatever I had from him he owed it me—the horse he backed did not always lose, sometimes it won—he may hare had more from me than I from him—I have two books which show the extent of my transactions with Vere; they are not here, they are at my house, 25, Harrington Square—I can fetch them before this case is over, I think—I really cannot tell you whether I won from Vere or he from me till I examine my books—if I laid him against the winner I paid him and

he did not pay me—he owed me 26l.—we had only three or four transactions; there were four meetings—I do not know whether he or I won on the general transactions because I have not searched my books since, and it is about five years ago—I never won 300l. from him on one transaction—there is not a balance of 300l. in my favour—I have never said so—the first time I went to 52, Chancery Lane was in February, and on that occasion I went with Vere—I was taken there on 25th February and this man was introduced to me as Mr. Rees, Mr. Vere's solicitor—I refused, on the 25th, to advance 300l. on getting warrant of attorney to enter up judgment, and I went away and I had a letter from Mr. Vere on the following morning.

Q. On the 26th February was it agreed that you should advance 100l., having stated that 200l. was already due, and that you should take as security a warrant of attorney to enter up judgment on three respective sums of 100l. each? A. I left it to my solicitor, it was something of that sort-on the 26th February there was 100l. due on an old debt, and I was to advance 200l. more; it was not 200l. due, and I was not to add another 100l. to it, making 300l.—this document (produced) never came to my knowledge before I was at the police-court—it was produced there by my attorney's clerk—I can account for how my attorney got it—Mr. Cork got it (Read: " To Josiah Johnson, Esq., 25, Harrington Square. Sir,—By Mr. Vere's authorisation we undertake, upon your advancing 100l. this day, to pay you such 100l. and the 200l. now over-due from Mr. Vere to you, making 300l., by three equal quarterly payments, commencing at Midsummer, 1875, such payments to be made from Mr. Vere's income, paid by Mrs. Helen Vere Grant. Yours truly, Thomas Kees & Co.") My solicitor did not, after that was in his hands, prepare a warrant of attorney and send his clerk, Cork, to 52, Chancery Lane, with it—I do not know anything about the warrant of attorney being prepared and taken to 52, Chancery Lane, for execution; I only know that I had not seen it—I was not told afterwards by Mr. Cork or Mr. Apps that when they took it to Johnson he said he could not witness it, for he was not an admitted attorney; I wish they had told me that, they would not have got any more money from me; I did not hear anything about it—I believe that Mr. Cork got it executed and witnessed by an attorney, Mr. Stretton, and paid over 95l. on my account—I do not remember being at the office, 52, Chancery Lane, in February, 1875, when a Mr. Dear was there—the first time I saw Mr. Dear was at the police-court—I know the man you are speaking of—I do not remember being with Vere in the office, 52, Chancery Lane, when Dear and other persons were present; I will swear I was not.

Q. Do you remember that while you were so there waiting, Dear and you and the others, that Johnson came in and passed the lobby and went into the room opposite? A. There was nobody in the office but me and Vere—Mr. Dear did not say "I believe that is Mr. Johnson, I must see Mr. Johnson first, I have important business and I cannot wait"—he was not there—I did not hear a conversation with Dear, and my asking as to the fact that Johnson the clerk, was Johnson, and the betting man was. Johnson; nothing of the kind took place—Dear did not ask me whether I knew a person of the name of Hope Johnson, and whether I could not tell him whether he was likely to get some money out of him, for he owed him a large sum of money; it is all fabrication—it appears that I only left 100l. with Mr. Apps to go to the borrower; I believed I left 200l.—I was cross-examined

about it—I swore I left 200l.; I believed I did leave 200l.—there was a remand, and on the sccond occasion the question was put to me, "How much money will you now say you left?" and I said "I will swear positively I left 200l.—I had never thought about it since, but I had really agreed with Mr. Vere and left 100l.; I thought it was 200l., although I saw that document—I believed I had left the 200l. with Mr. Apps, but it was a mistake, I only left 100l.—when I advanced the second sum on the 25th or 26th April Mr. Apps was not with me, I went with Vere alone—I expect the bill was taken already drawn, it was produced ready drawn—either Vere or the prisoner produced it ready drawn—it was accepted by the defendant—I took possession of it after it had been accepted; I am sure of that—I must have taken possession of it, I will swear I did; that is the best of my memory.

Q. On the contrary, was not the bill brought to you enclosed in an envelope by a messenger named Frederick Jones? A. I do not know such a person unless it is the Jones who is a witness in the case, and I never saw him until I was at the police-court—I did not afterwards get that bill from Mr. Vere; Vere did not tell me that he had received it through the hands of a person named Jones, in an envelope; I am sure of that—I did not get it from Mr. Vere out of the office, I got it in the office, and there was not a fourth person there—I was there when the defendant accepted the bill; there is no mistake about that—I am sure I did not get it from Vere subsequently.

Re-examined. I think this is the first time I have been asked about this being handed to me by Vere after I left the office—I don't remember being asked before—I cannot tell to a few pounds which way the result was of my betting with Vere—I should have to search my books, and it is five years ago—I did not bet with him at more than four meetings; the last time was four years ago, and he had owed me 267. when he left off—I went to the office of Rees & Co. on the 25th, and got this letter from Vere on the morning of the 26th. (Bead: "Thursday evening, February 25th. Dear Johnson—I am sorry you have had so much bother to-day; I have seen my solicitor again, and will meet you at the Baths, at 12 o'clock to-morrow morning, and will have with me the letter exactly as you wished from him. Although I am comparatively a stranger, permit me to offer to Mrs. Johnson and her niece, my kind regard, and believe me, yours faithfully, R. Vere.") He had introduced me Johnson as Rees, on the 25th, as his solicitor—I did not go again when the security was taken—I did not hear, from Mr. Apps or his clerk, or anybody that he was not Rees, but Johnson, not till he had been sued, and I had advanced the money—I never heard of this document till it was produced at the police-court, or of any warrant of attorney.

  THOMAS ROBERT APPS . I am a solicitor, of 7, South Square, Gray's Inn—I have been acting as solicitor for the prosecutor some years—he and Vere called on 25th February, at my office—he was going to advance Vere some money, and I advised him as to the best security to take—no one was to be guarantee then—I understood the prosecutor to say that he could not get a guarantee, and I thought a warrant of attorney would be better than a bill—Mr. Cork, my clerk, carried out the transaction, and I knew nothing further about it, except that it had been done—I did not see the document for a considerable time afterwards—on 23rd March, I saw the prosecutor again, when he said that he had arranged to lend some more money to Vere,

and in consequence of other statements he made to me, I went with him and Vere to 52, Chancery Lane—(I don't know whether Vere had come with him, but I saw them together)—Vere walked in first, he took us upstairs into some offices at the top of the house—there was a clerk there; I did not notice anyone else—Vere said that Mr. Rees was not in, and asked the prosecutor and myself to go and sit in his room, and we went—shortly afterwards the defendant came in—I don't remember Vere saying anything, but the prosecutor said "Oh, here is Mr. Rees"—I then spoke to the defendant I said "Oh, Mr. Rees, my chent, Mr. Johnson tells me he is about to advance a sum of money to your client, Mr. Vore, and I am instructed that Mr. Vere has 800l. a year from, his sister, which comes' through your hands, is that so?"—he said "Yes"—I said "I am also instructed that you are willing to guarantee the loan, and that it is proposed to do it by a bill to which you will become, a party;" he said "Yes"—I then drew this bill, "I promise to pay," &c.—it is now "We promise"—the defendant appears to have altered it, but I did not notice it at the time—the "We" was not written by me—after drawing it I got up from the chair, and the defendant sat down and signed it, and upon that the prosecutor handed him a cheque for 150l., I think the amount was—I knew nothing. of the man before—I knew nothing more till the note became due—I then issued a writ against Rees on it, and there was an order for leave to appear—there was substituted service—Mr. Rees could not be found—eventually judgment was signed, and then they took out a summons to set the judgment aside—it turned out that in the interim while the three days were running, three days after service, they filed-an affidavit for leave to defend, and they got leave, but they did not serve the order on me—I believed that no such order had been obtained, and signed judgment—it was obtained ex-parte, and they got leave to appear upon affidavit—the Master made an order to set aside the judgment, because they had got leave to appear—this is an office copy of the affidavit of James Thomas upon which the order was made. (This was the affidavit of James Thomas, of 52, Chancery Lane, staling that a copy order for substituted service of the annexed copy writ of summous was left at Rees' office, on 16th August, in his absence, and that this affidavit was made for leave for Rees, who was suffering from illness, to enter an appearance.) That was successful—there was another affidavit, stating that the housekeeper had not given them the order—Mr. Thomas is the gentleman who was called at the police-court for the defence.

Cross-examined by MR. TORR. I did not go to Chancery Lane until the 23rd March, but I was aware of my clerk, Mr. Cork, going there—I saw the warrant of attorney that was executed, possession of which was taken by Mr. Cork, about the time that the bill became due—my clerks. have been with me many years—I cannot say whether Cork sometimes passes for Apps, I should think it very wrong; he would not be in my office five minutes if I heard of it—I do not know that gentlemen of the Bar ever speak to a clerk as a principal—I was never called by the name of my principal when I was a clerk—I went over to the office with the prosecutor on the 23rd of March; I did not go after the prosecutor and Vere had been there; we all three went together—I am perfectly clear about that—I have no entry of going separately—they produced their Chancery Lane, call book, but that was their book and not mine, and I forget how my name appears in it—when I did see the warrant of attorney I observed that it was not witnessed by Rees, but not at the time, not till the time of the proceedings

upon this bill, when I began to make inquiries—Cork retaiued the proceedings for the purpose of stamping—I became acquainted with it about the time of the writ being issued, and then I observed that the person who witnessed the warrant of attorney was not Rees. but Stretton—it needs an admitted attorney to witness a warrant of attorney, acting on the part of the party granting it—I consider Mr. Cork perfectly competent—I should suppose that if the person my clerk took to be Rees had been an admitted attorney he would have executed it without going to get somebody else to witness it—the defendant was not at my place of business to my knowledge on the evening of the 25th February; I will swear that I did not see him—my call book does not show that he was there; I have got it here——' here is an entry, "Johnson and another and Mr. Rees"—Sweetlove, my clerk, wrote that; he is here—I did not see them—there is no time entered, but it is low down in the day—I do not remember the prosecutor leaving 200l. at my office; whatever money he left he gave to Mr. Cork—I was not there—I have said before "I have no recollection of 200l. being left on the 26th February, my mind is a perfect blank upon it"—I meant that if I had received money I must have recollected it—I do not feel that sometimes my mind becomes a blank—I was asked, and I said "No"—Mr. Cork has got his own room—I was not in his room—I handed the prosecutor over to Mr. Cork, I was not there.

Re-examined. It is not the custom, as far as I know, for clerks to personate their principals, or to sign bills of exchange in the name of the firm, without special authority.

  JOHN DAVID CORK . I am managing clerk to Mr. Apps—I first saw the prosecutor on the 25th February, and when they went out I saw Miss Clifford and Mr. Thomas—there were not two separate interviews; Johnson and Vere came into my room and were alone with me; Thomas and Miss Clifford were not in the room—the prosecutor said that he had arranged to lend Vere 100l., that he also owed him 200l., and if Mr. Rees would guarantee it he would let him have the money—I mentioned a warrant of attorney, having consulted my principal, and Vere said that it would be given—they then left, and I believe I saw Miss Clifford; I saw her next day, and I believe she was the same person—on the 26th I saw the prisoner at Mr. Rees' office—I had not been there before—I went there with Vere, and Miss Clifford followed—it was about 12 o'clock—I saw the defendant—Miss Clifford was not present, she sat in the outer office—when I went there Vere said to the clerk, Carter, "Is he in?"—the clerk said "Yes," and he pushed his way in, and said "Now, then, let us sign the papers"—the prisoner said "All Mr. Vere cares about is to get money and go and get drunk with it"—that was in Vere's presence—he said "I will do it if you will guarantee the repayment of the 100l. and 200l. which he already owes"—I had prepared a warrant of attorney, and I asked him if he would sign it—he said "Yes"—this was the guarantee which he sat down and wrote in my presence—the defendant read through the warrant of attorney, and hesitated over the attestation clause a minute or two, and then said "Mr. Rees is not here to-day, and I am not admitted yet, but I will take you to somebody who will attest it"—he called at one or two rooms and he took us to Mr. Stretton, who witnessed it, and the wan-ant of attorney was handed to me, and I took them back to Mr. Apps' office and put them in the safe—I made no communication to the prosecutor about his signing it before Mr. Stretton—I did not see him for a long time afterwards;

hor did I mention it to Mr. Apps, but I said that the matter had been completed all right—I had nothing to do with the proceedings in reference to the 260l.; I made a call after one instalment became due, and saw Mr. Carter, who said that Mr. Rees was away ill, but I did not have the conduct of the proceedings.

Cross-examined. I knew on 25th February before I parted with the 90l. odd that the prisoner's name was not Thomas Rees, but I did not know it before; I knew it when he declined to attest the warrant of attorney, not before—I was instructed not to part with the money unless Mr. Rees guaranteed it, but I considered it was a sufficient guarantee when his clerk gave it.

By THE COURT. When I got it I knew that he was Johnson—he handed me the guarantee first, I did not know then that he was not Rees; it was only the moment afterwards that I knew that he was not.

By MR. TOBR. I knew then that I had not got the personal, though I may have had the actual gnarantee of Thomas Rees—the prosecutor gave me 95l., and I of course deducted Mr. Apps' charges, and gave him 90l. in notes, and 1l. 4s.—I did not see the defendant afterwards at Mr. Apps office, and I don't believe he came.

Re-examined. When he signed the guarantee I understood him to be Thomas Rees—I handed him the money after the warrant of attorney was signed—that was given by Vere—having completed the matter it passed from my mind, and I did not trouble my head, I simply told Mr. Apps that the matter was completed.

  JOHN PITHAN (Police Sergeant E 44). I am one of the summoning officers who do duty at Bow Street—three months ago I received a summons to serve on Vere—I went with it to Maryland Road, Kensington—the address given to me at the police-court, and made enquiries there but was not able to see Vere, there was no such person known—the matter was adjourned before the Magistrate from time to time for his attendance, and subsequently a warrant was handed to me for execution which I have not been able to execute—I was present at the police-court on each occasion, and on the first two occasions Vere was represented by some one, I will not be sure whether it was by solicitor and counsel—it was stated in my presence and the prisoner's presence that he was unable to be traced, and in Johnson's presence a statement was made about Vere.

Witnesses for the defence.

  HENRY CARTER . I was a clerk to Mr. Rees during his life—I entered his service on 8th February last year and continued till he died in September—I am at present in Mr. Hope's service, his successor, at 52, Chancery Lane—there is a general clerk's office to which clients come first, the middle office; that is the office which you enter first—I am there and keep the call-book in the absence of the other clerk—the name outside the office door is Rees & Co. and Johnson—that is so that persons who come into the office must see the names—I was there on 25th February—-this is the call-book; I find the name of "Vere and friend" calling at 2.30 on that day—I did not know who the friend was at that time—when Vere called he said "Is Mr. Johnson in?"—I said "No"—later in the day I find Mr. Apps' name as calling at 4.10 alone; he asked for Mr. Rees—I told him that Mr. Rees was not at business, he was ill, but Mr. Johnson would be in shortly—Mr. Apps left, and when the prisoner came in I told him that Apps had been there and he left the office to see Mr. Apps, I believe, and he was absent

some time—next day, the 26th, I find an entry of "Vere and Josiah Johnson" at 11 o'clock, but that is not ray writing, it was written afterwards—on the same morning I find an entry of Mr. Dear and Mr. Hollington at 10.45; the "10" is my writing, but not the "45"—they afterwards came back again—I was then in the office and Vere and the prosecutor were in the office when they came in—the defendant returned while they were all four there and went into the inner room where he generally sits—he passed through where they were sitting, and Mr. Dear, who is rather an impetuous man, said in his usual style "I must see Johnson first," and he went into the room where Johnson had gone, leaving the others where they were—after a time 1)ear came out again, and then Vere and the prosecutor went in—after that, I believe, Dear was called in again, but I was not in the room, and, therefore, I cannot say; I was in my own room—Mr. Cork called afterwards on the same day; I cannot tell from my book at what time, but it was at the latter part of the afternoon—the defendant was there then and the prosecutor was shown in to him—when Cork called that afternoon I think he asked for Mr. Rees—on 23rd March I find an entry "Vere and friend "at 2 o'clock—I cannot tell you how long they stayed—I find an entry of Mr. Apps calling that day at 2.30—he came alone, it is entered separately—he enquired for Mr. Rees—I told him Mr. Rees was not in, but Mr. Johnson was, and showed him into the room to the prisoner—I cannot say whether Vere and friend were there when Mr. Apps came.

Cross-examined by MR. COLE. I will ewear that this "Thursday, 25th February "in this call book is my writing—I will swear that I was there on the 25th February and for a week afterwards—"Friday, the 26th" is ray writing too, I believe—this little entry "Josiah Johnson," is in the defendant's writing—I do not know when it was put in; he has inserted it in the call-book, but I don't know when—I take the general ink in the office—there are several bottles but not one particular ink—this "Re Vere" is Frazer's writing, a clerk in the office—this "Loan" is the prisoner's writing—I do not know what "Vere loan "is in the call-book for—I did not enter it—I do not think these figures "11 "after Vere are my writing, I but I cannot say; yes, they are mine—I wrote them in the same ink—I put the "11" so far off as to leave a space for this "Josiah Johnson," because there was no occasion to put anything else but "11"—I will swear that it is my writing, written at at the same time, with the same pen and ink, and yet, that I did not write this "Josiah Johnson"—this "J," "2," and "12.30" are all in my writing—it is principally my writing—I first went to the office of Rees & Co. on 8th February—Mr. Johnson engaged me first of all, and secondly Mr. Rees; I said so at the police-court—I was asked by Mr. Wiiliams who engaged me, and I said virtually Mr. Johnson did, but afterwards Mr. Rees confirmed it—I did not see much of Mr. Rees for the first two months, I don't think I saw anything of him—I was there two months before I saw my master, and then he used to come two or three times a week—he stayed three or four hours, and used to write his own correspondence—I cannot say whether he kept copies of his letters—I got 25s. a week—I always got it from Johnson—he was supposed to be the cashier—I looked to him for it—Rees was not always drunk when he came; he was sober on numerous occasions.

Q. He used to be at the public-house, used he not, and to come up for a few shillings occasionally? A. He used to como up sometimes and say he would not have his office made use of by people coining there

walking in and out as they liked—that was when he was sober—he may have stayed three or four hours on that occasion, and after April he was very frequently at 1 be place—I am there now—the firm is Rees, Hope & Co.—the prisoner is there when he is at home—he is not Rees, Hope, & Co, but Mr. Hope is—he lives at Sunderland—I have seen him to-day outside here, and I saw him about a fortnight after Mr. Rees died—ho is rather a short man—he was in practice in Sunderland, I believe—Rees lived at Fulham—I am told that he stopped at Sandys' lodging-house—I do not believe that that is a common lodging-house, at 6d. a night, it is in Eagle Street, Holbon—I have seen Sandys here this morning, and I dare say he in court now—I will swear that I have not fetched Rees from Sandy's, or seen him there—I have never been there—I brought an action for Sandys and got 50l. damages—I paid him—how is it possible for me to swear what Johnson did, or Rees, if you like to say so—by Sandy own admission he had 15l. and 30l. was lodged aganist him for a judgment—that was money he had received for counsel's fees—I don't know whether he got the whole of that, all I know is that he had 15l. given to him in cash, and there was an attachment lodged against the damages, for a judgment against him by a debtor of his, whicb would leave very little—I will not swear that a sixpence was paid, how can 1? I did not pay it, how can I tell what Rees & Co. did?—I do not know that nothing was paid under the attachment—(Sandys was called in) I swear in the presence of that gentleman, that I have not fetched Rees from Sandys, and I swear that I never knew Sandys till within the last two months—I was out of a situation—I was introduced to Johnson through Jones, who I have known for years and knew him when lie was at Leadenhall Street—I was at Masterman, Sandilands & Co., Aldersgate Street—I was not discharged for drunkenness—Mr; Masterman was a man in years, and he would not allow me to use my knowledge of the law which I knew a little about, he said "No, you must not catch old birds with chaff," I tried to explain to him one day, about taking out a summons for change of venue from Surrey to Middlesex, I said "You cannot do it without an affidavit"—he said "Don't you tell me that, you can't catch old birds with chaff," and wo had a few words over it, but that was not the whole of it—this was the other part of it; there was a question when I was making up my accounts at the end of the month, and I put 58. worth of stamps to one month, instead of to another month—that was not what I was discharged for, it was because I had a woman hanging after me—on the impulse of the moment, I may have entered in my diary "Got the kick out"—allow me to look at the book—well, it is scratched out—I cannot see" kicked out"—it might be "Carter kicked out"—I do not know I am sure whether Carter was kicked out, but I know I was not kicked out—I am not certain whether I made the entry "Carter kicked out;" possibly I might have; it is a figure of speech—I only knew Thomas when I came to Rees and Co.; I swear I never knew him before—when I left Masterman & Co. I went to Rees & Co., but not at once, not for a month—I went to Hammersmith and lived with a woman, unfortunately for me, for she brought me to grief—I would not have gone to Roes & Co. if I bad known what I know since—I am in their employ now because it suits me to stop there—I do not think I pawned all the woman's clothes—I don't care if she is here—she pawned my clothes; I will swear she pawned the only coat I had to my back—I did not pawn her clothes or take her late husband's

watch; nothing at all—he was not a jockey—I went to a coffee-house and lived with her in the week before 7th February—I was there till April—I did not go there on the 27th February, but I was there on the 27th—I went there on the 3rd February, as near as I can recollect—I went to Rees & Co. on the 8th February; I adhere to that—I have left the woman now; she called at Rees' office several times; I did not call one Cuff to turn her out—I know Cuff, he is an advertising agent in Portland Square; he was occasionally at Rees &, Co.'s—I will swear I did not call on him to turn her out; he locked her up on his own account for annoying him at his place of business, and I charged her as well; I will swear that; it was because she had been hanging about Southampton Buildings all day, and had been' taking, I suppose, too much beer and was excited—women are excited some-times, and, considering I had had nine months of it, I thought it was quite time enough to stop it, and I locked her up—I have heard of Campbell & Co.; I don't know who they are, they are supposed to be law agents—I do not know whether it is carried on by W. H. Johnson, LL.D.—Mr. W. H. Johnson, LL.D., is the prisoner—Campbell & Co.'s law agency has not been carried on at 52, Chancery Lane, since I have been there; I do not know whether this is one of their prospectuses, but I have seen them knocking about in the office at 46, Southampton Buildings, not at Rees & Co.'s; I will swear that—I used to have my private letters addressed to Campbell & Co.'s, Southampton Buildings, because I did not want that d——d woman to see everything—Thomas was my friend there—that is the Mr. Thomas who describes himself of 52, Chancery Lane, Middlesex; he is secretary at Campbell & Co.'s—I do not know how long he has been so—he is James Thomas—I cannot say that he is of 52, Chancery Lane—I did not help him to prepare his affidavit; I swear that; nor did he read it over to me or show it to me—I have not sworn it in my affidavit—I remember the proceedings to set aside the judgment—I made a joint affidavit; it was with Jones, I think—I fancy I did—I swore that as far as my memory served, the order was not served at a certain time—on my oath I did not help Thomas to draw up his affidavit—Thomas is at Campbell & Co.'s now—I say in my deposition "There were two other clerks, Thomas and Frazer"—that is the same Thomas; he was clerk at 52, Chancery Lane as well—he does a great deal of out-door business; he attends summonses—I cannot tell you whether he was really secretary to Campbell & Co., but I believe he was published as secretary—Mr. William Dear was, I believe, a director—I have never seen him at Campbell & Co.'s—he is pretty often at our place, once or twice a week, putting Sundays out of the question, because he is a religious man and goes to church—I believe he is a preacher—I see in this call book "Vere and friends, 23rd March"—I don't think "and friends "is struck out—I see Apps' name, I will swear that that is my writing—I merely put "and friends "after I had drawn the line; it is not struck out at all—I did that because I drew the line first of all—my belief is that I wrote" and friends "after I drew the line—I will not swear that this "10.50" on 24th April "Vere" was not originally "11.50"—I do not know who has altered it—I can't say whether it has been altered—it looks like "11.50," and I should think I entered it "11.50," if it was 11.50 I should enter it 11.50—I should think according to the dates that it is 11.50—1 will not swear that it is 11.50 or 10.50; 10.45 is the first entry—I will not swear that I first entered it 11.50, but I think I did; I adhere to that—there is a doubt whether it is a "10 "or "11."

Re-examined. "Vere and friend "on March 24th is in my writing—I have got "Vere" in my writing in February to which is added, but not in my writing, "and Josiah Johnson"—we kept an account with Vere for the work done for him—I suppose it would be necessary to post the books to show with whom he came on a particular day—" and friend" being added would show that Vere came with Johnson "and Josiah Johnson" is in the prisoner's writing—I made out the common law costs—it would be the prisoner's duty if he saw an entry which was ambiguous in itself to explain upon what account that person came—March 23rd is all in my writing except he last entry, here is "Vere and friend 2 o'clock, Apps 2.30 "all in my writing—I presume that the friend was Johnson but I did not know it at the time—on 24th April the entry is "Mr. Vere 10.50"—it appears to me that this "11" on 24th April was "11" first of all, but my impression is that it stood 11.50 and it appears to have been marked over and to be now 10.50—it has been altered by somebody else, not by me—I do not always look at the clock to see the hour at which visitors come—it does not occasionally happen that I have to alter the time, when I have once entered the hour I always leave it, we have a watch in the office, but if they have made away with it we cannot tell the time—the importance of putting

down the hour is to tell as near as possible the time the client called—we do not charge them more in the morning than the afternoon, it is 6s. 8d. just the same—nothing was to be gained by altering it from 11.50 to 10.50; that is what I cannot understand—I am quite sure that the subsequent entry of "Apps "alone is in my writing, and I can swear that he did not come accompanied by somebody else—I got 2l. wages at Masterman's and 25s. at Rees, but I have overtime to 30s. a week—Mr. Johnson first gave me my engagement there, I did not see Rees for six weeks, and then he confirmed it, he said "You are engaged here, and I should like to see the business carried on properly, my health is very precarious, and as far as I can go everything shall go on right"—Mr. Rees was a living breathing creature, and could speak; he was quite alive then, and a very substantial myth, if you had seen him—he was good to have a pint—he gained a law suit when the other lawyers said that there was no case—I do not know that the Campbell Agency has ceased or that Thomas has ceased to be with it—they advertise and say "Every man his own lawyer"—they interfere with the professional trades' union—they are knob-sticks—I do not know whether Mr. Dear is a member of Campbell's—he often came to our place, he was a client.

  WILLIAM DEAR . I am an upholsterer at Hyde Park Corner—I have been there about forty years—I know the late Thomas Rees, of 52, Chancery Lane, well—he acted for me as my solicitor—I have known the defendant between three and four years as near as I can tell—his name is William Harril Johnson—I know that he was an articled clerk in Rees' house because he told me and my friend so, and Mr. Rees told me the same—I know no-thing about his articles being transferred to Mr. Hope—as near as I can tell I have seen Mr. Rees there generally two or three times a week—I have had Equity suits and ordinary common law suits and County Court suits—I am unfortunatily very much a patron of the lawyers—I some times get a bill, which I cannot get the cash for, and I have a great many interpleader summonses, more than most men in London—I have discounted bills for Rees and Co. to a large amount; I have had bills from Mr. Rees and I have had promises and I have had other bills put into my hand—when bills came

to me by way of security, or bills endorsed to me, the signature of the firm was put either to an original document or an endorsement in the presence of Thomas Rees, Mr. Johnson would write "Thomas Rees and Co." by Rees' order—I was at 52, Chancery Lane on 25th and 26th Febuary 1875, I think I was there four days that week—Mr. Alfred and Mr. Thomas Hollington went with me on the 26th—Mr. Thomas Hollington is here—I think I went in first about 10 o'clock and I don't think Mr. Johnson was in—I went to see Mr. Rees and neither of them were there—I believe I went out and came in again—while we were there I saw Mr. Vere and the prosecutor in the outside office but do not think I had any conversation with them—I heard Vere say that he was very queer and wanted a bottle of soda water fetched, and I think Carter was asked to go, and he came back and said that he could not get a bottle—Johnson afterwards came in and went into the room on the right; the opposite room—as you go in from Chancery Lane there is "Rees and Co." and I think on the next floor or the nest, "Rees & Co.," and when you got to the top there is "Rees & Co.," and "Mr. Johnson," with a separation between the two—I don't remember whether there is anything on the door of the room into which Johnson went—when he came in I almost think Thomas said "Here is Mr. Johnson"—the prosecutor was in a position to hear that as well as myself, everyone could hear it, it is an open place—I then said "I must see him first because here is an interpleader case; and I have brought these two gentlemen to be security for me for 500l."; I think it is was about the club at Brighton—I think the other two both spoke together and said "We must see Mr. Johnson directly," and I said I must see him first—the name of Johnson was, I believe, mentioned by both of them—I said "I must see Mr. Johnson first," and he would go as Mr. Rees was not there, over to Master Johnson at Rolls Buildings, because Mr. Hollington could not wait—having said that I went into Mr. Johnson room—no one was there I believe but himself—I did not stop long because I requested him to come across the road directly—I don't know who succeeded me in going into the room—I don't know what became of Vere and the betting man—I went over to Stone Buildings with the defendant—we then returned to 52, Chancery Lane, and I think we met Vere in the street, and he said "I must see you directly"—Johnson said "I have to go to the Judges Chambers for a few minutes"—no one was with Vere,but this man Johnson, the betting party—that was said at "the foot of the door when we come out of "Stone Buildings—we all went up into the office again waiting for the, defendant to come in because I had some other business besides the interpleader matter, and when he came in the other Johnson was in the same room where we had been before—I asked him about Mr. David Hope Johnson, who owed me 800l., hearing that he had some connection with the turf, and he said that I was not likely to get a penny—I said "You are a nice lot of Johnson's altogether"—I think I waited there till they had transacted their business, and I then went out and started Mr. Alfred Hollington, who was sitting in his trap below, and I returned and settled some other business with Mr. Johnson—I said to Josiah Johnson "I think you are a Staffordshire man"—he said something about Mr. Vere, who said I that he had a sister who was a rich lady, and I think he asked Mr. Hollington, who said "Who are the parties?"——he said "They are on the turf," and he said "They are not good enough for me"—I put it that he

was three times spoken to as Johnson, and not as Rees—I spoke to him as Johnson, in the presence of the other Johnson—I always have done.

Cross-examined by MR. COLE, I have known Mr. Johnson two or three years—I did not know him while he was practising under the name of Miller—I swear that—you know I was present when Johnson gave evidence in "Dear and Edmunds"—I heard him cross-examined then—I don't recollect hearing him admit that when he was called as a witness on one side he had given his evidence to the other side, or that he had given a paper to the other side to say what evidence he would give to them—I am cautious—I have no opinion to give as to how he came out of that cross-examination—Johnson did not act as broker on that occasion; I think it was some man in Hand Court, Holborn—it was not Rickaby—I believe the man lives between Holborn and Bedford Row—how could Johnson be the broker? he is an articled clerk—I believe him—I don't know whether he has any articles entered; it is not my business to look into articles of partnership—I think the first time I saw him was at the house where my goods were taken away—he did not put a distress into a lady's house; I believe it was a man who lives between Holborn and Bedford Row—if you had the lawyer here he would tell you whether the distress was put into the lady's house for half a year more than was due—I kept two lawyers in my counting house and paid them weekly, but not to practice as lawyers; one was Mr. Hunter, who does all my agreements for houses furnished and unfurnished—I paid him three guineas a week, and I kept; an Irish lawyer, Mr. Basterville, but not as lawyer, as clerk—I had no objection to take a little good advice from them—I require a great deal—I cannot say whether I have brought 100 actions in the last ten years—I am not a director of "Campbell & Co." that I know of—I do not know whether this "W. Dear, Esq., 30, and 31, St. George's Place," on this prospectus is all a myth—I suppose there was some intention of bringing out something; you know something is required to enable a man to be a director of a particular company—show me my qualification—my son is not in the office of Campbell & Co. to my knowledge; he was with Mr. Rees, but only a short time—he might have been there twelve months, but really I cannot tell you the exact time—I have seen "Campbell & Co., Law Agency," put up in Southampton Buildings—I mean to say that I have never seen this prospectus—I have an impression that Rees said something to me one day and I said "No," and I never consented to be a director—I do not know the Llanthony, Oxide, Lead, and Copper Mining Co. (limited)—capital 1,200l."—I know "William Dear, Esq., of 12, St. George's Place, Knightsbridge"—I know nothing about this prospectus—somebody has taken a liberty with my name—I know nothing about "Auditors, Campbell & Co., Chancery Lane, Mr. F. O'Brien, secretary"—I heard of Mr. O'Brien, as a solicitor, in the Exchequer, the other day, and there he is—I saw him at the police-court, but I did not know he was Mr. O'Brien, or whether he appeared for Vere—he never stood up in Court—he met me coming from the Exchequer Court, but I did not know he was Mr. O'Brien till he stopped me in Parliament Street, and told me who he was—he was not instructing Mr. Matthews, the barrister, before the Magistrate—when the policeman asked me who was defending Vere; I said "Young Mr. Matthews"—I never saw O'Brien before, and did not know who he was—he never acted as my solicitor to my knowledge—I did not hear of an action between Lynch and Thomas Rees, in which they had seized some furniture—I put in a claim to the furniture

—I do not know that Mr. O'Brien appeared as my solicitor—there was an execution against Rees, the furniture being mine—I do not know who appeared for me—I forget whether it was on 26th April, 1875. (A notice signed A. O'Brien, stating that the furniture in question belonged to William Dear was put in). My son heard of this during my absence and gave notice as it was his business to do—I know nothing about O'Brien appearing for me, and I have never paid him—Johnson may have instructed him to appear—he would be a very nice man if he did not, having my business, try to protect my interest—I had an impression that some Counsel acted—Johnson asked me to supply him with furniture—he said that Mr. Rees was coming into the office, 52, Chancery Lane, that he was a very clever man coming to practice there and would I do it, and I said that I had no objection to do it—I do not know when that was, without my books, but I think it was between two and three years ago—it was my furniture—anyone that I can get the hire from was to pay for it—I like to get money out of people—I got between 700l. and 800l. out of Hope Johnson, and I believe I got a judgment against him—I only know what Rees told me twelve or eighteen months ago—I suppose it is a regular judgment subsisting now; I have not seen the judgment, but he told me so—I served a writ on Johnson (produced)—I do not know whose writing it is, certainly not mine—I will show you my writing in a moment with a pen and ink—I served David Hope Johnson on Lewes' racecourse last year, close to Brighton—he was stopping in the hotel at Brighton—it was for the hire—I swear that no-part of it is in my writing—I do not know that I served it; I do not know, but what you have been getting that up—I really don't know whether I signed a judgment on it—I don't sign judgments; I am not a lawyer—I haw heard that it was set aside—I do not know anything about the writ—I served another writ at Newmarket in 1873, and I can give you the secret of all that—I do not know whether a writ was issued on the 24th, the day after—I did not see it—I instructed Mr. Rees to attend to the matter; I was told that Mr. Hope Johnson would be at Newmarket—I drove up to Chancery Lane; one of the clerks handed me a writ; I drove to the station and went to Newmarket, went to the hotel and asked if David Hope Johnson was there—they said "He is up at the course," and as he rode down the course with the Earl of Stamford and Warrington, an acquaintance of mine, he said "How do you do Dear," and I served him—it was last year that I served him at Lewes because he never would pay—this copy writ is not a forgery; there is no forgery—he said "It is a little mistake"—I said "You ought to have known better than make mistakes sending me all that distance on that wet day"—I do not think Johnson was attending to that business or I should have had some money—he is sharper than some of his clerks—I was going to the master's office on that day—my appointment was I believe at 11 o'clock—it was not a reference in Dear and Garrett, don't waste precious time—I could preach to you, if I had you quietly—I can lean preach in a railway, I never get into a pulpit—if Mr. Carter says that I go to church and preach, he knew nothing about me—suppose I do preach what would be the result of that?—I had not a case of Dear and Dr. Garrett, you mean the she doctress Mrs. Garrett not Dr. Garrett—her name is Anderson now—I do not know any Dr. Garrett, I know Mr. Garrett—I brought an action against him, I think it was for 2,700l. or 2,800l—I got an award made me of 300 of freehold land at Aldborough in Suffolk, and materials to the value of 600l. or 700l.—I got about 800l.—I could not

prove articles delivered, and therefore I was thrown upon that point and lost my articles; how dare you to say it is a forgery, Sir, I am not here to suffer a sa thief or a forger, Sir—I had to pay costs but I have got the land and the materials, but have not got them delivered yet, and therefore I shall have to bring another action—an agreement properly stamped was produced before the Master.—there were no interlineations in it—the Master found against me to a certain extent, but only because I could not prove articles delivered, but he gave me the 1,200 of freehold land and the materials, and I have been waiting seven years for it—I furnish houses for young gentlemen, but not for many young ladies—I have had some of the best customers of the day—I charge hire for the furniture, and deterioration if there is delapidation, but those we have to prove—I do not do much in bill discounting, I believe some of the people I do business with do; I asked you to try a good bill of yours before Baron Martin, and then you might try me, but you have never done it—I never, heard the defendant sing or play—he did not want a piano of me—I forgot whether Brinsmead & Co. wrote to me about him—I had great confidence in his honesty—I do not know anything about bis giving his evidence on both sides in Dear v. Edmunds—I know I could not get my money out, I sent and paid half a crown the other day, but it did no good—I do not know whether this is the draft evidence produced on the part of Dear v. Edmunds, but I believe it is Johnson's writing—here is Mr. Miller who was struck off the Rolls at the bottom of it—I had something to do with his being struck off the Rolls—I know Rickaby; I don't know whether he is the secretary of the United Lead Oxide Mining Company (limited)—I am not a director; if he has put me down I have never consented—I do not know whether O'Brien is the solicitor—I did not furnish Campbell & Cos office, I furnished 52, Chancery Lane," but I never saw Campbell & Co. there to my knowledge; I only knew Mr. Rees there as Thomas Rees & Co—I do not know when the premises were taken, or whether they were taken by Johnson; I never heard from him that he took them—I know nothing about the rent or who pays it.

By THE COURT. When I let furniture I do not inquire what the rent is, or whether it is paid—if Mr. Cole wanted me to furnish a house for him I should not inquire whether the rent was paid—I furnished a house in Grosvenor Square for a clergyman, and never made any inquiry—I might know something of you as Commissioner Kerr, and that would be enough for me; I should only like to get a good order from you.

By MR. COLE. I claimed the furniture in ". Linnaker and Rees"—Johnson did not claim it four days before I did, and say that Rees had only got the use of the apartments; this is all new to me—this is not Johnson's writing; the signature looks like Mr. Johnson's; it is "Linnaker." (This was a notice to withdraw the man in possession at the top floor of 52, Chancery Lane, the premises being the property of the person signing the notice.) I believe when that took place I was out of town, and he might have written it to protect the furniture till I came to town—I was told about it, and I did claim it; it is still my property, was and is—I know of no case but one—I simply claim my property—it is of no consequence what it is—I tell you it was and is my property to-day, and the Judge said to the opposite solicitor "I am afraid you have no case," and he said "No, I shall withdraw"—I do not remember about the pianoforte—this letter, is in my writing. (Read: "Dec.6. Dear Sir,—I have great confidence in Mr.

Johnson, of Camden Road, and would willingly trust him with furniture to 200l. or 300l.; as well as in his great abilities. Wm. Dear.") The proof of that is that I had already done it—I do not know whether he ever got a piano, or whether a van was sent to take it away, or whether there was an action about it—I suppose Messrs. Brinsmead must have sent me a letter, and that was my reply—I do not know whether it was to know whether they could trust him with a piano—this letter is written on my paper—there is no doubt that they wrote me a letter, and that was my answer—I do not know that they are pianoforte manufacturers; I have no transactions with them; I think I have heard of the name—if you had given me notice I should probably have found the letter if I have it.

Friday, Feb. 4th, 1876.

  THOMAS WILLIAM HOLLINGTON . I am a pawnbroker, carrying on business in Walworth—on the 26th February I went to 52, Chancery Lane, with my brother and Mr. Dear—my reason for telling you the date is that I had to go to Stone Buildings to become security, with my brother; we were bound over in 500l. each, and that was the first time I was in Rees' office; that was the 26th February—after being bound over I went to 52, Chancery Lane, with Mr. Dear—I do not remember seeing anyone there when we got back, but I did not go into the office, because Mr. Johnson was not there; I only went into the intermediate place—I did not go into the clerks' office—I waited there for the defendant's return, and during that time persons who I believe to have been Vere and the prosecutor came in—when the defendant came back whoever was waiting tried to go by, and Mr. Dear said "No, I must see Johnson first"—the persons waiting could have heard that without doubt, because Mr. Dear spoke very loud—Dear went in to see Mr. Johnson, and I waited in the outer office; I did not go into the inner office—I saw Mr. Dear come out again; I was waiting for him—I think the other parties were waiting in the clerks' office, because they went in afterwards—Dear then went into the clerks' office to arrange something with them; he then went back again into the defendant's office; they were all there together—I was in the little aute-room, and stayed there the whole time till Mr. Dear came out again, and then went away with him—I have discounted bills for Rees & Co.

Cross-examined by MR. COLE. I am Mr. Dear's son-in-law—I have gone bail for him, I believe, twice—I always recollect when I am bail for 100l.,—I am perfectly aware that I am on my oath—I have a bad memory—I have never been bail for Mr. Dear but twice, I do not recollect doing so more—I have done bills with Dear, but not many, I don't like them; pawnbroking is a sounder business.

  JAMES THOMAS . I am an accountant, and was clerk to the late Mr. Rees at 52, Chancery Lane; he was my employer, and Johnson was there as managing clerk; he employed me—when Rees was well he used to come almost every day, and when he was there if documents had to be signed Johnson signed them—he used to sign them "Thos. Rees & Co."—I was there on 25th February, 1875, when Mr. Josiah Johnson and Mr. Vere called, amongst others—a call-book was kept there for reference, I think, it was in the morning, but am not quite sure in the absence of that book—Mr. Vere asked for Mr. Rees, and Mr. Carter told him that Mr. Rees was not in, but Mr. Johnson was—he was told that Mr. Rees was away ill and had not been there for some time—Vere and Johnson remained and said that

they would see Mr. Johnson—they were shown into a room where Mr. Johnson was, and I" went in too, and heard the greater part of the conversation—the prosecutor told the defendant that Mr. Vere wanted to borrow some money of him, and he wanted to know if he could inform him as to Mr. Vere's means—he had known him four or five years, and he should like to lend him the money—the defendant said that he had 800l. a year paid by his sister, and the prosecutor said that he should like to lend him the money, but he had been drinking so heavily lately—I did not know the exact amount Vere had from his sister, I did not attend to the matter—I knew that some money came for Mr. Vere to the office, I saw it; it was remittances from abroad that came in registered letters by post.

By THE COURT. I have seen them opened, they were addressed to Mr. Rees & Co., under cover—they contained money—I think it was notes—English bank notes.

By MR. TORR. I do not know where they came from—the last time I saw any such letters come with money, was in March or the beginning of April last—I heard in the prosecutor's presence why they ceased, it was because Mr. Vere was engaged to a young lady, and his sister did not approve—the prosecutor was present and the prisoner, too—the prisoner said that Mr. Vere was engaged to be married to a Miss Clifford, and his sister did not approve of it, and for the present the remittances were stopped—the prosecutor said that he had known Vere for five years, and had several heavy betting transactions with him on the turf, and he had always acted honourably as a Straightforward man, and he should like to lend him the money—I think the prosecutor told Vere that he would see his solicitor in the matter, and some undertaking was to be given by Rees & Co.—Vere was to give a letter to Rees & Co., authorizing them to pay the complainant—a letter was given by Vere to the defendant authorizing them to pay the money. (Produced by the prisoner.)—I do not know whether this was produced before the Magistrate—it is dated February 26th, but that is a mistake, it was the 25th—the prosecutor was in the room. (Read: "Thursday morning, February 26th, 1875. Dear Sir, I wish you to hold enongh in hand from my next quarters allowance to pay Mr. J. Johnson, 25, Harrington Square, the amount you have agreed to guarantee the payment of, and any other sum so long as I do not run it too close upon nest quarter, I am awfully sorry about poor Rees, but I don't see that he can do business now, so you will have the bother of my affairs altogether, I will see you in a day or two, yours faithfully, R. Vere. To W. H. Johnson, Esq., 52, Chancery Lane).

By THE COURT. That was written by Vere in Johnson's office in the presence of Johnson.

By MR. TORR. When that letter had been given the prosecutor and Vere went away together leaving that letter—Mr. Apps came to the office late that afternoon and asked for Mr. Rees—the defendant was not with him—he received an answer from Mr. Carter that Mr. Rees was not in, nor Mr. Johnson the managing clerk—he went away and the defendant afterwards returned, and Mr. Carter told him that Mr. Apps had gone—he said that he would go and see Mr. Apps, and went out—he was away about an hour and returned with Mr. Vere and a young lady—next day, the 26th, Mr. Dear who had been written to to attend, came to the office with the two Mr. Hollington's—they were all waiting when he arrived—they then went over to Stone Buildings, and came back again before the defendant—they

remained in one of the rooms, and while they were there and before the defendants return Mr. Torn Hollington returned from Stone Buildings and the defendant returned shortly afterwards, and when he came in Vere shouted out that if that was Johnson he wanted to see him—a person can 'pass from the outside without going into the clerk's room—Carter who was in the outer office, said "That is Mr. Johnson"—he was to and fro, he was by the office door when he spoke—I was in the same room with them and heard what he said—Dear then went in to see Mr. Johnson and stayed some few minutes—when he came out I showed Vere and the prosecutor in—I remained in the room with them—I am in the habit of remaining in the room with clients—I did not remain; I was to and fro—I heard a conversation between Vere and the prosecutor and the defendant; the prosecutor wanted an undertaking from Rees & Co., to guarantee the payment, and he would lend the money, 100l., but that Vere owed him 100l. for bets—Vere then wrote this letter, I saw it written and given into Johnson's hands—after it was written something at the end was altered—the words "To be made "were put in, and then I took it out to Mr. Frazer in the outer office, and a copy was made in the letter book—the defendant asked the complainant if he knew a Mr. David Hope Johnson, as a client of the office had large transactions with him—the complainant said yes, he did know him, and he owed him a large sum of money himself—Mr. Dear was called in, and the prosecutor said that Mr. D. H. Johnson owed him 500l., and he would have taken a fiver for it, but afterwards he paid him all, and he believed that if he had the money he would pay Mr. Dear—Mr. Dear said that he thought of making him a bankrupt—Dear told Mr. Johnson not to take any proceedings at present, in the prosecutor's presence—after it was settled Dear asked the defendant whether they were brothers, whether they were all Johnsons, for there was Johnson, the defendant, and Johnson, the Master of the Exchequer, who had just been taxing the bill against Mr. Vere for 400l., and he said that they were a bad lot—that afternoon a clerk, who I have since ascertained is Mr. Cork, brought a warrant of attorney to the office, Johnson having left with Vere in the meantime and taken the guarantee away with him; I am certain of that—Mr. Cork was shown into Mr. Johnson's room, and I went with him—he said that he wanted that warrant of attorney attested—Vere was not there, only the defendant and Cork and myself—Johnson said that Mr. Rees was away ill, and he was not admitted and he could not attest it—I suggested that they should go over to Mr. Watson, a gentleman who generally takes affidavits, and Cork and the defendant left the office—I saw the warrant of attorney afterwards, and Vere's name was to it—I do not know where or when Vere put his name; it was attested by Mr. Watson—Cork and the defendant came back together, and Vere was in the room when they came back, waiting—Cork gave some money to Vere, I did not see how much; I thought it was a guinea for himself, but I do not know—on the 23rd March Vere and the complainant came to the office; the defendant was there, and I think the complainant said "Vere wants another loan"—I do not remember the defendant's reply—they brought a promissory note ready drawn to Thos. Rees, Esq.—I think it was for 200l—the defendant objected to sign it, because he said that he had no authority to sign that, but he could sign "Rees & Co."—it was taken away, and he said he would see Mr. Apps about it—no other bill was drawn up—the prosecutor said that he would take it to Mr. Apps—in the course of the day Mr. Apps came,

and was shown in to the defendant in the same room as before—no one was with Apps; this was on the 23rd March—I saw Mr. Rees that evening, ho lived about half a dozen doors from me, at Fulham—I made the affidavit produced in order to allow the defendant to appear to the writ on the bill, and after it was made I got leave to appear, and I believe the judgment was set aside, but Mr. Jones attended to that—I told Mr. Rees, but he was very ill, and he only lived a fortnight afterwards—I had a conversation with him about it—I do not believe we took any steps after that to set aside the judgment—the defendant and myself are Mr. Rees' executors—he was solvent at his death.

Cross-examined by MR. COLE. I did not make his will; I don't know who did—he did not leave his property to Johnson and myself; I swear that—he left it to my children—we have not proved the will yet—there are 2000l. assets, which are costs in the office due from clients and life policies—I am an accountant and auditor of a public company—I began life at Narberth in Wales that happened to be where Rees used to live—I was a general draper and merchant and hosier and silk mercer—you may call it a general shop—I have never before seen one of these memorial cards published when the defendant said that he was dead—I do not publish memorial cards; I never saw the thing before. (Read; "In memory of the late W. B, Johnson, Editor of the Yorkshire Tribune, who died January 3rd, 1855, aged 21 years and 6 months. He died a sincere and penitent Christian in the sure and certain hope of a joyful resurrection.") That is quite new to me, Perhaps you will be kind enough to say when the card was published?—I went into liquidation at Narberth and paid 20s. in the pound—I do not think I became bankrupt afterwards—I am not an uncertificated bankrupt at this moment to my knowledge—I was not bankruptat Narberth; I was in liquidation—I paid the lot of it, my uncle did—he came forward and I was in the same shop for four years afterwards—I had a debtor's summons served on me once, once in liquidation and once in bankruptcy—I once liquidated and once became bankrupt—it was a partnership debt—I was served with a debtor summons for a partnership debt, that is all I know about it—I do not know whether I became bankrupt, all I know is that I was served with a summons—I was not served with a notice of adjudication—I believe I was examined under George Pearson's bankruptcy—I do not remember being asked "Are you an uncertificated bankrupt?" and my saying "Yes"—that is some time ago—it was not in 1874, I think it was in 1873—I was examined in 1873, I believe; it is about three years ago—I did not become an accountant after I failed at Narberth, I kept on business for four years afterwards, I then sold the business—I did not then become an accountant—I did not practise at Narberth under the name of Rees & Co.—I was a draper there—I will swear that I was not an accountant at Narberth, there is no foundation for saying so—I was in a situation at Narberth. before that, and ten years in business—Rees was a friend of mine, and that is all I know about it—I had several actions at Narberth, but I was not conducting actions—"Phillipps v. Child" was merely the title of an action; it was some claim against some estate—I had nothing to do with it—this letter is in my writing—I do not think it was written to old Mr. Collett, the attorney—I think Johnson was practising under the name of Collett at the time—I think it was written to Mr. Collett himself—that was six months before I knew Johnson—I do not think I had ever seen him at the time I wrote the letter—I had Corresponded

with him six months before, but I had not seen him—I believe I was corresponding with him—he was not practising as Collett & Co., he was practising by himself—I used, to keep Mr. Collett; the letter is addressed to him—it says "4th October, 1872. Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of your favour, for which 1 thank you. I am indeed deeply sorry Mr. J. has so exposed himself."—that is the defeudaut—I do not know in what way he had exposed himself—I do not remember what I was sorry for—I write so many letters I cannot tell you; "And, under the circumstances, must ask you to go to his house and claim all the papers which concernme"—those were papers in some actions I had—"Incases now on hand"—those were my own cases in which I was a plaintiff; I swear that, except Child's case—Among others, are the following: "Merryman v, Kemp;" I was not plaintiff in that—I was not conducting the case, Mr. Collett was; he told me that Johnson had taken the papers to his house—I had instructed Mr. Johnson to bring the action—I was a draper, and used to employ Mr. Collett, I kept him; I paid him liberally—"This is an action in the Exchequer for damages for illegal distress for rent"—I was not practising as Collett & Co., I merely did it to keep Mr. Collett going—"Pawson v. myself, this is an action on a bill of exchange drawn and accepted by Johnson"—Johnson accepted bills for me though I had never seen him—I have many friends of that kind. (The letter, which teas partly illegible through crossing, went on to mention other actions in which he requested the affidavits and papers to be obtained, and continued: " Please take possession of all those papers for me, and also any other papers you may find that concerns me in any way, and we can, if necessary, act together.") That was to Mr. Collett—Mr. Johnson was at that time with Mr. James Russel Miller,. when I wrote that letter—I do not know whether "exposing himself" related to the case of stealing silk at Pawson's—I did not know that he stole silk—I do not know whether Mr. Mascall was charged with anything, I never saw the man; I believe he was charged with stealing silk at Pawson's—Mr. Collett wrote to me—I do not know whether Mascall afterwards got penal servitude; I was not there; I never saw him—Mr. Collett wrote and said that he was arrested—I was not practising with Johnson, who was practising as Miller, and I had not to transfer, it to Collett when Johnson came to grief; I had not seen Collett at the time, nor Miller—I made a special arrangement that if I wanted any writs sent down they should do it.

By THE COURT. I made the arrangement with Miller, Collett, and Haydon—I paid them a sovereign for it, and 10s. 6d. for the judgment; at that time I did not know them at all.

By MR. COLE. I know Burton-upon-Trent—I sold my business at Narberth in 1873—I came up to London lots of times—I believe the first time I saw Johnson was after he got out of Pawson's job—I bought all the goods of Pearson, of Burton-on-Trent for 500l., not before I saw them, I saw them on the same day—I think I completed the purchase before I saw a particle of the goods or the place either—Pearson's name is George; he is the father of the bankrupt—I bought of Rees, he was the intermediary effecting the sale—the agreement before me was done through Johnson & Rees—I gave them a bill of sale on the property for 300l., because I borrowed some money of Rees—I never paid a sixpence on the bill—I will swear I owed him a sixpence at that time for cash advanced—I will swear that he advanced me a sixpence—I can't tell you whether Johnson prepared the

bill of sale—let mo explain this transaction—some time in the summer of 1873, after I bought the business of Pearson—his brother, William Pearson, lived at Grantham; he was also a client of Rees & Co.—I advanced, I think, some 300l. to William Pearson to pay off his creditors; I swear that—the bill of sale I gave to Rees was for his costs and money advanced—the bills are of different dates—I do not know that they were dated the 9th of May, and that the stamps were dated May 14th; I do not remember any thing of the sort; whatever it was, I gave the bills, and before they matured George Pearson was bankrupt and I advanced the money to his brother at Grantham—I accepted the bills in Rees' office and never heard any more about them; I did not pay them because they owed me money—I was examined once in Pearson's bankruptcy—they did not afterwards take possession of the whole of the goods I had bought—I will have no-imputations cast upon my character, Mr. Cole, because I never had anything, to do with transactions I am ashamed of—I disposed of the property which I allege that I bought; Rees & Co. sold it under the bill of sale—I suppose I got the money, that was the end of my business—it was William Pearson at Grantham who I advanced the 300l. to—I got no security whatever—I did not claim the property—I lost that money altogether; it is in the Lincoln County Court now—William Pearson, I think, went into liquidation, and I believe Rees claimed 1,000l. against his estate; I only heard that—I cannot tell whether Rees was then living at a lodging-house at 6d. a night—I cannot tell whether Johnson was examined upon that I know nothing about it—I know I advanced the money to William Pearson—I did not bring Rees up to London, not did I take lodgings for him at Glennies, on my oath—he came down to lodge at Glennies, close to me, but I am quite certain I did not take the lodging for him—I came to London last summer twelve months, and Rees came up in the summer of 1874—I and old Rees did, not come up about up about the sametime—Rees came up in the early part of 1873, three years ago, and I came up about ten months ago—I went certainly to see my friend Johnson along with Rees, and I. believe I introduced him to Rees—Rees was my first employer in London; he brought me up—I became secretary to Campbell & Co., some little while—I cannot tell you whether they were first at 52, Chancery Lane, I was not there at that time—I find "52, Chancery Lane "on this prospectus—they were at 46, Southampton Buildings, when I became secretary—I was the auditor of public companies at that time—this notice "London clients who find it inconvenient to call during office horn's may make a previous appointment at 95, Camden Road, London," was before my time—that was where Johnson lived—"Campbell & Co." was a limited company—this prospectus was issued by me as secretary—Mr. William Dear, of Knightsbridge, is one of our directors—I believe his name is there, but we never did any business—I have seen him there once or twice—he called to see me privately, but that office has been closed—I was one of the original registered subscribers for five shares—James Rickaby used to live in Surrey Square, he is not a bum bailiff—he was an auctioneer at that time—I do not know whether he was a creditor under Pearson's bankruptcy—I do not know whether "Wm. H. Johnson, of 95, Camden Road, fifty shares," was the principal proprietor, I was at Narberth—I believe Johnson came down to Narberth, and that was the first time I saw him—I signed that thing at Narberth—this is one of our advertisements "Have you a lawyer? Chancery, common law, probate, divorce, and bankruptcy cases instituted or defended through

Campbell's law agency at a nominal cost, &c, 46, Southampton Buildings, Holborn." That was before I came to London, I recognise it as being the same company, though I do not know anything about the advertisement—when I first came to London, I used to go to and fro to Chancery Lane, and to Campbell & Co.—the one is two or three minutes walk from the other—52, Chancery Lane, is at the corner of Southampton Buildings, about three doors from Holborn—I was not secretary when a distress was put in last Michaelmas, I have dropped it; I have not been there for months—a distress was put in for rent—I used to go to and fro—I replevied, on the ground that we had not notice of the change of proprietorship, change of landlord, and 7l. was paid—of course the rent was due—I abandoned the replevy and offered 10l—a quarters rent was due 15l.—Iabandoned the case, and since that I have gone to the landlord and offered him 10l.—I went to him last night and offered him 10l.—Mr. Dear is down as a shareholder in Campbell & Co.—I did not know him till I came to London—I was not connected with the Llanthony, Oxide, Copper, and Lead Mining Company, James Rickaby, secretary; I know nothing about it—I made an affidavit in Johnson v. Rees—no one instructed me to interfere in that matter—it could not have been used unless it was sworn—I swore that the defendant had been "for two months unable to leave his house from a severe and dangerous illness"—I did not come here to-day to say that Johnson acted by Rees' authority—I came to say what I know, what the transaction was—Johnson had general authority to sign all documents—I do not know that he had authority to sign notes, but he had general authority to sign everything in the office—I cannot say whether he had authority to sign notes—he used to sign almost everything when Rees was away, but I do not know about notes—I cannot tell you whether he had authority to sign notes—I believe I saw him sign the note—when I said The defendant did not concur in it at the time the said note was made"—I meant that it was done without his knowledge: I wanted to get leave to appear.

Q. So you swore that though you had seen Johnson sign it, he had no authority to sign it?-A. I supposed that Rees did not concur in the bill, and that was quite true; I knew it was all for betting transactions, and I wanted to defend the action; I was interested in Rees' life, and I knew he would not live much longer, and he only lived nine days; I was willing to pay the amount, and I have offered the amount that is legally due; Jones advised me that the defendant had a good defence on the merit' he is a clerk in the office, I had only just discovered that there was substituted service—I asked Jones what was the best thing to do in the matter, he knew more about the legal part of it than I did—I swear that it was for betting transactions, Johnson said so himself; he said that 100l. of it was for bets in the February affair—he added that there was 100l. for interest.

Rc-examined. The prosecution withdrew the case against Johnson, in Pawson's affair.

By MR. COLE. I was present—I came to London and saw that gentleman there—Mr. Collett wrote to me, and when the case came on I came to London.

  FREDERICK JONES . About the middle of April 1875, I was engaged as managing common law clerk, at 52, Chancery Lane—I was there up to the time of Mr. Rees' death—he was very ill at times and not there, bu I frequently saw him there—I should be there on 24th April—I remember

Vere calling—I think it was on 26th April—he was alone—he did not see the defendant—I handed him a letter in consequence of what Johnson said; I enclosed a bill of exchange in it, and I think this produced is the bill—it is for 150l., dated 26th April, it is marked "B"—I did not see the prosecutor on that date—I don't know what became of Vere afterwards—I copied the letter and enclosed the bill—I had the management of the action Johnson v. Rees for 260l.—there was an order to set aside the judgment—Mr. Rees came to my desk and saw the order to set aside the judgment, and he was very angry with me, and swore at me, and said "How dare you take such a liberty?"—I said that my instructions were to apply to set aside the judgment, he said that I was to give notice to the other side, that the order was to be obtained, and that Vere must pay the money for it.

Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. I do not know who prepared the affidavit, but Thomas swore it—I did not intrust him or advise him to prepare it, nor do I know who did—Rees was not there when it was sworn, he was ill at the time and he did not see it—Thomas was a clerk in the office, and was so prior to my going there in the middle of April 1875—I was not there at the time that Campbell & Co., was carried on at 52, Chancery Lane—I know something about Campbell & Co.—I have been to the office about half a dozen times—Thomas was not the managing man there—I do not know who was—I believe Thomas was the secretary—I do not know that he was the manager or whether he used to attend there—I was a clerk in the same office with him, and I believe he was in the habit of attending at Southampton Buildings daily, I have no doubt he did—I can not say whether did so in March and April, it was about the middle of April when I went there—I know that he was the secretary of Campbell's Law Agency—I have also seen a clerk there when I went there—I do not know his name—I know that the defendant lived at Camden Town—I do not know that he was part and parcel of Campbell & Co., this is the first time I have have heard of it, but Mr. Rees was solicitor for Campbell & Co.—this is the first time I have heard of Johnson being connected with Campbell & Co.—I have seen Dear at our office, but not at 46, Southampton Buildings—Mr. Rees engaged me, I have known him some time, and before I knew Johnson, Rees paid my salary, but not always, Mr. Johnson paid me as a rule—it was 2l. a week—I said 100l. a year before the Magistrate—it was paid weekly—I am now in Mr. Hope's employ—it is Rees, Hope & Co.—Rees is dead, that has nothing to do with me—I believe the executors of the firm Thomas and Johnson advertised the business for sale, and Mr. Hope bought it—they did not introduce me to Hope—I saw Hope at the office, and he said "We shall keep on the same clerks Mr. Jones, you will continue on the same terms as you had with—Mr. Rees"—Johnson continued to perform the same duties as ho did in Mr. Rees life-time—I have heard that Johnson paid the rent—I never heard of a distress being put in last quarter or of an execution, and I have been there every day—Mr. Hope lives at Sunderland, and carries on the business of an attorney—I have seen him several times, the first time was when he engaged me early in October or the beginning of November, and I saw him a week or two after I won't be positive and I saw him again two or three days ago—I do not think I have seen him on more than half-a-dozen occasions—I was at the office, he only came up once or twice, but he stopped two or three days—I knew Rees very

well, and he knew me very well—I do not believe a word about his living at Sandy's coffee house at 6d. a night—I do not believe he ever went into such a place, he was too much of a gentleman—I know Sandy's—I never fetched Rees from there—Mr. Rees was on tae Council of the Incorporated Law Society, and I do not believe he would have gone to such a place unless he was drunk—I have seen him drunk but not in business hours—after the office was closed he would ask mo to have a glass of sherry—I never visited him at Fulham, I know that he lived at Paxton House there—that does not belong to a gardener named Glennie—I was employed by Lynch as clerk, he said that he could dispense with my services—he is a solicitor—he discharged me because at that time he took an articled clerk—he never charged me with embezzlement, so help me God—I did not live with Mr. Willicomb, I worked for him—he never charged me with embezzlement—I saw him at Bow Street—these questions were put to me there (Mr. Willicomb was called in)—I mean to say in his presence that he never charged me with appropriating his money, so help me God, and he cannot say so; this is the first time I have heard of it, except at the police-court—he did not charge me with stealing a bag—he wanted to know what had become of his office bag—I said that I had lent it at to a client, and said "You will find it 52, Chan cery Lane, Carter has got it"—when I offered to pay for the bag he did not say that he would have nothing to do with me for he meant to prosecute me, nothing of the kind—I sent him a post-office order for the value of it while these proceedings were going on, the day before my examination. (A letter was here put in from Mr. Willicomb to the witness declining to compromise the matter, and returning his post-office order:)—that is rubbish—I did receive that letter, and I have his letter here; it was not the conduct of a gentleman—I heard that he had not got the bag, and I sent him a post-office order for the value of it—there was a case of the name of Lamb—I don't remember Lamb and Swinford—this is my petty cash book (produced)—Ifind in it 4s. 6d. paid by me for an attachment—it never to my knowledge turned out that it was not paid by me—I handed it to a clerk named Jelk to pay it—Mr. Willicomb did not charge me with retaining that 4s. 6d.; he wrote to me on 29th April, and never said a word about it—this letter to Mr. Willicomb is my writing. (This stated: "I am truly sorry through my fault, you have been put to such inconvenience by not having your bag, I very much regret not telling you that the person to whom I had really lent it was a clerk out of employment, and whose address from seeing him daily at the Judges Chambers, it never occurred to me make myself acquainted, for that reason I allowed Mr. Carter to accept the blame for a day or two")—I had told Carter to leave the bag at Rees & Co.'s, and I said "Has the bag been left here?"—he said "No," I said Mr. Willicomb is rather annoyed about it, come up and let me know when it is left"—I allowed Carter to bear the blame for a day or two—I saw Jelf afterwards, and I wrote to Mr. Willicomb and sent him a post-office order—he did not discharge me, I gave him notice, a weeks notice, and he knows it—I did not leave in the middle of the week, you are wrongly instructed—Mr. Willicomb can not get in the box and say that—he did not discharge me and make me leave his place of business in the middle of the week, so help me God—I did not leave in the middle of the week, he knows better—he did not send me away on a Monday morning—I left on a Saturday, and he knows it, and in twelve months nothing has been said to me about it, or I could have gone and explained—I now swear in his presence

that I did not leave his office on a Monday morning—I am still in Rees. Hope & Co.'s employment—I received my last salary last Saturday; Mr. Johnson paid me—I took part in preparing the brief for his defence, Mr. Hope is the solicitor who is defending him and instructing counsel for him, and whose name is on the briefs—they were prepared at 52, Chancery Lane—I have had daily and nightly interviews with the defendant—I was in the house the other night—I dare say Thomas took a part in it, and Carter too.

Re-examined. I was not articled clerk to the late Mr. Rees—my father is a solicitor practising in the Temple—I don't think I advised Thomas that there was a defence to the action on the bill, Mr. Rees was ill at the time, and we did not want to bother him about it—I do not believe there is a word of truth about Mr. Rees being a lodger at Sandy's—we were concerned for Sandy's—he is a man who has been convicted once or twice, and we got him a verdict of 50l., there was an attachment to the amount of 34l., and the balance was for him—I think I have seen George Harper once—I never went to Rees at Paxton House, Fulham. but I have addressed letters there—Mr. Lynch never charged me with embezzlement—I first heard at Bow Street, of any charge Mr. Willicomb had to make against me, and he had known my address all the while—that was in the examination of this very case which we are dealing with to-day, and yet this took place prior to April 1875, because here is the letter in which he never mentions it—I got a letter subsequently from him, dated 11th January, 1876, in which he does not say a word about my having committed this offence—I saw him afterwards at the police-office-, and he made the charge—as to the bag, I was very ill, and I asked a clerk out of employment to assist me while I went home to rest, that clerk had the bag, and I asked him to leave it in Chancery Lane, with Mr. Carter, at Rees & Co.'s, and Mr. Willicomb asked me for the bag; I said "It is with Mr. Carter"—I had seen Carter the next day, and asked him if the bag had been left, he said "No"—I said "Willicomb is very much annoyed, when it comes bring it to the office"—it was an ordinary 10s. 6d. bag—I bought it with Willicomb's money, and it was used in the business—I required somebody else to use it, because he was assisting me when I was very unwell, and he used to go out for me while I went home to rest—that was while I was doing Willicoinb's business—I think his letter shows clearly that I had explained all that to him—I saw Jelf about 9th January, and I said "Did you ever return that bag to Willicomb's—he said "The fact is, I did not"—and I directly sent a post-office order to Mr. Willicomb for 11s. 6d., and he returned it.

  JOHN HENRY HOPE . I am a solicitor, practising at Sunderland and at Middlesborough, and at 52, Chancery Lane—I am the Mr. Hope of the firm of Rees, Hope, & Co.

MR. COLE. You may go back to Middlesborough, Mr. Hope.

GUILTY .

The Jury, in reply to questions from the Court, stated that they disbelieved the evidence of Jones, Hollings, Thomas, and Carter, and the greater portion, of Dear's evidence. Mr. Cole stated that the prisoner began life as an omnibus driver, that he had been an infidel lecturer and editor, and the promoter of eight or nine bubble companies— Five Years Imprisonment on the Second Count, and Five Years' more on the Third Count, the second sentence to commence at the expiration of the first ,