20th April 1909
Reference Numbert19090420-37
VerdictsGuilty > with recommendation
SentencesMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

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

MCLEAN, Gordon (36, waterman), and WARNER, George, otherwise Edward George Dunmore (37, waterman); McLean obtaining by false pretences a certain valuable security, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment and of the value of 30s., with intent to defraud; both obtaining by false pretences the sum of 2s. in money from Thomas Arthur Ellis, with intent to defraud; Warner, obtaining by false pretences on January 15, 1909, from Frederick Charles Goodchild, the sum of 5s.; on January 26, 1909, from Frederick James Butler, the sum of £1; on February 19, 1909, the. sum of 21s.; on February 22, 1909, the sum of 10s.; and from Oswald Henry Clarkson on March 11, 1909, the sum of 21s., in each case with intent to defraud; McLean, obtaining by false pretences on December 24, 1906, from Walter Alfred Ives, the sum of £1, and on March 8,1909, from Claude Aaron Hickman, the sum of 23s. 6d.; in each case with intent to defraud; attempting to obtain by false pretences on January 23, 1909, from Frederick Charles Goodchild, certain money with intent to defraud; Warner, unlawfully committing wilful and corrupt perjury in the testimony which he gave upon oath, as a witness at the trial of a certain cause between the owners of the s. s. "Envermen" and the barque "Stant" and her freight, and the steam tug "Champion," in the High Court of Justice (Admiralty Division); both conspiring and agreeing together with divers others to defeat the ends of justice and prevent the course of justice.

Mr. Trevor Bigham and Mr. Harben prosecuted.

HARRY PERRY , 8, Albion Villas, Leytonstone. I am a clerk in the employment of Messrs. Swepstone and Stone, solicitors, 31, Great St. Helens, who were instructed to bring an action against the owners of the "Runswick" in connection with this collision. I saw the prisoners at our offices on March 3. They came to say they were sent up by the captain or pilot of the "Prince Charles" with reference to the collision. McLean stated that they were master and mate of the tug "Traveller," which was following up the "Prince Charles," and that they had seen the collision. I told Mr. Ellis, and he told me to tell them we were not taking any statements

just then, but to take a note of their names and addresses, which I did. They were 5, Alexandra Cottages, Lewisham High Road, and 18, Pear Street, Canning Town. They asked if they would be allowed anything for expenses. I spoke to Mr. Ellis about it, and he told me to give them the price of a drink. I gave McLean 1s. and told him to give Warner half of it. They grumbled, and wanted to know what sort of a drink they could get with it. I took the shilling back and eventually gave McLean 2s., and told him to give Warner half of it. On Friday, March 5, I had a telephone message and recognised the voice as McLean's. He said he had received a letter from Messrs. Cooper and Co. asking him to call (they are the solicitors on the other side—for the "Runswick"), or to give them an appointment when they could call and see them, and he wanted to know if we wished to take a statement from them or whether they should call and see Messrs. Cooper. I told him that Mr. Ellis, who had the matter in hand, was out, but that I would mention it to him on his return, and we would write him. I did so, and wrote asking him to call, which he aid the next day, and saw Mr. Ellis in my presence. He made a statement about the collision which I took down in shorthand, and afterwards made a transcript of it (produced and read): "I am the captain of the tug 'Traveller.' At the time of the collision I was coming up the river following up the 'Prince Charles.' I had a string of four barges behind me," etc. The "Prince Charles" was the ship we were acting for. I do not remember whether I gave it to McLean or to Mr. Ellis. I left the room for a time and went to the outer office. I afterwards saw McLean again in Mr. Ellis's room, when I saw him endorse this cheque for £1 10s. (Exhibit 4), dated March 6, which foe 'handed to me to cash, and I gave McLean the money for it. I saw him again the following Tuesday, March 9, when he called with, another man and said his boat had had a smash-up (the "Traveller"), and that they had been round to see Mr. Harvey about it, and that tine man with him was his engineer. He said he thought as they were in the City we might wish to take a statement from the engineer, so they thought they would call. I told them Mr. Ellis was out and asked them to call back later.

To McLean. On the first occasion when you called you said you were sent up by the captain or pilot. You did not not say it was a fellow with a black moustache I asked you if it was a man with a rather long moustache. I may have made one or two mistakes certainly in my shorthand notes. There were several corrections when it was read to you. You did not make any objection to the statement when the transcript was read by you. The statement you gave might bear out the statement of the captain of the "Prince Charles" in some respects. I heard his statement and yours—there is a lot of difference between them. I have not got his statement with me. I saw you when you called on Saturday, and Mr. Ellis came out as well. He told me to give you the price of a drink. You did not say, "I did not come here for no drinks." I did not know

that by arrangement with Mr. Ellis you had to call Tuesday or Wednesday.

To Warner. I gave you no money on that occasion; only 2s. to McLean. That is the only time you came to our office. You both asked for expenses.

To McLean. I did not hear Mr. Ellis say to you that if there were any corrections to be made you were to come there on Tuesday or Wednesday. I saw him give you that cheque in payment of loss of time, and I gave you the money for it in Mr. Ellis's room. You signed it in his presence. I did not hear Mr. Ellis say if you wished to make any alteration in your statement you were to take it home with you and read it over.

ARTHUR THOMAS ELLIS , solicitor, partner in the firm of Swepstone and Stone. We were instructed by the owners of the "Prince Charles" in an action against the owners of the "Runswick." I saw the prisoners on March 3, when my clerk, Perry, brought me a message, and I went out and saw them in the lobby. I said to McLean, "You are captain of this tug?" He said, "Yes." And to the other man, Warner, "You are the mate?" He said, "Yes." I told them at that moment I was not taking any further statements, but I instructed my clerk to take their names and addresses. The name of the tug mentioned was the "Traveller." McLean was the spokesman. He then said, "What about our expenses?" I told my clerk, Mr. Perry, to "give them the price of a drink" (I think the words were), and then left. I believed their statement. If I had known it was not true I certainly would not have ordered any money to be given them. On Friday, March 5, I had a conversation with Perry about the matter, and on March 6 I saw McLean again, when he was brought into my room. McLean gave me a statement of facts, and it was taken down by Perry in shorthand. I asked him how it was he came to see me, because apparently he came voluntarily, and he told me he was sent up by the captain or pilot of the "Prince Charles." The "Prince Charles" has not a pilot. I asked him to describe the man and it fitted in, I thought, with Captain Davis, of the "Prince Charles." I then dictated his statement to Perry. I think, as a matter of fact, the most material part was taken down in his actual words. I do not think I altered that at all. When it was transcribed it was brought back into the room. I told him to read it through to see if it was all correct. He read it through and said it was quite correct. I think before he signed it he inquired about his fees, but I am not quite sure whether it was before or after. He ultimately signed it, and he asked me what he was going to get for it. I told him I supposed the usual guinea. He said that would not do, because it was a very valuable statement and nobody else could tell me the special facts contained in that statement. I admitted it was more or less so, and paid him the 30s. he asked for, and gave him a cheque for it, which he signed in my presence. Exhibit. 3 says: "I am captain of the tug 'Traveller' At the time of the collision I was coming up the river following up the 'Prince Charles,"' etc. I believed that statement. Had I known it was

untrue I should certainly not have given him any money. He says in the statement that he heard a dispute between the captain and the engineer as to whether he had been told to go astern or ahead. As to this statement I may say the case is still sub judice. I saw. Captain Davis on Monday, and later I saw Parker. On the 9th I again saw McLean at my office, also Mr. Walter Ellis, who is connected with the owners. McLean brought the statement with him. He had taken it away with him to consider and see whether he wanted to make any alterations in it between Saturday and Tuesday. Knowing it was false, I put to him, "Are you quite sure that is correct?" and he said it was. I said, "It is a very funny thing, because I have just left Captain Parker and he says he is the real owner of this tug and does not know you at all, and that the tug never goes to sea without his being on board. I then showed him Captain Parker's business card (Exhibit 2). I said, "Is that the card of your tug 'Traveller'?" and he said, "That is right." But he explained that Captain Parker was really the managing owner and he did not really go out in her—that he (McLean) was the effective master of the "Traveller." He said he would see Captain Parker and get at the bottom of the matter, that it was very puzzling, and he would make inquiries and convince me. I asked him how he could explain it and convince me, and he showed me his license, of which I promptly took the number.

To McLean. I dictated the statement to my clerk and he read it. I cannot read shorthand. After it was transcribed my impression is you read it or he read it. I asked whether it was all right. I had never seen you before in my office. Your statement does not corroborate that of the capain of the "Prince Charles" altogether—in fact, on one particular point it quite contradicts Captain Davis's statement. I gave you three models and put them on the table and asked you to show how the ships came into collision. You placed them more or less to my satisfaction, showing how the collision occurred according to the captain's evidence. It was not very clear, but that was explained by the fact that there was a thick fog at the time and you were a good way off. I gave you money for your loss of time and expenses really. I do not purchase truth or falsity. You called at my office on the Tuesday by arrangement. I do not think I saw anybody else with you. I heard there was somebody in the lobby. I should naturally place more reliance on the word of the captain of the tug than a mere waterman in a boat. I believe you have been very successful in seeing collisions. I cannot contradict that you told me the previous day there were three collisions within the space of 20 minutes. We come to you sometimes and we sometimes leave word with anybody to send witnesses up to our office that we want. I am not sure we asked you who sent you when you came on the first occasion. No doubt if a perfect stranger came to my office and volunteered to give evidence I should ask who sent him. I was only there for a few minutes and my clerk for some few minutes. I went out and left you in my room for a quarter of an hour or 20 Minutes. I saw you sign the statement and cheque. I think my

clerk was there. I do not remember telling him that you had made some mistakes in your statement. No doubt on the shorthand notes being read over alterations would be made in them and a part would be transposed. I do not recollect anything special.'

Re-examined. A person on the deck of a tug, generally speaking, would have a better opportunity of seeing what happened in a collision than if he were in a boat on the water. If a person were on a tug following up the "Prince Charles" he would have a splendid opportunity of seeing what occurred, and such a witness would be of the utmost value.

THOMAS PARKER , 442, New Cross Road. I am master and part owner of the tug "Traveller," register No. 56,529, and have been master of that tug for bordering on 20 years. I know McLean by sight. I did not know his name until this case. He was never master of the tug "Traveller," of the port of London, or one of the crew. I never employed him. I do not know the other prisoner. He was never mate of the tug "Traveller" nor one of the crew. When the lug is under way I am always with her. At the time in question she was nowhere near the accident between the "Runswick" and the "Prince Charles." I know nothing of it. I know of no other tug called "Traveller," of the port of London. This is one of my business cards. I may mention that I have been to a great deal of expense and lost a lot of money over this affair, and my boat being uninsured I have been obliged to keep her moored, and therefore I do not allow her to go away unless I am on board, and I have lost a lot of work through it. I did not write "Waterman's license," or anything on the back of that card.

To McLean. I have had a pretty good many years' experience on the water, and have known you and always understood you to be a respectable man, and that you got your living by mooring steamships and taking them up. Sometimes I see a lot of collisions. You would be in a better position to see collisions than I should if you were knocking about in a small boat. It is the rule for a waterman if he sees a collision to go to the solicitors and give a statement, or they come after you. I have seen you on board ship towing and in a boat.

FREDERICK HENRY DAVIS , master of the ship "Prince Charles." I do not know either of the prisoners. I never told either of them to call on Messrs. Swepstone and Stone. I remember a collision occurring between my steamship and the steamship "Runswick" on February 23 last. We were not carrying a pilot. I was on the bridge. I did not see a tug astern of me at that time with a string of four barges behind it. If it had been there I should have seen it.

To McLean. I could see at the time of the actual impact about 100 yards. I know the ships that I did see astern of me. I saw the tug "Britannia" pulling the "Runswick." I did not see a tug with coal barges named the "Diligent." I saw the "Italia." I did not see her come round under the stern of the "Runswick," nor did you, I am sure. Since the collision I have had a statement from the captain of the "Italia." and he passed the same way as us—

ahead of the "Runswick." It is a mistake of the captain of the "Italia." You say the "Italia" went astern of the "Runswick" and starboarded. I fetched up an anchor sometime after I got clear of the "Runswick." I could not see the south shore but the north. I did not say at the police court I could see a hundred yards each side of her. I did not see a boat on the "Runswick's" stern.

CLAUDE A. HICKMAN , director of Fielder, Hickman and Company, lightermen and bargees. I remember a collision on February 25 last in the Albert Dock, when one of our barges was seriously damaged. Need I name the barge, because this case has not come on yet, and I do not want to say anything that might prejudice it. I placed the matter at once in the hands of our solicitors, Messrs. Clarkson and Company. I saw McLean on March 18 at my office. He said that he had heard about our collision, or seen it, and had a letter from Messrs. Cooper asking him to give evidence on behalf of the ship. That is the other side; but as he thought the barge was in the right he preferred to come and offer it to us. I immediately telephoned to Messrs. Clarkson, and told them. I told McLean to go round to Messrs. Clarkson, and I would come round very soon after, which I did. I was present part of the time when Messrs. Clarkson took down the statement from the prisoner. I remember his saying he was working on the Beckton Jetty on the day of the collision, and had been down to moor a ship called the "Holmwood," and saw the collision on his way back about 5.20 or 5.40. I went back to Messrs. Clarkson's office, and they read the statement through and I paid him a guinea and he signed it When I paid him I absolutely believed his statement, otherwise I should not have done so. On March 11 I was at Messrs. Clarkson's office when I saw prisoner Warner there with a man who gave the name of Archer, I think. This man gave the name of Mason. I am quite sure he is the man.

To McLean. Your statement did not altogether bear out the facts spoken to by our lightermen, who did not see as much as you profess to have seen. We have other witnesses who practically agree with your statement.

OSWALD HENRY CLARKSON , of the firm of Clarkson and Co., solicitors. On February 25 we were instructed by the firm of Fielder, Hickman, and Company, in reference to a collision between one of their barges and a ship. On March 18 McLean came to our office, and Mr. Hickman followed within a few seconds. I took a statement from McLean (Exhibit 13). I read it over to him, and he signed it. It says: "Gordon McLean. I am a transporting pilot, and on the morning of February 25 was standing on, the lower side of the Beckton Jetty," etc. This action is still pending, and if I could avoid reading the whole of the statement I should be much obliged. (Certain portions of the statement were read at the Judge's request.) I saw Hickman give McLean 21s., I think it was. I then certainly believed his statement or I should not have taken his evidence. On March 11 two other men came to my office, one of them being Warner, and giving the name of "George Mason,"

and the other "Archer." Mason said he was a stevedore, and he and his friend were working on the steamship "Memro"; that they began work at 5.30 and returned home. He said they witnessed the collision. I told them we really had enough evidence, but this man seemed a respectable man, so I took a written statement from him. (Exhibit 14.) The word "stevedore" appears. "Statement of George Mason and James Archer. Om the morning of February 25 we were working on the s. s. 'Memro,' owned by Messrs. Tyser," etc. (reading a portion). I gave Mason one guinea, and he was to divide it with the other man. I certainly believed what he said or I should not have given him the money.

To McLean. Whatever you told me I took down at the time, and it is in that statement. You told me you were mooring the steamship "Holmwood" at Beckton Jetty, and were returning home, and that you were a transporting pilot. I understood you that you assisted pilots, or if they are not there you do it yourself. I am positive you said you were' mooring the ship.

To Warner. We had a long discussion whether we should take your evidence at all. You did not offer to leave the office. Mr. Hickman did not say, "Well, we have them here, we might as well have a joint statement of the two of them. It is a recognised thing to give witnesses a guinea for their expenses. I got a guinea from my cashier and gave you the money and told you to divide it with Archer. I went through the whole facts and took down your evidence in writing, and read it over to you to sign it. What you told me corresponded with what really occurred. I cannot say whether I that showed you were in the vicinity at the time.

To the Court. The facts could be ascertained otherwise than by a man who saw them. I believe there is a recognised gang of these men that get information from one another.

Re-examined. McLean's statement was read over by me to him and he had the opportunity of making any corrections in it before he signed it. I have compared the statements of these two men with regard to the accident and they substantially agree.

JAMES HENRY MILLS , pier master, Beckton Jetty. I was in charge on February 25 from 5.30 a.m. I know the steamship "Holmwood." She is frequently berthed there. She was not there that day. She arrived on the 21st at 11.45 p.m. She moored on the 23rd at two a.m., commenced at 4.30 a.m., cleared at 9.30 p.m., and sailed on the 24th at two a.m. She returned on March 1. I do not know either of the prisoners.

To McLean. I know it was the morning of the 25th, because I have it on the ship's certificate. I could not answer the question of the Guildhall Police Court, but I have the certificates. I did not see the ship go away. I got the information from the clerk in charge. When a ship is emptied of her cargo she reports to me.

Re-examined. I know the "Holmwood" was not being moored on the morning of the 25th.

THOMAS PINER . I am a stevedore in the employ of Captain Were, master of the stevedores of the Tyser Line, to which the steamship

"Memro" belongs. She was lying in the Albert Dock on February 24 and 25. I was in charge of the stevedores. We started work at seven a.m. on both days and left off at five p.m. There would be no men at work in the stevedore's department. I do not know Warner and he was not working with us on those days. We had no one working for us of the name of Mason.

FREDERICK CHARLES GOODCHILD , managing clerk to Trinder, Capron and Co., solicitors. In January last I had the management of the case of the tug "Champion," when an action was brought by the "Envermeu" against the tugs "Champion" and "Staut." We were concerned for the cargo owners only of the "Staut." The "Envermeu" were the plaintiffs. They were cross actions and the "Champion" and "Staut" were hostile parties. Two men came on January 15 and gave the name of Dunmore (Warner) and Archer. Dunmore brought a note from the Brokers' Chartering Company, and said he had come to give evidence against the "Champion," and that he was the master of the sailing barge "Pride," and Archer said he was the mate of that vessel. I then took a statement from Dunmore, which was taken down in shorthand by a clerk. It was not read over to him; it was transcribed after they left (Exhibit 6). He said at the date of the collision he was on board his vessel lying off Piper's Wharf, East Greenwich, and that from there he had witnessed the collision. They then asked for their expenses. Archer made a separate statement and confirmed Dunmore. My clerk gave them 5s. each. Dunmore said, "Can't you make it a piece of gold?—for it appears to me the man has been paid as much as his master." I refused to give him any more. When the money was paid I believed his statement or I should not have paid it. On January 23 the other prisoner called and said he came to give evidence against the "Champion." He dictated his name and address to my shorthand clerk. I let him run on at first. He said he was in a boat when he saw the collision. I then asked him several questions, and told him I thought he had got hold of the wrong state of facts. He asked for his expenses for coming up. I declined to give him anything. I remember the case being heard in the Admiralty Court, when McLean was called as a witness by the firm representing the "Champion." I was present. He was cross-examined by counsel representing the "Staut" cargo owners. I remember his being asked by Mr. Stevens of counsel whether he had ever seen me, and he said lie had not. I was pointed out and he was asked the question several times. He said he did not know where our office was, if I remember rightly. He was called on a subsequent day by direction of the Judge, and on that day (page 27, Exhibit 5, of the transcript), he was again asked whether he had seen me, and he said he had not been to Messrs. Trinder's office, and did not know where their offices were.

To McLean. You called at about 11 a.m. It was the first time I had seen you.

To Warner. Your statement was transcribed after you left. You did not sign it. You did not say you had been at our brokers all day, and Mr. Nelson had sent you round with a letter. You handed

me a memorandum from him. Your statement was not correct in many details. The general outline was correct. It does not follow that you were "close handy" at the time.

JOHN BULLOCK. AS shorthand clerk to Mr. Goodchild I took down Dunmore's statement in shorthand and transcribed it. Five shillings was given to each of the men in my presence. Dunmore asked Mr. Goodchild if he could make it a piece of gold, as, from what he could see, the man was getting as much as his master. On January 23 McLean came and I took his name and address in this book. He said he had come to give evidence. He talked with Mr. Goodchild for some time, and then Mr. Goodchild said he thought he had got hold of the wrong set of facts. McLean asked for expenses and loss of time, which Mr. Goodchild refused to pay.

To McLean. I should recognise you anywhere. I should not take notes of what you said until called upon to do so. You were not pointed out to me.

FREDERICK JAMES BUTLER , clerk to Smith and Hudson, solicitors, Fenchurch Street. In January last my firm was instructed by the owners of the tug "Champion" in an action of the "Envermeu" against the "Champion." On January 23 McLean called with one of the owners of the "Champion," who told us that McLean had witnessed the collision and could give a statement, which was taken down in. shorthand and typed and he signed it (Exhibit 10). (Portions of the statement were read.) We paid him £1 12s. 6d. for travelling expenses and attendance, for which he gave a receipt (Exhibit 11). We believed his statement or should not have paid him. On January 26 Warner called and said he was willing to give a statement, which we took. This is a carbon copy (Exhibit 12). I cannot find the original which he signed, "Edward Warner." (Read.) I gave him £1 for expenses, which we did believing his statement that he was master or mate of the sailing barge "Pride," and had seen the collision. On February 19 we served McLean with a subpoena, giving him £1 1s. upon it, and the action came on on the 22nd and 23rd. We paid him £1 on February 22 for his attendance. He was called as a witness in my presence, his evidence substantially carrying out his statement. We also served Warner with a subpoena on February 19. He was not called into Court and we paid him 10s. for his attendance.

To McLean. We doubted you after we could not find a telegram you were supposed to have sent. I know Mr. Smith has known your father and may have known you. You came in with Mr. Page.

To Warner. I think I was present at all the interviews you had with Mr. Smith. You disappeared twice from the Court—I fetched you back once.

EDWARD JOHN HARRIS , clerk in the Admiralty Registry. I, produce the file of proceedings in the action by the owners of the steamship "Envermeu" against the owners of the "Champion," tried in the Admiralty Division of the High Court, before Mr. Justice Bargrave

Deane, on February 22 and 23. I was present. The usher administered the oath in my presence.

ROBERT EDWARD STUTCHFIELD , assistant to official shorthand writer, Admiralty Court. On February 22 and 23 last I took shorthand notes of the trial of the action in question, and the evidence of Gordon McLean, of which this is a correct transcript (produced).

(Monday, April 26.)

Mr. Trevor Bigham stated that on considering the matter he desired to call no evidence on the count for obtaining money by false pretences from Butler, and the first five assignments of perjury would also go; the case would go to the jury on the last count.

ROBERT EDWARD STUTCHFIELD , recalled, produced transcript of the evidence of McLean on February 22 and 23, and further extracts were read.

JAMES WYLE , clerk in the Registry Office, Board of Trade. A record is kept in my office which contains the names of registered sailing vessels. I cannot say if it is obligatory on sailing barges to be registered. There are nine vessels of the name of "Pride," four of which are registered in the British islands in the period in question. The "Pride of Faversham" is a coasting vessel, I believe a barge; from July 1 to December 31, 1908, she was laid up. The "Pride of Lowestoft" is a sailing fishing vessel which was unemployed from December 18 to December 31, 1908. The "Pride of London," a sailing vessel, was at Falmouth from December 23, 1908, to January 2, 1909; before that she was on a voyage from Aberdeen to Falmouth. The "Pride of Runcorn" was trading between Liverpool and Birkenhead during the half-year ending December 31,1908. Those are all the vessels named "Pride" registered in the British Isles of which. I have a record.

ALFRED EDWARDS , inspector of the Watermen's Company. If a barge is plying in the Port of London down to three miles below Gravesend it must be registered at Waterman's Hall; it should be also in the "Shipping Register" of the Board of Trade, in the office which I believe the last witness came from.

EDWIN BRIDGER ANDERSON , shipwright, employed by the British Industrial Corporation. My company own the sailing barge "Pride of Faversham"; it has not been in the port of London for three months until to-day, when she arrived here. In September last my firm went into liquidation, and the "Pride of Faversham" has been lying in the river Swale. I do not know either of the prisoners; neither of them has been employed on that vessel. I know of no other sailing barge named "Pride."

Detective-inspector WILLIAM NEWELL , City Police. On March 17, in company with Detective Amos, I saw Warner in the Strand. I said, "We are police officers. I have a warrant for your arrest for that you, with a man named Gordon McLean, did, on March 3, obtain 1s. each by false pretences from Arthur Thomas Ellis, a solicitor, of the firm of Swepstone and Stone, 31, Great St. Helens. He said, "My name is Dunmore. I do not know a man named McLean."

I had addressed him as "Warner." On the way to Bishopsgate Police Station he said, "McLean had 2s. I did not have any money What do you say I am charged with—obtaining 1s.—I did not see the affair. I was on Blackwall Pier." I afterwards read the warrant to him—he made no reply. When charged he said his correct name was Dunmore, but he had been going in the name of Warner, I had not then cautioned 'him. On March 16 I was at Tanners' Hall in company with Detective Amos when I saw McLean. I said, "I believe your name is Gordon McLean?" He said, "You have made a mistake; my name is Mitchell." I said, "I shall have to ask you to accompany me to Messrs. Swepstone and Stone, solicitors, 31, Great St. Helens. I may as well tell you that we are police officers." We then proceeded to Swepstone and Stone's office, where I saw a clerk there named Perry. I said, "Is this Gordon McLean?" He said, "Yes." McLean said, "I am Gordon McLean." I then told him that I had a warrant for his arrest, which I read to him. He said, "That is right, but not false pretences—we saw the collision." (To the Judge.) I had not cautioned him. We do not always caution people; we had an order some years ago from our Commissioner that we were not to caution people, but to listen to what they had to say. I did not ask any questions at all. (To Mr. Bigham.) They were voluntary statements. He said, "We saw the collision. I was in Warner's boat." When charged he said, "I have a complete answer to it." On the way to the police court he said, "I admit we did wrong by stating we were on the tug." He was searched and notebook (produced) was found upon him.

Cross-examined. McLean said at the station that his wife's mother was very ill—that was a. fact. He was arrested a couple of hundred yards from his home. Dunmore said his right name was Dunmore, and that he had used the name of Warner for some considerable time. I think he said his licence was in the name of Warner.


GORDON MCLEAN (prisoner, on oath). In the first charge against me with reference to the collision between the "Prince Charles" and the "Runswick," I admit I stated falsely at the police station that I was in the tug. I was in the boat and I saw the collision. The boat belongs to a man named Richards, and I saw the collision in Greenwich Beach as we were coming up on the flood tide. Three or four days afterwards there was some inquiry at Greenwich about witnesses who saw this collision in Greenwich Beach between the "Prince Charles" and the "Runswick." The man that told me about it had a very dark complexion. I went to Swepstone and Stone's and told them that I had seen this collision. Of course, I knew at the time that they did not like evidence from a man in a boat, but I told them the true facts how the collision occurred. Mr. Ellis asked me certain questions, and he was quite satisfied with my answers, and he said, "I cannot take your statement to-day, but I will write to you." Two

lays afterwards Thomas Cooper and Co. left word at Greenwich Pier for me to call at their office. I telephoned to Swepstone and Stone to ask if I should go to them first; they said they would write; I got a letter the same night to be at Swepstone and Stone's office to give my statement. I did so, and Mr. Ellis was quite satisfied with it; he said I bore out the captain's facts. He also asked me to show by three models how the ships came into collision, which I did, and he was quite satisfied. He told me to call on Tuesday or Wednesday following, and said, "McLean, if you wish to take anything off that statement or add anything do so." He paid me 30s. As to the next case, the collision in the dry dock, I had been down to Beckton Jetty, and on my way Sack in the morning I was waiting in tie cutting on the bridge, where all the ships go through. Two barges were floating through the cutting, and a ship was also entering the cutting when, the ship jammed one of the barges against the side of the wharf. I went to Hickman, and told him what I had seen. He took me round to Clarksons, who asked me certain questions—or rather Mr. Hickman asked me questions about the collision before he took me round there, and he thought that my evidence was very good; he said it bore out what his own man said. The next charge is that I denied having made a statement to Goodchild. When I was asked the question I did not recognise the gentleman who was pointed out to me. When I said I had never been to Trinders I understood the question to be whether I had ever given that firm a statement; I did not know the name of the firm was Trinders then; the only statement I have made is to Smith and Hudson.

Cross-examined. I admit that the "Traveller" part of my first story is an invention I was not the captain. I did not tell Perry that Blackwell was the engineer—that is a mistake of his. I fetched the man with me, but I do not remember saying he was my engineer. I never said the captain of the "Prince Charles" had asked me to call—I said a gentleman with a black moustache had asked me to call—I did not know whether it was the captain or the pilot—I could not tell who it was. I and Warner saw the collision from Richards' boat. It is untrue that I brought a man three days afterwards to give evidence—a man came with me but he did not give evidence. In the second case I saw the collision from a cutting in the Albert Dock. I did not say I had been mooring the s. s. "Holm wood"—I said I had been to the "Holmwood." She went away at half-past four or five that morning. Mills has nothing to do with the berthing of the ships; he may be pier master. I have known Dunmore for three or four months. I came to know him through his giving a statement to Smith and Hudsons. I did not know that he had given a statement to the other side. I had not seen Mr. Goodchild to my knowledge; I did not see him on the 23rd, the day stated; I did not see him about the case; he has mistaken me for another man. On the morning I was giving evidence in the Law Courts I was mistaken for another man of the name of Gale. A clerk to Messrs. Coopers said, "Your name is Gale." I said, "You have made a mistake." "Well," he said, "you have the appearance of

him. It is no good your trying to get out of it." I said, "You have absolutely made a mistake; my name is not Gale at all." I understood from other people that somebody has been about using my name, and I have come to the conclusion it is the man Gale. I have a witness from Watermen's Hall who will tell you he has something of my appearance. Mr. Goodchild and his clerk must have made a mistake. The clerk says I called at this office at 12 o'clock; Goodchild says half-past 10.

ALFRED EVANS , recalled. The man Gale does resemble McLean in build, but not in speech or voice. Anyone who had seen both men before would never mistake one for the other.

GEORGE WARNER (prisoner, on oath). My name is Edward George Dunmore. Respecting the collision between the "Runswick" and the "Prince Charles," I was on Blackwall Pier on February 23; McLean and I were in the boat we had rowed up in, and we saw the s. s. "Brunswick" with a tug named the "Britannia"; the "Prince Charles" was coming up the river, and it came into collision with the "Runswick." I went to Swepstone and Stones with McLean and they gave McLean 2s.; they gave me no money, and I never went there to give a statement afterwards. With respect to the collision between the barque "Ciric" and the tug "Careful," I and another waterman named Mortimer rowed up Greenwich Reach; we noticed a vessel called the "Invermeu" lying off at anchor, and the barque "Ciric" proceeding up the river came in collision with the ship lying at anchor. Some days afterwards I (happened to be in the street when I met a man named Powell, and from speaking to him he took me round to Cullum Street, the Chartered Company's office, or rather the brokers for the barque, where I spoke to Mr. Nelson. He gave me a letter to go to Trinider and Capron where, after staying the best part of the day, I made a statement and received 5s. I never signed the statement nor was it read over to me. Hearing sometime afterwards they were not going to call me, I was taken to Smith and Hudsons. I gave them the statement and received £1. Some weeks afterwards Mortimer received a letter to call at their office, and I received a subpoena and £1 1s.; then I attended the Law Courts for two days and received 10s. Mr. Smith was not satisfied on one point—I did not happen to be in the corridor of the Court on the second day, and he suggested that I should refund the money. In regard to the case of the barge "Philberic" colliding with the ship "Wellington," I was in the Albert Dock—I had been aboard a ship and came through to the cutting, where there is a swing bridge, when I noticed these two barges, one astern of the other coming through the cutting. Then there was the ship coming across the basin with two tugs. Whilst waiting for the bridge to swing I saw the damage done to the barges. Some days afterwards I saw a lighterman, who works for Pildrick and Son, in the Albert Dock, and told him what I saw of the affair. He asked me why I did not go up and see Clarksons, their solicitors, in Lime Street; he said, "They would be very pleased with your statement, but it is no good your saying you are a lighterman. If I were you I should say I was a

stevedore, and no doubt they will take your statement." I went to Clarksons, made a statement, and received 10s. I said I was a stevedore—that was not true. The reason I passed myself off as the mate of the sailing barge is that the solicitors do not place the same value on a man that is in a boat as on a man who says "I am a captain" or "a mate of a sailing barge" or "a tug." The statement I made of what I had seen is correct.

Cross-examined. In the case of the "Envermeu," I made two statements. In the first I said the collision was all the fault of the tug "Champion"—because the pilot never followed the direction of the tug. This statement was never read over to me or signed by me. I gave that statement to the solicitors who were acting against the tug. In my opinion the tug should have passed the Envermeu" on the port side. In the second statement which I gave to Smith and Hudson I said it was the fault of the barque. My intention was to say that the captain of the tug, being ahead of the barque, could see further in the fog than the pilot who was on the forecastle head of the barque. The statement I gave Smith and Hudson is true: both statements you will find are almost the same. My real name is Edward George Dunmore. I have been in business under the name of Warner as a fishmonger. I have always given my right address. I gave the name of Mason because a man named Davis said they would not take the statement if I gave it in the name of Dunmore—if they knew I was a lighterman—I should not be paid for it probably. It was a coincidence that McLean went up with me to give evidence. I had heard of McLean, but I did not know him personally so well as I know him now. We only made acquaintance with regard to the "Ciric" and the "Champion"; being up together about it we got chummy together; but previously I have heard of his name as working on the river.

To McLean. There is no truth in the statement that I and McLean have been acting together in these cases of Caprons, Smith and Hudson, and Clarkson; the only time I have been with him is when I went with him to Swepstone and Stone. The date I saw him I was on Blackwall Pier; we got in the boat and rowed up to the top of the Reach—that is the first time I have been afloat with McLean in a boat.

McLean (to the Jury). I hope you will see how these cases against me stand. I was wrong in calling myself the captain of a tug, but the other parts of my story are true. If I had not seen it how could I have given the true account of the collision? The solicitor's clerk made a great mistake in saying that I said the man with me was the engineer. This man came into the office with me because he was going to see if they would take his case up against another firm for smashing his boat. I never said he was an engineer. I had never seen the man before. With regard to saying I had never seen Goodchild, what I said was I would not swear to it. Then the clerk said I was there about 12, and Goodchild said I was there about Does it not look as if there had been a mistake between me and another man? Then it is said that the facts I stated do not correspond

with what he said. If we had been together, surely we would have given the same facts.

Warner (to the Jury). I should like to mention I have had 20 years experience on the water, and being out in a boat, it is not uncommon for us to see these collisions between steamers and other craft on the river. During the 20 years I have been on the river as waterman and lighterman I do not suppose I have given more than 12 statements. I have been in custody for six weeks, otherwise, if I had been at liberty, I could have brought eight or ten witnesses forward who could have proved that I was in the vicinity at the time of these collisions; but, not knowing their addresses and only knowing them by sight, I could not send for them. It is not disputed that my statements follow the facts which really occurred. With regard to Swepstone and Stone, I never received their money, nor gave any statement. It is true I went with McLean and they gave him 2s. Mr. Harris said to his clerk, "Here is 2s.—let them get a drink."

The Jury found both prisoners Guilty, adding, "It appears to be a common practice for watermen to make these sums of money by giving such evidence; probably they are not aware of the serious nature of the practice which appears to be in vogue; we do not think the prisoners were aware what it might lead to. We trust your Lordship will be lenient with them."

McLean was proved to have been convicted on October 14, 1904, of larceny from a boat and fined £1 14s., doing 14 days' hard labour in default; he was also charged with fraud in 1892 and 1895. Prisoners were stated to be licensed watermen in regular work.

Both prisoners were released on their own recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon.


(Saturday, April 24.)

View as XML