JOHN AIREY, WILLIAM KELLY.
15th December 1879
Reference Numbert18791215-117
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment

Related Material

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

117. JOHN AIREY (45) and WILLIAM KELLY (30) , Unlawfully obtaining by false pretences from Maurice Lindsay 10s. 6d., with intent to defraud. Also for conspiracy, and obtaining various sums from 22 other persons by false pretences.

MESSRS. GORST, Q.C., POLAND, MONTAGU WILLIAMS, and AUSTIN METCALFE Prosecuted;

MESSRS. WILDBY WRIGHT and BROXTON HICKS defended Airey; and MR.T. C. JARVIS defended Kelly.

MAURICE LINDSAY . I am a merchant of 26, Milk Street—in March last I wanted a small loan and saw an advertisement in a daily paper, in consequence of which I wrote to a person named Buer, of London Bridge Approach, in answer to which I received a form in an envelope—before I filed it up I took it to Mr. Buer's to ask him if all the questions were to be filled up—the name of Buer was up, and I saw Kelly there—he said they need not all be filled up, so I took it away and filled it up and sent it to the office—I received no answer, and in about a week after I went to the office again and saw Kelly—I asked him why the money had not been granted, and he said he had not received the form back from the surety—on the first visit I had paid a fee of 10s. 6d. at Kelly's request—before I paid it he said "I shall require a security," and I gave him the name of Mr. Rogers, 6, Mount Villas, Upper Sydenham—he gave me no receipt for the 10s. 6d.—I said my surety had not received any letter—Kelly said he could not understand it, and said a letter had been written, and he showed me a letter copied in copying ink in a book and he said he would write again—a little more than a week elapsed, during which I saw Rogers—I saw Kelly again and I believe he said he would write again about it—I took no further notice and never had the loan or my 10s. 6d. back.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. At that time I was a clerk in my other's office receiving 80l. or 90l. a year—that was not my whole income—the defendants asked me my whole income and I told them it was about 190l. per annum—it wanted time to calculate; my income changes—they said they should require a surety—I believe they said he must be a responsible man—I said Rogers was a responsible man; a householder—I did not tell them he was a gardener at weekly wages—I put it in the form—he eked out his income by letting apartments, and I was a lodger in his house—I swear I was not in his debt in my lodging account—Rogers I believe is not here—I was not told at a subsequent interview with the defendants. that Rogers had absolutely declined to be my surety—I last saw Rogers about three or four months ago—he has now moved, not far from where he lived.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. I understood when I paid the fee that it was necessary in order to make inquiries respecting Rogers—Kelly did not tell me that he had made inquiries, and round Rogers was not good enough to be surety—I had no furniture of my own at that time—I received 80l. per annum from my father's firm; I derived the feat of my income from my father voluntarily, as an allowance which might be stopped at any moment—I was living with Rogers—I think I gave Kelly both my

addresses—I cannot say whether I gave him my address at Rogers's—I represented him as an entirely independent person in reference to me—Kelly did not tell me that he discovered I was a lodger of Rogers's.

Re-examined. I stated in the form for the surety that Rogers had been a bankrupt, which he had been 10 or 13 years ago—I applied for a loan of 30l.

HARRIS STIBBON . I am an innkeeper, of Teddington, near Lynn in Norfolk—in September, 1578, I saw an advertisement in the Stamford Mercury, in consequence of which I applied by letter to Buer, of 19, London Bridge Station Approach, asking for a loan of 40l.; I received a form in reply—I filled it up, and sent it back with a Post-office order for 15s.—I was not asked for any security—I then received a letter from then stating that as I lived so far away they should require 2l. 18s. for travelling expenses, for their representative to come down and see my place—I sent that amount on the 2nd October to the same address—a man came down when I was busy in the yard; it was neither of the defendants—he said "Are you Mr. Stibbon?"—I said "Yes"—he said "I am from Mr. Buer"—I said "Oh I all right, come in the house"—he said "Don't say nothing we don't want anybody to know our business," and I asked him into my private room—he said "Is this furniture yours?"—I said "Yes, everything about the place"—he gave me a paper to sign to prove to Mr. Buer that he had been, and he took the paper away with him, and said I should have the money—on the following Tuesday morning I wrote to Mr. Buer, and received a reply about a week after—that is burnt—the letter said the matter was being investigated, or was in the hands of their lawyer—I then received another letter from them requiring two sureties for 40l. each—I wrote and told them what I thought of the matter—I cannot say whether I asked for my money back, but I never received it—I have lost the letters in moving, having had three houses in 18 months, but I have entered in this book (produced) all that I spent last year and all I took.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I am a publican and horse and colt breaker—I had been in my house about six months at that time—I was never asked to give a bill of sale on my furniture as security for the loan—I thought, seeing the advertisement signed, that there were no law costs, and that a written guarantee would be given if required, that no publicity would be given to the transaction; if I could have the money on those terms I would have it—I said I thought they were rank swindlers after that.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. I had then never had a bill of sale on my furniture, and never owed a shilling—I have since—I had not then paid my rent; it was due on the 11th October.

JAMES CRABBE . I am a tea dealer, now of 21, Loddiges Road, Hackney—in March last, in consequence of an advertisement which I saw, I applied personally to Buer for a loan of 50l.—I received this form, which I took home. (Read: "Prospectus. From H. W. Buer, 19, London Bridge Station Approach, London. Cash advanced in town or country immediately for any length of time in sums varying from 5l. to 500l. at moderate interest on personal or any available security. Repayments in one sum, or by weekly, monthly, or quarterly instalments as per agreement. The amount applied for advanced in full. The rate of interest is 5 per cent") I filled it up, and took it back to the office, when I saw Kelly, and paid

him 15s.—I offered him a bill of sale on my furniture, and I think about a week after some one came to my house, but seeing that it is nine months ago I forget all about the matter—I think nothing further was heard for about a week, when I wrote to know if they intended to come to business, and I think somebody came to my house—after that I heard no more of it—I wrote to say if the money were not returned I should employ a solicitor, and I received a reply which I tore up, and put in the fire—the letter said that they should require two or three extra sureties in case I became bankrupt, or something—I never received the loan or the money back—I offered them the furniture in my front room, which I considered was much more valuable than the amount I applied for—I sold three articles of the same furniture just afterwards for 30l.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I had been a commercial traveller for 15 years—I had not applied to other loan offices—I cannot say whether I had, in the year preceding, 'applied to borrow money and been refused—I will not swear that that did not occur in January last—I was not being pressed by divers creditors—there was nothing said to me about inquiries having been made which were not satisfactory—when I received the letter requiring two more sureties in addition to the bill of sale, I took no more notice of it—I have been subpœnaed.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. When I paid Kelly the 15s. I understood it was for the expenses of inquiry.

EDWARD LOCKS . I live at 2, Market Place, New Maiden, and was a canvasser, but am now out of employment—in April last I was living at Bow—I saw Buer's advertisement in the Daily Telegraph, and went to his office on the 19th, when I saw Kelly; who parsed as Buer; I also saw Airey—I said I was about to take a situation, and wanted cash security for that purpose, and required a loan of 40l., which Kelly said I could have, and I was to call again, I think on the next day—I called again within a day or two, when I saw Airey, who said there would be a guinea to pay as inquiry fee—I asked him if he would give me a receipt for it, when he said, "If Mr. Buer were here he would show, you the door; we have been established here for 30 years, and no one has any reason to doubt our honesty in such matters;" so I paid him the guinea—he said he would communicate with my father, who is a fishmonger and poulterer, and whose name I had previously given him as a surety—my father afterwards gave me this letter. (Read: "19, London Bridge Station Approach, opposite the booking office at London Bridge Railway-station. April 18th, 1879. Re loan. Sir,—You have been proposed as surety for Mr. E. Locke, jun. I must trouble you to correctly fill in and return the enclosed form at your earliest convenience, and oblige yours faithfully, H. W. Buer.") After I had seen my father I went to see Kelly, and asked him why he did not tell me it would be necessary to have a bill of sale on my father's furniture, as required by the form enclosed, as if I had known that I should not have attempted to have anything to do with it, and he said, "We cannot afford to give you or your father 40l."—I believe I asked him for my money back again, and he said he would look over my account and would let me have a bill of it—in a few days I had the bill, saying he had looked it over and found there was 5s. 9d. to his account—I never got the loan or my money back—I threw the letter in the fire and thought no more of it.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I was out of a situation when I applied

for the loan, and am out now—Airey did not say they had been established for "some years"—Kelly did not say he must have a bill of sale from my father because he found several County Court judgments against him, or that my father had a short while since been a beer retailer and had a bill of sale over his goods—he did not ask me whether it had been paid off, and I did not say I did not know anything about it—nothing of the sort occurred—my father was a licensed victualler some eight years ago—Kelly did not say he could not accept my father as surety without a bill of sale for various reasons, or that since my father was a licensed victualler he had had a bill of sale over his property—I have understood that there was one while he was a licensed victualler; I don't know of there being one since—I had no goods to give a bill of sale on—I told Kelly my father would not give a bill of sale.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. I came to the conclusion that Kelly represented Buer—he did not tell me he was Buer.

Re-examined. When I entered the room on the first occasion I asked for Mr. Buer, and Kelly did the business.

GEORGE FURLONG . I am now of no occupation—in April last I was a pork-butcher, at 110, High Street, Peckham—about that time I received a circular by post, in consequence of which I called at Buer's, and saw Kelly and another man—I told the other man I wanted to borrow 50l., and he said "Oh, very well, you can have it," and I paid 10s.—Kelly came across the room and said "What is it?"—he said "This gentleman wants a loan of 50l.," and Kelly said to him "You know it is 15s.," and then I paid the other 5s.—they said I should receive a letter the next morning to say when I should have the money; and on receiving no letter I went up to the office again—as I went up Kelly and the other man were just putting a man oat of the room—I told them I had not received any letter, and I should decline having the loan, and would they give me the 15s. back, as they had not done anything for me in the case or sent a letter saying when I should hare the money—Kelly said "We do not do business like that, I shall not give it you back"—I then went into the street and spoke to a police sergeant, and subsequently made an application to Mr. Partridge at the Southwark Police-court, and he sent a warrant officer with me to Biter's—I went into the room and asked Kelly for the 15s. back, and they would not give it me, and then the officer from the Court went in with me and I told them who he was—after Kelly consulted with the other man they gave me back 15s., less 4d., for which they said they had written a letter, 1d. the stamp, and 3d. for the letter—the officer asked which was Buer, and Kelly said he was—he he took some money from his pocket to make up the 14s. 8d.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I think I had two interviews with the defendants before I went with the officer—I said I wanted to borrow 50l. on a bill of my furniture—I was not asked what my debts were, or whether I was being pressed for money, or had a judgment against me, and I said nothing about it—Kelly did not tell me until after the money was refunded that he had discovered by a lucky accident that I had already a bill of sale on my furniture—I have had three or four bills of sale, but have never gone to the expense of having them struck off the register, and they were subsisting still—I had not an existing bill of sale on those goods when I applied for the loan; I Will not undertake to swear that—I know there was no money owing on a bill of sale then, not to my knowledge—I don't believe

there was, I will not go farther—I believe there was a judgment against me—I did not file my petition till August—I will not swear as to the date—it was not in June—the amount of my debts was then about 950l.—I cannot say how much my creditors have been paid—it is in my solicitor's hands to settle—it is a liquidation, not a bankruptcy—the resolution came to was 5s. in the pound, extending perhaps over six weeks from now—I did not put any furniture down in my assets, it had been sold then—I cannot say whether my furniture was worth 20l. when I went to the defendants.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. My furniture was sold to my mother under a bill of sale.

ELIZA EMMENS . I live at Milkwood House, Milkwood Road, Brixton—in April last I was staying at 84, Finborough Bead, Kensington—I saw Boar's advertisement in the paper, and applied for a loan of 150l.—I think I received a form which I filled up and returned with a guinea by post-office order—I afterwards received a letter from the office asking for 3l., I think—I destroyed the letter and took no further notice of it.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I was staying with some friends—I am not in any business—Milkwood House is my brother-in-law's—I was with another brother-in-law in Finborough Road, my sister's—I never saw the defendants—I described myself as a housekeeper in the form, because I meant to take a house; I meant householder—I was not earning any money—I don't think they said the 3l. was for some one to come and see my furniture—I had not any furniture then—I did not tell them I was only staying at Finborough Road on a visit; they did not ask me—they did not ask me for any security—I had certain money of my own.

GEORGE ROGERS . I live at 50, Cambridge Street, Pimlico, and keep a bookshop—in May last I saw an advertisement of Ruer's in the Daily Telegraph, and applied for a loan of 100l.—I received a form to fill up, which I did, and took to the office, where I saw Kelly—he said he should want a guinea, which I paid him—I did not ask for a receipt—in about a fortnight I went to the office again to know why I had not heard—I saw Airey, who said Mr. Buer was not in then, but he would make further inquiries—I believe he afterwards sent me another paper to fill up with the names of two sureties, which I sent back filled up—nothing was said about a bill of sale until they communicated with the sureties, and then they were not wishful that a bill of sale should be given, and I did not give one.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. Airey told me that one of ray two proposed securities had declined to be so—I did not propose another—I have had conversation with one of the proposed securities (Hoskins) since on this matter—inasmuch as one of the proposed securities declined, and I would not give a bill of sale, the matter dropped—I did not complain at the time—the police brought me into the case—Inspector Fox was anxious I should come here—he did not say he could not make a case without me.

ALFRED NEILSON . I am an auctioneer's clerk, of 265, Fulham Road—in May last I was living at Whitehead's Grove, Brompton, and in consequence of an advertisement I saw I wrote to Buer for a loan of 30l.—in reply I received this form (produced), which I filled up, and returned with a Post-office order for 10s. 6d.—I never heard any more of it—the letter sent with the form asked for two sureties, and I sent two names—I destroyed it—I have spoken to the proposed sureties since—I never got the loan.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I did not go to inquire whether my loan was granted or not—I had no furniture of my own.

JOHN BOWVER . I live at Bourne, Lincolnshire, and am a draper's assistant—I formerly lived at 3, High Street, Forest Hill—ibout six months ago I saw Buer's advertisement in the Daily Telegraph, and went to the office, and saw Kelly—I told him I wanted a loan of 50l.—he said I could hare it on security, and I referred him to Mr. Todd, of Bourne—I told him 1 had property to the amount of 1,000l., which I should not get till I was of age—he said I could have it—I also referred him to Mr. Bell, solicitor, of the same town—he asked me for a guinea, which he said was the fee—I had no money with me then, and I sent him a Post-office order—he told me I could have it in two or three days—I received no letter, and I wrote in about four or five days—I received no reply, and I went, when I saw both the defendants—I asked Kelly if I could have the loan, and he told me he had received a letter from Mr. Todd refusing to sign a bill of sale, which he (Kelly) wanted—I told him I had written twice, and received no answer, to which he made no reply—I told him I would write to Mr. Todd—I received a reply from Mr. Todd, and called again on Kelly, and told him he was willing to be surety, but not to give a bill of sale—I did not get the loan or my money back.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. Mr. Todd wrote tor the return of the money—Kelly told me "All that I have to have is a letter from Mr. Todd, saying that he will be your security"—he afterwards told me that Mr. Todd would not be a satisfactory surety without a bill of sale—Mr. Todd would not give that.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. When I paid the guinea Kelly told me that I must find a surety as I was under age.

WILLIAM TODD . I am a tailor and draper, of Bourne, Lincolnshire—I have known Bowyer all his life—about six months ago he made a communication to me about a loan, and I received a letter from the defendants—I believe it is destroyed—it was for me to be security for a loan to Bowyer, and I was willing to be so, and I wrote to them accordingly—I think it was in August or the end of July. (This letter stated that he could not think of a bill of sale, but was willing to assist Bowyer in any other way, so that unless their joint note for 50l. would do, the better plan would be to give him back the 21s. he had advanced, and let the matter rest.) I cannot say whether the bill of sale was asked for in the first letter I received—this letter of mine is not dated. (This letter stated that he had seen an account in the papers of the ciarge nude before Magistrate, and that unless the 21s. obtained from Bowyer was returned, the parties prosecuting would be communicated with.)

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I am no judge of whether that was a proper letter to write under the circumstances—I think the young gentleman had got into bad hands—I was perfectly solvent when I was offered as surety, no judgments against me—there was a judgment against me in the County Court for 11l. 14s. 6d. I believe—I paid it by instalments, as I could not spare the money from my business—there was a judgment against me for 16l. 18s. 5d.—I think it is all paid now.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. My not being able to spare the money for the County Court, and offering to lend Bowyer the money myself is no criterion—I should have had to have got the money from the bank perhaps—I have a stock of good.

EDWARD SAMUEL VAUGHAN . I am a tobacconist of Rendezvous Street, Folkestone—in May last, in consequence of an advertisement which I saw, I applied to Buer by letter for a loan of 300l., and in reply received this letter, requesting a personal interview—I attended there accordingly and saw Kelly—he went to a desk and picked up a letter, which I recognised as mine—I said I had called to see Mr. Buer, and he said Mr. Buer had been obliged to go into the country, and was unable to see me according to appointment, and would be back in the course of the evening—I said I could not stay in London later than the afternoon—he said no doubt things might be arranged, and the foe would be two guineas—I said I wanted a letter from Mr. Buer in answer to mine to know whether business might be done, as it would be useless to run me into any expense unless they entertained the security I offered—I returned to Folkestone, and the next morning I received this letter. (Read: "19, London Bridge Station Approach, etc., 21st May, 1879. Sir,—I have no doubt that business can be done, and upon your forwarding P. 0. order for 42s., I will pay the matter immediate attention. Waiting your reply, I am yours faithfully, H. W. Buer.") My wife then wrote this letter enclosing the money. (Read: "1, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone, 22nd May, 1879. Dear Sirs,—I enclose you P. 0. order for 2l. 2s., and trust you will kindly attend to my application by return, as I must send an answer to the trustee.") I was in liquidation, which I had explained in my first letter, and I was endeavoring to obtain a loan to offer a dividend—I afterwards received this letter. (This stated that it would be necessary for a representative to wait upon the witness, and as he resided a considerable distance from the office, 2l. 18s. 3d. must be forwarded for travelling expenses.) I wrote back declining any further business with them, and demanded the 2l. 2s. back, which I never received; nor did I have the loan.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I paid the 2l. 2s. as the necessary inquiry fee—my furniture was in the possession of my trustee—if the arrangement for the security was satisfactory to the defendants I was willing to introduce the trustee to them—they did not tell me that without seeing the trustee nothing could be concluded—the 2l. 2s. was quite enough to go to Folkestone.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. I did not represent to Kelly that the trustee was willing to be surety for me—the security I offered was a bill of sale and possession of my lease as collateral security—the trustee was willing to receive a dividend under the circumstances—there was no misrepresentation on my part at all.

THOMAS O'SULUVAN . I am a barman at the King's Arms, Peckham Rye—last March I thought of setting up a public-house for myself, and in consequence of seeing an advertisement, I went to Buer's office and saw Airey—I told him I wanted to take a house, that I had no money, and would he lend me 100l. if he held the agreement for lease of the house—he said "We can do it," and I was to look out for a house and call again in a few days to see Mr. Buer—I afterwards called and saw Kelly, who was introduced to me as Mr. Buer by Airey, I told my story again to him, and he entertained it and said he would get the money through as soon as possible, and I was to look out for a house—I went again to him on 1st April with the form filled up and paid 1l. 1s., which Kelly said was for stamps—in a few days I saw a house at Homel Hempstead, and called on

Kelly again, who said he Would see about it—I saw him again and he said it was not good enough, and I Was to look out for another—I afterwards saw the Rose of Denmark, and went to Kelly again, and he said he would see about it—I saw the brewers and made all the arrangements—I was to pay 100l.—I went twice again to Kelly's to get my money, but did not—no reason was given to me and I continued to visit the office till I found it closed.

Cross-examined by MR. WEIGHT. I was told if the house were bought they would hold the agreement for the lease, for the money—nothing was subsequently said about my depositing the lease with the brewers as security for the 100l.—the defendants did not refuse to advance the money until they could have the lease—they did not tell me they had inquired about the public-house at Peckham Rye, or that I could not get the money unless I had a remarkably good house at my back—they asked me if I had any furniture with a view to giving a bill of sale—I told them it was not of greater value than 20l.

Cross-examined by MR. JAHVIS. I know Kelly did inquire about the public-house.

JOHN EDWARD GUIN . I live at 78, Portland Street, Commercial Road, and am a rope-maker—X saw Buer's advertisement, and in consequence went to Buer's on the 21st June and saw the defendants—I told Kelly I wanted to borrow 50l., for 12 months, to he payable in four quarterly instalments, and he said "All right"—I gave him two trade references, I paid him 10s. then, and afterwards 11& for inquiry—I was to call on Monday and I should have the money without fail next Tuesday—I saw Kelly again and he gave me a form to fill up—he told me everything was satisfactory—I had a form of bill of sale to fill up, which I tore up—nothing was said about a bill of sale at first—I never received the guinea back.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. The form Kelly gave me to fill up was a bill of sale on my furniture—I expected to get the money as per advertisement, on personal security—I had my place of business at Emmet Street, Poplar, but I had given it up, and I had only at that time a private house.

Re-examined. When I paid the guinea nothing was said about the bill of sale.

JAMBS SUMNER . I am a fishmonger of 56, Camilla Road, Bennondsey—about the 23rd of last July I saw Buer's advertisement in the paper, and I wrote and received this reply. (Read: "19, London Bridge Station Approach, &c. July 24th, 1879. Sir,—Confidential I shall be pleased to entertain your application for an advance of 70l. on the terms you propose. Kindly fill in and return the enclosed prospectus, together with the charge as per scale, and I will then arrange matters for you. I am, sir, yours respectfully, H. W. Buer.") The letter enclosed a prospectus which I filled up and returned—I went up and made inquiries and paid a guinea to Kelly, who said I should hear from him in a few days—I afterwards received this letter, (Read: 19, London Bridge Station Approach, &c. Sir,'—Re Loan. I must trouble you to find me a substantial surety and oblige yours faithfully, H. W. Buer.") I called on Kelly and asked him what security he required, as I offered to deposit a lease which would realise 190l., and I said would my son do 1—the lease was then deposited with my solicitors, Messrs. Hogan. and Hughes—my son was an engineer and

machinist in a situation, and did work at home—Kelly said he would do and my son afterwards received this letter. (Read: "19, London Bridge Approach, &c. August 1st, 1879. Sir,—Are you willing to stand surety for your father for 100l. "Answer by return and oblige yours faithfully, H. W. Buer.") I took my son's answer to Kelly's and put it into the letter box—I went again in three or four days in answer to a letter saying they wanted another security besides my son—I said it was not an easy matter to find people to put their hand to paper, and therefore they could not grant me the loan—I asked Kelly for my money back, and he said it had been eaten up in expenses; and I said "Give me a' part," and he said he would give me a statement, and the next day I saw the prosecution in the paper.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. The lease was deposited with my solicitors for something under 20l. owing to them—I did not apply to them to advance on it, and they did not tell me it was not worth a halfpenny more than, my debt to them—I had no conversation with them as to its value, nor did Kelly tell me that its outside value was the amount for which it was pledged to, the solicitors—they told me it was no good to them—my son was employed at a place in the Walworth Road at weekly wages—he occupied a six-roomed house—I live with him and his family—they asked me the value of his furniture and I said about 50l.—I had furniture, but I had not offered to give a bill of sale—they did not ask me—I asked if they would grant me a smaller amount, but Kelly told me he did not mean to let me have it at all.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. I made 10l. a year by the lease, which had 10 years to run from Christmas.

CHARLES JAMES COLAM . I live' at 126, Asylum Road, Peckham, and am a hat manufacturer—in July last I saw Buer's advertisement, and called and saw Airey, and told him I wanted 70l.—he told me the terms were 5 per cent.—he said, "Before we go into the matter of advancing the money you will have to pay us a guinea"—I told him I had not a guinea with me at the time, so I paid him 10s.—he said, "Now we can go into business; what security have you to offer?—I said I would give a bill of sale on my furniture and stock of the value of between 200l. and 300l.,—he said that would be quite satisfactory, and I should have the money to-morrow—I told him I could give him any references he liked—the same evening I received this letter. (Read: "July 23rd, 1879. Sir,—Kindly remit P.O. order for 11s., balance owing on the 21s. when I will give your matter immediate attention. I am, sir, yours faithfully, H. W. Buer.") I went the next day and saw Airey, who introduced Kelly to mo as Buer—I paid the 11s. and did not ask lor a receipt—Kelly said he would make inquiry, and I could have the money in the course of to-morrow—later in the day I received another letter, enclosing a form, for me to fill up—I filled up the form and got it sworn before a Commissioner, and took ft to the defendants' and saw Kellv—he read it over and made some remark on it, and said, "We can let you have the money for 98l."—I asked for 70l.—I said I could not think of paying that amount of money, because Airey had stated he would let me have it at 5 per cent.—"Oh," he said, "I could not think of advancing money at that rate"—J told him he had been putting me off from time to time and it was a perfect swindle, and requested him, to return me the money—he said, "I shall not do it; make a written application—I then

went to my solicitor, Mr. Harston, and instructed him—I did not get my money back—I told Kelly he had not made any application to ascertain my standing—he made no reply.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. On one occasion Kelly told me somebody was making inquiries at my house—I had not previously applied for a Joan and been refused—I was offered the loan and refused it.

JAMES HULL . I am a stonemason, of 52, Branksome Road, Brixton—my son Edmund and I applied in July last for a loan of 50l. from Buer—I saw Kelly and told him I wanted the money to purchase a horse and van to start in the greengrocery business, and I handed him this circular (produced)—he told me I might expect the money in three days—he said a guinea would be required, and we had only 2s. with us—my son handed him the 2s. and said we would forward the other that same day or on Monday, but I sent my son with it and he brought me back this receipt (produced)—after three days, instead of the money I had a long form sent me to fill up, which I did, and sent back as soon as possible—I was next told that I must provide a surety—I applied to a responsible person of the name of Brett, and he offered himself as surety, and I sent his name to Kelly—Mr. Brett came and filled up the form, and my son and I took the printed form filled up, and I asked Kelly to come back with me and see the surety—he said he could not leave the office, but would send some one up the same night—in the meantime I had paid 2l. deposit on a horse and van and something for a barrow—iustead of his coming to see me a form was sent to my surety, which he filled up and sent back—I expected each day to hear from them, and at the end of a fortnight from the day of application, finding nothing was said about the surety or the money, I went to see Kelly—he said, "Oh, you must provide another surety, "that he had stood for somebody else for 10l., 6l. of which had been paid, and the rest was being paid according to arrangement—I then asked for my money back; I said he might have a shilling for his expenses—he laughed at me and made light of the matter, and said I might do as I could—I said I should apply to the Magistrate, and he said I must be childish, and I was excited, knowing I could not open my business.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I was not told that there was difficulty in getting—the other 4l. for which Brett had stood—I had been to a Mr. Fairfax previously for a loan, and proposed two sureties in addition to my furniture—one of the proposed sureties was Brett—Fairfax did not tell me Brett was not good enough—I withdrew my application—I never opened the shop at all.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. I went to another loan office and got 10l., and paid 3l. interest.

EDMUND HULL . I paid the 19s. to Kelly on Monday, the 14th July, for which he wrote this memorandum: "Received of Mr. J. Hull the sum of 21s. to defray expenses."

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I was going into business with my father—I had no furniture; I lived with him.

FREDERICK JOHN SMITH . I am a gardener, formerly of 18, Pomona Place, Fulham, and now of Putney Heath—I saw Buor's advertisement in July last, and went to the office and saw Kelly, who asked me if it was a little money I wanted—I said "Yes," and he said, "About how much 1"—I said, "About 90l." and he said I had better say 100l.; I said I did not mind—

I gave my name and address—he did not ask for security—he asked for 2 guineas—I paid him 5s., and he said I could send the other by post-office order and gave me this paper. (Read: "19, London Bridge Station Approach, &c. 'July 29th, 1879. P.O. order payable to H. W. Buer at Lombard Street, E.C., for 1l. 17s.") I called on the following Saturday and saw Kelly,' having previously sent the post-office order, for which he gave me this memorandum. (Read: "Received from Mr. Frederick John Smith the sum of 2l. 2s. on account of expenses.) Kelly said the 2l. 2s. was to guarantee my good faith—on the Friday night I received a letter signed by Buer asking for sureties, which I refused to give—Kelly said he was Buer, and would let me have it if I found one substantial surety and if I would take a house on lease for seven or fourteen years, then perhaps he might let me have it—I went away and wrote for the return of the money—I received no answer.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I had three interviews with the defendants—I gave my father's name as surety—they applied to him.

WILLIAM TABBANT . I live at 131, Boyson Road, Camberwell Gate, and am a builder—I saw Bner's advertisement last July, and sent my wife to the office, and afterwards went there myself—I saw the defendants, and asked Kelly if he would lend me 50l.—I offered my furniture as security, which I told him was worth 300l., which it was insured for—he said it would be all right, and I paid 15s.—I had a letter afterwards asking for another security—I told him the furniture was my security—I never got the loan.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I paid 32s. a year for my house—I was not told at the outset that I must give a bill of sale on the furniture—I did not refuse to give it—I know what a bill of sale is—my father was my landlord—I pay half-yearly—I then owed a half-year's rent—I was willing to give a bill of sale, but they did not ask me for it—I did not say I could not give it because my fether would know it—Kelly asked if my father would be security, and I said "No"—I did not want him to know I was borrowing money—my father was not paying me wages; I am a partner.

JAMES P. MITCHELL . I am a grocer and provision merchant, of 29, Elm Street, Leith—in July last I saw Buer's advertisement in "Reynolds's paper, and wrote for a loan of 100l., and in reply received this letter, stating, "I shall be happy to entertain your application for an advance of 100l. on the terms you propose on being satisfied as to your responsibility and position to pay the amount," Ac.—I filled up the form, and returned it with a P.O. order for 1l.—in reply I received this letter, enclosing a schedule—I filled up the form, which was asking me a number of questions, and returned it—I heard nothing further from, the office—I did not write again—I had neither the loan nor my guinea back, nor did they send to my place to inquire.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I gave the name of J. Allen, of Edinburgh, as my surety—I was subpoanaed on this case—no one communicated with me previously.

EDWARD CHARLES INGRAM . I am a tea merchant, of 36, Mark Lanelast August I saw Buer's advertisement, and called and saw Kelly, and told him I wanted a loan of 200l., the terms to be 5 per cent., payable half-yearly—he asked me if I would have 300l.—I said I did not require

it—I gave him the names of three householders as sureties—he said one would do and I fixed on my mother-in-law, Caroline Cooper—he said the fee would be 2 guineas—I said "Will I have these 2 guineas back?" and he said "Yes, when you pay me the 200l. back"—I paid him, and had a receipt for it (produced)—I saw him write it—I afterwards received from my mother-in-law this letter, requesting Mrs. Cooper to fill in the enclosed form, and return same—she showed me the form, which she filled up and sent—she afterwards showed me this letter. (Read: "Madam,—Would you kindly appoint a time to come here with the deeds of your house.") I believe she went—Kelly said he was quite satisfied, and I should hare the money on Monday morning, 11th August—I went, but he sent me away with an excuse without the money—my mother-in-law afterwards showed me this letter. (Read: "August 12tb, 1879. Jfc-Loan. Madam,—I must request that you forward per return of post, having declined the proposed advance, the sum of 1l. 6s. 8d., my solicitor's costs in the matter, when you can have what papers you have signed. H. W. Buer.") Before that letter we went to Mr. Noton, the solicitor—the expenses were to be 9l. and 8 per cent.—I agreed to have it at 5 per cent.—Kelly would not give me the two guineas back, and I told him he should hear from my solicitor—he said "You have not a solicitor; there will be 5l. other expenses"—he tried to frighten me—I said "You won't get another penny out of me'.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I was with Ward, Pearce, and Co. at 36, Mark Lane—I had a situation there, but am now on my own account—my place of business now is at Croydon—I did hot tell Kelly my motherinlaw would give a charge on her property; I could not have said so in my deposition—I went with my wife and mother-in-law to the solicitor's with the title deeds of the property—he went through them, and Mid they were satisfactory—he said a mortgage would be drawn up to secure the repayment, and I said I would have nothing to do with it—he said "Mr. Buer never lends money at 5 per cent; the lowest would be 7 per cent."—I said "He agreed to, and I paid him two guineas on that condition."

JAMES BRYANT . I live at Melbourne Lodge, Harrow, and am a coal merchant—in August, 1878,1 wrote in reply to Buer's advertisement, and received this letter in reply, enclosing a prospectus, which I filled up and sent back with this cheque for a guinea, payable to H. W. Buer, dated 2nd September, 1878, drawn by me—it is endorsed H. W. Buer—I don't think I had then offered any security, nor did I have a receipt—I received another letter, which I have lost, in consequence of which I sent another cheque for 1l. 7s. 9s., payable to Buer—I afterwards received this receipt for the 1l. 7s. 9d. (produced) and this letter: "Sir,—My representative will have the pleasure of calling on you on Monday next"—a person came to view my place, and asked a few questions, and saw nothing except what was in the office—he said he was perfectly satisfied, and should advise Mr. Buer to grant the loan, and I saw him off by train—I did not get the loan, and went up and saw Airey, who told me to come again in the afternoon and I should see Mr. Buer—I called again, and saw Kelly, who asked me if I wanted to swindle them out of 200l.—I said certainly not; I wanted to know why they would not let me have the money, and he told me to go out of the room or he would put me out—I valued the effects I was going to give as security at 400l. or 450l., including two horses, two

carts, a bicycle, and trade utensils, &c.—I never got the loan or the money back.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I also offered my household furniture—I had only recently gone into business—I had bought the carts and horses with the business removed my furniture from the Wandsworth Road.

EDWARD FRANK ADAMS . I live at 22, Stamford Green, Stoke Newington, and am a clerk—I went to Buer's last August and saw Kelly, and applied for a loan of 807.—I filled up the form and paid 1l. 1s.—I said I had 1207. coming to me under my father's will—he said that would do—about two days after I went again, and Kelly said he thought he could let me have the money—afterwards he wrote to me—I believe I destroyed the letter—he said "I shall require a Burety"—I gave the name of my mother—I wrote again to say it would not do to give her name—I had no further communication—about a month after I went to the police-court.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I went to the police-court because I thought he ought not to want a security—I heard of the inquiry going on there—I had an order to go there, and I saw Inspector Fox—I am 17 years old, and was then earning 18s. a week—I am Sure I did not mention my mother's name at first—I said after it would not do, and I would find another surety, but I did not.

JOHN KYBERD . I am a printer, of 9, John Street, Bedford Row—I applied by letter in August last to Buer's advertisement for a loan of 200l. or 300l.—I received an answer enclosing a prospectus, which I filled up and returned with a post-office order for a guinea—I offered as security two leases, one for 21 years and one for 19 years, and household furniture and effects—a few days after I went to the office and saw the defendants—I told Kelly what I had come about, and he said "What name?"—I told him, and he said "It shall be attended to; it ought to have been done before; the papers are in hand, and you shall receive them probably to-night"—the next morning I received the papers to fill up, with a form of affidavit to swear before a Commissioner, which I did before Mr. Moto, of Gray's Inn, and sent it to the office—I then received another letter, which I destroyed—it was to the effect that they should require two sureties—I never had the loan.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I did not show the leases to the defendant—I had them with me when I went to see them—I only had one interview—I Voluntarily abandoned the application.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. One lease Was for 100l. a year and the other 50l.; two separate houses—I pay 100l. a year for the house at occupy, and let it partly off, furnished and as offices—I receive 135l. a year, and live rent free.

THOMAS EVANS . I am a medical practitioner, I went to So, Portland Terrace, Regent's Park to Bee Ann V. Coombes last evening—she is suffering from bronchitis and asthma, and is quite unable to come here to give evidence.

MATHEW FOX (Police Inspector) proved the deposition of A. P. Coombs, taken on the 11th November, before the Magistrate, which was to the effect that she had applied in June last to Buer for a loan of 200l., and paid a guinea, and did not obtain the loan of her money back.

EDWARD HENRY WRIGHT . I live in Northamptonshire—in April last I was living at Momsley, Leicestershire—I applied to Buer for a loan, and

received a reply with a prospectus, which I filled in, and sent back with a guinea—I afterwards received another letter, in consequence of which I sent 2l. 18s. 3d. for his representative to come down—this is the receipt (produced)—after his representative had come down some time elapsed, and I wrote to Buer, who sent for me, and I went up to London Bridge, when I saw Kelly, who represented himself to be the head clerk—he said Mr. Buer was not at home that day, but would probably be home the next day, but he would let me have 40l. then if I liked-1 said I would rather see Mr. Buer—I went the next day, when Kelly said he had telegraphed to Buer, and he read me a letter purporting to come from Buer, saying he should not be home for eight or ten days—I then complained of the inconvenience of being made to come up, and not seeing Buer—he said "A friend of Mr. Buer's will let you have 50l. if that is any good to you"—I said "Well, I will have that now, perhaps Mr. Buer will let me have a little more"—he said "Oh yes, sign the bill of sale for 70l. which I did, and it was to be made up to 100l.—the bill of sale was made out to Mr. May (produced); that is my signature—he told me I must sign a promissory note for 70l., as a further security in case the bill of sale should be lost—I objected at first, but ultimately agreed to it; I received 48l. 10s., 30s. being deducted for the stamps on the bill of sale—I returned to Leicestershire, and on the 20th June I sent a cheque for 7l. (the first instalment) to Mr. May, of 19, London Bridge Station Approach, which letter has not been returned—on the Monday afterwards Mr. Kelly and another man came down, and took possession of the farm and stock, and everything there was except the furniture—I would not allow them to go in the house—I told them I had sent a cheque for 7l. on Friday, but they said they had never received it, and that Mr. May had told them he had never had it—Kelly said he would allow me a day or two to see what I could do, but that he had his instructions, and however unpleasant they might be he was bound to carry them out—I asked him what his instructions were—he said "Of course you know what my instructions are; if you do not pay the money we shall have to sell"—I went to my solicitor, and told him about it—they took away three horses to London—I have never got them back—I valued them at about 120l. or 130l.—the cheque for 7l. was never presented.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I received the 48l. 10s. in notes and gold—I knew what I was doing when I signed the documents—I made a statutory declaration on 16th June that my debts did not exceed 120l.—the solicitor received 6s. 8d. out of the 30s. deducted—I filed my petition on the 24th June—I don't remember exactly whether I then returned my debts at 465l. 16s. 1d.—the declaration was false to a certain extent—the debts increased to a certain extent—it was not wilfully false—I never heard that the 7l. cheque was in the hands of my trustee in bankruptcy—the horses were the subject of proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court when they were claimed on the one hand by the bill of sale holder, and on the other by the trustee—I know it was decided that they were to be given to the bill of sale holder—I know they were sold—I believe nothing has been paid to my creditors yet.

Cross-examined by MR. JARVIS. I know Kelly represented himself as head clerk.

Re-examined. I have never heard of or seen Mr. May.

HUGH WILLIAM JAMIESON . I live at Irving Grove, Dulwich, and am an

accountant at the Central Bank of London—I produce a pass-book of an account kept by the defendants, which was operated on by the signatures of both—Airey had an account from September, 1876—the account has not been operated on by Buer—Airey had an account open at the Shoreditch branch of the bank—I was selected to go and look at vie Shoreditch acoount at the request of the prosecution—I have nothing to do with the Shoreditch office—the balance now standing at the Shoreditch branch is 1l. 10s. 10d.—there has been no operation on the account since February, 1877.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. There has been an account kept at the bead office from which money has been from time to time drawn out, and paid in—we always considered it a fair business account of daily transactions, both receipts and payments—Airey's account appears to be a continuation of Buer's, and to have been carried on in the same way—at the time the joint account was opened 1,000l. was paid in by Airey and Buer—the average balance at the head office has not been less than 150l.—I think the largest cheques drawn were for about 100l.

JOBIAH SMITH . I am the manager to Mr. Moms, advertising agent, of 80, Lombard Street—I hare been in the habit for several years of receiving advertisements from Airey and issuing them to the London and country papers—in some instances replies would be forwarded to our office, and we would send them on—I cannot say whether these advertisements are in Airey's handwriting—I think they would only appear in two London papers. (Read: "To capitalists and investors. Particulars will be forwarded of securities seldom available to the public, returning a much higher interest than can be obtained otherwise, and with the most perfect safety. Address Lex, care of B. and H. Morris, 80,-Lombard Street?' "Retired tradesmen and others, desirous of a larger return than house property yields, equally safe and without its annoyances. Write for interview to A. J., care of B. and H. Morris, 80, Lombard Street") They were both inserted under the authority of the defendants in the Daily Telegraph of May 12th, 1879—this list represents the majority of the country papers they appeared in—after a little while some were stopped—the total of the whole amount we have received for the advertisements from November, 1876, to August, 1879, is 1,110l. 18s. 6d.

Cross-emmined by MR. WRIGHT. From January, 1879) to August, 1879, it would be about 220l.—from January till May both advertisements went in daily, and then one was discontinued.

Cross-xamined by MR. JARVIS. I knew Kelly was Airey's clerk—I gave credit in my books to Airey.

MATTHEW FOX (Police Inspector). I went to the defendants' office on the 28th August, and saw Airey—I told him I was a police officer, and had a warrant for his apprehension for obtaining money under pretence of granting loans—he said he was the principal, and that was his place of business—I waited about two hours, when Kelly came in—I asked him if his same was Kelly—he made. no reply—after a moment Mr. Thompson, who was with me, and who occupies the greater part of the house, said "His name is Kelly"—Mr. Thompson was examined as a witness at Southwark—I hare a letter to the effect that he is now very ill—I told Kelly also that I had a warrant for his apprehension—he made no reply—they were taken to the station, charged, and taken before the Magistrate and admitted on their own tail—I then arranged to meet them at the office at 10.80 the next morning,

and I met them about 11—I did not caution them—they were then before the Magistrate and knew my business—I went to examine and take possession of anything I thought necessary—I did not threaten the defendants, or induce them in any improper way to give answersthey complimented me, and said the) statement I had made before the Magistrate was perfectly correct and impartial—Kelly said they carried on business there at a loss—I went to a desk and Kelly said "That is my desk, and those are memoranda written by me"—I counted about 60 memoranda—on the faces of them I saw the names of applicants for loans, and a certain amount of money written in figures, and the letter "R "written after it (produced)—I asked what the "R" meant, and said "It appears on the faces of these memoranda that there are a great many applicants for loans, and that they have paid a certain amount of money"—he said "I have received money in those cases you see marked in that way," and in passing them over he appeared to know each case, and made various remarks: "That inquiry is not yet finished;" to another, "We found that man to be a swindler, we could not grant him a loan"—I then picked up 182 of these prospectuses (produced), upon 178 of which money has been received—they are applications for loans, and are marked with the same letter "R" as the memoranda—I asked him to show me a single instance in all those where he had granted a loan—he said "I cannot without I examine my books"—I took the prospectuses and memoranda away—Airey showed me a book, and pointed me out the year 1876, showing that loans were granted, and in 1877 and 1878—I then said "There are eight months of the year 1879 passed, show me a single instance wherein you granted a loan this year"—he said then were none entered—in that book there was no entry whatever for 1879—Kelly went on one side of the desk, pulled down a file, and said "Here if a loan for 130l. granted this year"—I did not see it, any more than that it was a paper he held in his hand a few yards off—I did not take it—on my first visit I asked Airey where Kelly was—he said, "He is gone into the City to consult a lawyer in reference to a case we have in hand about a man named Wright, to whom we granted a loan; there are some horses of his at Mr. Rymill's, and we cannot get them; Mr. Noton is our solicitor, who acts for us"—I inquired about Mr. May, of 19, London Bridge Station Approach, but could find no one of that name—Kelly's private house is 12, Harrogate Road, South Hackney—this letter is in his handwriting. (Read: "Aug. 8,1878. Sir,—Re Wright. As I find on receipt of the auctioneer's statement after the sale of the horses that there is a balance due to me of 7l. 16s. 4 1/2 d. I must request that you send post-office order for the amount by return, and oblige yours faithfully, pro Henry May, H. W. Buer ".) From the 1st January to the 28th August, 1879, the loans applied for amount to 10,952l.—the preliminary fees only paid amount to 116l.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I took all the prospectuses I saw—Airey said there'were no entries in the books for 1879—he did not say it was because the entries were in arrear.

Witmsses for tlte Defence.

WILLIAM WARREN . I live at 35, King Street, Cheapside—I have known Airey since these proceedings commenced, and Kelly and his family for some years—they have sent me on a good many loans—I am a capitalist and lend money on good security, and I have always been ready and willing to do so—I cannot tell how many loans the defendants hare,

sent on to me—I always thought Buer was the principal and Kelly the manager.

Cross-examined. I lent 40l. or 50l. to Mr. Cadman, in Bedfordshire, through Kelly's introduction, four months ago—I think that was the last; and to a man at Ramsgate six or seven months ago—there may hare been others during this year—I did not pay Kelly a penny for introducing the Bedfordshire loan to me—intending borrowers go first to the people who advertise, and if they think it good they send it on—I do not advertise—I never charge an inquiry fee unless I have to go a very long way—in the Bedfordshire case I only had a promissory note—his father 1 think ottered me security—I should think I charged him about 10l.—I had a bill of sale in the Kamsgate case—I don't remember what interest I charged—I never received 6d. from Airey in my life.

Re-examined. I presumed the applicants paid the defendants something for doing it or introducing them to some one else—the fees would form a great part of the income, but I imagined they lent money sometimes themselves—I remember one case this year when I refused point blank, and Kelly afterwards did lend the money.

ROBERT BENNETT . I am a capitalist of Sunderland Pottery, Broad Street, Ratcliff, and have known Airey for some time—prior to this year I had some conversation with him relative to being prepared to lend money—some two years ago I was prepared to lend 1,000l., and this year 500l.—Airey knew I was quite prepared.

WILLIAM BRIEBLT . I live at New Cross—in March or April last I borrowed 25l. of the defendants, which I have repaid—I also had a previous one of them, which I repaid.

Cross-examined. That was 50l.; about 18 months ago—I gave a bill of sale—the last loan I repaid by 5l. instalments—I gave a promissory note for that—I did not pay an inquiry fee on that—I think the bill of sale was registered—it was read over to me by a solicitor—I did not pay anything for stamps or 6s. 8d. to the solicitor—I am not a personal friend of the defendants—I sometimes paid the instalments by cheque on the Central Bank of London to my order.

Re-examined. I paid an inquiry fee of a guinea for the first loan.

JOSEPH BEALE . I have known the defendants as money lenders. for some time and have had two loans of them since 1878, amounting together to 200l. or 250l., which I have repaid.

Cross-examined. The last loan was in the spring of 1878—it was 100l. or 90l.—I signed several papers—a promissory note and a bill of sale—I repaid it by instalments—I am not a personal friend—I heard their names spoken of as money lenders—I don't recollect paying any inquiry fees—I paid the interest in advance, that was the only deduction made.

JOHN BOUCHIER . In the spring of last year I borrowed 50l. of the defendants, and gave an unregistered bill of sale—I have repaid the loan.

Cross-examined. I was told by Kelly that no other charge would be deducted, but at the last moment he deducted 1l. or a guinea for expenses—I repaid it by seven instalments of 1l. each.

Re-examined. I am here to subpoena.

GUILTY .— Nine Months' Imprisonment each.


View as XML