The Proceedings of the Old Bailey

 

489.   ROBERT BETTS was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury, committed before Mr. Registrar Linklater.

MR. GEOGHEGAN Prosecuted, and MR. GRAIN Defended. GEORGE HENDRY. I carry on business at Oak Lane, Limehouse, as a coppersmith and brewers' engineer—in April, 1890, I recovered a judgment, with costs, against George Ferdinand von Weisenfeld for £250—Mr. Birchall was my solicitor in that action—I instituted bankruptcy proceedings against Von Weisenfeld—he was declared bankrupt

in June, 1890—I was appointed trustee on 2nd April, 1891—a protracted litigation took place with reference to that bankruptcy, and with reference to some furniture in Stoneleigh; likewise as to a bill of sale that was set up respecting a claim by the Produce Company, Limited, to that furniture—the issue was, whether I or the trustee was entitled to that furniture—judgment was given by Justice Vaughan Williams; there was an appeal, and his judgment was affirmed—on that I took steps to compel the bankrupt to attend his public examination—he did not attend—he did not file any statement of affairs—a summons was taken out, under Section 20, for a private examination of the defendant Betts—that was issued on 7th May, and on the 28th he came before Registrar Linklater and gave evidence—I have never seen the furniture since, or recovered a farthing—I know that Von Weisenfeld had an interest in two houses, Stoneleigh and Grafton House, in Clissold Park, Stoke Newington—he was also supposed to rent Oak Lodge—I did not know of the furniture being taken there on 18th April or 20th May.

Cross-examined. There was no order of the Bankruptcy Court for this prosecution—I am prosecuting as trustee—there are several creditors—there is no committee of inspection—the Official Receiver and myself, as trustee, conducted the whole of the litigation—there were proceedings extending over nine or ten days about the bill of, sale—Mr. Justice Williams set it aside in my favour, and the Court of Appeal affirmed his judgment—the date of the information was 17th July, 1891—I first gave evidence in this matter a week or two after, at Bow Street—the case was adjourned by Sir John Bridge until the proceedings in the High Court had been adjudicated upon—after the judgment of the High Court I applied for a day to be fixed for the hearing of the criminal charge against the defendant—I cannot say when I first heard of the removal of the furniture from Stoneleigh House—it is twelve months ago; it may have been about the end of March, 1891—we could not take proceedings because we did not know where it went to—we took steps to watch Oak Lodge after we heard of the removal, I can't say the date—I took steps to try and recover my debt, and instructed my solicitor to proceed accordingly—the man bad become bankrupt, but we understood that he had a lot of property—my solicitor applied for authority to break into Oak Lodge and see if there was any property there belonging to me—I did not break into the place; I don't know whether my solicitor did; I was not there when they went in—I went there afterwards, but I never got in—I believe an inventory was taken—I left Mr. Birchall to take all necessary proceedings.

  CHARLES L'ENFANT . I am a clerk in the London Bankruptcy Court—I produce the file of proceedings in the bankruptcy of Charles F. von Weisenfeld—on 2nd of April, 1891, George Hendry was appointed trustee—on 7th May an application was made to Registrar Linklater for a summons for the examination of the defendant—this is the summons—his examination took place on 28th May—Mr. Barber was appointed by the Registrar to make a transcript of the notes.

  ERNEST BARBER . I am assistant to Charles Barber, shorthand writer to the Bankruptcy Court—I attended before Mr. Registrar Linklater on 28th May last, and took shorthand notes of the examination of the defendant—he was sworn in the ordinary way—there is a correct transcript of my notes on the file. (The transcript was put in and read, and the

portion upon which the perjury was alleged was that he did not, on 28th May, 1891, know where Von Weisenfeld's furniture was, or that it was supposed to be bought by Dr. Wilde.)

  WALTER JAMES TERRY . I live at 171, Morrison Road, Camberwell—I am a salesman—in April, 1891, I was engaged by Mr. Potts, the late tenant, as caretaker on the premises known as Oak Lodge, Green Lanes, Stoke Newington—on 18th April, 1891, the defendant came there about eight in the morning, and knocked at the door—I opened it; my wife was with me—he put his foot inside the door, and said, "I have come to take possession of the house"—I said, "Where is your authority?"—he could not produce one; he was a complete stranger to me—I told him I had not received any instructions to allow him to take possession—to the best of my belief he said the furniture was coming—upon that I bolted the door—he said, "Is that your little game?"—I went to the back and bolted the door, and when I came to the front again he said, "We know your little game"—he stood with his back to the door to prevent my shutting it—the door gave way—he called another man, and told him to go for the agreement and the letter—he went away and came back—in the course of the day, about three, van loads of furniture came to the house in two pantechnicon covered vans—the defendant told me it came from Stoneleigh House, and by his direction it was put into Oak Lodge—he supervised the putting it in—he remained in the house all day—I declined to leave the premises—he threatened to turn me and my wife out—he told me he came in on an agreement with the owner—he showed me the agreement the next day—he remained there till the 20th, and I then left with my furniture—I read part of the agreement; I don't think this (produced) is it; I am not sure, I should possibly know the letter better—the name of Dr. Wilde was mentioned during the day—I understood the agreement was between Mr. Elton and Dr. Wilde—I saw Dr. Wilde on the Sunday; he was a man of military appearance, rather taller than myself, and stouter—I did not see much of him—he appeared to be a foreigner; I could not say whether he spoke English; I could not say whether he wore spectacles—the defendant had told me that Dr. Wilde was coming in on Sunday morning; he came, and I was afterwards told by Horton that he was Dr. Wilde—I can't say that Horton was caretaker after I left.

Cross-examined. I heard afterwards that Messrs. Elton and Macluer were the owners of the house—I did not notice that there were any foreign labels on the furniture that came in—a Madame Wilde afterwards came to the house—I don't remember Horton telling me that she was coming; she came after some of the furniture had come in—she was in the house while part of the unloading was done—I left the house, in charge of Mr. Betts and Madame Wilde; Dr. Wilde was there—I have not been there since.

Re-examined. I should know Mrs. Wilde if I saw her—I have not noticed Dr. or Mrs. Wilde here.

  JESSIE TERRY . I am the wife of the last witness—I was with him at Oak Lodge on 18th April—I saw the defendant there that day—on 16th April I had been on a message to Stoneleigh House for Madame Wilde—I saw her there—I saw some furniture in the hall—I did not go into any of the rooms—I afterwards saw some that I believe to be the same furniture, at Oak Lodge.

Cross-examined. I went no further than the hall at Stoneleigh House—all I saw there was hall furniture—it is rather a large house—I think there were three or four large pieces of furniture; I could not be positive—I saw Mrs. Wilde afterwards at Oak Lodge—I believe she and the defendant were there when I left—I did not see them when I left.

Re-examined. Mrs. Wilde opened the door to me at Stoneleigh House—I was there about a quarter of a hour or twenty minutes—that was on the 16th, and on the 18th I saw part of what I believed to be the same furniture at Oak Lodge—I did not see Mr. Wilde at all—I was there on the 19th when my husband left—I left at eight in the morning—I expected furniture to be brought from Stoneleigh House to Oak Lodge.

  HENRY BRIDE . I am gardener to Mrs. Hancock, of Marlborough Cottage, Green Lanes, Stoke Newington—our gardens adjoin Oak Lodge at the back—on 18th April last year I remember furniture being moved into Oak Lodge—I saw Mr. Betts there that day—I went into the house and saw him there that night—I know Stoneleigh House; it is in Church by the man that moved in the furniture that it came from Stoneleigh House—I was in Mrs. Hancock's service during the summer of 1891—during May and June I saw the defendant at Oak Lodge once or twice a week—in July last I remember two persons walking up and down the road watching the house—I know Von Weisenfeld—I saw him in June, and had a conversation with him about drains—I did not see him after the two persons were watching the house; he disappeared then—I have not seen him since, only at the Law Courts—he was living at Oak Lodge in June; I saw him in the garden at the back of the house; I have spoken to him there about lawn tennis.

  HENRY HORTON . I was living at Oak Lodge at the time of the examination before the Magistrate—I do not live there now—I am a bottler, and bottle wine for the Concentrated Produce Company; the defendant is the secretary; he pays me my wages—I am in the service now, and live at 2, Balfour Road, Highbury New Park—the Baroness Lydia de Frank does not live there; she comes there to stay when in London; she calls there for letters; she has not stayed there since I have been there—I know nothing whatever of her business; I have never seen her at the premises of the company; I never knew her by any other name—I was introduced to her when I went to live there—on 18th April Mrs. Wilde sent me to take a paper to the defendant—I had known Mrs. Wilde before, for twelve months; I saw her in January and February this year—I know Dr. Wilde; I saw him last December—I was examined at the Bankruptcy Court on the part of the company in support of their bill of sale—the proceedings were adjourned from day to day—I did not see Dr. Wilde about the Bankruptcy Court; he was not examined there to my knowledge—when I took the note to the defendant from Mrs. Wilde on 18th April I saw the furniture moved in—I came with it; it came from Stoneleigh House; Mrs. Wilde gave it to me there; Dr. Wilde was not present—there were three or four pantechnicon heavy vanloads—I remained at Oak Lodge until the furniture was finished removing, on the 18th—I was there on the 20th; I saw Dr. Wilde on the 20th—I became caretaker there about a fortnight after—I remained there until the 25th of March this year; people were not living in the house all the while; Dr. Wilde was living there occasionally—I knew the gardener

next door; more's the pity—I know Von Weisenfeld—in June last year he stayed there—I remember two persons walking up and down outside the house; Von Weisenfeld was not there all the time—he has been there two or three weeks at a time; he never stayed there like Dr. Wilde; he paid occasional visits—they have been there together; they did not occupy the same bedroom—I saw Von Weisenfeld there on the 19th April; he is not Dr. Wilde—I had been to Stoneleigh House before the 18th of April—I had been in the dining-room, the drawing-room, and upstairs, and saw the furniture there; it was not the same furniture that went to Oak Lodge; it was not Von Weisenfeld's furniture—Mrs. Wilde paid me my money as caretaker; I can't say who she got it from, without it came from Dr. Wilde through the Concentrated Produce Company—Mrs. Wilde instructs me as caretaker, and there is Dr. Wilde and Mr. Betts; I take instructions from Mr. Betts when Dr. and Mrs. Wilde are away; they are generally away; I generally take my instructions from Mr. Betts—of the furniture moved from Stoneleigh House, I only saw two things belonging to Von Weisenfeld, a sideboard and a lookingglass in the hall—Mr. Betts lives at Stoneleigh House at present; on the 18th April Dr. and Mrs. Wilde lived there—I did not see Von Weisenfeld there then—I always understood that he left there in October, 1890, when he gave the house up—I don't know that that was after the action was heard; I did not know anything about the action then—I don't know that the looking-glass was his, but it was in his use, and so was the sideboard—the three or four vanloads of furniture were used at Stoneleigh House—Dr. Wilde lived there; I don't know where that furniture is now; I could not say where it was in March; there was no furniture there; I don't know where it had gone to—I was examined before the Magistrate three times, the last time was on 24th July, 1891—I told the Magistrate that the furniture which had been moved to Oak Lodge in April had remained there ever since, and was there then, at the time I gave my evidence—Mrs. Wilde had it moved away the first week in January, 1892—I remember the trustee calling on the 17th January—I did not know that Dr. Wilde had said he had a bill of sale on that furniture; I never heard it till I was told; I did not know that the sale was declared void, and a sham—I do not know that the furniture was removed directly the bill of sale was declared a sham—all I can say is that the furniture was taken away in pantechnicon vans; I don't know where it went to—I don't know what became of the mirror on sideboard—a search-warrant was issued and executed on the premises while I was caretaker—Mr. Birchall, the solicitor, came in under that search-warrant—he had a paper with him; he looked at some of the furniture while he, had the paper in his hand—I never heard of a schedule to a bill of sale.

Cross-examined. I was examined in a room at the Bankruptcy Court on 16th July, 1891, and on 24th I was at Bow Street; I gave evidence, and was recalled and cross-examined the following week—I joined the Produce Company in 1888, and was in the company's employ until 1891 as bottler—from time to time during that period I saw a person calling himself Dr. Wilde; I understood him to be a member of the company—I always took Von Weisenfeld to be the manager—I saw the removal of the furniture from Stoneleigh House—it was the last Friday in March, 1891; I was bottling at the rear of Stoneleigh House, the

factory; the business was carried on there—Von Weisenfeld was there from time to time—it was a company to supply grapes and extract the musk; it is made into a kind of claret—I was going home to dinner about one o'clock, the pantechnicon van stood outside, being loaded with furniture, and when I returned it was gone—between four and five in the afternoon Mr. Betts came down and asked the meaning of it, and I told him—I saw no moving till the Tuesday afternoon, when I saw some furniture being unloaded and moved into the house; it came in a pantechnicon van; it came on a railway trolley—the furniture was being moved into the dining-room—I only saw one van there, it had "Paris" on it—I had occasion to go into the house with a letter; I saw Mrs. Wilde, and had a conversation with her, and then went back to my business—it was the same furniture that was moved into Oak Lodge—I was in the house after the furniture was there—I had occasion to be in the house nearly every day—I always went into the dining-room to see people I wanted to see—I saw Mrs. Wilde, Dr. Wilde, and Von Weisenfeld—I knew Von Weisenfeld well, and I know Dr. Wilde; they are not the same person—the only persons that came to Oak Lodge to ask me for any information was at eleven o'clock at night, and they gave the names of Flaxman and Edwards—that was about a week before the warrant—the furniture had not gone then; it was in the house, and was there up to January this year—I had nothing whatever to do with the removal of it in January—I last saw Mrs. Wilde on 23rd of March this year—I saw her at the house a day or two before the furniture was removed—I had a conversation with Mrs. Wilde as to who it belonged to—I knew from her where Dr. Wilde was generally living when he was not abroad—I have not seen her since 20th March.

Re-examined. The furniture that came from abroad was put into Stoneleigh House, and was afterwards removed to Oak Lodge—I only saw one van, but I was not there all the while; I had business out—at the time I was examined before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams I knew that the ownership of this furniture was in question—I was not asked if it ceased to belong to Von Weisenfeld and belonged to Dr. Wilde—I saw Mr. Elton several times before I was examined before Mr. Justice Williams—I don't know whether he took my statement—I told him that I knew the furniture came from Paris in March, and was then removed to Oak Lodge—I don't think I was asked a single question by Von Weisenfeld's counsel about the furniture coming from Paris—I did not know that the whole question was who the furniture belonged to—I am sure that the furniture that was removed from Stoneleigh House to Oak Lodge was the same that came from abroad, except the two articles I have mentioned; I took particular notice of it—I had been in the dining-room frequently, and seen the furniture there—there was not a walnut wood buffet and a bookcase there of Von Weisenfeld's—I knew to whom each article belonged, because I minded the furniture when they were in the country—there was a dining-table—there were not twelve walnutwood chairs covered with velvet; I did not see such chairs at Oak Lodge—I saw a mahogany clock and a bronze five-light, a barometer and thermometer, a good many oil paintings, a piano, and a cabinet—I never went into the bedrooms; I don't know anything about the bill of sale—I was not aware there was a bill of sale.

By the COURT. I can't say that the articles in Stoneleigh House were

the same that went to Oak Lodge—I say I saw some furniture removed into Stoneleigh House in 1891—I can't say whether it was the same—the furniture brought from Paris to Stoneleigh House was the same that Mr. Birchall saw at Oak Lodge—I don't know that it was the same as mentioned in the bill of sale—it was moved out from Stoneleigh House—I don't know where it went to—furniture went out in October and November, 1890; that was Von Weisenfeld's furniture—I don't know where it went to; it was not there when I went—I was there when the furniture from Paris was brought in—I don't know who brought it in; all I can say is that "Paris "was on the van in painted letters—I don't know whether the persons that brought it in were foreign or English—it was a two-horse van—I did not ask where they came from—I could not read the name of the owner, because it was in foreign letters, different from ours; the word "Paris" was in English—Madame Wilde is a foreigner, and Dr. Wilde also—I have never seen any foreign prints in their house—I never spoke to the persons that brought the furniture—the goods were packed; I could not see what they were.

  EDGAR BYRON PHELPS . I am a manufacturing agent—about Christmas, 1890. I entered into the occupation of 58, Bishopsgate Street, with Von Weisenfeld—the prisoner used Von Weisenfeld's office, and I had the private office—I last saw Von Weisenfeld about March twelve months-after that the prisoner came to the office—letters came for Von Weisenfeld during his absence, which the prisoner would take away—as far as I know the prisoner represented Von Weisenfeld at those offices—since I last saw Von Weisenfeld the prisoner has given me a letter from him; if had an envelope, but when I saw it it was open, with no envelope; it was an enclosure apparently, delivered to me by Betts.

Cross-examined. I have a libel action against Von Weisenfeld, which is still pending, and I am also in litigation with the Concentrated Produce Company, I believe—I have the scrip of one share in the company, but I believe I am not entitled to it, from what my solicitor says.

Re-examined. The company brought the action against me last year, I think—I have heard nothing more about it—the statement of claim has been delivered, and I have not heard anything more about it.

  CHARLES FRANCIS BULLARD BIRCHALL . I am a solicitor, of 5, Mark Lane—I have been acting for Mr. Hendry—Mr. Flaxman is my managing clerk—we acted in the bankruptcy proceedings—this is the office copy, I think, of the bill of sale, 1890—I am acquainted with the litigation that has been going on, ex parte the Concentrated Produce Company re Von Weisenfeld, and the different claims that have been made on the property—the company claimed the furniture at Stoneleigh House under this bill of sale, which is from Von Weisenfeld to the company over the bankrupt's furniture—the consideration is £270, I think—it has been alleged that the company have made an assignment or something—there is an inventory attached to the bill of sale—about 3rd of July last year I went to Oak Lodge, where I found Horton in possession—I had the bill of sale in my hand; I went over the house, and compared the furniture in it with the schedule, and the articles we found there answered the description given in the schedule; we did not find some pictures that should have been there—an offer was made with reference to that furniture, which they said was in Oak Lodge, in the bankruptcy proceedings, by a solicitor or

his clerk, acting for the company, of £275—they said it belonged to Dr. and Mrs. Wilde—I was not aware of the removal of any furniture from Stoneleigh House when I examined the prisoner at the Bankruptcy Court—I had reason to think until the removal of the prisoner on 28th May that the furniture was still there—a week or ten days after the prisoner's examination I traced it, and I then applied for a search-warrant under the Bankruptcy Act to inspect the property—the warrant was granted, and I went and searched; that was the occasion I spoke about—the furniture was left where it was, because other proceedings were pending—the Court made an order that it should not be removed—in July I took proceedings before Sir John Bridge, who said it was a rule there that if civil proceedings were pending with regard to the subject of criminal matters the criminal matters were postponed till the civil matters had been determined—I think that is the course—the civil matters were all determined on 25th March in the favour of us and the trustee.

Cross-examined. I heard nothing about the removal of the furniture till I heard it had been removed—I got the summons under the 22nd Section, partly because I could not find where the furniture was—Mr. Elton, a solicitor, said at the Bankruptcy Court that he was appearing on behalf of Mr. Betts, I understood.

GUILTY — Six Weeks' Imprisonment.