The Proceedings of the Old Bailey

 

719.   JOHN CHARLES CLACK , Unlawfully causing   Jane Gregg to endorse an order for £280, with intent to defraud.

MR. C. F. GILL. and MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS. Prosecuted;

MR. HORACE AVORY. Defended.

On a previous day MR. GILL. had applied for an order to inspect the banking account of the prisoner's wife.

MR. AVORY. contended that this account was the separate account of the wife, who was no party to these proceedings, and therefore the COURT. had to power to make such an order.

The COMMON SERJEANT. declined to make such an order against a third party.

  EDWARD JACKSON BARRON . I am a solicitor of the firm of Barron and Sons, 55, Lincoln's Inn Fields—we acted as solicitors to the administrator of the estate of Mr. Ramsay, who died intestate in August or September, 1892—a claim on that estate was put forward by the prisoner for Mrs. Gregg—the amount was somewhat indefinite—one item was £260, and there was a general claim, which I have here—I had twelve or thirteen letters written to me from time to time down to January, 1893, when I settled the matter on behalf of the administrator by agreeing to pay £280—there was some question as to the amount the family were willing to pay; the first suggestion was £140, but ultimately, after consulting the next-of-kin, the administrator agreed to give £280—I do not know whether this document (produced) ever came into my possession—I never saw it; it is addressed to Mr. Clack, authorising him to receive such sum as he might think proper—I wrote this letter with reference to it on the 14th June; Mr. Clack was a little pressing to get the money. (Stating that they were making final arrangements to wind up the estate, and promising an early settlement; the postscript stated that they had seen the adminstrator, who was willing to wind up the estate provided Mrs. Gregg accepted £140, although they hoped to get her more.)—I then wrote him another letter of the 15th June, substituting the enclosed for Mrs. Gregg's signature—I thought it a case in which compensation was proper—I produce the two documents; the latter one was sent to me signed and witnessed—I got a cheque for £280 shortly afterwards, and then received from the prisoner this letter, dated 5th July, acknowledging the receipt of my letters, and promising to obtain Mrs. Gregg's receipt, and requesting that the cheque might be drawn in his own name—after that I received a receipt for the £280, and paid the cheque in return—at that time my client had signed the cheque payable to her order, and on 8th June I handed the cheque to a messenger, and received this receipt signed by Mrs. Gregg—it did not come back to me; it was not my cheque—it was endorsed, "St. George Gregg"—I saw Mrs. Gregg in the matter two or three times before that, but never afterwards till these proceedings were initiated, and she came to my office to tell me what had happened.

Cross-examined. The claim was, in my opinion, one which could not be legally enforced; it was a moral claim rather than a legal one—she entertained the opinion that the deceased had left a will in her favour; it was put in that way by the prisoner—I think she would have got the sum without him, but I think he did the best he could for her—he got £280, when we had offered £140—if she had accepted the £140, I still think she would have got the £280; it was a question whether they should give her £10 or £20 apiece—it was not entirely through the prisoner's efforts that she got the money—I repudiated the claim altogether at first as a legal claim—I think the prisoner told me that the money was proposed to be used in setting Mrs. Gregg up in some business or school—I heard that his wife was a great friend of hers—there is no doubt that this receipt is signed by him—it was written out by my clerk in my office—the £280 is written in words—the receipt is witnessed by Theodore Grabler, clerk to Mr. Clack, and upon that I paid the money on Saturday, July 7th.

Re-examined. In my letter of the 14th June I say that I am prepared to obtain for the lady £140, and next day I myself suggested the substitution of £280.

  JANE GREGG . I live at 5, Morton Terrace, S.W.—I have known the prisoner two or three years—I was acquainted with his wife before and after she was married—about two years ago I had a claim against the estate of a deceased person in respect of which I learned that Mr. Barron was acting—the prisoner spoke to me about it—I used to visit them at their private house, and it was there that he spoke to me—he knew that I had a claim, and he offered to act for me, and I consented—that was a few days after Christmas day, 1892—I saw him several times at his office and elsewhere at the beginning of 1893, chiefly at his office—I did not I then claim any specific sum; I sent in a general claim—early in July he told me that the amount was to have been £160—I knew that he was in communication with Mr. Barron, the family solicitor—I went and saw the prisoner a few days before I received any money from him, at his office in Bow Street—I signed one or two documents without reading them; he put them before me—this is my signature; it purports to be a receipt for £280—the prisoner said, "I wish you to sign a paper waiving all future claim on the estate," and I did so—I did not read it—Grabler was not there when I signed it—I knew him as the clerk—I did not know when I signed it that the sum of £280 appeared on the face of the document—nothing was said about the payment of the money on that occasion, but a few weeks afterwards he wrote to me to come to his office and sign a cheque—I went into his room;" nobody else was there—I sat by the side of his desk, and he asked me to sign a cheque; I put my name to it—this is what I refer to. (Pointing to the endorsement.) It was placed ready for me to sign—before I signed it I turned it over, and found it was for £160—he had mentioned just within the last few days the amount he had got for me—I then left the office—I saw him at his house next day, or the day after, in Charles Street, Rutland Gate, and signed a receipt for £160, and received the money—I then offered him £25 as a fee for his work—he said, "No," he would only accept £15—I also paid him £5, which was owing to Mrs. Clack, and I took away £140—up to that time I had never heard any statement from anybody that £280 had been paid by Mr. Barron—the prisoner said nothing about the £160 being on account of any larger sum—I thought it was a full settlement of my claim—after receiving it, I said I wished to thank Mr. Barron for his kindness—the prisoner objected to my doing so, and said, "The matter has been in my hands"—we then parted—I was at that time in the receipt of £50 a year from my brother—that was all my income—it did not all come from my brother, but from my relatives; it was paid by my brother—I received no further sum after that on account of the estate which Mr. Barron was administering—I never heard £280 mentioned till July, 1894—that was about the time I received a letter from Messrs. Wilson and Wallace—I then went to Mr. Barron and made inquiries, after which I swore an information at Bow Street before Sir John Bridge, and afterwards gave evidence there.

Cross-examined. I was on intimate terms with Mrs. Clack fifteen years before she was married; on close affectionate terms—she had been very kind to me and helped me—I wrote this letter to her on the day

before she was married to the prisoner. (Congratulating her and expressing her gratitude, and hoping that the Good Samaritan would reward her.) After she was married there was less intimacy, but she was not less kind—she lent me her house, 16, Charles Street, to live in for some weeks—It is her own house there was never any difference between us, and I had no reason to know that she was likely to do me any injury—she never suggested that I was extravagant with money—I have been trying to get a situation all the summer—it was suggested that I should take music pupils, but I never entertained the idea of a school—it was more than once suggested that when I got this money I should invest it so as to bring me in some livelihood—if I had enough I should have taken a house and let it—I spent the £140—I did not carry it all about till it was all spent, I put some of it in the Savings Bank merely to keep it till I spent it—I made no investment of it in any business—my brother went on paying the £1 a week—I was at the Police-court on the first occasion when the prisoner was charged, and heard him say that the money was ready for me and always had been—he complained that he had not even been asked for any explanation before the charge was made—at a later stage of the case Sir J. Bridge said that the money had not even then been paid over; I did not hear the prisoner or his solicitor say that he had been to the Treasury and offered to pay it over—I have heard that the £120 has been paid to my brother without interest—I have received a bankers' draft for £120—I did not authorise my brother to receive it for me; it was done without my knowledge; I do not know why, I think it might as well have been paid to me; I have not got it yet—I first made a charge against the prisoner in consequence of a letter I received from a firm of solicitors in Bow Street, in consequence of which I went to Messrs. Wilson and Wallace—I did not know that Mr. Grabler had been to see them—after that I went to Messrs. Barron, and then wrote to Wilson and Wallace, instructing them not to proceed further in the matter—it was after that that an information was sworn at Bow Street—Grabler was not a party to that—I was not aware when I swore it that Grabler was also swearing to it; I had not the least idea what he was swearing—I knew he was swearing about two cheques, but I had not read his information—I did not know for what purpose this information was being laid before the Magistrate—I did not know that Grabler had given information—I appeared on the second hearing, and stated to the Magistrate that I did not intend to go on or prefer any charge against Mr. Clack—I said, "Sir John, cannot I retire from this case? I have been led into it"—he said that he could not allow it—I know that Mrs. Clack has means of her own—I knew she was quite honest, and that she was a proper person to keep money for me—this is my signature to this document "C." (Authorising the prisoner to receive any sums he thought proper from the estate, his receipts to be a sufficient discharge.) I also signed "A." (Agreeing to accept £280 if paid within three months of June 17th, 1893, in full satisfaction and discharge of her claim.) Rut it was put before me in this way (folded), so that I did not read the body of it—Mr. Clack told me that it was a document waiving any future claim—it has nothing on it when folded except my signature—I may have turned it over, but I do not think I did; I did not read it—I will swear I did not see £280—only Mr. Clack was present,

it was in his office—on July 7th I signed "B." (Acknowledging the receipt of £280 from Mr. Barron in full discharge of all claims on the estate of the deceased.) That was also folded—I will not be sure I did not turn it over, but I swear I did not read it—in one was present when I signed it—it was signed at his office—if I turned it over, it was to look at it, but he told me what it was—I swear the two documents were not read to me before I signed then, and I do not remember the attesting signature being put in my presence—I suppose I said at the Police-court, "I am not in the habit of signing business documents; I will not swear the two documents were not read to me at the time"—I said what was true £280 was never mentioned—I endorsed the cheque for £160 in Mr. Clack's office—no one else was present—I had an impression that Mr. Grabler was present when I received the money, but he was not present when I signed the cheque—I received the £160 on the same day that I endorsed the cheque—I said first, "The defendant wrote to me to go to his house to receive the money. I then endorsed a cheque, which I turned up and saw it was for £160, I then received the money from the defendant, £160"—it was not at his house, but I suppose I said so—I suppose I said, "I got my money the same day that I endorsed the cheque, that was at the defendant's private house"—I cannot tell how many cheques I endorsed—I signed something one day and Mr. Clack wished me to go again and sign something else—I signed "Jane Gregg" only; St. George was my husband's name—I understand that it is being suggested that when I endorsed the cheque it was for £280—this blue cheque is longer than the other—I went to Mrs. Clack's house to receive the £160—I do not know whether it was on July 12th, but it was very shortly after I signed the receipt; it was four or five days after I endorsed the cheque—I received it in bank notes—I do not remember when I endorsed the cheque for £160 drawn by Mrs. Clack, and I did not remember when I was at the Police-court—I did sign my name on a cheque for £160—apart from that endorsement, I do not remember endorsing a cheque for £160 drawn by Mrs. Clack in my favour—I should not refuse to take a crossed cheque, because I do not know anything about crossed cheques—I know that a line is drawn across—I see Mrs. Clack here—I had not discussed with Mrs. Clack before the £160 was paid to me how much of it was to be paid to me and how much was to he retained; nor that £160 would be quite sufficient for my present wants, and that the remainder she could keep for a rainy day; nor did I say, "You know what I am; I should only spend the money foolishly if I had it all," and ask her to keep it for that reason—she suggested my putting some of it bank—I dined with Mrs. Clack after that, and visited her on other occasions—a servant named Annie used to wait at table. (Pointing to Annie Cowper.) After July 12th allusion was never made to the balance of money Mrs. Clack had in hand for me—a few weeks after I had the money she called my attention to the governess agency in Welbeck Street, and advised me to go there—I went to Folkestone soon afterward—I did not take lodgings at live guineas a week; I went to a boarding-house, and paid three and a half guineas for everything—I was there a fortnight—I spent the money entirely—Mr. Clack positively refused my paying him £20—it was he

who suggested £15, if I wanted to pay him anything—he took up the matter originally as a friend; that is why I did not read the documents.

Re-examined. I had great confidence in him—there is no truth in the suggestion that I consented to £180 being kept by Mrs. Clack; until I saw Wilson and Wallace I had no idea that I was to receive £280—at the time I wrote that letter to Mrs. Clack I had been in great trouble—Mr. and Mrs. Clack suggested that I should put some of the £180 into a bank—they went to Scotland after the money was paid to me, and were away a few weeks.

  THEODORE GRABLER . I live at 63, Newman Street, Oxford Street, and am clerk to Mr. Pickersgill, the barrister—from September, 1892, to January, 1894, I was the prisoner's clerk at 15, Broad Court, Bow Street—I am a German—there was no other clerk except towards the end of 1893—a letter-book was kept, and a call-book, diary, and petty cash-book—the entries in the diary were made by the prisoner, and I had a diary of my own—he had no banking account while I was there—if any large sums were received, he told me he generally paid them into his wife's account—I know of no account but his wife's that he could pay a cheque into—he kept a cheque-book, and filled in cheques which were already signed by Mrs. Clack, and I sometimes changed them—I knew that he was in communication with Messrs. Barron with reference to Mrs. Gregg's affairs, and she used to come to the office—I remember his receiving a cheque from Mr. Barron for £280—there is only one office, but the back room is used as a waiting-room—clients come in at the back door—Mr. Clack said, "Don't be long at the Police-court. I want to give you some instructions, Mrs. Gregg is coming to endorse the cheque, and is very talkative; I am very busy, and when I cough you knock at the door, and say that I am required"—Mrs. Gregg came early one morning, and went in, and in ten or fifteen minutes I heard Mr. Clack cough—I looked in at the door and said, "Mr. Clack, you are wanted"—Mrs. Gregg was then sitting at Mr. Clack's desk with a pen in her hand, but she left almost directly—after she left Mr. Clack sent me out—I was away twenty minutes or half an hour, and when I came back he was in rather an excited state—he used the same office as I did—he said, "Mr. Grabler, I want you to help me with this"—he had a paper in his hand, and I put my glasses on, and saw two pieces of paper attached one to the other, but partly separated, and said, "What the devil have you been doing?"—he said, "Never mind what I do; you do what I tell you," and asked me to take hold of the two ends of the green cheque—I did so—he had the white cheque in his hand—I saw at once that they were cheques; one was greenish and the other white—he suffers from rheumatic gout, and can only use the thumb and forefingers of both hands—I took hold of this green cheque, and he pulled the white one from in front of it—I said, "Mr. Clack, you will tear the cheque"—he said, "Well, put some water on the edge; damp it"—I damped the edge of the cheque, and then he pulled the white cheque off, and threw the green one on his desk, and tore the white one in pieces, and took half a sheet of blue draft, and put the pieces in it, and threw it in the grate and set light to it—there was no fire in the grate—the cheque he put on the table was endorsed by Mrs. Gregg, and he said, "I am going to pay this into my wife's bank"—he said, "Mrs. Gregg is a friend of mine, and I

had to do this to get something for ray costs; she is an old friend of my wife's, and I did not like to ask her for anything"—this letter ("N") is in Clack's writing, "15, Broad Court. Dear Sir,—Please collect the enclosed cheque for £280, and pay the same into Mrs. Clack's account To the Manager of the London Joint Stock Bank, Westminster Branch"—this is a book of counterfoils of that bank; most of them are in Mr. Clack's writing, but some are in a hand which I do not recognise, and which looks rather like a lady's writing—when I left Mr. Clack's employment in June, 1894, I went to Mr. Havelock, a solicitor, and after that to Mr. Pickersgill, the barrister—that was eight or nine weeks ago—I was in the service of Messrs. Wilson and Wallace before I went to Mr. Clack—I went and saw Mr. Wilson in July—I made a statement to Mr. Pickersgill, and after that I swore an information—Inspector Marshall came to Mr. Wilson's office, and heard what I had to say—I was not present, I am sorry to say, when Mrs. Gregg signed this receipt for £280—it is signed, "Jane St. George Gregg," and my name appears as a witness—Mr. Clack asked me to witness the signature—he said it looked more business like—I did not know that any fraud was intended, and I witnessed it the same day, or the day following, but I was not present when it was signed—he said it would look better to have it witnessed—I remember hearing that he had got the cheque from Mr. Barron, and Mrs. Gregg came to the office the following day, or a day or two after.

Cross-examined. I became a barrister's clerk on June 18th—I have not been clerk to any other banister than Mr. Pickeregill—I first went to Messrs. Wilson and Wallace about a week after the prisoner proved an alibi at Bow Street Police-court by false evidence, two or three days before the information was sworn—I have been clerk to five or six solicitors during the last sixteen or seventeen years—I have not been in constant employment all the time—they were mostly gentlemen who practised in the criminal Courts—I left Messrs. Wilson and Wallace at the end of October or November, 1892—they did not discharge me; I had a little difference with Mr. Wilson, and left of my own accord, but after that he found out that I was in the right; he acknowledged it himself—he did not request me to leave; he said I told him a lie—I said, "No, sir, I have not," and took my hat and walked out of the office—I left Mr. Clack because he came back from this Court to the office at eight p.m. not very sober, and commenced to pick a quarrel and said, "You can go"—he had given me in the morning two lists of witnesses to be served with subpoenas, one marked "S" and the other "F," which were to be voluntary; and he complained that the subpoena list had not been filled up, and discharged me for alleged neglect of duty—I had certainly not neglected my duty—I was not a bit angry at being discharged—he never complained to me of my having been to his private house drunk on several occasions, and I never heard that he had complained—after I left him I was with Mr. Havelock about eight weeks, and left because there was no business—I knew that £280 was going to be paid for Mrs. Gregg—I did not suspect any fraud was being committed till I saw on the first cheque that there was £160, and I thought Mr. Clack had taken a good slice out for his costs—I thought he wanted to put the difference between £160 and £280 into his own pocket—I thought it was dishonest—I simply carried out his orders—I

should not have picked anybody's pocket if he had told me to do so—I did not know what he meant, because the whole thing did not take ten minutes—after they were separated I thought I was taking part in a dishonest transaction—I took "Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law," and read there that anybody knowing that a felony I has been committed, or assists in the concealment thereof, is guilty of misdemeanor, and the prisoner proved an alibi, and I got frightened, and spoke to Mr. Wilson in confidence—this is the paragraph, section 157—I represent to the Jury that on July 15th, 1894, my eyes were first opened to the transaction by the passage in "Stephen's Digest"—I was then clerk to Mr. Pickersgill—the case in which the alibi was proved was at Bow Street in the week before July 15th; it was after the Court was over; it was the common talk; it was something I heard—I want to remove a wrong impression, I am here as a witness against my own will: as soon as Inspector Marshall heard this he started the case; the prisoner is not in the dock by my revenge; he is there by the police, through the subornation of perjury—I mean that I am not vindictive against the prisoner, but that this is a prosecution by the police, who wished to bring this man to justice in consequence of his having brought forward a false alibi—on my oath I did not communicate with the police before I went to Wilson and Wallace—I spoke to Mr. Wilson in confidence, and he said, "Yes, it is so"—I then gave information to the police, which led to this prosecution—I seriously ask these gentlemen to believe that with fifteen or sixteen years' experience I first learned on July 15th that a man who assists in a felony is himself liable—I did not think I was doing wrong if I carried out the orders of my master in a transaction which I found out afterwards to be dishonest—Mr. Clack had a cheque-book on the Imperial Bank at the commencement—they were of a whitish colour, and some were greenish—I swore more than once at the Police-court that the cheque which I saw in Mr. Clack's hands was on the Imperial Bank—there are two or three cheques on the Imperial Bank, and in one the word "Imperial" is crossed out with a red line, and the words "London Joint Stock" put in—I swore that the other cheque in his hands was on the Imperial Bank—I have got the receipt here—this is my signature, but I never witnessed Mrs. Gregg's signature to anything—I swore at the Police-court that it was not my signature, but was an imitation—I was being cross-examined when I was asked that, and I acknowledged that I had made a mistake—I was under the impression that it was an imitation of my signature—after swearing that I was shown a copy of the receipt, which I had copied myself on the same day after it had been signed—the copy was made to keep, the original was sent to Mr. Barron—it is since that document has been shown to me I have this day given this story about putting the signature after Mrs. Gregg had gone—I ratified my statement at the Police-court, but it was not taken down—I went back to the witness-box after I had signed my deposition, because I was recalled by the Magistrate, and I admitted that I had made a mistake, and what I said was not taken down—I said, "Yes, it is my signature"—what I said when I was recalled was taken down and read over, and signed by me—having stated such an important matter, I did not ask to have it put on the depositions, because I was taken by surprise; I had forgotten all about the transaction—

Mr. Clack never made a confidant of me—this story about the cough is not fresh to-day; it is in the sworn information to the best of my belief—it is the usual way of getting rid of talkative clients—Mrs. Gregg gave her evidence at the Police-court before me, and she was in Court when I gave my evidence—I was not present, as she suggests, at the prisoner's house when £160 was paid to her—I did not see her from the time she endorsed the cheque except for two minutes—I never saw her at the office after the endorsement of the cheque—this letter sent to the bank, naming the amount of the cheque, £280, has been copied into the letter book.

Re-examined. I was nearly three years with Messrs. Wilson and Wallace—I said at the Police court that the second cheque was on light coloured paper and drawn on the Imperial Bank—the cheque I had in my hand was the green one, on which I saw her endorsement—I copied the letters in the letter book; there are some in it to Mrs. Gregg—here is one of May 23rd, and another after that without date—there is no letter of July 12th or 13th—there are only three in the book—the last date in the letter book is February 26th, 1894—I made a statement to Mr. Wilson and saw Inspector Marshall two or three days afterwards, and informed him of what I knew about this matter—there had been a charge at Bow street against two Englishmen who robbed two Americans, and Mr. Clack acted for the Englishmen—I do not recollect attesting the signature of Mrs. Gregg at all—I never witnessed her signature to anything, and at the time this was produced I believed it was not my writing.

  WILLIAM SINCLAIR CAMPBELL . I am a clerk in the Joint Stock Bank, Westminster branch—the Imperial had a branch there, and it was made a branch of the London Joint Stock Bank—we took over the accounts—there was an account there in Mrs. Clack's name which was opened at the end of 1892, and is still open—this counterfoil cheque-book was issued by the London Joint Stock Bank as it is now carried on—the counterfoils have been filled up—No. 308 is missing, and No. 309 is cancelled for cash on account of Mrs. Gregg for £160—the next counterfoil is July 12th, 1893, £160 to self or bearer—that counterfoil cheque was brought up to me in cross-examination at the Police-court—cheque 350 of July 12th for £160 was cashed—we return cheques to our customers in the pocket of their pass-book—we have not got the pass-book; Mrs. Clack called for it personally from time to time—I am not aware that the prisoner ever called for it, or anybody else—it was taken from the bank about every quarter—this cheque for £280 was sent in this letter for the purpose of collection, and the amount was placed to the credit of this account—I have the £160 cheque here; it was cashed on July 12th—I have not got a certified copy of the account.

Cross-examined. The bank had to receive dividends from time to time, which were credited to Mrs. Clack's account—the account was only opened after she was married—I had been a clerk in the Imperial Bank before—their bearer cheques Mere green and the order ones grey; this is a specimen—on the business being taken over we used the surplus cheques by erasing the name and printing the other, till the supply was gone; but we should not have dishonoured cheques of the Imperial Bank if the name had not been altered—the cheque corresponding to this counterfoil marked

"Cancelled" in Mrs. Clack's cheque-book never was a green one, and never was marked "Imperial Bank."

  WALTER BORWICK . I am manager of the Victoria branch of the Joint Stock Bank—Mrs. Clack had an account there, which was opened with the Imperial Bank in September, 1892, after her marriage—it was one of the accounts we took over—I have got a certified copy of it from July 1st, 1893, to the end of July, 1894—she objects to our producing it, and I wish to take your ruling upon it. (MR. GILL. submitted that the account was admissible. MR. AVORY. contended that it was not relevant to the case. The COMMON SERJEANT. held that it was the prisoner's account although it was in his wife's name, and could be given in evidence.)

By MR. AVORY. We received dividends on her behalf; we held documents which stood in her maiden name, and the marriage certificate enables us to get the dividends—she generally fetched her pass-book, but occasionally we sent it to her by post—she was the only person who was entitled to draw on the account.

By MR. GILL. The balance at the end of 1893 was 5s. 4d—I see a cheque drawn to self for £190—she borrowed £190 of the bank on securities in November, 1893, and this cheque was drawn two days after in one sum—previous to July, £300 was placed to her credit—roughly, the credit balance in November, prior to the loan, was about £30—by the end of the year the £300 and the £190 had been exhausted, and the £280 cheque had been exhausted, and there was a balance of 5s. 4d.—the audit balance in July, 1892, was about £60, and on March 1st this year about £20—we had given her a further loan of £60 in February, 1894—the next loan was £150, on March 20th, before which the account was overdrawn by £50—that was operated on by small cheques, the largest of which was £30—there was another loan of £100 in May—the balance in June was £34, and at the end of July about £17.

Cross-examined. We held securities for a very much larger sum than Mrs. Clack ever required or borrowed—I should honour her draft up to £150, and not mark it "Not sufficient"—some of her dividends are payable in April and October; the interest on a mortgage is due in January and July—the entry of this £250 is noticeable in her pass-book; one of the securities we held was the lease of the house in Charles Street, Rutland Gate—that is in her own name.

Re-examined. We knew nothing of her husband as a customer—I produce some specimens of cheques; they are all one size, in books up to 100 each; those which are four in a page are a different size—those issued to Mrs. Clack were all the same size.

  THOMAS HENRY GUERRIN . I am an expert in handwriting, of 59, Holborn Viaduct—I was instructed by the Solicitor to the Treasury to make a microscopical investigation of this cheque for £280, and I find in the top, bottom, and side margins traces of an adhesive snbstance, apparently gum; also in three places traces of paper of a much lighter colour, which has adhered to the cheque, and in other places, traces showing that the fine surface of this cheque had been removed apparently by some other substance, which has been detached from it—the paper which I found adhering to the cheque appears to have been torn from some other paper—I should describe the paper torn away as cream colour, similar to this cheque for £160 of the

London Joint Stock Bank—one piece is adhering to the left margin, and has a scalloped edge similar to the edge of a cheque torn from the counterfoil—the size of the cheque is about the same—I have examined the £160 cheque, and the scallops are similar—they are a little larger in some cheques—the writing on the face of counterfoil 350 is apparently the same at that on the cheque for £160, the same coloured ink, and the same kind of pen—I should say that this writing on the back of the counterfoil is Mr. Clack's—it is the same coloured ink, but fainter; it is a lighter shade—the ink will come off if you blot it—I should say it is done with a finer pen; a steel pen, I think.

Cross-examined. This is not the first time I have given evidence about gum—it does not appear as if some other cheque had stuck to it of its own volition—the appearance was not that of two cheques adhering by accident—if two cheques adhere accidently I should not anticipate their joining with mathematical symmetry—the appearances of this cheque are such as of a piece of paper having been placed on it. (Placing the cheques on each other.) There is a margin of blue showing—the blue cheque is 1-16th of an inch longer than the other—there are several places in the cheque where there is no gum at all, but there is gum at each corner—the counterfoil, "Cancelled for cash on account of Mrs. G.," is written with the same ink and blotted—if it was blotted it would dry lighter.

  HENRY MARSHALL . (Police Inspector E). The facts of this case were brought to my attention on 18th July—I made inquiries when application was made by Mrs. Gregg not to go on with the case, and it was taken up by the Public Prosecutor.

  WILLIAM EWING . I am a shorthand writer—I was present before Sir John Bridge on 24th July, and took a shorthand note of the prisoner's statement—this is a correct transcript of it. (This was an application by the prisoner, as some of his papers were mislaid. He stated that the charge was made through the malice of a discharged clerk, and that the prosecutrix did not wish to proceed with it.)

Cross-examined.—I have got my book here—I did not take Grabler's evidence—the prisoner gave an order to take notes of his application, not to me; I was employed by the man he employed—I was only there to take notes for the newspapers.

Evidence for the Defence.

  ANNIE COWPER . I was house and parlour-maid to Mrs. Clack, at 16, Charles Street, Rutland Gate, from January, 1893, to January, 1894,—I have since been parlour-maid at Twickenham—I am now a ladies' maid at Dorking—I remember Mrs. Gregg coming to Charles Street as a visitor when I was there—she frequently dined there with Mrs. Clack—on several occasions I have heard them speak as to money that was coming to Mrs. Gregg—I saw some bank-notes—I was in the house when they were paid to Mrs. Gregg by Mr. Clack—Mrs. Clack had been to the bank to fetch the notes, and she came back that afternoon about five o'clock—after that day I saw Mrs. Gregg at the house on several occasions—she afterwards dined there on several occasions with Mr. and Mrs. Clack, and sometimes with Mrs. Clack alone—when Mrs. Clack was alone with Mrs. Gregg she said, "I have money in reserve for you to the amount of £120"—I do not remember any reply

—I heard several times after that that notes had been handed over to Mrs. Gregg—on several occasions I heard Mrs. Clack tell Mrs. Gregg she ought to take some little school; a school at Clapham wax spoken of most, to take pupils—Mrs. Clack also spoke to me about the money which Mrs. Gregg was to receive several times—Mrs. Clack managed the money matters in the house, saw to the payment of bills, and so on—I have seen her draw cheques for that purpose.

Cross-examined. I have been with the lady I am now with about four months—I have known Mrs. Clack about eighteen months—I entered her service in January, 1893—I stayed a year—I left her to go and nurse my mother, who was ill at Richmond; about January, 1894—I was with her about two months, perhaps a little over; then I went into some other service because Mrs. Clack could not wait for me—I stayed about two months; it was at Twickenham—then I went to Dorking about three or four months ago—the lady I was with at Dorking was a friend of Mrs. Clack—I have known the lady I am with now about twelve months as coming to Mrs. Clack's house, and staying in the house, sleeping there—when I was with Mrs. Clack I kept my place as a maid to a lady—she talked to me about her private affairs—I heard that Mrs. Gregg was going to get some money several times; it was discussed when I was waiting at table—I was always in and out and up and down and I heard the conversations when I was waiting at table—I first heard of it between June and the end of July last year; July I know it was—I cannot say how often Mrs. Gregg came to the house before the money was paid; it think more than twice—the sum mentioned that Mrs. Gregg was to receive was £160—that was in June—I first knew this in June, 1893—I was present when she received it—I knew it about a fortnight before it was paid—I understood Mr. Clack was acting as a friend to Mrs. Gregg in the matter—I knew he was a solicitor—Mrs. Gregg came to the house during the fortnight—she was told she was to receive £280—both Mr. and Mrs. Clack said so—she was to have £160 on that day, and Mr. Clark was to keep £120 for her—I knew that about a fortnight before—I do not remember what Mrs. Gregg said—she seemed pleased that the money was coming to her, and was to be kept for her—Mrs. Clack was to keep it, because Mrs. Gregg would spend it; she was very extravagant—Mrs. Gregg said she might spend it if she had it all, and she asked Mrs. Clack to keep it for her—Mrs. Clack consented to do it, and she thanked Mr. Clack—it was to be put to her banking account—I cannot say who fixed the sum at £160—Mr. and Mrs. Clack and Mrs. Gregg were at dinner—I cannot say the day of the conversation, only the month, June—I went to Mrs. Clack as house and parlour maid—there was no cook—I used to cook, and sometimes she helped me—I was not exactly a general servant, but a domestic help—sometimes we had a charwoman and sometimes a woman to cook the dinner—I cooked the dinner the day Mr. and Mrs. Clack dined there—I was backwards and forwards, and after dinner I was downstairs—I think the money was mentioned when I was clearing away for dessert—both Mr. and Mrs. Clack mentioned it, but I cannot remember every little thing—Mr. Clack said £280 was coming to her, and she was to have £160—I do not think it was that day she asked Mrs. Clack to keep the money for her, it was one evening afterwards—I was told a paper was signed—

I was not in the room when the money was paid—I was up and down stairs, and I said, "What, a lot of bank-notes there are on the table," and Mrs. Clack said, "They are to be paid to Mrs. Gregg"—I saw Mrs. Gregg come into the room—I knew she had the money—I did not see her get it—Mr. and Mrs. Clack went to Scotland in August—I said before the Magistrate: "I remember the day that £160 was given to her; I saw the notes; after that day Mrs. Gregg once or twice visited the house"—Mrs. Clack, when she visited the house after that several times, told Mrs. Gregg she had the money for her—I cannot remember what it was she said, nor when I last saw Mrs. Gregg at the house, it is such a long time ago—I have been to see Mrs. Clack several times since I left her—I went about a character—she got me my present situation—after I left I stayed there one night when I came to London to go to Dorking in May—I stayed at Charles Street, when I came up to give evidence before the Magistrate, with the lady I am with—after that I went back to Dorking—I have been staying in Charles Street about three weeks—Mr. and Mrs. Clack have been away—I came up to give evidence on 12th August—I then went with Mrs. Clack back to Charles Street.

Re-examined. Since I gave my evidence at Bow Street Mr. and Mrs. Clack have been away from the house at Charles Street—they have been staying at Staines—I remember the day the money was paid to Mrs. Gregg—I do not remember the exact words used, but £120 in addition to the £160 was to be paid to her—I heard it more than once; it was mentioned in Mrs. Gregg's hearing—I am sure I remember distinctly hearing Mrs. Gregg ask Mrs. Clack to take, charge of £120 for her—I did not tell the Magistrate that—I was not asked that—I said before the Magistrate, "While waiting at table after the money had been paid, I heard Mrs. Clack tell Mrs. Gregg that now she had got the money she should use it for some good purpose; take a little school with it, with the money handed to her by Mr. Clack"—I do not remember anything else distinctly—I heard that the money was £160, and that Mrs. Clack also had £120 in hand for Mrs. Gregg, and that £120 was for the business—I heard that said several times.

The prisoner received a good diameter.

GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. The JURY. stated that they wished to exonerate Mrs. Clack