13th July 1874
Reference Numbert18740713-475
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

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

475. THOMAS COLLINGRIDGE (69) , Unlawfully and with intent to defraud, forging and counterfeiting the trade mark of Harrison Frodsham and another. Second Count—With intent to enable another person to defraud.

MESSRS. F. H. LEWIS and GOODMAN conducted the Prosecution; and MR. A. B. KELLY the Defence.

GEORGE MOORE . I carry on business at 84, Strand, with Mr. Harrison Frodsham as watch manufacturers—my predecessor was Charles Frodsham, and he used a particular trade mark "Charles Frodsham, 84, Strand, London"—upon succeeding to that business I purchased it and the right to put his name on the watches—that license was in writing from the trustees—in purchasing the business I purchased the license—we now use the name Charles Frodsham and put it on all our watches—we sell watches besides those of our own manufacture, but we put "Examined by Charles Frodsham"—we do not put the name on any watches that we have not either made ourselves or examined, and we also put "84, Strand, London"—in the beginning of March last Mr. Ford of the Poultry brought a watch to be repaired—I produce that watch—it is marked "Charles Frodsham, 84, Strand, London, 14881"—there was no name on the face—it had had a name but it was rubbed off—it is the custom to mark the principal parts of the watch inside, and that should correspond with the number on the watch—the number on the case is 438, and the number on the watch is 75438—I took the watch to pieces when it was brought to me to be repaired—I made that watch for Mr. Lloyd in November, 1865—I never saw it from that time until I saw it in the Strand—when I made it I was carrying on business in St. John Street Road—I have the book here relative to that watch—the manufacturing number which I stamped on the works of that watch when I made it was 75438—the date is November 10th, 1865—at that time I was not a member of the firm of Frodsham—I have only been so three years—I put the name on that watch of "W. J. Lloyd, London"—there is a slight mark on this plate of the beginning of the letter "N" for the word "number," that is all, the other has been filed and taken out—my employer was Mr. Lloyd—the number I engraved for him was 5438 instead of 75438, leaving out the 7—when I manufacture for a small maker I put on a smaller number—it is not a consecutive number in Mr. Lloyd's books—I am able to say positively that was the identical watch that I made—Lloyd is a watchmaker, and inasmuch as it would have looked suspicious for Lloyd's number to have been 75438 I left out the 7—throughout the works the number 1s. 75438, but the number that is seen is 5438—I had dealings with Mr. Frodsham before I went into his business, when he put his name upon a watch which he had not made himself, after the watch was completed he would spend 4l. or 5l. more in timing it and examining it—he would not even trust to me to finish them.

Cross-examined. In 1865 I was a manufacturer for the trade—the name of Lloyd was put on the watch although it was not made by Lloyd at all—I am not aware of another Frodsham at the Royal Exchange—there is a firm of Parkinson and Frodsham in Change Alley, and my predecessor was a son of that Mr. Frodsham—"Parkinson & Frodsham" is their mark, and the mark of our firm is "Charles Frodsham"—there is no Charles Frodsham in existence—there is Harrison Frodsham, the son of Charles, and we call ourselves Charles Frodsham, 84, Strand, and I say we purchased the right of so describing ourselves—it is a conveyance by the trustees to us—I have not got that conveyance here—my mark in 1865 was 75438—I and my predecessor had manufactured that number of watches.

Re-examined. I came into the present business in August 1871—I think Charles Frodsham died at the latter end of 1870—I saw him in 1869—we continued from 1871, when I went into the business, up to the present, time, to use the name of "Charles Frodsham, 84, Strand"—sometimes we used the name of Arnold—I purchased Mr. Arnold's business—there is no one else there But myself and Mr. Frodsham—the name is well known in the trade.

WILLIAM JOHN LLOYD . I am a watchmaker at St. John Road, Hoxton—in 1865 my father carried on business in the same place and I had the management—he had to make a watch for Mr. Adams, and Mr. Moore made it—I saw it delivered to my father—at that time the name W. J. Lloyd was engraved upon the plate—the number on the plate was 5438, and that on the different parts of the watch was 75438—that was stamped under the dial—this is the watch that Mr. Moore delivered to my father in 1865—it came back in 1868 for repairs—the value of the watch when it was made was 35l.—I was asked at Clerkenwell what would have been the value of it with Mr. Frodsham's name upon it, and I stated it would be from 10l. to 20l. more, but I find that Charles Frodsham's price was 38l.—I was led by public opinion—I am quite ignorant of Charles Frodsham's price—I can't see the "W. J. Lloyd" engraved on the watch now.

Cross-examined. It is not on the watch now—it was on the plate but the plate is thin in one place now—I suspect it has been removed in order for another name to appear.

JURY. Q. Are you perfectly satisfied, notwithstanding the removal of the name, that it is the identical watch that came into your hands?—A. Yes—the number under the dial is 75,438, and my father always had the first figure cut off—he never would have more than four figures on the upper plate.

CHARLES FREDERICK ADAMS . I carry on business at 10, Coleman Street, and am surveyor to the Great Eastern Railway Company—In 1865 I purchased a gold watch from Mr. Lloyd, the father of the last witness, and from that time I had it in my possession uninterruptedly—this is the watch—the number is 5,438—in 1868 I let it fill off the table, and sent it to Mr. Lloyd to be repaired—he had it for some time, and then I had it back again, and I had it in my possession till October, 1872, when it was stolen as I was getting in the railway carriage at Leicester Railway Station—I communicated with the police the next morning—I did not then remember the number myself, and sent to Mr. Lloyd for it—he had given me the number when I bought it, and it also had his name on it—I feel no hesitation about its being the watch, for I had another one made just like it.

Cross-examined. As far as my belief goes it is my watch—I am not a watchmaker, and I can only tell from its being an old friend, having seen it a great many times, and wound it up.

RICHARD FORD . I am a shirt manufacturer in the Poultry—I purchased this watch of a Mr. Turner, who keeps the Blue Coat Boy, Islington, on Whit Monday, 1873—I took it to Frodsham's, 84 Strand, in the following March—at the time I purchased it it had Charles Frodsham's name upon it; that is the reason I took it there.

Cross-examined. I gave 15l. or 15 guineas for it; I can't tell you which—the name is taken off now, but I think I should know it.

ROBERT TURNER . I keep the Blue Coat Boy, Islington—I sold Mr.

Ford a watch on Whit-Monday—I bought the ticket from a man named Smith for 1l.—the watch at that time was in pawn at Smith & Dymond's, Newgate Street for 12l.—at the time I took it out of pledge it had the name of Frodsham on it.

Cross-examined. I don't recollect anything else on it—Frodsham's name was on the dial—I don't recollect the name of any street—I bought the watch because it was represented to me as being one of Frodsham's make—I bought the ticket from Smith, I should say about fifteen months ago, and I sold it six or nine months afterwards.

THOMAS BASSINGTON . I am a watch engraver, at Charles Street, Northampton-square—I engraved on the plate of this watch "Charles Frodsham, 84, Strand, London, 14881"—the prisoner employed me to do that—I think it was the first or second week in December, 1872—there was no name on it then—it had been taken out, but I did not see that until it was re-gilt, as it was so cleverly taken out—three or four days after engraving that, the defendant brought me this gold watch case—it had a portion of a number on, but it had been rubbed out—he wanted me to alter the number to correspond with the number that was on the plate—I did so—it was not in my hand five minutes—I had known Mr. Collingridge some years, and I did not ask a question—if he had been a stranger I should not have done it—it is a common practice for the retail dealer to go to a wholesale dealer, and if they have not one in stock it is common to bring the plate to me and say engrave that name on it—it is rather a serious question for me to ask "Am I right in engraving this name on it?"—if I had known that the prisoner had not Charles Frodsham's authority, I would not have put that mark on it.

Cross-examined. It is common for a manufacturing watchmaker to bring watches to me and have the names of different firms engraved upon them; and if I was told to put a dozen names I should do so—of course the numbers go with the names—they tell me to put such a number on the plate—I am not responsible, but the party who brings the plate to me is.

Re-examined. I am speaking of new plates, and this was to all appearance a new plate—I should not put the name of "Charles Frodsham" on an old plate without inquiry—I should think there was something wrong.

FREDERICK WARMAN . I am a watch engraver, of 49, Spencer Street, Clerkenwell—I have known the prisoner some years; about twelve months ago he came and wanted me to engrave "Charles Frodsham, 84, Strand, London" on a plate—I said "Unless you can guarantee it is for the firm I shall refuse to do it"—he said it would be no disgrace to them it was a good watch—I refused, and he left.

EDWARD SMITH . I live at 68, Leech Street, Camberwell—I have known the prisoner about two years—I have pawned three or four watches for him on commission—I pawned a watch at Messrs. Smith & Dymond's for 12l., and afterwards sold the ticket to Mr. Turner—I should scarcely know the watch again—I tried to pawn one at Attenborough's, but they would not take it in, and I told the prisoner that they refused because the name of "Charles Frodsham" was a forgery, and that they were a good mind to give me in charge—he said "Oh, they want to make a trouble about these little matters, I can put any name I like on any watch I like to offer."

Cross-examined. I was examined at the Police Court—I stated there that Mr. Attenborough said he had a good mind to give me into custody, and also that the prisoner said he could put on any name he liked—I

pledged three or four watches in the course of a week or ten days—I think it was about two years ago that I ceased to hare anything to do with the prisoner.

GEORGE MOORE (re-called), I was a maker in 1865, and made for Mr. Lloyd, and I used at that time to make for Frodsham's, but their's was a higher class of watch.

MR. KELLY submitted that the name of "Charles Frodsham" was not a trade mark within the meaning of the Act of Parliament, the Act requiring that a trade mark should be registered. He also contended that in order to constitute a lawful use of the same there should have been evidence that the executors had disposed to the present firm of the right to continue the use of the original name of "Charles Frodsham." MR. LEWIS maintained that apart from all these points there was evidence to go to the Jury of the forgery of the name of "Charles Frodsham, 84, Strand," and that from the time of putting the name on the watch it was represented to be made at the business then carried on at 84, Strand which would come within the indictment, the prisoner having no authority to use that name. MR. COMMISSIONER KERR decided that it was not necessary to register a trade mark such as this, and that the case must go to the Jury. He also left the following questions to the Jury: Did the prisoner forge the trade mark as a fact; Did he do so with intent to defraud; Did he intend to represent it to be a watch which was made by Charles Frodsham, 84, Strand, before his death; or since by the present firm, and was it a trade mark at all in the sense in which he had explained it. To these questions upon the finding of the Jury in the affirmative, The Court directed a verdict of

GUILTYJudgment respited.

View as XML