12th January 1909
Reference Numbert19090112-82
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown; Miscellaneous > no agreement
SentencesMiscellaneous > sureties; Imprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous

Related Material

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

STODDART, Joseph (53, journalist), and CATLING, Frederick Ernest ; both conspiring and agreeing with each other and with Henry John Jones and with certain persons unknown, by false pretences to defraud divers of His Majesty's liege subjects; both obtaining by false pretences from Ebenezer Funnell postal orders for 9s., 1s. 6d., 2s., 3s., and £1, and from Emily Laura Carter two postal orders for the payment and of the value of 2s. 6d. and 1s. 6d. respectively, and 1d. postage stamp, in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Abinger, Mr. L. S. Green and Mr. A. D. A. MacGregor defended Stoddart; Mr. George Elliott and Mr. S. Moses defended Catling.

Defendants advertised racing and football competitions in connection with three publications, "Racing Record," "Football Record," and" Football Sport," and, according to the prosecution, were carrying on an illegal business in the nature of a lottery, and were, moreover,

defrauding successful competitors by the introduction of fictitious or bogus winners in order to reduce the amount payable out in respect of the competitions.

HARRY BYE , managing director of Sully and Ford, printers, Fetter Lane, identified specimens of the" Racing Record" produced as having been printed by his firm, and stated that Stoddart used invariably to pay by cheque. The" Racing Record" was posted in directed envelopes sent to the firm by Mr. Stoddart's instructions, about 30,000 at a time. The paper was not published weekly, but the six publications dealt with by the firm extended over about ten weeks. Witness knew a man named Henry John Jones, who came once to see the post away for a publication called the" Football Record," which was started in August, 1908, and was also printed by the firm. (Jones has absconded.)

Cross-examined. Stoddart always paid by cheque, and the figures were: June 3, £36 3s.; June 9, £68; June 10, £20; June 24, £49; and also in June, £21 7s. 6d. I do not know that Catling carried on business as Catling, Limited.

(To Mr. Elliott.) I believe Catling is respectably connected. I only know his father by repute.

(Thursday, January 21.)

JOSEPH ROBERT HOSKER , managing director of the Argus Printing Company, Limited, Temple Avenue, said they had done printing for Mr. Stoddart for some considerable number of years, he thought about 10, and he knew Mr. Stoddart personally. Witness proceeded to identify copies of the "Football Record," "Racing Record," and" Racing Sport" as having been printed by the company. Stoddart invariably paid by cheque either monthly or two monthly. Directed envelopes were supplied, and Stoddart also supplied stamps or sometimes sent the money to buy stamps. The money for stamps was generally an open cheque. There was no record of the money sent to buy stamps. Witness did not know the man Jones; he might have been to the office, but he did not know him personally. He knew Catling as an engraver and maker of blocks. An account was opened in his name for the" Football Record" by direction of Stoddart. Those were the numbers from October 26, 1907, to March 28, 1908.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. Stoddart paid one account in cash. That was £97 19s. 8d., on October 15, 1907. It is not true that Stoddart gave me £100 in gold to pay an account in June, 1908. He then paid an account of £148 16s. 3d. in respect of the printing of "Football Sport." That account was in the name of C. E. Price. The" Football Record" was in the name of Catling.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I knew Catling quite apart from Stoddart, and as having carried on business as Catling and Co., for a number of years in Farringdon Street, as a process engraver. I also know that he is very respectably connected, and that his father was for 50 years the responsible editor of" Lloyd's News. "

Re-examined. I opened the account for" Football Sport" in the name of Price by direction of Mr. Stoddart.

CHARLES HENRY DRYSDALE , manager of the firm of cate and Co., 32, Bouverie Street, printers, said he knew Stoddart through doing business with him, and upon his instructions printed certain numbers of the "Football Record" during the year 1907. Witness proceeded to identify the numbers he had printed. He also printed some receipt forms in connection with the issue of "Football Record." The accounts were paid by cheque, but cash was received for stamps.

HERBERT FRANK COWLEY , Weston Green, Thames Ditton. I am doing nothing at the present time. I am a clerk. I have known Stoddart three or four years as running a coupon business in Fleet Street in connection with the" Football Record" and" Racing Record." I also know Catling, who I understood was working as manager for Mr. Stoddart. I have done work for Stoddart, and have been employed by him as confidential friend going with him round the West End at night time, dining at different places and going to music halls, he paying the expenses. I was also employed in making inquiries outside the office. I have been employed by him over a year and used to call at the office every morning, and if there was anything for me to do I would do it, and if there used to be nothing I used to go away. By way of remuneration I received a sovereign now and again, but no regular salary. As to the inquiries, Stoddart used to give me a name and address and tell me to find out if such and such a man lived there. Last Whit Monday while I was in a bar in the Haymarket Catling came in and said Stoddart wanted me to do some work for him, and he gave me the names and addresses of two men, named Hierli and Naylor, and asked me to find out who they were. The names and addresses are on the paper produced. (Hierli and Naylor together with a man named Butter-worth were winners in a competition of £100 apiece.) The address of Hierli was 16, Half Moon Street, Piccadilly, and that of Naylor 24, Denmark Street, W. C. Catling told me to report to the office next morning, and took me in his motor-car almost to Naylor's address. I reported to Mr. Stoddart on the following morning at his office at 68, Fleet Street that I had made inquiries; he was not quite satisfied, and asked me to go again. Naylor was satisfactory, but I could not find Hierli, and I had to go on another occasion. Mrs. Hierli was then keeping a lodging house there. Stoddart next asked me to go down to Gravesend and find out a place where I could have letters addressed. I asked him in what name, and he proposed the name" W. Butterworth," and wrote it down on the paper produced. He gave me 5s. or 6s. for my expenses. I went down to Gravesend by the 2.35, and went to a tobacconist's shop, 5, New Road, Gravesend, and there saw the witness May Andrews, the assistant. Having made an arrangement with her I came back to town that afternoon. I had instructions that Mr. Catling was to receive this address which I had gone to Gravesend to get as soon as possible. A few days afterwards I saw the result of the contest (No. 29) in the "Racing Record." The three winners announced were Hierli and Naylor and W. Butterworth, of 5, New Road, Gravesend, as winners of £100 each. I had conversation with Stoddart after I had seen that, and on the following Wednesday (June 17) I again went down to

Gravesend by direction of Stoddart to fetch a registered letter. He told me to go and see Hierli and Naylor, and ask them for some money because I had made inquiries about them. I did so, and Naylor gave me a sovereign and Hierli half a sovereign. That was on the Wednesday. I went to inquire whether they had got their money. I saw Catling when I came back from Gravesend with the registered letter and gave it to him. Besides the registered letter I also obtained at 5, New Road, Gravesend, two other letters addressed to Butterworth. One was a circular in an unsealed envelope and the other a postcard asking me (Butterworth) what I would like to do with my £100 from an agent of a building society. Catling gave me 5s. or 6s. for my expenses. When I came back I asked him for some more money, and he gave me another 5s. I did not see the contents of the registered letter and did not get £100 out of the transaction. I had not sent in any coupon in the name of "Butterworth" or made any claim in that name. I look at the three £100 notes produced, Nos. 89,762-3-4, dated July 18, 1906. I find on the back of one of them the name of Naylor, on one there is no name, and on one the name of "W. Butterworth, 5, New Road, Gravesend," is endorsed. That is neither my handwriting nor my spelling, nor in any handwriting I know. I had nothing to do with cashing that note and had never seen it till those proceedings.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I was last in employment in March 1907. I said at the police court:" I was last employed as clerk in March, 1904." I was employed in 1907 for a week as manager of the refreshment department at the Horticultural Show. I was with the Mutual Life Insurance Company about 10 weeks—I think, in 1906. At other times I have been living on any friends and my wits. At the present time I am living on the police; I am drawing money from the police through a friend of mine named Windust, who has been running an opposition business to Stoddart's at Middelburg. I made the acquaintance of Windust about three years ago, I think in a bar at the West End. I did not say at the Mansion House that I was the confidential friend of Stoddart; that has occurred to me since. It is not true to say that Stoddart has only helped me with a few shillings and a meal occasionally. I have dined with him at the" Criterion" Restaurant and been with him to music halls. As to my relations with Windust, I was last year in great straits for money; I was destitute and had no place to sleep in and found it difficult to get food. I went to Windust at Esher, where he has a fairly large place. I know he is a convicted person, but only for contempt of court. From the time I went to Windust he has been supporting me by direction of the police. He has been paying for my lodging and supplying me with pocket money, but never with more than 5s. a week. The coat I have on is one of Windust's old ones. He paid for my suit and my boots, and I came to court with him this morning. Where I am living at Weston Green is about a mile from Windust's house. I have my breakfast at my lodging and sometimes do and sometimes do not have my other meals with Windust. I cannot tell what Windust is going to get for supporting me. He asked me to say if I was prepared to go before the City Solicitor and say that a fraud

was being carried on. He did not say that if I would do so he would find me in clothes. The police asked Windust to supply me with money for my lodging. I must live on something. I have never considered whether Windust employed me to get Stoddart convicted so that he might have no rival at Middelburg. As to whether he employed me because of my notorious character, I say that is bosh. As to whether I am a man of bad character, this is the first I had heard about it. I was fined £5, or a month, at South-West London for gross indecency in Battersea Park. Mr. Catling paid the fine. I served in the South African war and have a medal with five clasps, but have lost it. I last had it about three years ago. You can ascertain that I served in South Africa by application to the War Office. I was in Batey's Horse, a yeomanry regiment. I am still in the yeomanry. I did not forge a cheque. I wrote out a cheque one day with the idea of it being presented by a friend of mine who had asked me to lend him some money. I was not prosecuted for it. It was done after I had been three days drinking absinthe and was more mad than drunk and did not know what I was doing. Directly I realised what I had done the cheque was taken up. A friend of mine said he could get it cashed and I let it go. The name I signed was" H. Griffiths." It was a cheque on Lloyd's Bank. A man gave it to me in a bar; he cashed it at the "Standard" Music Hall, Victoria; his name was Abbott, but I wish you would leave his name out of it. A man named Sheffield took it up for me. I was not threatened with any prosecution; you may put it that I escaped prosecution if you like. I do not accept the suggestion that it was because Windust knew that story perfectly well that he invited me to come to Esher and assist in destroying Stoddart. I found out what Stoddart had made me do about Butterworth, and that is why I jibbed. Windust never gave me advice what to do. As he was running an opposition business I thought he was the best man to go to, and he told me to go to the City Solicitor. I have met a man named Price at Windust's house once. I believe he is the principal witness for the prosecution. The meeting was at the dinner table and a coincidence so far as I was concerned. The dinner party consisted of Windust, Inspector Collison, Mr. and Mrs. Price, and myself. I cannot tell you the date; possibly it was a day or two before the information was sworn. I went to the office of the City Solicitor with a man named Cowling, a solicitor who has an office somewhere in Chancery Lane. I made a statement which he wrote down. That was with a view to getting Stoddart prosecuted, certainly. I swear that Cowling did not take me round to a solicitor named Glasier. I knew that the name of Mr. Windust's solicitor was Glasier. The man I was taken to was not Mr. Glasier and had no connection with Mr. Glasier's office. I deny that I was conspiring to put Stoddart away; there is no question of conspiracy so far as I was concerned. I have not heard from Windust whether he is going to condescend to go into the witness-box; he is here; you had better ask him. I have not the faintest idea whether Price's statement was taken down by the police at Windust's house. My own statement was. I wrote it out alone downstairs in the breakfast-room before Inspector Collison

arrived. When he arrived I gave it to him, and have never seen it since. I deny that my employment with Stoddart has been of the most casual character. When he had any work for me to do I did it. Amongst other things, I used to go and buy books for him. In doing that you have to use a certain amount of brain power; I also had to choose his cigars. I know Klinge, but only from having seen him in the witness-box. From what I have heard, he was Mr. Stoddart's manager in Middelburg. I have never seen him at Windust's house. It is quite wrong to say that I did not go to Gravesend on June 10 but at the end of May. (Witness, confronted with a witness named May Andrews, acknowledged having seen her on two occasions at Gravesend.) I do not know anything at all about racing. I cannot say whether the Epsom Town Plate, the Derby Stakes, and the Stewards' Handicap were run on June 3. I have never entered for one of these competitions. The coupon produced, signed "Butterworth," is not in my handwriting. I neither wrote it myself nor got one of my acquaintances to write it and send it to Mr. Stoddart's establishment at Middelburg. I saw it for the first time at the Mansion House. I did not write the following document:" Dear Sirs, I have given three winners in this week's competition, and claim a share of the prize money. I hope it will be a big share.—W. Butterworth." I have never seen either that or the coupon in my life. I have not the faintest idea in whose writing they are. The suggestion that I met Klinge on June 16 has come out of the fertile brain of that ex-convict. I have denied many times that I have ever spoken to Klinge in my life, and Klinge has denied that he has ever spoken to me. I deny that I opened a registered letter addressed" W. Butterworth" at Gravesend and took out a £100 bank note. I saw Jones on one occasion in Catling's office for about three seconds. I do not identify the photograph produced as that of Jones. I did not go with Jones and Klinge to the Bank of England and change that bank note into 100 sovereigns. I do not accept the suggestion that I gave Klinge £20 and that the remaining £80 was divided between Jones and myself. I last saw Jones months ago. I should not know him if I saw him again. It is very probable I saw Stoddart on June 18. If it is said that on that day Stoddart accused me of going to Hierli and Naylor, the two winners of £100, and extracting money from them, I say it is a lie. I did not say to Stoddart," You have got to give me money, and if you do not I will force you to." It is absolutely a lie that I declined to be shown out, and was forcibly ejected from the premises. The last time I saw Stoddart in the office he gave me a sovereign and said he would telephone for me if he wanted me again. I know a man named George Kemp, who has done penal servitude. On one occasion I had drinks with him in the Haymarket. I did not instruct Kemp to go to Stoddart to get money from Stoddart. I told him I had been put down as a winner in a competition when I was not a winner. I told him I had no money and borrowed a" bob" off him to get a night's lodging. It is absolutely a lie that he gave me that shilling because I gave him information upon which he could extort money from Stoddart.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I have known Catling about a year. I know him to be a very respectable man, having an independent and separate business as a process engraver. On the occasion when he came to me at 22, Haymarket he made it quite clear that he had come to me at the request of Stoddart. I understood the sole object of his visit was to give me the addresses of Naylor and Hierli. Nothing was said at that time about my going to Gravesend. I reported to Stoddart, and it was also Stoddart who gave me instructions about going to Gravesend.

Further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I know a solicitor named Collings, and I know a Mr. Hyde. I met both those gentlemen in the "Opera" Tavern in the Haymarket on August 28. Windust was also there. I introduced Collings to Windust. As I said at the Mansion House, I think it is very likely that Windust may have said, "For years and years I have gone down on my knees and prayed for the death of that b——Stoddart, but God does not love me. "

Re-examined. The first time I saw Price was at the dinner at Windust's. I think Inspector Collison took me to see the City Solicitor. From that time I had no control over the prosecution.

The Recorder observed that the City Solicitor was Director of Public Prosecutions for the City, under the direction of the Court of Aldermen.

Mr. Abinger. I do not believe the City Solicitor ever knew how this case was started.

Mr. Leycester. We know very well how it was started.

The Recorder. After the City Solicitor is authorised to take up a prosecution it is entirely in his hands, and the object of having a Director of Public Prosecutions is to prevent private persons from compromising criminal offences.

Further re-examined. I was examined at the first hearing at the Mansion House as to the £100 note. Klinge was produced before me, and I absolutely denied that I knew him. No suggestion was made that Jones and Klinge were with me when I cashed the note, I have never heard that suggestion until to-day. I have never seen Klinge since I saw Him at the Mansion House. (The statement made by witness to Inspector Collison was put in and read).

The Recorder. You seem to have received a good education.

Witness. London University, King's College. I gave up a very good position as chief cashier at the Carlton Hotel to go out and fight for England.

The Recorder. What has brought you down to your present miserable condition?

Witness. Once you have served your country and got out of your special line of business nobody seems to want you again.

JOSEPH PERCIVAL HUDSON , clerk in the Bank of England, produced the three £100 notes, Nos. 89,762-3-4. Two bore the endorsements of Naylor and Butterworth, and on the face of the other was written in blue pencil "Hierli. "

WILLIAM SIDNEY NASH , clerk in the G. P. O., produced a receipt for a registered letter addressed "W. Butterworth, 5. New Road, Gravesend."

MAY ANDREWS . I am assistant to Mr. Harding, tobacconist, 5, New Road, Gravesend. About the month of June last I had communication with the witness Cowley with regard to receiving registered letters. He gave the name of Butterworth. He wanted me to take in letters for him. The receipt for the registered letter produced by the last witness is in my sister's handwriting. I was out when it came, but I afterwards saw it in the shop. It came on the 16th, and on the following day or the day after the witness Cowley called for it and took it away with him. He had said a week before that he was expecting a registered letter. The last I saw of him was when I handed the registered letter to him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I first saw Butterworth or Cowley about the end of May or the commencement of June. No charge was made for taking in the letters. This was the first time since I had been there that such a thing had been done. I think he bought some cigarettes in the shop. About a week elapsed between his first and second visits. He did not tell me he had been a prize-winner in a competition.

WILLIAM SIDNEY NASH , recalled, produced the entry showing the time at which the three registered letters, addressed to Hierli, Naylor and Butterworth, were taken in at Lombard Street on June 16.

JANET JONES , wife of Henry John Jones. At the end of September or beginning of October we were living at Flat No. 6, 19, Cranworth Gardens, Brixton. My husband is an engraver, and was in the service of Catling as manager. He had been with Mr. Catling some years before I met him, I believe, and we have been married eight years. I last saw my husband on September 29 last year. He did not go out to his work in the ordinary way in the morning, but told me he was going away for a week's holiday. He has never been back. I have had two or three letters from him which were given to me indirectly and did not come through the post. In December I found out that he had been in Hertfordshire. I do not know where he is now. The handwriting on the back of the £100 note No. 89,763, dated July 18, 1908, is my husband's handwriting, but disguised. He used to write small like that.

Mr. Abinger pointed out that witness was not obliged to give evidence against her husband, for whom a warrant was out for conspiracy in this case.

Mr. Leycester. She has no such privilege; he is not upon his trial.

Witness: The pencil writing on the Butterworth coupon is like my husband's writing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. After my husband went away Miss Jessie Stoddart came round to me and asked me if I could help her to discover my husband's whereabouts.

Mr. Abinger said he attached great importance to this part of the case, as it was suggested that Stoddart had got Jones out of the way.

Cross-examination continued. I told her, as was the fact, that I did not know where he was. Some years back my husband had a tri-car, but lately he has had a motor-car. I never knew him to keep it at Mr. Catling's garage. He kept it in the Clapham Road. I did

not in the company of Miss Stoddart try to find out where my husband was. I know Miss Stoddart watched the house where I was living to see if perchance my husband had come home. I have been watched, I think, since this case started by her and by detectives employed by Stoddart. I do not know whether Catling has been watched to see if Jones was writing to him. I went one day to see Mr. Catling, and when I came out Miss Stoddart was watching outside. We had a little conversation, and I came to the conclusion that she was watching me to see if I was going to meet Jones. She has given to understand that she wanted to discover my husband. She said to me once, "I can understand you trying to protect your husband; I am trying to protect my father." She also said to me," As woman to woman, tell me where your husband can be found, as he can save my father." I told her I did not know where Mr. Jones was. It was through a Mr. Cattermole that I received letters from my husband.

ARTHUR FREDERICK HIERLI (accountant), The Hollies, Gipsy Road, West Norwood. At the beginning of June last I filled up a coupon for the" Racing Record" competition which I sent by post to the offices of the" Racing Record," Middelburg, in Holland, enclosing a postal order or stamps to the amount of about 2s. 6d. I subsequently received a copy of the paper, in which I was announced as winner, coupled with the names of Butterworth and Naylor. According to that I was entitled to a prize of £100, and I sent a postcard or letter to Middelburg making a claim for that amount. I keep a copy of the coupons I send in. I wrote upon this particular coupon the names of various horses in the different races. The man Cowley called upon me in Half Moon Street, Piccadilly, which was my address in those days. It was my parents' house; they were retiring about a week or ten days afterwards. Two days after Cowley called I received a registered letter enclosing a banknote for £100, No. 89,764. I cashed the note. The name Hierli in blue pencil on the face of the note is not in my handwriting. I paid the note into my parents' bank—the London and County. After I had got the £100 I saw Cowley again, and in consequence of the conversation I had with him I gave him half-sovereign. Before I entered this competition I had been in for competitions of all sorts. I had once won before. I have seen the names of winners in various competitions published, and believe the names of those winners to be the names of those who had become genuinely entitled to money. I do not know whether I sent any receipt or acknowledgment for the £100. I believe I received a form of receipt, but we were moving from one house to another and I do not think I filled it up.

EBENEZER FUNNELL , accountant, 5, Denmark Street, Charing Cross Road. I have competed from time to time in the" Racing Record" and" Football Record" competitions. I entered the racing competition No. 29 in the name of E. F. Naylor and was announced on June 12 as the winner of £100. The race was run on June 3. I sent either 1 6d. or 2s. with the coupon, the charge being 1d. for every line filled in. I posted the coupon on June 2, the day before the race. I received the £100 by registered letter. The witness Cowley called upon me to make inquiries, and after I had got the money

he called again, and I gave him a sovereign. I believed the winners announced to be genuine winners. I also entered the competition the result of which was announced on October 12, 1907, in the name of Fenner, 171, Great Dover Street. The coupon produced is the one I sent in. Some few days after I received 9s. as my share of the winnings. In the same number the result of a previous competition, No. 16, is announced, the sole winner of £300 being Mr. S. W. D'Avyet, of the Yacht Marque, 17, Belle View Road, Ramsgate. I was induced to enter into the competition by the prize money offered, in which I hoped to participate. I thought they were genuine competitions and were going to be fairly conducted and that the winners were genuine winner. I had no reason to believe that D'Avyet was not a genuine winner. In competition No. 19 I shared the £300 with a Mr. C. Saunders and received £150. If Saunders were not a genuine winner I should have been entitled to the whole £300. I entered other competitions after that; on the whole I have not done so badly out of them. I have also used the name of F. E. Farrell, of Cranley Gardens, Wallington. I was announced in the "Football Record" on February 1, 1908, as the winner of £100 in the name of Farrell. There were two winners besides myself. I cannot tell you how much money I sent in for that competition. It may have been a few shillings or a few pounds. My belief was that they were all genuine winners. I used to send in every week not only to Stoddart's but to other competitions. I have no record of what I sent in. If I won a big prize generally had had a big speculation. I won £83 6s. in another competition of Stoddart's in the" Racing Record," in which six winners divided £500 between them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I have not competed in my own name as Ebenezer Funnell. I have competed in the names of Farrell and Naylor. I have not competed in the name of A. Beach or J. Reed. I know J. Reed; he lives at Wembley. I know someone who lived at 29, Stockwell Park Road—J. Reed. I never resided at 29, Stockwell Park Road. I was connected with a firm which carried on business at that address. Reed was manager of the firm. I am not Reed. I was secretary to the firm that he was director of. I know that Reed got a prize of £300. I do not know a man named Jones, and have never seen the original (Jones) of the photograph produced. There are two or three reasons why I am competing in these various names. In the first place I am quite at liberty to use an assumed name if I choose; secondly, one rule of a competition is that you can only send in one coupon for one prize. Naylor was the name of a firm I was partner in, and I chose to enter in the name of Naylor because I had left the other address. I never saw Catling until I saw him at the police court. I did not know Stoddart. I suppose it was a coincidence that I was always winning large sums of money. I knew a man named Beach; I am not Beach. His address is 23, Great St. Helens.

The Recorder. Is your object to show that this witness is one of the conspirators in the case?

Mr. Abinger. These are my instructions. My object in putting these questions is to show that this man has been assisted by someone in getting prizes from my client.

Witness. It is a lie.

Further cross-examined. Beach had an office at 23, Great St. Helens. I was employed in the same office as secretary to a company. I know that Beach won a prize of £150.

(Friday, January 22.)

EBENEZER FUNNELL , further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I have not competed this week, but I shall do so presently. I competed last week in the name of Farrell. It was not a competition of Stoddart's, because he has given them up, but one of Terry's. I do not know that Donald Mackenzie is running a competition. I have not competed in Windust's competition lately. I have never been to Middelburg. When I sent in coupons sometimes I signed the name in ink and sometimes in pencil. I sometimes used a rubber stamp. I had a rubber stamp made in an assumed name. Why? Because I chose to do it, that is all.

The Recorder. I should like you to tell me something which is in my mind. Did you ever win more than one prize in the same name?

Witness. Yes, in the name of Farrell. I have won dozens of prizes in that name. I have won more than one prize in the name of Fenner. I have won perhaps a dozen times in the name of Farrell in Stoddart's competitions, but only once in the name of Fenner, and once in the name of Naylor, giving my business address. I have won as small an amount as 6d. and as much as £100 in the name of Farrell.

Further cross-examined. Cowley vouched me to be a bona-fide competitor under the name of Naylor. I did not tell him that my name was Fenner or Funnell. I gave him money because he gave me a pretty good hint that he expected a tip as I had won £100. When I win I find plenty of people who think I have money to give away. I have won in at least a dozen of Stoddart's competitions; probably I have won in more. I do not think I have won so many as fifty, including minor prizes. I will not swear either way. I cannot tell you the total of the prizes I have won. I have won £100 as Naylor and £150 as Fenner. In all I should think I have won £450 during the last eight or nine years. I competed in Stoddart's competitions when they were running "London." I should think I have won £250 in the Stoddart competitions in 1908, and I also won largely in 1906 and 1907. I think it was in 1907 that Reed won a praise of £300, but that was nothing to do with me. I am not certain whether Beach won in 1906 or 1907. I think his name is down for £150, but I have nothing to do with that.

The Recorder. It seems to have been a wonderfully fortunate firm, this. Everybody who competed always won.

Witness. You do not take into consideration that one successful week out of 20 or 30 is not much.

Further cross-examined. Naylor and Co. are box manufacturers.

The name of the firm at 29, Stockwell Park Road is Bown. That is a photographic firm. I bank with the Wallington branch of the London and South-Western Bank. I also used to have an account with the Economic Bank till it went into liquidation. Naylor and Co. used to bank at the Capital and Counties. Whether Reed had a banking account I do not know. I did not cash a cheque for £300 for Reed. I did not have a cheque for £150 from Beach. I know a man named Camm. If letters came addressed to Reed Camm did not give them to me. Camm was one of the servants in the Stockwell firm I was secretary to at 29, Stockwell Park Road. That was also Reed's address, and Reed asked me if I would ask Mr. Camm for any letter that came for Mr. Reed. That was some time in July. I think he took letters in for him, as he was competing from that address, as he did not wish his wife to know what competitions he went in for. I have said before that I am not Reed. I do not know what you are insinuating, I am sure. You are making very serious allegations.

Mr. Abinger. I hope I make it clear; I am insinuating that you have been defrauding Mr. Stoddart.

Witness. You have to prove it. I know a man named Grimes. I know that Bown was approached by Grimes in 1907 with the view to turning this business into a limited company. I was concerned in the formation of the company. Reed was concerned in it; he was a director. Beach was concerned, but only as signatory, and had nothing to do with the management of the business. At that time I had not known Beach long. I had a good deal to do with the promotion and drafted the articles of association, etc. Reed, Beach, and myself were not putting our heads together to win these prizes. We had been competing in competitions for years, and it happened to be a coincidence that the prize was a big one that week. I did not see either Reed or Beach fill up their coupons. I have never been in Ramsgate in my life, and never passed myself off as D'Avyet. What next are you going to insinuate? I shall soon refuse to answer your questions if you make such insinuations as that. I have never competed in the name of D'Avyet nor sent in a coupon as from the yacht "Marque." I have not competed in the name of Saunders. The offices at Great St. Helens consisted of two rooms, and were shared by Grimes and Reed. Reed's name was never on the door. Grimes and myself paid the rent. It was the registered address of Bown and Co. and also the offices of Grimes and myself.

To the Recorder. The Derby was one of the races included in the three. I was fortunate enough to win on that occasion. That was in the name of Naylor. I do not know whether Beach competed that week. It is quite possible that Reed did, but I do not know. I was put down as having selected winners in three different races. I was very much surprised that I won, as the horse I selected for the Derby was Signorinetta. It is a fact that Signorinetta was a 100 to 1 chance, and that practically nobody backed the horse. It was simply a matter of chance that it came off.

The Recorder. You know the suggestion made against you—

The suggestion is that you were in league with somebody over on the other side, and that after the race was won your coupon was put in as if it had been sent in before the race was won.

Witness. I know it is; it is false. I cannot help the prizes being large; sometimes they have been small. Occasionally I spend £2 or £3 on a competition, and I have had a return as small as 10s. There is nothing said about the weeks that I lose. For the Stewards' Cup I put down a horse named Seaham. I am not certain what the price was, but I think it was a fairly long one. For the Epsom Town Plate I put down Hymettus as the winner. There were large odds against all these horses, because there was a large entry. If it is suggested that Hierli was in league with me, I never saw Hierli in my life, and it is a coincidence that his selections should have been the same as mine.

Witness was then asked to write the following for the purpose of comparison with the coupon." I, the undersigned, authorise Mrs. Fogg to receive any letters, either registered or ordinary; will you kindly give bearer the same." He was next asked to write on a separate line," 17, Bellevue Road, Ramsgate," and" S. W. D'Avyet, yacht' Marque. '" Being shown two documents which it was said would be proved to be in the handwriting of the man who pretended to be D'Avyet, he denied that they were his writing or anything like it. (The documents were handed to the jury for comparison with witness's writing.) Witness was then referred to a number of exhibits showing that in Contest 19 he won £150 in October, 1907, in a" Football Record" Competition in the name of E. Fenner; that in Competition No. 33, in "Football Record," he won £100 in February, 1908, in the name of Farrell, of Wallington; that in May, 1908, in a "Racing Record" Competition, No. 25, he won £83 6s. in the name of Farrell; that in June, 1908, in the" Racing Record" Competition, No. 28, he won £100 in the name of Naylor, making between October, 1907, and June, 1908, £433 6s. Witness added that he believed be also won several minor prizes in the Stoddart Competitions during that time, ranging from 10s. 6d. down to 6d. In addition to those he had mentioned he won upon one occasion £42, but was not certain of the date. On an average he thought he had spent £2 or £3 a week on the competitions, sometimes more. He won prizes in connection with the" Football Echo," now extinct, and had competed in competitions promoted by the" Athletic News and Sporting Chat," "Football Luck," "Sporting Prophet," and others, and had won prizes in all of them. He had been going in for the competitions, he should say, for about ten years, having first won in 1899 in the" Echo," and up to date he was about £200 to the good. Usually a printed form of receipt was forwarded for acknowledgment of the prize money, and he sent the receipts back when he sent in for the next competition if the amounts were large, but if the amounts were small he did not trouble.

ALBERT EDWARD PICKNELL . In 1907 I was living at Aylesbury "Street, Leicester, and at the end of 1907 entered a competition promoted by "Football Record." The result was published in the issue

of January 3, 1908, and from that it appeared that the prize of £300 was shared by one Rowlandson and myself, so that we were each entitled to £150. I subsequently received a registered envelope containing bank-notes to the amount of £150, which, I cashed. I subsequently addressed a letter to Mr. Rowlandson at the address given in "Football Record" congratulating him on his success. To that letter I received no reply, nor did it come back through the Dead Letter Office. I filled up a printed form of receipt and returned it in a printed envelope, which was sent with it to Middelburg.

Cross-examined. I sent 1s. with the coupon. This was not the first time I had sent in by many times.

Mr. Abinger. I am not instructed that this witness was anything but a bona-fide winner.

STANLEY VINCENT , manager of" Bruce House," a lodging-house in Kemble Street, Drury Lane, stated that the witness Cowley slept there from June 16 to 26, and after that off and on till the end of July.

EDWARD COX PRICE , Newstead House, East Finchley. I am a journalist dealing with sports and pastimes. I have been connected with the game of football for very many years as reporter and official referee. Formerly I was proprietor of "Athletic World" and "Football Chat." In July of last year I was anxious to dispose of the paper, having been advised by my doctor to get out of business for a time. I called upon Stoddart at the end of July at his office at 58, Fleet Street by appointment about selling the paper. The question of publishing a coupon competition was then raised. Stoddart asked me what I was going to do if I disposed of the paper, and I told him my doctor had advised me to take a rest for a time and that some of my friends had advised me to start one of the football competitions in Holland later on. Mr. Stoddart said some of them were surprised that I had not done it long before that. He also said, "I am not disposed to purchase the paper; it would be the best dead so far as I am concerned," and he asked me if I had approached Mr. Windust. I said, "No, I had not," and he said he was the man who would be likely to purchase if anybody would. I told him I was in treaty with two newspaper people. Stoddart said, "If you are disposed to start a competition in Holland and will see me later on I may be prepared to help you financially." After a subsequent interview I went to Holland and registered "Football Sport" at the post office as required by the Dutch law. When I came back an agreement was come to between me and Mr. Stoddart that he put into writing by which Stoddart agreed to guarantee my accounts for printing and stationery and to pay half the postage and to find the whole of the moneys needed until October. The next step after that was to send out the circulars for the first competition. I was to have partial management of the business. When I was at Middelburg I saw Klinge, who was office manager at Middelburg. The first advertisement or circular was sent out by post on August 23, and was headed" E. C. Price, founder of the Football League," etc. It requested friends to support me and contained printed extracts about

me from different publications and the rules of the competition. I had a number of addresses I had been collecting for a considerable time—about 34,000—people I knew were interested in football, and a number of others were bought from Mr. Mackenzie, a man who was running competitions in Holland some time ago. Mr. Stoddart provided me with others. I understand that in all 68,000 were sent out. After that circular had been issued Catling and I went over to Holland to receive the posts. I first met Catling on the day the agreement was signed—July 22. Stoddart told me to go to him for all the working details, and that he had made an arrangement with Catling to give him half his profits. I believe it was the last day of August that Catling and I went to Holland. Catling told me he would give me all the assistance he could, as he knew more about the business than I did; in fact, he practically wrote the address, because he said my effort was too journalistic and would get no custom whatever. He said in a jocular sort of way he would give half his life to be able to write anything like it. Another circular which he had prepared was substituted, commencing "Friends all." The original letter I had prepared was, I think, destroyed. My signature in fac-simile appeared on the one that went out. Stoddart allowed me the use of a room at his existing offices in Middelburg until it should be seen how the competition went and whether it was necessary to have additional offices. Klinge was to supervise both businesses, the existing business of" Football Record" and the new business of" Football Sport." Before going to Middelburg Catling and I discussed the business nearly every day from its various aspects. Catling's own office is at 77, Fleet Street. I was there on some date between August 25 and August 30. He had been pacing backwards and forwards about the room for some little time and suddenly stopped and said, "Price, can I trust you?" I said, "Trust me! What you mean, Fred?" Of course you can trust me. We have got to work together. You are going to have a share of the profits, I understand. You can certainly trust me." Then he said, "You do not understand what I mean." I said, "Well, what do you mean?" There was another pause and then he said, "Look here, we are commencing the competition on a day other than Saturdays. These competitions are usually run for matches played on Saturdays, and this competition is commencing with the Tuesday matches, which is very unusual for one of these football competitions. There is a tremendous big post gone out, and there may be very indifferent results on account of it not being the usual day. It is quite possible there will be a fearful loss on the first issue. Have you got one or two good addresses that we might use in case of a disaster like that?" I said I had never thought of anything of the kind; I had never dreamed of it. He said, "Well, cannot you think of anyone? If you can find two I can find one or two, and Joe (Stoddart) can find one or two." I told him I could not decide at once on anything of the kind; I would have to think about it very seriously. He asked that the addresses should be well away from London. I began to understand what he was driving

at. Probably a little more was said to make it plain, but that was the substance. I did not understand at first that I was being asked to do something fraudulent. Then he made it clear what he wanted, I told him I would have to seriously think it over and discuss it with my wife, but he begged of me not to say anything to my wife about it. I said I had always consulted my wife in everything and should continue to do so. Next day he asked me if I had thought out any addresses. I said I had thought of one, but it was only to be used in case there was a very disastrous post, and I would not tell him what it was until I had had a reply. I communicated with a Mr. Hudson, a brother-in-law living at Leicester. Having got an answer from him, I spoke to Catling about it again and told him my brother-in-law had agreed if he could to help me against any serious loss on certain conditions. Those were that the competitors should receive the whole of the money and that he himself should receive no prize whatever. My brother-in-law agreed to do this, as some years ago I had done him a service. It was arranged that my brother-in-law should send a registered letter with a coupon bearing his name and address, but with the competition part left blank. I accordingly sent him one of the forms with a letter of instructions. When Catling and I crossed on August 30 Mrs. Klinge, the wife of the manager in Holland, was with us. She had been staying at my house a week, paying a return visit to my daughter, when the latter returned from Holland. Mrs. Klinge is a Dutch lady, and had never seen England. In the course of the voyage Catling told me that there had been one or two letters from Klinge on the previous Friday and Saturday, stating that letters had commenced to come in very favourably. He also said: "Joe has told me that he is not going to give me a half share of the profits; I have got to look to you for something." and asked me what I thought of it. Catling also said I need not go to Holland for some weeks; he would go and do the work of both competitions. I said, "Well, it is only right and proper (that you should have something. It will be hard work crossing every week right through the winter months, and I will give you 5 per cent, out of my profits." He said, "That is not very much. We will leave it over and talk about it to-morrow." Letters came in; there were two posts on the Monday and two on Tuesday. Klinge took charge of the postal orders, which were for various amounts. Amongst others a letter came from my brother-in-law, enclosing 2s. The amount to be paid depended of course on the number of chances taken. I went with Klinge to the Post Office for the competition letters; you have to go to the Post-Office for them. The unregistered letters they hand over in bulk; the registered letters of course are handed over separately. Klinge gave gave a receipt for the registered letters and handed them over to me, and I put them in my pocket. Hudson's was amongst them. There was a hamper full of the ordinary letters. I was at the office till about midnight, and when I got to the hotel I remembered the registered letters, and out of curiosity opened them. One of them was Hudson's. It contained a postal order for 1s. 6d. or 2s., a" Football

Sport" coupon. The coupon was destroyed for a reason which will appear later. It was filled up in the name of" Stanhope," so that the name Hudson was not used. The address given was Moorledge Road, Leicester, my brother-in-law's address. I handed the registered letter to Klinge on the Wednesday afternoon in the presence of Catling. Klinge said it had not been filled up as it ought to have been. I asked him what he meant by that, and he said, "You should not have used ink; you should have used indelible pencil. There is a difficulty in matching ink, and it might cause a difficulty if the coupon had to be produced at any time." I told him I knew nothing of any such business. Then, reaching over to his right, he lifted up another coupon which had been filled in with indelible pencil, and said, "This is the way that it ought to be done. I said, "I know nothing at all about the business." Catling said, "Well, you had better see to the one that has come in." Klinge said, "I had better do it all over again, had not I?" Catling said, "Well, you know best what is to be done. Klinge then asked whether there were any half-sheets that had been torn off some of the other coupons. In some cases the competitors had only filled in one side, and the unfilled halves had been torn off. He asked me to reach him one of the halfsheets that had not been filled in, and then Klinge made out a new thing altogether under Hudson's assumed name of Stanhope. The postal order went with the other postal orders. No alteration was made in it, to my knowledge, but I think Klinge filled in too many columns, and it was necessary to add some stamps to the postal order to make it agree, with the new coupon. The original coupon I threw down the w. c. at the suggestion of Catling. Klinge filled in the new coupon in ink, and it was placed in the alphabetical pigeon-holes with the genuine ones. The postal orders, amounting to £300, remained in the custody of Klinge, but Catling had the key of the safe until he returned to England on the Wednesday night. I remained in Holland until Mr. Stoddart wired for me to come back to London. As the clerks had been having to work very late and very early Catling asked me to write a letter to Stoddart saying how well the clerks worked, how well Klinge did his work, that I was satisfied with the arrangements of the office, and that I might put in a word for" yours truly," meaning himself. I accordingly wrote a letter to Stoddart for Catling to bring across with him to England, and Catling, when I asked him whether it would do, said, "Yes; it will do splendidly." On the Thursday I received a telegram purporting to come from Stoddart: "You must return on to-night's boat. See Stoddart eleven o'clock. Important." To the best of my belief the original is in the handwriting of Mackenzie, whom Stoddart had financed in similar business. I accordingly returned on the night of Thursday, December 3, and next morning went to Stoddart's office, 58, Fleet Street, in company with my wife. We first had conversation about the sale of my business. There was £200 due to me from the company I had sold my business to. I showed Stoddart a letter Mrs. Price had sent me to Holland, in which the company disputed the payment. Stoddart said he had consulted with Mr. Alpe (Messrs. Alpe

and Ward, solicitors) about it, and they were of opinion that third parties would be better able to get the money than I should be, and that I must assign the £800 due from the sale of my business to Stoddart, and let him get it. The sale price of my newspaper was £1,000, payable by instalments of £200 every three months. I had arranged that out of the £200 then due I would pay a proportion of the postage of the competition that had gone out. We had a long conversation about the assignment, and he said that unless I did assign the £200 to him he would not go on with the competition. I told him I could not do anything of the kind, as the money was not actually mine, as my printer and paper merchant were both waiting for their accounts, and to make such an assignment would be a criminal act. Then he said, "I shall not go on with the business unless you assign the £800 to me." Mrs. Price was with me; we both broke down for a time; there was a good deal of weeping. Then he said he would send for Mr. Alpe, who would advise me it could be done with perfect safety. Stoddart sent his lady clerk out for Alpe, who came in instantly, suggesting that he had been waiting in the next room. He asked me if I had a bankruptcy notice, and I said No. As to my creditors, I said in one instance I had given bills and in the other instances they were content to wait. He asked me when the first bill fell in, and I said in October. Then he said I would be able to pay my bill if I would do what Stoddart wanted me to do, as they would be able to get the money out of the company, and I should be able to go along properly. Alpe and Stoddart then went out of the office for a few minutes, and when they came back asked me what I had decided to do. They pointed out that these circulars had gone all over the country, that I had been tricked into doing a misdeed, and that I should be kicked into the gutter if I did not make this assignment, which Mr. Alpe already had in his pocket ready for me to sign. I thereupon signed it. (The document having been produced and read, the Recorder ordered that it should be impounded and kept in the custody of the court until ordered to be given up.) Stoddart said the competition had not been the success he expected it would be. I told him that Catling and Klinge both thought that as it dealt with matches played on Tuesday instead of Saturday, the thing promised splendidly. Stoddart said it had not been quite up to expectation, but he would see how it went on Saturday. In the meantime, I had better not return to Holland, where Catling would do all the business that was necessary, but had better remain in England and see what business wanted doing on this side. While I was in Holland the second number of" Football Sport" came out with Competition No. 2. Six winners were announced as dividing the £300 prize, amongst them being" F. Stanhope," of Moorledge Road, Leicester. I continued to see Stoddart frequently up to September 14. In the fourth number of" Football Sport," issued September 12, the winners in Competition 2 were given, in respect of which Stoddart told me that £287 had been received. All I know about the money is that I saw a lot of postal orders lying on the carpet in his office, and he said that was the result of the second competition. That would be a disastrous week. We

offered £400 in prizes and only received £287. Stoddart in the early part of the business showed me a little black book, in which he kept an account of the previous season's competitions, and, turning over page after page, said, "See, we have lost heavily all these weeks; you must not expect to make any profit until October is getting well advanced or November; that is where we commence to make profits. "Only four numbers of "Football Sport" were ever published. Stoddart told me on September 14 that the result of the third competition was better than the previous one, and amounted to £320. I did not see the postal orders that week, as he had already sent them to the bank at Peckham. The prize money was announced to be posted on September 15. Stoddart said." What about your prize money?" I said, "It is due to go out to-morrow. Shall I come down and take it away?" He said, "Have you got it?" I said, "No. I have not got it. You had all the competitors' money and you are financing me." He said, "Oh, no: I do not find any money." I said, "What! you won't find any money?" He said, "No; I do not find any money; you must find the money." I said, "You have had about £950 in the three weeks from the competitors, and you compel me to assign £800." He said, "Yes, but I have not got that." I said, "You know the money is quite safe. The first week's price money is due to-morrow, and it must go out to-morrow." He said, "I do not find the money." I said, "What is to be done?" He said, "You must think what is to be done; come and see me on Wednesday." I said: "I shall not come and see you on Wednesday. It is due to go out to-morrow and must go out to-morrow." He said, "You will have to find it then." I said, "I cannot find it; you know I cannot find it" He said, "I won't find it." I said, "Are you going to ruin me?" He said, "I do not know about that; you must find the money." Then I pleaded with him and told him it meant ruin and suicide if this money was not paid. He made some remark about Mackenzie having said something of the sort and being still alive and kicking. He would not give me any promise, but told me to come on the Wednesday. Mrs. Price was waiting for me down at Mr. Catling's office. I went there and told them I was a ruined man as Stoddart would not pay the prize money. Mrs. Price said, "I shall go straight to Scotland Yard this moment and expose the whole thing, and get justice for my husband, my children, and myself." She made also a violent outburst against Catling, which I thought was not fair, as I thought Mr. Catling was a gentleman. Catling asked Mrs. Price to control herself and asked me to persuade her to go to one of the tea shops in Fleet Street and have a cup of tea while he and I discussed it. I told him what Stoddart had said at the interview, and Catling said, "Will you arrange for a composition with the prize winners?" I said, "Certainly not." He said, "Well, you see it is a failure." I said I did not think it was and that he knew it was generally understood that these competitions did not pay before October or November, and I insisted that the prize winners must be paid in full. Catling said, "I will see Joe to-night and see that they are paid in full. Will you leave it to me?" I said; "Yes, Fred, I will leave it to you." The result of all

this was that Mrs. Price did not go to Scotland Yard. I went home and was threatened with brain fever. On the Wednesday Mrs. Price went to see Stoddart to ask him what he was going to do. It was still the same; there was to be no prize money. On September 13 I telegraphed to the postmaster at Middelburg to stop all letters which were in his hands. I do not know where they are, and tried to ascertain because I wanted the money for the fourth competition to be returned to the competitors. As a matter of fact nobody has ever been paid anything in respect of the competitions in" Football Sport," and one of the competitors served me with a writ in Court yesterday. Personally, I never had so much as a postage stamp out of it. Stoddart had the whole of the money. Circulars were afterwards issued to the competitors by Stoddart purporting to explain the situation.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I have never been accused before of defrauding prize-winners. I refuted that false and malicious assertion at the Mansion House. I sold "Football Chat" to the Union Trust. I do not know that they are disputing the sale on the ground that I was guilty of fraud. I know it is alleged that I misrepresented the value of the paper, but I do not think it is alleged that I injured the paper by not paying competitors their prizes. The amount of the claim is £1,740, £800 damages for misrepresentation, loss of profit occasioned thereby £800, and £100 damage caused by "Football Sport." I am now living on my wife. We have had to take in boarders, and I am having to clean the boots of the lodgers, and do the utility work of the house. I know Mr. Windust, and have seen him to-day. I was last at his house when I saw Inspector Collison there. When Windust heard that I had been to Holland and registered a competition he telephoned to my house and asked if it was true. I told him yes, and he said he thought I had made a mistake, and was sorry I had not seen him before doing that. I met him afterwards in the City, and he again said I had made a big mistake. I said, "Well, it is done now." He said, "You know Stoddart's reputation; be very careful." I said, "I shall certainly be careful, but I think the man intends to deal honestly with me." Before I left Windust he said, "If things do go wrong, if you want any friendly advice, I will only be too pleased to give it to you, or my manager will give it to you free." As Mrs. Price's visit to Stoddart on the Wednesday was unsuccessful as regards getting him to pay the prize money, I went to Mr. Windust the day following. I went to him because he knows the competition business; it would be of no use going to anyone who did not. It was not long before I went to the police. Windust, I believe, was indicted for conspiring to defeat the ends of justice and sent to prison for contempt of court, in commenting upon proceedings before a Court of Justice. Windust was not the bitterest enemy of Stoddart; that I know from Stoddart's own mouth. When I went to Stoddart about the purchase of my paper he told me that the rivalry there had been between him and Windust had all ceased, and Mr. Catling had been peacemaker between them. Before I went to Esher I had never spoken to Cowley. I did not

know that Cowley was being paid; I knew nothing whatever about him. I deny that Windust, Cowley, and I were there to put our heads together to prefer a false charge against Stoddart; it is a wicked lie to say that I ever conferred with Cowley in any shape or form. We did not discuss Stoddart or anybody else. The conversation at dinner was on general topics, and afterwards I went upstairs and finished my statement. I had previously asked Windust if he could introduce me to somebody. I was determined to have the thing brought to justice. My statement took me seven and a half hours. As to why I did not go to the police before going to Windust, my wife would have done so if I had not stopped her.

Mr. Abinger. My case is that this was a conspiracy got up by this man, Cowley, and Windust, and that Collison is no party to it.

Cross-examination continued. Donald Mackenzie was at one time the proprietor of "Football Chat," and I was the editor. Mackenzie was convicted of defrauding prize winners. I was not myself systematically engaged in defrauding winners. I swear I paid Henry Neville Piper. There is my cheque for 20s. to him, which has been through a bank at St. Albans. With regard to the winners announced on November 19, 1907, I produce a cheque showing that Reeve, of Bruce Grove, Tottenham, has been paid, and, to the best of my belief, they have all been paid. When Catling first spoke of bogus addresses I understood he was making an objectionable proposal. As I said at the Mansion House, it was the one mistake of any life to ever have agreed to it, and I am a ruined man in consequence. I never mentioned to Stoddart that I had agreed to do it. He sent me for all the working details to Catling. Stoddart was always with his face to his desk and his back towards me. He never alluded to my sending in a bogus winner, but he said he was not going to let me go back to Middelburg. That arose when we were discussing the advisability of saving expense. I did not go back to Holland after that. I told Windust that the name given by my brother-in-law was fictitious. I made a clean breast to him and asked his advice. Klinge, Catling, and myself took part in the sending in of the bogus prize-winner. I have no document which would show that Stoddart knew of it. I do not accept the suggestion that it was something between three of us behind Stoddart's back with intent to defraud Stoddart. When Stoddart taunted my wife with it and said, "I have got that against Mr. Price," he evidently knew then. That was when she called upon him about paying the prize winners. He never intended to pay them; it was a trick. I published a letter in" Football" from the football Rob Roy Macgregor. I do not know that he wrote next day to the" Daily News" repudiating it.

(Saturday, January 23.)

EDWARD Cox PRICE, further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. In July, 1908, when I was anxious to sell my paper, "Football Chat," I wrote to two or three people about it, and amongst them Mr. Stoddart, with whom I got into communication. I was in a railway accident.

and was away from business for a long time. My health was broken down. I lost considerable money over the damages I got from the company. I was advised that it would do me harm to take the case into court. The compensation awarded me was £274, but I lost several hundreds over and above that. I was not at that time pressed for money. My principal creditors were not pressing me. I had not at that time £200 at command, nor £100, nor £50. It was in that condition that I entered into an agreement with Mr. Stoddart in which he agreed to give me assistance in launching a foreign business, and to guarantee my account for printing with the Argus Printing Company for stationery, and half the postage account for the first two weeks in September. In return I agreed to pay to Stoddart a sum equal to one-half of the net profits of the football competition carried on by me at Middelburg in the name of "Football Sport" or any other name. The agreement provided that it was not to be construed as a partnership. I considered it was my competition and Stoddart's, and that document makes it a partnership. I did not provide any money for postage at all. Stoddart paid me two cheques. On July 23 he gave me £50 and again on July 24. That was not for my own pocket; that was to open a banking account at Middelburg. I insisted that the whole of the financial transactions of the business must be done over there and not in England at all. I rendered him an account of how the money had been disposed of. Mr. Stoddart was to find everything until October. On July 25 Stoddart gave me another £50. I think that was to pay for the addresses from Mackenzie. Stoddart knew I had no money at all; he was to be the financier; I was the man with the name. It is a good one, and I am not ashamed of it. The next amount I had from him was a loan of £50 on September 4. I gave the I O U. produced. This was on the morning that he forced the assignment from me. I told him that I wanted money, and he told me that I must have a working salary. I told him that I must have some money for maintenance—personal expenses. After we had finished the assigning business he told me to come back in the afternoon and then he asked me what I wanted and gave me £50. He put me on the same arrangement that he had with Mr. Terry, his other partner in Holland. All the money was spent in connection with the business. I was allowed £5 for each journey to Middelburg to cover the train, mail boat, hotel, and everything. I told Stoddart that I had sold my business for £1,000, of which £800 was due, and he knew my financial position fully, so that he knew I could not pay half the postage account. Stoddart said that there would be substantial profits in October, and that was when we were to go into finances. The £800 which was to come from the Union Trust was my main asset. I do not regard that asset as purely imaginary. I understand that £200 has been paid into Court. I have seen the counterclaim in the action for £1,740, which is ridiculous. My solicitor stopped the assignment the day following I gave it and gave notice to the Union Trust that they were not to pay Stoddart any money under the assignment. I understand that the Union Trust say that they have been defrauded on the contract and

there is litigation pending. In the first competition the amount received was £285 14s. 4d., in the second £289 2s. 8d., in the third £286 3s. 4d., and in the fourth, which I stopped, £60 3s. 8d., making in all £921 4s. The amount of the Argus Company's printing account was £153 18s. 9d. for printing, publishing, and circulating the numbers of" Football Sport." I did not spend 1d. The amount received by Stoddart in respect of the competitions is less by £600 than the amount expended by him. To the best of my knowledge, I wrote my brother-in-law after my conversation with Catling and did not wire to him. He came up to London to discuss the matter with me. I do not think I had seen him previously for about seven years. My brother-in-law consented to assist me because he said I had rendered him a service many years ago and he had never forgotten it. As a matter of fact, I started him in a stationer's shop. I did not consider I had any claim upon him, the affair was wiped out of my mind altogether. I do not know whether he had been in the habit of going in for competitions of this sort. He said he had been in a "Limerick" competition in which he had used the name of Stanhope. Hudson married my wife's sister. I should say he is a very honest man. I do not accept the suggestion that I requested him to send in a blank coupon in order that Klinge and I, who would be over at Middelburg, might fill in any winners that we liked and charge it against Stoddart. Klinge knew nothing at all about it until after Catling and I arrived at Middelburg. I should suggest from the way Klinge acted that it was the custom of the office to have blank coupons sent in to have the winners filled in afterwards, but I was only there two days. I and my brother-in-law did not put our heads together to see how we could get a coupon sent in and get the football winners put in afterwards. It is not true to say that I was assisting Klinge in this. Klinge did the work entirely himself. I do not say that from a desire to avoid responsibility; I am telling you exactly how the thing was done.

The Recorder. Is it not quite clear that this was a gross fraud? This coupon was sent in in blank, and when it reached the other end in consequence of the difficulty of matching the ink it was actually altered and written in again in ink. The object, of course, of the names being filled in is as plain as a pikestaff.

Cross-examination continued. Stoddart was in London while this was going on, and unless it was communicated by Catling, knew nothing about it. On September 2, 1908, I wrote to Mr. Stoddart: "Dear Mr. Stoddart,—The finances of No. 1 contest did not quite come up to expectations, on the letters received the average coming out at about 11d., but I presume it is what you would about anticipate on a first run. I must say that I am surprisingly pleased with the way the office is worked. It is anything but child's play, but so well are things arranged here by Mr. Catling and by Klinge that a big lot of work is got through very smartly. Mr. Catling has fixed up the office so that my new staff will get a quick insight into the work, and although they are, of course, a long way short of the very clever staff you possess, the system of working adopted will soon quicken them up. With but a very few exceptions, the letters I have received

have been full of encouragement, and the players have been run into pretty good figures. Hoping to get a letter from you to-morrow, for I am most anxious to know what you think of the kick-off, being quite new at the business myself, I remain, yours very sincerely," etc. Klinge was not consulted about writing this letter to Stoddart, Catling asked me to write expressing satisfaction with the way the clerks did their work. The object of the letter was not to throw dust in the eyes of Stoddart as to what I, Catling, and Klinge were doing. I was under the impression that Stoddart was a man who grumbled a great deal. It was not a piece of rank hypocrisy to say that I was surprisingly pleased at the way the office was worked when all the time I was swindling in the office. It was a surprise to me to see the way these Dutch clerks got through their work. Mrs. Price went with me to see Stoddart, because she met me when I arrived from Holland. Stoddart did not say that he had just ascertained that I was sending in a bogus coupon. I said yesterday and I say to-day it is a wicked lie. He never mentioned it in any shape or form. He did not say, "Unless you give me a satisfactory answer you will have nothing more out of me." It is a lie. He did not say, "You have broken your part of the contradict of July in the sense that you have found nothing for the postage." That is a lie. The account in front of me showing the figures was received by me. He did not, having upbraided me in respect of the two matters mentioned, put the account before me. What you are suggesting took place on the later date—September 14. On September 4 Stoddart had only received £350 9s. 4d. It is untrue that the interview on the 14th was terminated by Stoddart saying he would not be concerned any more with me, having found out about me and my brother-in-law. I agree that if Klinge, Catling, and myself were arranging for bogus winners Stoddart would be paying large sums of money for our benefit. Messrs. Coote and Ball were my solicitors at that time. The London Athletic Printing Company was a small printing business I was engaged in three years back. They published" Football Chat." I deny that I attempted to foist upon Stoddart a security which is worthless; I say it is not worthless. A very able firm of solicitors are defending the counterclaim for fraud. When I asked Stoddart on September 14 to pay the prizes he never mentioned the Union Trust at all. I swear that every word I have said about that interview is absolutely the solemn truth.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. When I embarked upon a No. 1 competition in" Football Sport" I knew that Catling had a business, of his own, quite independent of Mr. Stoddart, in which he had been engaged for some 14 years. What Stoddart said to me with regard to Catling was, "For all the working details consult Fred. He will tell you everything. He has a spare room down at 77, Fleet Street and will let you use that. You can go there whenever you like and consult him and he will help you to get out the coupons and give you all the working details." The financial part having been arranged, I was not to consult Mr. Stoddart again. Catling said he had been promised a quarter share of Mr. Stoddart's heavy profits

and would lend me all the assistance he possibly could and hoped we would work well together and I could go there every day and have the key of the smaller office. Catling did give me all the assistance he could down to the very last. He could not have done more for me if he had been my own brother, and I have no complaint to make of him. I think he kept his word in everything he said or promised. I am sorry he made the suggestion to me about the bogus coupons; otherwise I should never have done it. In every other particular I found 'him perfectly straight. As editor of Mr. Mackenzie's paper, of course, I knew something of the competitions he was carrying on, and I knew a great deal of the Continental business in addition and the methods by which it was worked. The experience I had had with Mr. Mackenzie had not, however, given me full knowledge of the work. At the time of Mr. Mackenzie's trouble I was asked by Mr. Mackenzie and his friend if I would look after affairs in Holland for a short time, and for about six weeks I looked after the business in Holland in addition to the business in London. Then Windust took up the Holland business and I had nothing more to do with Holland until I went over in connection with this business. I think Mr. Windust purchased Mackenzie's business. That was five or six years back, so that I did not retain much, of the knowledge I gained in that six weeks' experience. There was no suggestion of bogus winners in connection with any of Mr. Mackenzie's competitions while I was connected with that business. I believe Mackenzie was convicted in connection with some racing competition and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in this Court in October, 1904. I do not know whether, in Mackenzie's case, coupons had been sent in in blank. He worked through relatives, not strangers, but I do not know how it was done. It struck me when Klinge filled up the fresh coupons that that was not the first time he had done such a thing. It did not strike me that if such a practice was already in existence there would be no difficulty in finding names and addresses without confiding in me at all. The necessity of confiding in me was a trick to get me fixed up. That is as clear as possible from the incidents which follow. It was a trick to get me tied up, and I was to be kicked out. As I said this morning, another man was served in just the same way once before by Mr. Stoddart. In my opinion, the idea was to get me under Mr. Stoddart's thumb—to get me into a position so that I could not help myself. They were getting my names; they were getting my customers, 14,000 of whom sent in in three weeks. Then they offered me an inducement to try and compromise with the competitors. The object was that I should compound with these people, the prize winners, and the object was that in regard to those 14,000 people I should plead to Mr. Stoddart for his philanthropy to help me out of the difficulty; that is proved by the circulars that are here; and after that I was to go to the wall. They were to get my 14,000 customers on their books, and as the letters are supposed to average £50 a thousand, if they succeeded in getting all that business they would have had £700 a week added to their then existing business. In my opinion that was the object of the trick which was being worked—to get my business fixed on to theirs. I do not see that

they were rather putting themselves in my power too. I cannot say whether there may not be another aspect of the case and whether Catling in making the suggestion to me that I should become a party not only to a dishonourable act but to a crime was putting himself absolutely in my hands. With regard to Klinge, he was a Dutch clerk, and I suppose he knew he was out of the jurisdiction of the Court. To an extent, no doubt, he was putting himself in my power and giving himself away. They perhaps put themselves and Stoddart in the position, if I had any quarrel with them, of enabling me to go to the police and say this business of Stoddart's is a fraud and a swindle and I can prove it. Catling said I need not say anything to Stoddart about the bogus coupons; I could leave that to him. Catling told me after Klinge had sent the first post to Stoddart that Joe evidently thought the affair was going to be a great success and that he meant to have his full half-share. It was then he said that he would look to me for something out of it. Eventually I agreed to give Mr. Catling 10 per cent., but that was one of the very first things that made me distrust Stoddart, because he was not going to give Catling what he had arranged to give him, although he was doing all the hard work. To the best of my knowledge there was no other bogus coupon but that of my brother-in-law in connection with "Football Sport." I have never had the competitors' sheets in my possession. I tried to get them in the early days before I left Mr. Stoddart, but I have never seen them since the night I left Holland. I always wanted to test the genuineness of the winners, but I never had the originals. The police who have investigated the matter on behalf of the prosecution have not told me whether they have tested the names that appear as prize winners in "Football Sport." When my brother-in-law was in London I did not take him to see Mr. Catling because he came on the Sunday afternoon and returned the same evening. Mr. Catling has never been to my house and I have never been to his. When I knew how I had been tricked I wrote to my brother-in-law and told him that if Mr. Stoddart sent him anything to return it to me. If I had not understood from Catling that no money was to be diverted from the public I should never have entered into the idea of supplying addresses. It was anticipated in the early days of this concern that the money subscribed by the public would not be sufficient to pay the prizes, but the winners were to receive whatever came. The senders of coupons from certain addresses never competed at all. Whatever the competitors sent in was to go back in prize money. The idea was to save some of the loss which would have been entailed if the full prize money promised had been paid I certainly took it that the postage and other expenses were not to be deducted from the money actually subscribed by the public, but that matter was not discussed fully. If, for instance, the prizes offered were £500 and the amount actually received from the public was £300, the £300 was to go back to the public, and the loss in respect to the postage and other expenses was to fall upon the paper. That is how I took it and that is how I explained it to my brother-in-law. I understood that the £200 which the public had not in fact, sent in was to be credited to the bogus winners. There was never any

suggestion or hint that either Catling, Mr. Stoddart, or myself was to receive any of the money so diverted. We were not to divide between us the £100 or £200 awarded to the bogus person. It was purely a negative transaction. Supposing that on the first occasion the post had brought us in an avalanche of wealth, I should not have allowed the proposition to have been carried out at all, nor do I think Mr. Catling would. My honest opinion is that Hudson's coupon would have been torn up; the addresses were a suggestion in anticipation of possible loss. I was only asked about that one issue, not in regard to future weeks. If there had been any further suggestion as to future weeks I would not have entertained it for a moment. I take the primary idea to be to enable the paper to go on long enough to get into safe waters—to get over that difficult week. Mr. Catling thought it would only be necessary at the worst during the first few issues. He conveyed to me the idea that he personally firmly believed that ultimately the project would be a very great success, and he acted in every way as though he had that anticipation. I believe there is no man regrets what has happened more than Mr. Catling does. He had brought about reconciliation between Stoddart and Windust and stopped the slanting that had been going on. I do not suggest that Mr. Catling was to any way a party to the difficulty which arose between myself and Stoddart about the payment of the prize money. I believe Catling did his utmost to get Stoddart to pay it, and he told me that if Stoddart did not pay it he would go to Scotland Yard himself, and when my wife and I were reduced to great distress he did all he could to soothe and assist us. He promised to go and see Mr. Stoddart with reference to his promise to finance me right through, and I believe the did.

(Monday, January 25.)

EDWARD COX PRICE , further cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. My brother-in-law, not Catling, suggested that the former should assume a false name for the purpose of sending in a coupon, and I informed Catling. When I was in the Holland office Klinge took possession of the registered letters and opened them in a separate room. After Nos. 1 and 2 of "Sport" I had very little control over the publication and am not responsible for subsequent advertisements of competitions, though I read some of them as they were going to press, but Catling was responsible for them. On Wednesday, September 3, the registered letter containing my brother's coupon was handed to me in the post office with five other registered letters by Catling—an oversight on his part. I opened them, having forgotten to give them up. I tore up the coupon, but not, as is suggested, after Catling had demanded possession of it. Catling left England that evening, and early on the next morning I received a cable ordering my own return to England. I returned and have never since been in Holland, though at Stoddart's instance I was offered all sorts of inducements to return to Middelburg to get the" fourth post," which I had left in the hands of the authorities, who would deliver it to none but me.

I thought that the letters were best in the post office and left them, there, and that the postal authorities would ultimately return the moneys to the competitors. I could not go there in person, for I heard that certain trades people had taken out a process against me for certain debts.

Re-examined. After my return I had an interview with Stoddart on September 4. No. 3 of" Football Sport" went to press, I believe, on September 8 and gives the name of Stanhope as a winner. I did not compose any part of that number. A man named Jones, who was at the printer's, took an active part in Stoddart's business, being Catling's manager in the process-block making department, and also assisting in the competition arrangements. My own competitions in "Football Chat," when it was my property, were for small sums not exceeding £20. None of the winners, I believe, remains unpaid Some winners of cricket bats are still my creditors, and I cannot satisfy them. I have not made any profit out of these competitions. The bats were rewards for news items furnished. Exhibit 10 is the original of my draft agreement with Stoddart, and this (produced) is his letter to me of July 20, 1908. By the agreement he was to undertake to assist in financing my foreign competitions at Middelburg, but he told me from the outset that there could be no profits. He was to find the money for the prize winners if it was not subscribed by the public. I wrote to him about this, and he replied that there must be some confidence between us. No. 1 competition in" Football Sport" was issued on August 25, and the subscription should have arrived at Middelburg by September 1. No. 2 competition was issued on September 1, and money should have arrived by September 5. No. 3 competition was issued on September 8, and money should have arrived on September 12. On September 15 the money (£400) was due by me for the first competition, so I expected to have in hand three weeks' subscriptions to pay the prize money which Stoddart had estimated at £950. He also told me that postage for the three issues would amount to £921. If Stoddart had paid half of this as agreed, and the other half had been paid by the public, a balance of £90 would have remained after paying £400 in prizes. The printer's account, payable monthly, was not due. I produce signed statements made by me to Detective-inspector Collison.

The prosecution proposing to call Mrs. Price, Mr. Abinger objected to her evidence. The Court of Crown Cases Reserved had ruled that the corroboration of an accomplice was no corroboration at all.

The Recorder held that, although the evidence might not be sufficient, it was admissible for whatever it might be worth.

SARAH FLETCHER PRICE , wife of last witness. On Sunday, August 30, I went with my husband to Holland, and after my return was present on Friday, September 4, at an interview between him and Stoddart in Stoddart's office. Mr. Stoddart said he could not go on with the competition; it was not a success. My husband said it was a success. They spoke also of the assignment of the paper, "Football Chat." On Wednesday, September 16, I went to Stoddart's office because my husband was too ill to go. Stoddart wanted" me to take this letter (produced) for my husband to sign and to come back quickly as they wanted to go to press at six o'clock—

(Letter read.) He asked me to sign it. Stoddart showed me his pocket book and said, "You see, we have this against Mr. Price." The entry in the book was an address. I did not know what to say. I did not say anything. After thinking over the matter (during the luncheon adjournment), I remember that the letter which Stoddart wanted me or my husband to sign was written in my presence by Catling at the dictation of Stoddart.

Detective-inspector JOHN COLLISON, City Police. During last September I received information as to the Butterworth case, which, after inquiry, was referred to the City Solicitor. At the Mansion House Klinge was called into Court and confronted with Cowley, and Klinge afterwards called at the Guildhall and made a statement in my presence. He was examined at the next hearing, which was adjourned. I applied for a summons to secure his further attendance, but he disappeared and a witness-warrant taken out has not been executed. During an interval between the hearings at the Mansion House, defendant Catling said he would like to go into the witness-box and speak the truth. On October 12 he made to me a voluntary statement, which I wrote down, and on October 27 a further statement. On October 30 we met, and he asked me to get into communication with Klinge about the Ramsgate affair, and said that Stoddart had sent Klinge to Ramsgate to arrange an address to which letters could be forwarded. Catling subsequently brought me a coupon (produced), dated October 12, 1907, and bearing as the address of a winner," D'Avyet, yacht 'Marque,' care of 17, Bellevue Road, Ramsgate. "

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. When I took the statements of Mr. Price and Cowley at Mr. Windust's house I did not know that Windust was the bitter enemy of Stoddart. Catling has given me a lot of information of great assistance to me, and I think it does tell somewhat against himself. I took steps to verify some of the statements. I believe his statement is not true that Jones handed Stoddart £100 and that Stoddart paid it to the Argus Printing Company for work done. I produce a warrant for the arrest of Jones. The delay in its issue was due to lack of information. I do not believe that Catling actually told me that Stoddart had sent him to Ramsgate.

WILLIAM HENRY HUDSON , lithographic artist, 27, Moorhead Street, Leicester. I am brother-in-law of the witness Price. On Sunday, August 23, I called, in response to a telegram, at Price's house in East Finchley, and after returning home I received copies of" Football Sport," similar to these (produced), each containing a coupon I filled up the lower portion of a coupon, using the name Fred Stanhope, and sent it with a postal order for 1s. 6d. to "Football Sport," Middelburg, Holland. I did not fill in the names of clubs. Subsequently I saw my name, and the names of five other persons, advertised in the paper as the joint winners of £300 for correctly selecting the successful clubs in various matches.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I had previously entered for many other competitions, such as Limericks and "Lipton's Motor

Car," but not my brother-in-law's. I did not know why my brother-in-law wanted me in London, but he had done me many good turns, so I went. Price said that he had a friend named Stoddart financing him; that there might be a disastrous loss the first week; and would I put my name down as a winner. Price said the names of the clubs would be filled in. He did not say, "After the event," but that was the object.

ALFRED GARNER , umbrella mender, 69, Lefever Road, Bow. In August last I subscribed a coupon in a" Fotball Sport" competition, and subsequently saw myself and five other persons advertised as winners of £300. I never received any money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abmger. The coupon had Price's name on it. On another occasion, by subscribing one shilling to a Stoddart competition, I won 4s.

WILLIAM JOHN GRIMES , managing director of the Empress Music Hall, Brixton. I know defendants. Catling is a friend of many years' standing. About September 24 Stoddart called on me and" said he was in serious trouble, as some people, Charlie Windust, Price, and Cowley, were trying to blackmail him; that he had had a summons, and that a summons had been issued for Catling also, who was in the motor car with Stoddart. Stoddart asked me to take his motor car and go next day to Windust to ascertain particulars of the charge. Stoddart said to Catling, "You must not receive this summons. You had better leave the country to-nigt," I told Catling he would be very foolish to do so if he were innocent, and that if he tried to leave the country he would probably be arrested. He said he would receive the summons. Next day I called on Windust. and subsequently went to Stoddart's house at Tulse Hill, where Catling was sent for, and I told him Windust had" said that if Stoddart had paid Paul Price's coupons there would have been no trouble. I understood Catling to say that Stoddart had paid this money into has wife's account with the London and Southwestern branch bank at Peckham. I asked Catling if this were true, and he said, "It is quite true," and that he knew that if Stoddart had paid the winners there would have been no trouble at all. Then Stoddart arrived, to whom I reported my interview. I said, "Why didn't you pay Price? You are a rich man. That would then make you an honourable man in the eyes of the world?" He replied, "Price owes me money now, and I will pay nothing. I have nothing to fear." Catling was then present. Both, with the ladies from the dining-room, accompanied me to the front door, where Stoddart said to Catling," Now you will have to leave at once; you must leave the country to-night." I cannot swear to the words. I said to Catling," Catling, be a man. and say you won't go." He said, "I won't go." Catling left with me and promised not to leave the country. I advised him to try to get his father to pay.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I did not mean Catling's father but his father-in-law, Stoddart. I did not volunteer to go to Windust's. I said at the Mansion House that I did; but I was called suddenly into the witness-box and had not times to collect my

thoughts. (Both defendants asked me to go. I went to find cut what was the charge. I had known Windust for about 20 years. I did not know he had been convicted, nor that he had been running in Middelburg an opposition business to Stoddart's. It is untrue that on my return from Windust's I said that if £2,000 could be paid the case against Catling would be at an end. Stoddart did not reply that be would not give £2,000. He was not there. The ladies sent for him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Moses. I have known Catling for 15 or 16 years and have never known him to do a dishonourable act. He begged his father-in-law to pay up the £2,000, and said he would even mortgage his own house to do it.

Re-examined. I was summoned to the Mansion House on the eve of the hearing and arived there just before the case came on.

(Tuesday, January 26.)

ALFRED ROE , financial agent, Stamford Hill. Towards the end of 1907 I was alone with Stoddart in his Fleet Street office. Pointing to an envelope he said, "Someone is trying to do me for one of my competitions." He then asked, "May I send you some pamphlets to your address under the name of Rowlandson?" I consented rather readily. He said, "Is a 'fiver' of any use to you?" I said, "Yes." In former days I had rendered many services to him. I felt this was a solatium for some of these. I received his cheque for £5. I had helped him with investments; had introduced people to him; and profits had resulted. When the pamphlets came to my address, 58, Linthorpe Road, I threw them into the fire. In the first batch I saw the name of Rowlandson and my address in connection with a prize of £300. I did not get any of the money, nor did I apply for any. I should have been entitled to £150 had I filled in the coupon. I left this address in March, 1908, together with my landlady. The house has since been empty. During my 12 years' residence there no one named Rowley ever lived in it. I see by No. 26 of the" Racing Record" that" A. Rowley" of that address won a sixth share of £500. At this time the house was closed and there was no caretaker. I never assumed the name of Rowley, nor received the prize.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I am a financial agent, and find financiers to take up such investments as foreign concessions—for instance, a Peruvian railway and Maxim's Restaurant in Paris. I did not get £500 from Stoddart for the John Hopraft Boiler Scale Paint Company. From the cheque produced, it appears that Stoddart gave £500 to J. Richardson, but this, Stoddart told me, was to procure Stoddart's reinstatement on the turf. Two and a half years ago I was bankrupt for £400, which I intend to pay, with 5 per cent. interest.

DOUGLAS WILLIAM DABBS , owner of 58, Linthorpe Road, Stamford Hill. Since March 24 last this house has been unoccupied and without a caretaker.

ELIZABETH DOUGLAS , till March last the servant of 58, Linthorpe Road. I never knew my lodger, Alfred Roe, by any other name.

GEORGE JOSEPH ROBINSON , silversmith, 30, Harpur Road, Barking. Henry John Jones is my brother-in-law, and was employed by Catling at process-engraving. In February last Jones asked to be allowed to use my address for letters in respect of the" Football Record" coupons. He gave me a letter to post at Barking addressed to some person at Middelburg, Holland. I posted it, and, some time afterwards, a postcard which he gave me. At a later rate a registered letter was delivered at my house addressed to T. Payne. I see by the" Football Record" of February 27, 1908, that T. Payne is one of five winners of £60 each. I gave the letter to Jones in Fleet Street. I do not know his present address. He gave me about four or five pounds. About May last, at the suggestion of Jones, I took a room at 14, Fly Street, Plashet Grove, Upton Park, for the same purpose, the receipt of letters. The" Racing Record" of May 6 contains the name of G. Collins, of that address, as a winner. I had taken the room in that name and had posted for Jones a letter from Upton Park to Middelburg. Subsequently a registered letter arrived at my room for" G. Collins." I took it to Jones, who gave me £6 on that occasion. In August last I took a room at 32, Westwood Road, Seven Kings, under the name of James White, and from there I posted for Jones one letter to Middelburg. No. 46 of the "Football Record" shows that James White, of the same address, is a winner of £27 5s. A registered letter came, which I gave to Jones, who gave me £2. Again, with Jones's knowledge, I went to Prittlewell Street, Southend, where I took lodgings as S. Roberts, and sent a postcard to Middelburg. The Football Record" announced S. Roberts as a winner of £12 10s., all of which I received.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I am aware that I have done wrong. I consented, not knowing it was going to run as far as it did. In December I got into communication with the police. I did not see the contents of any of the registered letters mentioned, except of the last one, containing £12 10s. There was no definite agreement as to my remuneration. I did not take part in any competition except those mentioned.

ISABEL PICKING , 15, Essex Road, Islington. In April last letters came to my shop addressed to (c). Barnes. He called for them. One was a registered letter. Another man afterwards showed me the "Racing Record," which announced that Barnes had won £83 6s. G. J. Robinson, recently in the witness-box, is not the man.

Sergeant FRANK BURGE, Somersetshire Constabulary, Weston-superMare. I am well acquainted with Cleveden Road, but my inquiries have failed to discover in it a house named "Suniton." There is no" Clevenden Road," and I cannot find that anyone named W. T. Jones lives in the neighbourhood.

ELIZA MARY FROST , widow, housekeeper at the Williams Hotel, Ramsgate. My mother, who keeps a tobacconist's shop at Ramsgate at 17, Bellvere Road is now unable to leave her bed. About October 23, 1907, I got certain information from a postman. I had seen letters addressed to" D'Avyet" come to my mother's. I called at the

post office to get a letter for D'Avyet, but could not get it as it was wrongly addressed. A few days afterwards I met D'Avyet and told him of the letter. He said his yacht was in the harbour and he must catch the next tide. So that I might get the letter he gave me the authority produced, and I received a registered letter like this (produced). He never called for it, and I kept it till it was handed over to the police.

MARIA RISELEY , wife of Henry John Riseley, tobacconist, 59, Broadway, West Hendon. In October, 1907, I agreed to take in letters for a man named J. (Browning, but he never called for those that came. Mr. Funnell, whom I see in Court, is not the man.

Detective-constable ALLEN ERNEST HARRIS, City Police. I have been unable to find at the address he gave F. W. Collier, one of the winners in the" Racing Record" competition case. I was told last month that one Collier was there two and a half years ago.

WILLIAM FRYER , hairdresser, 52, High Street, Wandsworth. I arranged to take in letters for a man named Tom Willis. He called as arranged and was handed his letters. This (Jones's) photograph is not that of Willis.

GEORGE EDWIN JEFFERY , caretaker, Brunswick Mansions, Hunter Street, W. C. I have lived at this address since September, 1907. "Football Record," No. 24, announces that A. Foster, of the same address, is a winner of a share in £300. I do not know that any "A. Foster" has lived there in my time.

CROMWELL J. ASHE , manager to the agents for the Brunswick Mansions, corroborated the previous witness.

EMILY LAUDER CARTER , wife of J. G. Carter, musical instrument dealer, 37, Tyneham Road, Lavender Hill. My husband and I have been in the habit of entering for football and other coupon competitions. We were winners in" Football Record" competition No. 22. The" Record" had announced that J. Browning, of 250, Broadway, had been a winner of No. 20. I received my £100, Foster, Jones and I being the winners; but if Foster is not a genuine winner I am entitled to £150.

JOHN GEORGE CARTER , husband of last witness, corroborated her evidence.

Detective-sergeant ERNEST THOMSON, City Police. "Football Record," No. 34, announces 12 winners in a competition; prize to be divided among" T. Morris Harledene, Brunswick Square, London," and others. I found two Brunswick Squares, but no T. Morris Harleden, and no Harledene House. A letter which I posted to the address came back through the Dead Letter Office.

ARTHUR SINGER , mechanical driver, 248, Soot Ellis Gardens. I know Henry John Jones, and saw him about January, 1908, at Brixton, when he asked me whether he might use my name and address for a football competition; and said he could not use his own, as Mr. Stoddart would think that he and Catling were "working something dirty." I understood that competition prizes would come to

my address, and that I should hand them to Jones. I was to open the letters, and did so, including two covering 5s. and about £25 in bank nctes respectively. Jones called, and insisted on my keeping the 5s.

CHARLOTTE GRANT , shop assistant, 169, Upper Richmond Road, Putney. In No. 42 of the "Football Record," dated March 21, T. Deacon, of my address, is announced as a winner of £50. A man of that name had been calling for letters at my employer's shop, but had not called since the second week in February, though a lot of letters arrived notwithstanding. I gave them to the police.

(Wednesday, January 27.)

CHARLOTTE COUSINS , 32, Westwood Road, Seven Kings, Essex. On August 17 a woman called upon me with a view to taking a room for her brother, giving the name of White. On the following Monday White arrived and he occupied a room in the house about four weeks (The witness Robinson was brought into court and identified as "White.") He brought no luggage. Lots of letters came for him, one registered. I signed for that and gave it to him. Three or four days afterwards he went away, paying me a week in lieu of notice. He left no address. After he had gone other letters arrived for him. I handed them to the police.

SARAH THOROUGHOOOD , 63, Prittlewell Street, Southend-on-Sea, identified the witness Robinson at "8. Roberts." On September 19 his wife came and took rooms and he subsequently arrived with his wife and three children. Letters arrived for him, one being registered.

Detective-sergeant ERNEST TOMPSON produced bundles of letters received from witnesses in the case. The letters addressed to S. W. D'Avyet he received from Mrs. Fogg, the mother of Mrs. Frost, and the dates of the postmarks ran from October, 1907, to April, 1908. Neither of them contained notes or any form of money amounting to £300 or any other sum. They contained circulars with regard to competitions. One was a registered letter. The circulars addressed "J. Browning, care of Mrs. Riseley, 259, Broadway, West Hendon" he received from Mrs. Riseley, and the dates ran from October 29, 1907, to December 6, 1907. There was no registered letter amongst them and no payment of money. The letters addressed "T. Willis, 51, High Street, Wandsworth," witness received from the witness William Friar, and were dated from October 30 to December 5. There was no registered letter and none had contained money. The letters addressed to Deacon received by witness from the witiess Charlotte Grant were dated from February 26, 1906, to October 7, 1908. Neither of them was registered nor contained money, and the last bundle addressed to" White. 33, Westwood Road, Seven Kings," was dated from September 26, 1906, to November 7, 1908.

Cross-examined. One of the letters addressed to Willis has been mislaid by the officer in charge of it, Detective Ernest Thorpe. That letter contained a coupon. I do not know who runs the "Sporting Prophet" competition. Mr. William Barnes runs a competition in connection with" Football Life. "

JAMES HENRY FOSTER , manager of the Peckham branch of the London City and Midland Bank, produced a certified copy of Stoddart's. account, in the name of Joseph Stoddart, from October 1, 1907, to October 31, 1908, showing debit entries and the dates and numbers of notes drawn out. Witness also produced a copy of the account in the name of Ada Jane Stoddart at the same branch. Stoddart sometimes operated on the Peckham account from the Ludgate Hill branch; either branch cashed his cheques.

EDWARD THOMAS WHITING , cashier, London and South-Western Bank, Fleet Street branch, produced a certified copy of the account of Fred Catling from October 3, 1907, to November 9, 1908, with analysis appended giving details of the payments in, made at the request of Catling. Stoddart's cheques figured largely among the credits.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. On June 25, 1908, two sums amounting to £25 13s. 9d. were paid in, a cheque for £15 13s. 9d. and a £10 note. I have no particulars as to the note. On June 19, 1908, £140 was paid in—£90 gold and £50 in notes. I do not think there is any previous instance of so large a sum as £90 being paid in in gold; the next largest, I think, is £20. On July 2 £100 was paid in gold, on July 3 £25 by cheque, on July 6 £105 18s. 9d. £100 being gold and the balance in two or three small cheques. The document produced shows the notes paid into the bank during the time under consideration. £50 was paid in on July 9, but the details do not appear here. Catling also has with us an account as Catling and Co., Limited, upon which two directors draw—I think, Catling and Jones. The note produced, No. 15444, for £20, dated July 12, presumably was paid to the account of Catling and Co., Limited. It might have been exchanged or it might have been paid in; I cannot tell, but I can swear it was dealt with for Catling and Co., limited. There might have been an exchange on that account without touching the account" Catling and Co. Limited," was written on it by one of our cashiers. A £10 note, No 16769, on April 15, 1907, went to the credit of Catling, Limited.

Re-examined. I know Jones's handwriting, and, to the best of my belief, Exhibits 5 and 6 (the Butterworth coupon and letter) are not written by him.

FRANK HEATH BOTTEN , assistant cashier of Messrs. Barclay and Co., 19, Fleet Street. I produce a certified copy of defendant Stoddart's account there from October 1, 1907, to February 17, 1908," when it was closed. On January 15 £376 10s. was withdrawn by cheque to the order of Catling.

JOSEPH PERCIVAL HUDSON , clerk in the Bank of England, was recalled to produce bundles of notes withdrawn from Stoddart's account.

WILLIAM CASH , Messrs. Cash and Stone, accountants, Cannon Street. I have examined the file of the" Football Record" and the few copies included in the exhibits. I have had produced to me a copy of Stoddart's account with the London City and Midland Bank and

the statements of the numbers and dates of the notes drawn out from that account, a copy of the account at Barclay's, and Mrs. Stoddart's account. I have not had the opportunity of seeing a copy of Catling's account which has been produced this morning, but I have inspected a copy of Catling's private account. I have also examined the bank notes produced by the last witness and the copies of the entries in the books of the Bank of England relating to them. That is the whole of the material I have had before me. From those materials I have extracted certain figures which I have put into the form of schedules. With regard to the notes drawn out, I have endeavoured to check those so far as the information on the note and the information given me by the Bank of England will permit, and in that way have been right through Stoddart's account and exhausted every payment which in my opinion or judgment would be in any way applicable to these competitions. Taking, for instance, the case of "J. Browning, West Hendon," I can find no trace of any payment to him of £560. I have prepared a lengthy statement dealing with each competition and am prepared to deal with each competition if necessary. In competition No. 17 ("Football Record," September 21, 1907, payment announced for October 15), I can find no trace of any payment to D'Avyet, the winner of £300. In competition No. 20 (" Football Record," October 19, 1907, date of payment November 12, 1907) there are five winners of £60 and there are the 51 who have to share the consolation prize of £100; there is no trace of £60 having been paid to J. Browning. I find that notes were drawn out of Stoddart's account, under date November 13, amounting to £240, the amount necessary to pay the other four competitors. Two notes, £50 and £10, numbered respectively 91552 and 39118, are endorsed" Thomas Cooper, Woolwich"; two notes, 91951 and 39117, are endorsed John Mallon. Glasgow, and have been paid to the Bank via Belfast; two, 93619 and 39115, are endorsed" E. A. Salter, "and two, 93620 and 39116, are endorsed" James Wall" and paid to the Bank via Bristol. In every case except that of Browning the money seems to have been properly sent. That cheque having been drawn on November 13, the next withdrawal is £15, and on the 15th there is a withdrawal of £70 in notes. I have seen those notes, and they are not. applicable to this competition. The next cheque is £100 on the 16th; those notes are marked "Argus Printing Co." On November 13 £100 was drawn in cash which I allocate to the payment of the £100 prize, making £400. If it had been intended to pay the whole amount of the competition the amount needed to have been drawn out would have been £400, presumably something over for the expense of remitting these small sums. There was on the date in question a credit balance of £876, so that there was ample upon which to draw for the full £400. In Competition 21 the alleged bogus winner is "Tom Willis, High Street, Wandsworth." Five winners divide the £300 between them, that is £60 each, and 114 divide the £100. On November 19, the date on which the prize money was due, there was drawn from the bank £340 in notes. The first winner is Mr. Davis, Margate. One £50 note and one £10 note

came back from Margate, one through the P. O. and the other through the London and County Bank, and rightly or wrongly I attribute them to Mr. Davis. Another £50 note and another £10 note comeback from Newport, where Mr. Harris lives. Another £50 note and £10 note come back endorsed "Hoffmeyer," which is the name of another genuine winner; and a fourth £50 note and £10 note are endorsed" Robbins." There are eight notes of £10 each paid by the London City and Midland, Fleet Street, which I suggest relate to the 114 winners of 17s. 6d. each who would have to be paid by Postal Orders. As regards the remaining two notes I put those in a separate column, one being endorsed" Stoddart" and the other" Fred Catling," making £340 drawn from the bank. After drawing the £340 there was a balance of £257 left. In Competition 22, where it is alleged that" A. Foster," of Hunter Street, is not a genuine winner, there were three people to share the £300 prize and 27 to share the £100 prize. £200 was withdrawn from the Peckham branch under date November 27 and £110 in cash, the money being probably drawn at Ludgate Hill on November 26. One of the £100 notes conies back endorsed by Mrs. Carter, of Lavender Hill, and the other endorsed James Jones, Liverpool. The cash I attribute to the £100 prize. There is no trace of anything having been drawn from the bank for Mr. Foster. £100 was drawn on November 29; those I have not seen, and it is within the bounds of possibility that the £100 may have reached Foster in that way. In Competition No. 29, where the prize of £300 was. divided between A. E. Picknell of Leicester and J. T. Rowlandson of Stamford Hill and there were six winners of £16 13s. 4d. to divide the prize of £100, there is no trace of any payment to Rowlandson. £400 was drawn out of the bank, £390 being in notes and £10 cash. On January 15, 1906, one £100 and one £50 came back from Leicester. Provision had evidently been made for sending the £150 to Rowlandson. Further notes drawn on January 17 I trace to other destinations than prize winners, having at first thought they might be attributable to Rowlandson. In Competition 32, where twelve people had to share the prize of £300, I find no trace of £25 having been paid to" T. Morris, London," or" A. Singer, Brixton." In this case the £100 was divisible amongst 186 people and the prizes were due to go out on February 4. Under date of February 5, notes to the amount of £400 were drawn out. I show how those notes returned to the Bank of England. £50 is accounted for as follows: One £20 note is endorsed" Fleet Street, Catling and Co., Ltd."; one £20 note is endorsed "J. Stoddart"; a £5 note was exchanged for gold by Catling and a £5 note is endorsed" J. Sto. S.P.," and the note is torn. The other notes I can trace by the endorsements to the places of residence of the different winners with the exception of Morris and Singer, so that unless Morris and Singer had the two twenties and two fives which come back endorsed Stoddart and Catling, there is nothing provided for them at all. Assuming that those notes had found their way to Morris and Singer, the competition would have been paid in full. A £100 note marked with the Fleet Street P. O. stamp I assumed to have been used to pay the 186 competitors their

10s. 6d. each. There was no one to whom the £100 note could have been paid without being split up. In Competition No. 36 (" Football Record," February 8, 1908, payment announced March 3, five winners of £60 are given and 80 winners of £1 5s. each for the £100 prize, on March 4 there was withdrawn from the Peckham branch £300 in notes and £100 in gold. Of the notes a £50 and a £10 note came back from Watford, where A. Evans lives; a £50 and a £10 note paid to E. Foley of Motherwell came back from Glasgow marked "Greenock"; a £50 and a £10 note paid to R. H. Pettman, Battersea, came back via Newington marked" Pettman "; and a £50 note and a £10 note paid to F. Key, Gomersal, came back via Clerkheaton, marked" Gomersal." There is no trace of £60 having been paid to the remaining competitor, F. Payne, Barking. The £50 note, 77869, the last of the sequence sent to the other competitors, was exchanged for gold by Catling and the £10 note 16769, also the last of a sequence, is endorsed" Catling "; so that unless Payne had the two notes endorsed" Catling" there was nothing drawn for him. In competition No. 40, in which J. Deacon is alleged to be a bogus winner, there were five winners of £60 each for the £300 prize and 83 winners of £1 4s. The money being due on March 31, there was drawn on April 1 £200 in £50 notes and £98 in cash. The four notes had come back, one of them being endorsed" Catling and Co." One of the notes came back from West Brompton instead of from Derby, so that three of the competitors apparently were left unsatisfied. No other notes were drawn out until April 22, but there were intermediate withdrawals of insufficient amount to pay the winning competitors. In Competition No. 44, where there are 12 competitors announced., the bogus competitor is James White, Carlisle, and 317 competitors split up the £100. A £20 note and a £5 note have come back endorsed" Catling and Co." In Competition 46, "F. Roberts" being the bogus winner, there are 24 winners of £12 10s. each and 557 snared the £100. Payment being due on September 29 there was drawn from the bank on September 30 £340 in notes and £60 cash. I attribute the £100 note then drawn to the 557 competitors receiving 3s. 6d. each, because it is endorsed "Stoddart, P. O. Fleet Street." As to the payments of £12 10s. I can give no information. The competitors might have had a £10 note and the rest in cash. In Competition No. 25, where there were 6 winners of £83 each, I trace notes of £50, £20, and £10 to F. E. Farrell. A £50 note and a £20 note are endorsed" Catling and Co., Ltd." Only £249 was drawn out of the bank, and so far as I can discover four of these supposed winners have not had their money. With regard to the Butterworth case and the Stanhope case I give no evidence at all. I have looked at Mrs. Stoddart's account. As regards explaining how winners were paid it does not seem to help the matter at all. So far as I remember there are no notes coming out from that. Neither does Stoddart's account at Barnes afford any explanation. With regard to Catling's account I have prepared a schedule setting out the amounts paid to him by cheques drawn by Stoddart. I have taken the analysis prepared by the bank which has been proved by the bank officials and I have summarised the amounts

which appear as credits from Stoddart. Between October, 1907, and October, 1906, these amount to £1,764 in cheques and £130 in notes, making £1,894. There is a credit from Windust. to Catling of £16 13s. 4d. on February 27, 1908. The payments from Stoddart vary from £1 to £2 up to £500. (Witness pointed out credits which have no reference to the competitions.)

Cross-examined. There are a great number of notes drawn from Stoddarts bank with the P. O. stamp on them, showing that they have gone through the post office.

WILLIAM SIDNEY NASH , recalled, produced the official record of the posting of registered letters at the Chancery Lane P. O., 1908. Registered letters were posted to B. Barnes, G. Collins, F. E. Farrell, but none to W. T. Jones, Cleveland Road, Weston-super-Mare, F. W. Collier, Ballingdon Mansions, Kensington, or A. Rowley, Stamford Hill. There were registered letters to T. Cooper, E. A. Salter, John Mallon, and James Ward in November, 1907. There was no record of a registered letter being sent to D. J. Browning, c. o. Riseley, 259, Broadway, West Hen don. In Competition 21 (Willis's case) registered letters were recorded as having been sent to four winners, Davis, Harris, Hoffmeyer, and Robbins, but none to Willis. (Witness gave similar details as to other competitions.)

HIBBE HANNES DEFRIES . Examined through an interpreter. I live at Middelburg and was formerly in the service of George Stoddart. It was a coupon business and there was also a turf department. The business was taken over by Donald McKenzie and I remained in his employment till he was arrested. After that I was employed by Windust till April, 1906. In January I centered the service of the defendant Stoddart. Klinge was employed as manager of the business. At first there were 15 people employed, but latterly only eight. When letters arrived the postal orders and stamps were always taken care of by Klinge, who was authorised to sign the orders. Catling came over to superintend and to see what Klinge was doing. As a rule he came on the Saturday and returned on the Sunday night. Letters arrived mostly on Saturday nights. The postal orders and stamps were counted and taken to the bank and I found that afterwards Catling used to take them with him to England. It is impossible for me to say precisely how long that has been going on, but it would be from about September, 1907, to the end of the football season in March, 1908. After that date I have neither heard nor seen anything of that matter. Coupons were kept until the claims had come in They were then compared with the claims and kept for some long time after that. The names of winners were manifolded and duplicates kept in a book like that produced. The entries are mostly in Klinge's handwriting, but there are a few in mine and some in that of another clerk. A letter was sent to England showing who the winners were. I find that pages relating to D'Avyet and other competitors have been torn out.

(Thursday, January 28.)

DEFRIES, recalled, further examined. The registered letters were always opened by Klinge or under his superintendence; he was always

present. I never opened them; I was only in charge of the Turf Department. I sometimes fetched registered letters from the post. Coupons for competition in No. 29 of" Racing Record" had to reach Middelburg on or before June 17. Klinge was there then, I believe.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I found a record that Klinge had received the registered letters on June 17. He never gave receipts in advance for registered letters. I cannot swear I saw him there, but I have other reasons for thinking so. I speak English a little and can write it when dictated to. Before going into the coupon business I was a school teacher. I had nine months' imprisonment for embezzling school funds. I had the sympathy of the officials and was assisted by the President of the Court to obtain employment. In December, 1902, I entered the service of George Stoddart under Klinge, and was with him when the business was sold to Donald Mackenzie, with whom I continued until Mackenzie was convicted. I was then employed by Windust until April, 1906, when I left because he did not want so many clerks. I was employed by Joseph Stoddart on January 7, 1907, when he began business in Middelburg I wrote letter produced of November 27, 1906, to Stoddart's solicitors, offering to give proofs to start an action against Windust. I decline to give those proofs as they have nothing to do with this case.

Mr. Abinger submitted that the answer should be given, as the defence of Stoddart was partly an alleged conspiracy to procure his conviction.

Mr. Muir: I say this question is not relevant, even on that issue.

Held that question could not be answered at the present stage; it might become-admissible hereafter, when the witness could be recalled.

Cross-examination resumed. I did not know that Windust was. assisting in getting up the case against Stoddart. I have not spoken or written to Windust lately. On January 16, 1909, my wife received telegram produced from J. Stoddart, and I saw it three days afterwards:—"With respect to your letter to Alpe, come over and see me." I wrote letter produced to Stoddart December 26, 1908, stating I would visit him if he sent me £20." My proofs against Windust are very good indeed." (Letter read.) Return fare from Middelburg to London is £2 10s. There was another person I suggested coming with me—I decline to give his name. Windust did not speak to me about £2,000. It was said in Middelburg that if Stoddart gave Windust £2,000 he would be able to stop this case—I cannot remember by whom; by several clerks dismissed from Windust's services. I swear by my old father and by my wife that Windust did not tell me that. On December 20 I received letter from Stoddart stating that my letter looked like blackmail—"My agents have traced a very suspicious winner in No. 49 contest, viz., J. Bushey, 37, Clapham Road. When you stayed at 65, Finden Road, Brockley, last week you could have seen me." I know nothing about letter Exhibit 101; it is not in my writing. (Letter read, "Middelburg, December 12, 1908.—"Sir,—I beg to inform you that I am coming to England. I do not see why I should not report to the City Detective Department the part you took in the disappearing of Klinge. ") I swear by my old father that letter was not written by me or by my authority. I know Drake as carrying on the betting business of Drew and Co., Middelburg.

I did not send Exhibit 101 to J. and H. Drew. I know Kneeht, or Knight—he is no relation of mine. I slept last night in Aldersgate Street. I have never stayed at 37, Clapham Road, and do not know it. I spent a night at Finland Road, Brockley. I do not know Bushey. I have seen Smallman and know he has a large business at Middelburg. I do not know that his London office is 17, Great St. Helens. I have never robbed Stoddart. Manifold book produced is partly in my writing and that of other clerks. Klinge gave me three books before he left the last time for England to be packed up. I brought them over here and handed them to the police when they summoned me. Page 94 of book produced giving result of Football Competition December 26, 1907, £300, is in Klinge's writing. Price never told me a bogus coupon was coming in in the name of Stanhope. I cannot remember whether Klinge told me about the Stanhope coupon. Catling came to Middelburg fairly regularly every Friday. I have never seem Stoddart there during the last 12 months.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. When Catling first came over things were very bad indeed and they improved greatly. I do not complain of Catling; he has always treated me as a gentleman. He did not interfere with Klinge's management. He never received the registered letters. Catling always arrived at Middelburg on Saturday morning after the list of winners had been sent to London.

Re-examined. I last saw Klinge an October or November, 1908. I saw Windust in court this morning. I last spoke to him in January or February, 1906, at his office in Middelburg while in his employ. I last saw Catling in Middelburg in September, 1906. Page 94 of book produced is Competition No. 38; it is copied from another 'book. I do not know Pleydell. My conviction was in 1902. WHITING, recalled. Further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. Banknote for £20, No. 15440, endorsed "Catling and Co., Ltd.," was cashed across the counter. We have an exchange form for each banknote cashed Which would probably, but not necessarily, be written by the person presenting it. Note 43969 for £20 was cashed over the counter—it is endorsed by Jones. Notes 68049, 77669, and 96206 were changed for Catling and Co., Ltd.

Mr. Abinger submitted there was no jurisdiction in this court to try defendants for obtaining money by false pretences, one of the ingredients of the offence being committed in a foreign country. Although the false pretences were made in England, the obtaining was in Holland. (Counsel cited Reg. v. Holmes, 53 L. J., M. C., P. 737.) Mr. Elliott took the same point on behalf of Catling. The Recorder said there was quite sufficient evidence to leave the case to the Jury.

(Defence of Stoddart.)

JOSEPH STODDART (prisoner, on oath). I have been running competitions for many years. I have been prosecuted once under the Lottery

Act and acquitted and once under the Gaming Act two years ago. When I was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. I have never been charged with any other offence. In 1904 my son, George Stoddart, had a competition business in Middelburg, which he sold to Mackenzie, who was convicted at this court in 1905. In 1906 I was not running competitions in Middelburg. In 1907 I started "Football Record" there, which was carried on by a staff managed by Klinge. I did not know Defries had been convicted. I employed as many as 20 and as few as six clerks. No charge of dishonesty in my competitions had been made up to the time Catling joined me. I had carried on" Football Record" competitions from January, 1907. I had started another called" Football Sport" in September, had become rather tired of the business, which necessitated someone going over to Middelburg every week, and had determined to give coupon competitions up for both football and racing. Catling heard that was my intention and said he would like to put his back into it and see there was any money in it. I closed with the idea and said, "You can have it for three weeks to have a try." Catling started going over in October, 1907. I have been connected with coupon competition business since 1887, and have carried them on for 22 years, except when my son George had the business and when I sold it to Mackenzie, who barred me for two years from carrying on any contest, Up to the time Catling joined me no charge had been made of dishonesty in my competitions. I arranged to give Catling £4 a week for travelling expenses and half the profits and wrote letter produced:" November 27, 1907.—This is to notify that I am agreeable to Mr. F. Catling receiving half of the net profits on my" Football Record" contests, commencing with No. 22, on condition that he superintends the contests in Holland weekly. This bargain holds good as long as the" Football Record "is in property and is conducted as at present.—JOSEPH STODDART." Catling had then conducted two or three weekly contests, and the business showed a marked improvement, more money coming in. I do not know how many competitors there were, but it showed a marked improvement as a competition. If it had not I should have dropped it. I have not been in Middelburg since January, 1907, and could not say, except from general experience, how the competitions were conducted. Catling had charge while he was there; Klinge was in charge of the staff as manager. Catling went on Friday night and returned to London on Sunday night or on Monday if the business was very brisk. He would arrive at 8.20 a.m. at Herne Hill, meet and report to me how many letters they had had, and bring, over the money, which I would bank. The money was at first banked with Zip and Teilinger. I used to give Catling a cheque to pay the wages of the staff. Klinge had authority to draw £20 a week for expenses, but Zip's allowed him to draw a further amount without my authority. When this prosecution started I gave the competitions up, paid off the staff, and closed; the matter entirely. I have closed up all my connection with, Holland. It was the duty of Klinge to see that every envelope was pinned to the coupon so as to trace the

remittance if a coupon was questioned. Each coupon had to be stamped by the clerk who opened it with a numbered stamp, which was given to him for the day, and the number of which he would not know until the stamps were distributed in the morning. Catlin had the giving out of these stamps when the work was started. That was a check on the moneys received. The stamps were locked up by Catling when he left. Claims were received at Middelburg up to Wednesday at latest, and a sheet was sent by Klinge to London. The football matches which were competed for were all played on the Saturday, competitors posting their coupon at latest on Friday evening to arrive at Middelburg on Saturday. No communication was made by the competitor with the London office. The coupons were placed in alphabetical order. A claim coming in would be compared with the coupon, and if all was straight the claimant would be declared a winner; if there was any question Klinge would send the original coupon and claim to me in London for inquiry. The names and addresses of winners would be published in" Football Record" the following week.

(Friday, January 29.)

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, further examined. The list of winners would be sent to me by Klinge with other correspondence in the ordinary way. Either Catling or myself would pass it on as copy to the printers. The printers were Cate and Co., Ltd., then Sully and Ford, afterwards the Argus Printing Company. If any claim struck me as suspicious I should direct Klinge to send the original coupon and make inquiries. Cowley was employed to make inquiries. If the inquiries were satisfactory I drew a cheque for the prize money in full or less any winner that was queried. It was usually Catling's business to send bank notes in registered envelopes for the prizes. I have done it when he was busy—perhaps half a dozen times in all. Catling was assisted (by Jones; I was assisted by Miss Gardiner. Jones never assisted me. The sticking down of the envelopes was done by clerks. Sometimes we had as many as 6,000 winners in one week who received small consolation prizes paid by postal orders. In the case of Premier prizes when I attended to them I always saw the note put into the envelopes and the envelopes stuck down. Miss Gardiner assisted me. Catling occasionally has posted them for me, and a receipt was brought back for the registered letters. About £400 was paid every week. It went on throughout the year, including the football and racing seasons. I first paid Catling a share of the profits on January 14, 1908, by a cheque on Barclay's for £376 10s., that was his share of the profits to the end of 1907. On April 23, 1908 I paid him £105 by cheque; May 22, 1908, £100; June 9, 1908, £130; August 8, 1908; £102 12s. 3d., making a total of £814 2s. 3d., Catling's profits to that date. I generally gave Catling a cheque for the" prizes, including in it any sum required for petty cash or expenses; sometimes I paid him in cash. I frequently had as much as £1,000 in the office. On February 4 I drew a cheque for £400 for the winners in Competition No. 32. There

were twelve winners of £25 each, and £100 for consolation prizes. In the" Football Record" of January 25 the names of only eleven prizewinners were published, and I then arranged to pay them £27 5s. each. I took two bank notes for £20 (28064) and £5 (305523) and gave gold for them so that Catling could divide the money. That is how those two notes have 'been traced to my account. A twelfth winner named Singer was added to the prizewinners. That is the man who swore that Jones requested him to send in an application in the name of Singer, and that Jones used his address for fear that I should suspect him and Catling of doing something dirty. With regard to Competition 21 a £10 banknote No. 68040 has been traced to me. In that competition there were five winners of £60 each and £100 for consolation prizes. Tom Willis was a claimant for £60. I suspected his claim, as the writing on the claim and the coupon were not the same, so I drew a cheque for £340, which I handed to Catling. He undertook to make inquiries about Willis; he afterwards told me that Willis was all right, and I paid his prize by cheque payable to Catling of November 25 for £73, being £60 for Willis and £13 for petty cash. I handed the cheque to Catling. I have no further recollection on the matter. If the £10 in question is endorsed by Miss Gardiner Catling may have given it to her to change and she would cash it for him possibly out of gold in the office received in connection with my betting business. £10 note No. 20209 of January 6 is endorsed" J. Stoddart, 58, Fleet Street," by Miss Gardiner. In No. 29 competition there were two prize-winners, Picknell and Roe. I drew a cheque for £250 only for Picknell and the consolation prizes. Roe owed me money and I refused to pay it him. I ultimately gave him £5. I can only suppose that the £10 note No. 20209 came into my possession by being changed by Miss Gardiner for gold in order to split up the money for consolation prizes. Picknell received £150 paid by two banknotes of £100 and £50, the consolation prizes being £2 13s. 4d. each. That deals with all the banknotes that have been traced to me. Jones was Catling's manager and is a director of F. Catling and Co., Limited, which is Catling's business as a process engraver. In November, 1907, I noticed that Jones was a prizewinner, also Dent; both were sent forward from Middelburg. I knew Dent was a personal friend of Catling. I spoke to Catling about them. He said they were legitimate competitors. I said I did not doubt it but he had better ask them not to compete any more as I did not like personal friends of either of us to be winning prizes. He said he would do so. Jones was never an employee of mine. Prior to October, 1907, when Catling came into my business, I had never received from anyone a complaint of their not receiving the money. Until this case started I did not know that Jones was dealing with banknotes which belonged to prize winners. I never asked Jones or anybody to write the Butterworth coupon. I know nothing of the matter. Jones did not bring me £100 or any part thereof received for the Butterworth banknote. It is untrue that I paid any part of such money to the Argus Printing Company. I owed them nothing; they were doing no work for me. Klinge was frequently over in London and at my office; I

believe he was there on June 16; he may have posted the three registered letters in the Butterworth competition. I last saw klinge at Maidenhead in August to my recollection. I have not spoken to Jones half a dozen times in my life. Catling was instructed not to allow him in my house. He was considered a man without moral balance—he was keeping three establishments. I first heard Jones's name associated with this case during the proceedings at the Mansion House. I thought he might be a good witness and have made every effort to bring him here. I am in no way responsible for his disappearance. My solicitors wrote letter of November 25 to the City Solicitor stating that I had two private detectives engaged to ascertain his whereabouts, and that I could assist the police in securing his attendance. I telephoned from Croydon to Old Jewry in December stating that I thought I had found Jones and asking what I could do. The Detective Department replied that there was no warrant out and all I could do was to give Jones 5s. and a subpoena; I stated that I had traced him to a house in London Road, Croydon and asked if I could give him into custody. They said I could do nothing except subpoena him. I have never spoken to Robinson in my life. I have known Grimes for many years as a music-hall proprietor; but he has not been at my house until September 24, 1908, the day the summons was served, when, at about 6 p.m., I drove over to Catling and we drove to the Brixton Empress and told Grimes that I had been served with a summons, that I was in great distress about it, that I was given to understand Charley Windust was at the bottom of it, and that he and others were blackmailing me. Grimes said he was surprised and volunteered to see Windust. The next day (Friday, September 25), when I arrived home at Forest Lodge, Tulse Hill, Grimes and Qatling were there in the drawing-room. Grimes said Windust had got a mass of evidence together." Windust is well in with Stanger (of the City Solicitor's office) and Inspector Collison—they will do anything for him." I said, "I do not care whom he is in with—if there is going to be any fighting I shall fight it right out." He said Cowley and Price were two of the principal witnesses. We went into the dining-room, where my wife, my daughter Jessie, and Mrs. Catling were. Grimes said he thought the best thing would be for me and Windust to have a good dinner and shake hands, but if £2,000 could be found the whole thing could be stopped at once against Catling. My wife said, "Who is going to handle the £2,000?" I said I would find no £2,000; nor two thousand pence. I should have had no difficulty in paying had I wanted Grimes said, "It is a pity." I then suggested that Catling should go off on his usual journey to Middelburg. Catling asked Grimes if he ought to go under the circumstances. Grimes said he thought he ought not to go—he might be arrested. I laughed at the idea as he had had the summons, which was returnable on October 21, and asked Catling to go as usual. I could not have said to Catling," You must not receive the summons, but must leave the country to-night"—he had received the summons the previous evening. Grimes's statement is untrue. Grimes said nothing about paying Price. I said, "I

will pay nothing, I have nothing to fear." I told Catling to get off at once and catch his train. Catling said he would not go. Grimes then left with Catling and I went to bed. I was called up again at 10.30 p.m. I got into my dressing-gown and found Mr. and Mrs. Catling with my wife and daughter. They asked me if I was going to find the £2,000. I said I was going to pay no £2,000; they had heard my decision on that matter; I had a perfect answer to any charge that was made against me. Mrs. Catling said, "Then if you will not find it, dad, I must sell (or pawn) my jewels." My wife said." You have heard what dad says, and if he says anything it is settled—he won't find them the money." I then returned to bed. That is all I know about Grimes. I employed Defries on my staff in Middelburg under Klinge. I knew nothing about Defries having been convicted. I have never seen ham since January 7, 1907, until he appeared at the police court. He wrote my solicitors a letter saying that he had proofs against Windust. On January 16 I telegraphed him to come over, and on January 19 I received a letter saying he would come over if I sent him £20. Exhibit 101—a letter to my solicitors by Drake—I have never seen until to-day. I wrote to Defries saying that his letter looked like blackmail. In Competition No. 49 Bushey, of 37, Clapham Road, was returned as one of seven prize winners, each entitled to £42 17s. I queried them all—especially Bushey. I inquired at 37, Clapham Road and found that it was a place of business managed by Knight. I refused to pay. Defries has been mentioned in connection with that bogus claim. Knight lived at Finland Road, Brockley, where I believe Defries lived. I have known Klinge nine years, and have employed him since January, 1907, at £3 a week and afterwards at £4. I trusted him. Since the prosecution started I have made inquiries about him. On the summons being served I wired to him in Holland; he came over to my solicitors and gave evidence at the police-court on October 15. I have not seen him since. I am not a party to his disappearance. I sent my daughter over to wind up matters in Holland before Klinge came over. I employed Cowley from time to time to make inquiries into doubtful prize winners, paying him 5s. to £1 for his services. I did not know that he had obtained money from Catling. I know he was convicted for indecency. Catling paid his fine without my instructions, and I afterwards repaid it to Catling. I asked Cowley to make inquiries about Butterworth and Naylor and Rawley. The whole of his story with regard to Butterworth is untrue. I received he Butterworth coupon on Monday, June 9. We went to press on Wednesday, and the list of winners was published that week, being Butterworth, Naylor, and Rawley. I was not questioning Butterworth's coupon then. I drew a cheque for £310, being £300 for the three winners and £10 for petty cash, which was cashed bv Catling. Miss Gardiner prepared the envelopes and I saw the three £100 notes put in the envelopes. I believe Klinge was in London at the time. The last I saw of the three £100 notes was when Miss Gardiner put them into the envelopes; I do not know who posted them. That was absolutely the last I saw of my £300. I know nothing of Butterworth's

£100 note being cashed at the Bank of England. I received none of the proceeds. I have known Windust four or five years. He took over Mackenzie's coupon business in Middelburg after Mackenzie's conviction in October, 1905, in his own name, having assisted Mackenzie for some time before in connection with "Football Chat." I wrote articles in the" Football Record" charging Windust with gross fraud and called him a swindler. He did not bring an action for libel. I have seen a letter of August 26, 1906, from Windust to Calling threatening that I should be prosecuted for perjury and that I should get 12 or 18 months. No such proceeding has been brought against me; that letter made me think that Windust was the originator of these proceedings. I first met Price in July, 1906, when he called on me and offered to sell me" Football Chat." I said it was no good to me—as it was part and parcel of Windust's business it would suit me better to see it dead. Price then said he would like to run competitions in Middelburg. I said if we could agree I might be able to assist him with some money. Agreement produced was drawn up and signed under which I was to pay certain expenses and receive half the profits. I refused to guarantee the prizes. I wrote letter of July 20, 1908. That had no reference to my guaranteeing she prizes.

(Monday, February 1.)

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, further examined. I wrote a letter to Price on July 19 to the effect that we must have confidence in one another. I knew nothing at all of any arrangement for Price to send in a bogus coupon in the name of Stanhope. I first heard of it some time after September 4, when Price came back. I never arranged with Catling or Price that any bogus winners should be sent in. I made no arrangement with Catling to remunerate him in respect of the Price contract. As to the alleged conversation between Price and Catling, I was no party to that. On September 3 I wired to Price to return, because Catling said that something crooked was going on. Catling told me he thought Price's competition was very little good and that Price's idea of being a big man in the football "world was erroneous. He said, "I think something is going on that is crooked; you will find it out." On September 4 Price came into the office by himself, but his wife was at the door. He brought the six winning coupons of the first competition, in the names of Bond, Baker, Dawson, Gardner, Stanhope, and Gibbs. Klinge took them back with him after he had given evidence here at Catling's suggestion. That would be about October 8. I did not look at the coupons at the moment. I had no knowledge of StanHope at the time. Price said there would be more winning coupons when they had all the claims in. I said, "Are you sure these are all right?" He said, "Yes; they are all right." I passed away from the incident then. His wife came in and I took possession of the coupons. I told him I did not think the coupon competition was going to be such a success as I had expected it would be from

his statement that he was a great magnate in the football world, and that I did not feel inclined to find very much more money unless I could see where he was going to put some in. I did not tax him with the Stanhope coupon at that time; I did afterwards. The exact sum I had spent up to that moment was £781, and I was liable for £254 more On July 22 I had given him a cheque far £50 to open his banking account; he never opened his banking account. On July 25 I gave him £50, because he said he wanted to buy some addresses from Mackenzie. On August 5 those addresses were delivered to me; they were very much in duplicate and they had to be collated, and that cost me £6 5s. I am prepared to produce receipts for the whole of the £781. The outstanding liabilities were to the stationery people in Middelburg and Amsterdam and the printers in London. As to Price's half of the postage account, I had disposed of that early in August, when he could not find the money for his half. He said then he was very sorry, but the Union Trust would not pay him his money; he could not find his half of the postage and would I pay it for him? I said, "That is all my eye. You made a bargain and now you are trying to wriggle out of it." He said, "You can take the whole of the orders for the competitions, and if there is anything more wanted you can pay it into my account at Zip's." On that date I had only received one week's coupon money—about £350—which had gone to my bank and is shown in my own, not my wife's account. With regard to the assignment, there is no truth in the suggestion that Mr. Alpe was already there with the document in his pocket. I had suggested to him that the assignment should be prepared. The document was fully explained to Price, and he was left for half an hour to consult with his wife about it. When Mr. Alpe and I returned to the room Price said he was quite willing to sign, and did so, Miss Gardiner being brought in to witness the signature. Price afterwards asked for £50 on account. I told him if he would assist me in getting this money from the Union Trust I would assist him, and I drew him a cheque there and then, and he gave me an I O U for it. I did not mean to give it to him as a present. I looked upon the assignment at that time as a valuable asset. I did not contemplate that I should be called upon to pay the prize winners. I have never received a brass farthing in respect of the assignment. I commenced an action against the Union Trust to recover the £200. There was an action against me which was struck out and a cross action against Price claiming £1,740. I believe the Argus Printing Company charged the ordinary price for printing "Football Sport." They did not charge more because the competitions are illegal in this country. I did not when Price called on me on September 14 take the Stanhope coupon out of my pocket and say, "I have got this against you." By that time I had paid £1,266 9s. and there were still liabilities of £254. I had received up to that time £637 13s. 9d., and in respect of the third competition I received £308 3s. 3d. in all £945 17s., so that I had not, as has been suggested, sufficient in hand, after recouping myself, to pay the prize winners.

I went very particularly into the figures with 'Price on September 14 and he seemed to understand them. He said there bad been a lot of money spent. I told him the Union Trust were fighting their liability. He said it was an awkward thing not being able to find the prize money—a dreadful thing for him. I said,' "Well, you have got your friend Mackenzie, who has often not paid prize money; go and consult him." He started crying in the office. I told him to pull himself together. I said, "Mackenzie has done a lot of nasty things in this way," and tried to get him out of that crying humour. I was £1,200 out of pocket; he was not a penny out of pocket, but. on the contrary, had had three cheques of £50 out of me. I asked him to come on Wednesday and we would talk the matter over when he was more quiet. I had an inkling then of the Stanhope coupon, but did not get the exact particulars until September 24. I asked Donald Mackenzie where Price's people lived. I was director of the Crown Cigarette Company, Limited, which Mackenzie had started and put £900 into it. I did not remain a director long as I did not like the business the company was carrying on. They were running coupon competitions to get the sale of the cigarettes and I did not think it was legal. For 1s. you had 12 guesses and you got the cigarettes for nothing. Whether the cigarettes were worth anything I do not know; I never smoked any. I brought an action against the company to recover my money, but the action is still in the air; I do not know where the money is. On September 14 I asked Price about the Stanhope coupon. When he said it came from Leicester I tumbled to it.

To the Recorder. I am not going to call Mackenzie as a witness. I do not think his reputation is good enough for a witness.

Examination continued. I looked at this Stanhope coupon very, very critically. I then searched the list and found out there was only one coupon from Leicester and I started to make inquiries. In the course of conversation Price said, "If you had only let me stop at Middelburg we should not have had so much prize money to pay." I said, "If you mean putting bogus winners in, it is just as well the whole thing should be stopped." I sent a man named Pearce to Leicester to make inquiries. I think he went on the 17th. When Mrs. Price came on September 16 she said her husband had brain fever and she did not know what to do. I was very sorry for her and told her we might come to some arrangement and get the prize money paid if she would get me some security or some promise of Price's that when he got some money he would pay me back. Catling was sent for and drafted a letter for Mr. Price to sign agreeing to indemnify me if I paid the prize money. If that letter had been signed I would have paid the prize money, including the Stanhope coupon, but I should not have paid it after I had got full particulars on the 24th. (To the Jury. I do not employ Pearce often. Cowley is a friend of his.) I never saw Price any more. Having failed to get the indemnity I sent out a circular stating that the competitions had been stopped owing to the inability of Price to pay the prize money. Cowley left my employment on June 18. On that day he

came into my office and asked me to give him some money and said he could tell me something surprising about my competition. He was somewhat the worse for drink and I told him I did not want to. discuss my competitions with him. I ordered him out of the office. He would not go and I pushed (him out. Kemp, the old convict, came up to me in the "Opera Tavern," Haymarket, one evening and said that Cowley was wanting some money and if I did not find some he was going to make it very hot for me. I parted with no money to Kemp or to Defries, or to Windust—a big No to that. I plead guilty to being a man of means. It is known to this clique that I am worth £100,000. I have made as much a/c £30,000 in one week in one competition. To my knowledge I have never made a false representation to any of the prize winners. With regard to Competition No. 20, in which J. Browning, of West Hendon, was said to be a bogus competitor, the reason why I drew a cheque for £340 10s. that week instead of £400, was because Brown was a queried winner. The man did not seem to have made up his mind how many results he had sent in, and when he sent in his claim the number of results was left blank. The matter seemed to me unsatisfactory and I thought it better it should be left over for further consideration. Catling said he would find out about it and, after he had made inquiries, said Browning was quite right. I then paid the £60 less £15. I think it was a" self" cheque dated November 26. I do not as a rule put on cheques for what purpose they are drawn. Klinge deducted the £15 because when a winner wins a big prize he often leaves part of his winnings to pay other competitions. The cheque itself was given to Mr. Catling. It was intended that he should have nine £5 notes and that is what is on the exchange slip, but it was altered afterwards to "sovereigns 5. notes 40." That is in Miss Gardner's writing. It was given to Catling with instructions to pay Browning. I do not dispute that Browning is a non-existent person. I did not know that this man Browning was" in the air" till I heard the evidence at the police-court. With regard to the description given by Mrs. Riseley that the person who arranged for Browning's address at her house was a tall, stout man, that was not me. I do not know who went to Mrs. Riseley. I know of no one within my entourage who is a tall, stout man of about 5 ft. 9 in. I was in no way concerned in producing Mr. Browning as a winner. I do not accuse Catling of keeping the money. In the case of Foster, he was paid either by cheque to order, endorsed by myself, or cheque to bearer. The cheque I drew that week was for £310 5s., including the £100 consolation. I did not send Foster his £100 at once because when we have large winners previously to sending them the money we send them a circular to see if we can get them to bet, giving particulars of a betting firm we are interested in. I did not pay the money at once because I did not like his letters coming back" unknown." I also circularised Carter and Jones; I did not get a reply from them but their letters did not come back. I have not got Foster's returned letter. I presume it was thrown away with other letters. Catling took in hand the inquiries at Brunswick

Mansions. I drew a cheque on December 10 for £100 after Catling had reported that Foster was all right. I was informed in Anderton's Hotel that some man named Foster had been grumbling at me for not paying his prize. Catling reported afterwards that Foster ha had the money. I did not ask him—how he came to meet Foster. I first heard that Foster was a bogus winner in the police-court. With regard to Competition 21, where there were five winners of. £60, of whom four, Davis, Harris, Hoffmeyer, and Bobbins were paid and Willis's disputed, she cheque I drew that week was for £340, four winners of £60 and £100 for the consolation money. I disputed it because the writing on the coupons did not correspond with the writing on the claim. It was queried in the first instance at Middelburg and sent on to me. Toat matter was left to Catling also, who told me some time afterwards that he had made inquiries and it was all right, and I then gave him an open cheque. It is endorsed by him and he could get the money if he wanted it. I never paid anything to D'Avyet. He was the sole prize winner in No. 19 Competition of £300. I received from Klinge letter produced dated Paris, October 17, 1907, from D'Avyet claiming the £300 prize and on October 27 replied stating that we only paid prizes to the address on the coupon and that if he would arrange to be in Ramsgate we would send cheque or cash. I heard no more from D'Avyet and sent no money. I know nothing about Klinge going to Ramsgate. I still hold the money in case he can claim it. I have paid prize winners a long time afterwards. I had a claim from a man who went into Ladysmith, stayed through the siege and I paid him after he came out. D'Avyet may be a legitimate winner for all I know, and I hold the money for him. In Competition No. 25 there were six winners of £83 6s. each. I drew a cheque for £249 18s., payable to self, dated May 12, 1908, which I gave to Catling together with £250 in bank notes. At that time I had won £1,500 by backing Rhodora for the Thousand Guineas; I received it in bank notes on May 12 and gave Catling part of the money in cash. I never heard there was any bogus winner in that competition until it was mentioned at this court. It was not mentioned at the police-court. I have since learned that Cranworth Gardens, Brixton, was the address of Jones (that is Singer). So far as I was concerned I paid the whole of the prizes and if the notes were cashed by Catling I know nothing of it. In Competition No. 29 Picknell and Rowlandson were winners of £150 each. Picknell was paid. I drew a cheque for £250 for his £150 and £100 for consolation. Rowlandson called on me and I recognised him as a man named Roe who was indebted to me. I had known Roe for 10 or 11 years. He got £500 from me to invest if a bogus company called Hopcraft's Boiler Scale Company. About 16 years ago I was warned off the Turf through my jockey pulling my horse, Red Rube, in the National Hunt Flat Race. I backed my horse for £650 and he was pulled without my knowledge. Roe afterwards came to me and told me that if I gave him £200 to give to the Hon. Hanbury Tracy, he could get me restored to the Turf. I gave him the £200 and learnt afterwards that he had not paid it to

Mr. Tracy. On January 2, 1908, he walked into my office and told me he had won a prize in my competition in the name of Rowlandson. I told him the prize was £150 and said, "Do you remember that you owe me a bit and if you have won a prize you are not going to get it because you owe me a little amount of £200?" That was besides £500 that I considered he was responsible for getting from me by fraud. He said he had had a hard time and things were very bad. I said." If a fiver is any good to you you can have it with pleasure," and I gave him the £5 cheque produced dated January 2, 1908. His evidence as to my putting him forward as a bogus winner is false. I never doubted his coupon. The copy giving Picknell and Rowlandson as the winners was sent to the Argus Printing Company on January 1, 1908. I received a copy of the paper on January 2. In No 32 Competition there were 12 premier winners of £25 each and £100 consolation. I drew cheque produced of February 4 for £400 to pay the winners and had nothing further to do with the matter. In No. 36 Competition there were five winners of £60 each and £100 consolation. Cheque produced for £400 dated March 3 was drawn by me to pay everybody. In competition No. 40 I drew a cheque for £298, having previously paid £100 to Catling personally. Cheque produced for £298 is drawn to and endorsed by Catling. The odd £2 was, I think, a deduction. I never heard of there being bogus winners in that competition and so far as I was concerned I paid the whole of the prize money. In Competition No. 47 there were 10 winners of £30 each, with the consolation prizes £100, making £400. I drew a cheque for £530. In the subsequent competition there were 6,000 consolation prize winners to divide £100 between them. As the postal orders had to be ordered beforehand I added the £100 and £30 for expenses to the £400. In Competition No. 46 I drew cheque produced—£400—to pay all the prize winners. I never heard of Robinson getting £12 10s. out of that. I know nothing of any bogus winners in connection with it. During the year I have had over 100 competitions from" Racing Record" and" Football Record." I have never in any case conspired with anybody to defraud the public; I have never directly or indirectly received a penny piece in connection with fictitious prize winners, and have had nothing at all to do with them. In the cases of Browning, Willis, Foster, and Deacon, I was not concerned in dispatching the money. In all those competitions Catling had charge; I had nothing to do with them after handing over the money to Catling. Catling's statements of October 12 and 22 to the police are untrue except in so far as they agree with my account of the interviews given above. Cowley's evidence is false. It is quite untrue, as Catling says, that I assaulted my daughter. I love my daughter too much ever to touch her. I said to Catling that if I told the truth it would make London ring with his name and he would be ashamed of it. This case had started then, and I knew all about him. Catling had not told me that he had made a statement to the police. I know there has been fraud, but I was not a party to it. I did not like Klinge coming over without my knowledge to see Catling. I

did not know Jones had gone until the case had started (To the Recorder.) So far as Catling's statements incriminate me, either in writing or to the police officer, they are without foundation and untrue; many of them have been proved to be untrue by the officer himself.

(Thursday, February 4.)

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, cross-examined by Mr. George Elliott. I first knew Catling eight years ago, two years before he married my daughter; he was then in business as a process engraver on his own account. I knew his father as connected with "Lloyd's Newspaper" for over 50 years, and I have great respect for him. Catling had not been connected with me in business up to October, 1907, but we were great friends, he being my son-in-law; he knew what my business was. He used to do engraving work for me. I always found him honest and straightforward up to the starting of this prosecution. I do not accuse him now, but I have some singular thoughts. He began his interest in football competitions in October, three weeks before the agreement of November 27, 1907, and had gone over to Middelburg at those three week-ends. I allowed him a share of those three weeks' profits when we settled up on January 14, 1906. Foster's competition was No. 22; the cheque was drawn December 9, but the competition took place a fortnight previously and Catling was interested in it. Klinge had been in my service since January, 1907; I had known him for seven years as associated with the management of competitions or betting business. He had been with Webster, a betting man, Mackenzie, my son George Stoddart, and Windust. I did not finance George Stoddart in his business, but I made him a present of some money. When Klinge was managing we only had two winners who were challenged. I never had any complaint. Klinge sent over the list of winners and I paid the money, sending it with the assistance of Miss Gardiner. The business was too strenuous for me; it required someone to go over to Holland every week, and Catling offered to take it up; otherwise I should have given it up. I wanted Catling to see the money banked and to generally supervise, Klinge had previously banked the money. I did not distrust Klinge, but the receipts did not come up to my expectations and I thought there was a loophole somewhere. I wanted to be sure that I was getting all my money. Catling was to see that the envelopes were properly opened and the postal orders properly checked and accounted for. I think Competition No. 44 of March 28, 1906, was the last Catling was interested in; he had nothing to do with the "Racing Record." From November to April there was no disagreement between us. I was rather proud of the way he worked the business. He received from me for profit £814 2s. 3d. on accounts made up by himself and taken by me as correct. The first payment was January 14, £376 10s. I had not given him £50 previously, to my best recollection. All previous payments were for expenses. On November 25 I gave him a cheque for £73 to pay Willis, £60 and

£13 for expenses. That was not £50 for profits and £23 for expenses The cheque was payable to Catling. Each week a sheet was made out showing the profit; those sheets were kept by Catling. (To the Jury.) I kept no proper cash book. I kept the cash book for my betting business. I do not keep a private ledger. (To Mr. Elliott.) The money was paid into my banking account in Holland; I had complete control of it. Klinge could draw up to £20 a week for expenses, giving a voucher. The Dutch bankers advised me and sent a cheque to me on Coutts. Afterwards, on Catling's suggestion, he brought the money over and I gave him a cheque for the wages. If Catling used for expenses some of the money paid for the profits I should return it. The cheque of April 23, £105, was given to Catling at Maidenhead. Bank note for £10, No. 27656, appears to have gone through the post office. It could not have been for stamps or postal orders, as we had no football competition at that time. Other notes, the proceeds of the £105 cheque, appear to have gone through the post office. My cheque for £130, June 9, is drawn to self, and was handed to Catling as profits. If he used part of it for expenses I returned it. If part of the notes had gone through the post office I do not know what it was for. With regard to the last payment for profit, £102 12s. 3d., the £2 12s. 3d. was added under a mistake by Catling. He did not return it, but we had a bottle of wine over it. That amount was paid in three cheques of £50, £50, and £2 12s. 3d. They were profits—it ought to have been £100. It is very unlikely that I paid Catling four £5 notes on May 14 for profits. I did not pay him £50 in gold on June 18, £100 in gold on July 2, £100 in gold on July 6. I never paid Catling any gold in my life. We never sold stamps since 1900, when it was stopped by the post office. I saw items amounting to £250 in Catling's banking account; I thought they wanted a lot of explaining; I never gave them to him. We used up the whole of the penny stamps received in making up postal orders; the shilling and the sixpenny stamps we used for paying small winners. I think the only cheque payable to Catling was the £73; the others were payable to self. Browning was a winner in Competition No. 22 "Racing Record," of £60. He was paid £45 on November 26; there was a deduction, I believe. I know Wade, of Earlsfield; he was paid on November 12 £40 on betting account. I do not know whether the notes, the proceeds of the £45 cheque drawn for Browning, were in fact paid by Miss Gardiner to Wade, a betting man. He was a customer of J. and H. Drew. I suggest that Catling got the Browning cheque and gave Miss Gardiner the proceeds so as to get rid of them. That is my opinion—you have asked me for it and I have given it. He never thought this case would come up. With regard to the Willis incident, there is nothing on the cheque to show that the cheque to Catling for £73 was as to £23 repayment of an advance by Catling, and as to £50 to (be paid by him to Willis as a prize winner. I never saw a receipt 'by Willis; there is no necessity for receipts in these matters; if people who have won are not paid they soon begin to shout. It is not true that the £100 cheque drawn by me to self (Foster case) was given to Catling for postage

stamps; it was given to him to pay to Foster. (Witness adhered to his statement that he drew cheques for the payment of all the winners handing the cheques for that purpose, except in cases where he (Stoddart) paid the winners direct.) I have known Jones about 18 months; he has betted with a business I am connected with. It is untrue that he has seen me constantly the last six or seven months; he may have seen me two or three times. On September 24 I saw Catling; it is untrue that I said to him, "You must leave the country to-night, as there is a summons out against you and me over Cowley," or that he said, "I am not going to do any such thing, as the Cowley business has nothing to do with me," or that I said, "You must leave the country, otherwise I shall be ruined"; that is all invention. What happened was, I told him I had been served with a summons; he said, "I thought it was coming; Charlie Windust is at the bottom of this; we had better go and see Grimes, because he is a pal of Win dust's." We went and saw Grimes. (Catling's account of this interview—see his evidence in chief—was put to the witness and denied by him.) On the fallowing day I saw Grimes at my house; I had no talk with him alone; myself and he and Catling were all together. Grimes did not say that £2. 000 ought to be found to pay Price's prize money. I did not say that Catling' ought to leave the country; on the contrary, I wanted him to stay and fight the thing out; we both of us had a perfect answer to the charge. There was a reference to £2,000; I understood it was suggested that £2,000 should be paid to Windust, and I said I would not find 2,000 pence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I say that Windust started this" conspiracy "; he gave information to the police about Cowley and Price that has turned out to be false; he has been an enemy of mine since I commenced to expose him for carrying on bogus competitions in Holland. I started competitions in Holland in 1900; in 1901 I transferred the business to my son; in 1904 he sold it to Mackenzie, with whom was Windust as an assistant; on Mackenzie being prosecuted and locked up, in 1906. the business was put into Windust's name. In January, 1907, I began in the" Football Record" exposing Windust as a swindler; he did not bring an action for libel. In his own paper he denounced me as" a common gaolbird, a convicted sharper, a notorious welsher, outlawed and ostracised by all decent society." I attempted to take legal proceedings; I laid the facts before Scotland Yard and they did nothing; I consulted solicitor and counsel, and was advised that it was no use proceeding against a man of straw—I think I may call myself a rich man. I have made as' much as £30. 000 in one week out of coupon competitions; The money received from the public came, not in small sums, but quite large sums; sometimes £30 or £40 in a single cheque. I have known Cowley about two years. A person conducting these competitions has to be pretty wide awake and have experience in order to detect the tricks and frauds that are tried on. Catling when I first employed him to make inquiries had had no experience; but making inquiries and detecting frauds are different things; anyone can make inquiries he is directed to make; experience does not matter, so long as the

inquirer is trustworthy. When Cowley was employed to make inquiries I believed him to be trustworthy. I heard five or six years ago that Jones was a man of no moral balance. The letter produced from me to Mackenzie, dated October 30, 1908, is to the man I had denounced as "an exposed rogue"; it begins "Dear Mac"; I had forgiven him for the past, and was quite friendly with him. Klinge was my manager; I would not call him my confidential man; I had to trust him. and did.

(Friday, February 5.)

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, further cross-examined. I telegraphed to Klinge to come over on September 28. By that time we had got the information and wanted him to give particulars as to what it was about. After he left the train at Herne Hill on the morning of the 29th and came up to my house by my instructions I saw him at about a quarter past nine, and told him I would prefer that he should go to my solicitors to make his statement. He said something about being mixed up with the Butterworth coupon and said he should prefer to see Mr. Catling, but he said he knew nothing about the Price case. Those were the only two cases included in the original information. I gave him the information to read and left him in my library whilst I had my breakfast and got dressed. After that I got my motor-car out and took him to town. I went to my office first. I opened my letters and then went round to Mr. Alpe's, when I found Catling. Catling said, "Klinge has been arrested." He said he had tried to meet Klinge at Herne Hill Station, but he was not there; he had not come. I did not understand that he had tried to meet him personally; I thought he had had someone there to meet him. I said, "You know a lot about it; Klinge is in my office," which is only a few yards away. Catling immediately rushed out of Mr. Alpe's room. I stayed with Mr. Alpe a few moments and then I went back to my office and found him and Klinge together. Then we all went round to Mr. Alpe's together. Klinge made some sort of statement to Mr. Alpe, but I do not know what it was because I was not there. I do not remember the statement being put in at the Mansion House and read by my counsel. Some remarks were made on his evidence, but I could not remember whether an admission was put in there. I could not say for certain Whether the document was put to him clause by clause. I believe he was told to mark it in red to distinguish what was true from what was untrue. I gave him no inducement to speak as to the Butterworth case. After he had read the information he said, "I was mixed up in the Butterworth affair, but I know nothing about Price." I told him that if he was mixed up with anything of that sort it was very disgraceful. I did not ask him any particulars as to the manner in which he had been mixed up in it. I had been advised to take him to my solicitors when I had caught him. I thought it better that a solicitor should deal with him than that I should. I did not suspect him of being mixed up with it before he

came. My solicitors wanted him to go to them direct. I said, "You had better let me get hold of him, because if he is supposed to come direct to you goodness knows who he will get into communication with" I did not suspect him. I did not go specifically into the details of the Butterworth case, but I said, "If there is anything wrong with the coupon competitions they will be stopped instantly; you will be sacked." Later in the day I gave Klinge some money—either £5 or £10. I handed him a cheque on my bank. I did not send him to the Bank of England to change a £20 note. I see that the note produced, which was drawn from my account on September 29, has been cashed at the Bank of England. Klinge did not bring me back gold for that note. Whatever the amount of the cheque was he had it all. He would want it for his wages; Catling had not been over. It is absolutely untrue that I sent Klinge to cash that £20 note into gold and that I did so in order that he might know what the practice was with regard to changing notes at the Bank of England. I remember that the story which was put to Cowley in cross-examination by my counsel was that he and Klinge met on June 16 and that Klinge went to the Bank of England with Butterworth's £100 note and changed it into gold. I believed that story was based on the statement of Klinge to my solicitors. Klinge, if he had stuck to that story, might have been called as a witness and cross-examined as to the details of his cashing that note. If he had never been to the Bank of England and cashed a note in his life he would not know what to say, but he has been in England so often and I expect been there so many times that he is quite as much an Englishman as a Dutchman; he speaks English and knows English ways.

Mr. Muir. Did you hear Klinge say at the Mansion House that he had never cashed a Bank of England note in his life until he cashed that £20 note?

Mr. Abinger objected that this was an attempt—he would not say an illegitimate attempt—to get in evidence.

The Recorder thought Mr. Muir was not entitled to pat to the witness the deposition of Klinge.

Mr. Muir said that Klinge had made a statement to his solicitor, and upon that statement Cowley was cross-examined. The question arose whether that statement was a true one or not.

The Recorder: Klinge was examined as I understand and partially cross-examined and then absconded. The objection taken by Mr. Abinger is that you are seeking to get before the jury the evidence given by one of your own witnesses who has absconded. That cannot be done.

Mr. Muir submitted that it did not matter where the statement was made or how. If, in fact, Klinge made statements contradictory to the statement upon which Cowley was cross-examined, the mere fact that he made them upon oath and at the police court did not render them inadmissible.

The Recorder: You can put to him in cross-examination any statement in writing you may have by another witness; very often evidence is obtained in that way with regard to what a person has said; but I think it is quite a different thing to place before the jury the evidence of a witness for the Crown who has absconded.

Mr. Muir: I am going to suggest the circumstances under which he absconded.

The Recorder: Even supposing he had not absconded and was here giving the evidence which he gave before the magistrates, he would be an accomplice, and his evidence would require to be corroborated. Now you are seeking to get indirectly

before the jury his statements upon oath, and you are going to ask the jury to accept them an facts. Even if he were here I should have to tell the jury that his evidence, unless it was corrobated in material particulars, was evidence they ought not to act upon.

Cross-examination continued. Klinge gave evidence on October 15. On October 17 my daughter Jessie was in Holland and saw Klinge. He demanded his wages—I think three or four months' wages in lieu of notice. So far as I know the only persons who have seen Klinge since are Stockley and Pleydell, both of whom were competing for my business. I daresay I have known Pleydell for two years. I have not employed him to make inquiries for me but he has done commissions for me in the ring; he is a betting man. Pleydell himself has told me that he and Klinge went into figures as to the value of the business. Pleydell has a business of his own in the Haymarket as "J. and H. Drew," and he wanted to have my place as a foreign office. I did not know that Pleydell is a convicted forger who has done penal servitude until Inspector Collison indiscreetly shouted it out at the Mansion House. I thought before that he was a gentleman; he always acted as such when he was with me. As to his having been sentenced to eight years' penal servitude on July 22, 1895, this is the first time I have heard the length of time or the date. I was very much surprised when I did hear of it. I have never heard of other convictions. It would be almost immediately after October 17 that Pleydell was in Holland because I did not then know whether I would sell my business or shut it down. I am not aware that Pleydell played any part in the disappearance of Klinge. The question was put to him at the Mansion House and he denied it. I believe Pleydell is now at Monte Carlo. I do not consider him rather lacking in moral balance; he is not married. I say Jones was lacking in moral balance because he was unmarried and had three establishments. Of course, the mere fact of Pleydell not being married does not prevent him having half a dozen establishments. Pleydell had no commission to execute from me with regard to Klinge. As to Jones, who has also disappeared, I can prove that I have made every effort to find him. If Catling's story is true Jones is the man who cashed the £100 note; but I can prove it is not true; I have letters from Mrs. Jones. If Jones disappeared on September 29, the date on Which Klinge says he cashed the £100 note, that may be a coincidence. Jones was a director of Catling's company. I should not think he was very wealthy. He was wealthy enough to keep a motor-car. He has had more or less conjugal ties of threefold strength; I cannot say whether 'he has left them all; he has left one. I believe he disappeared before Klinge arrived in England. Mrs. Jones is going to be called again and will prove it in the witness-box. It is not true that I said to Catling on September 24," You must leave the country to-night; you must not receive that summons." It is not true that I lent Catling my motor-car in order that he might go and see Jones. Catling has his own motor-car. All the friends have motor-cars. Cattermole has a motor-car and keeps it in the garage adjoining his house. It is absolutely untrue that I was instrumental in getting

Jones out of the way. I have made most strenuous endeavours to get him here. I have not been instrumental in getting Klinge out of the way, nor have I tried to get Catling out of the way. I said in examination-in-chief that I had been proceeded against in respect of illegal businesses on several occasions and that I had been successful in every case except one. I was asked about the case in which the City Solicitor prosecuted me. I was convicted at the Mansion House on March 1, 1901, for offences against the Betting Act, and fined £5 on each of two summonses; that was the AntiGambling League. On March 7, 1901, there was another conviction, with a fine of £100 and 20 guineas costs; still the Anti-Gambling League. We were fighting the case on the interpretation of the Betting Act. On April 30 I was sentenced to six months for the same offence; that was still the Anti-Gambling League; I never served it, as I obtained a medical certificate that I was unable to serve. Dr. Scott, the medical officer of Brixton Prison, and a gentleman of great reputation, was one of my medical attendants, and the Home Secretary in September withdrew the warrants. 'In the meantime, in July, I had attended my daughter's wedding with my doctor to look after me. I attended the wedding breakfast; they said I made a speech. I remember very little about it. I was photographed in the garden; it did not look very much like my photograph. On July 25, 1901, there was another conviction under the Lottery Act at this Court. That was the second time I had a tussle with the City Solicitor. In the previous one I had beaten him twice over. I won on the appeal before Mr. Justice Wright and Baron Pollock. I used to keep a file of "Racing Record"; I have not got it now. It was taken away by Mr. Catling, I think. A lot of things were taken away from our office. I think the police are in possession of it now. I think you are wrong in saying that of the nine winners named in No. 25 eight are bogus. I say the names of winners published on May 6, Barnes, Collier, Collings, Farrell, Jones, and Rowley, are all bogus. In the Butterworth case I say that two of the names are bogus. I do not think Funnell is a right one; he is too lucky. I think I know where the conspiracy is now. Mr. Funnells offices at 23, Great St. Helens, are in the same building with the firm of Arnold and Co., which is the betting agency of a man named Smallman. Smallman is running a coupon competition at Middelburg. The matter was reported to me, and I said I thought Smallman should not be coming into my office too much, not that I suspected him, but I thought it was not right to have a competitor in and out of my office, and I think that is where Funnell got his coupons in. I do not say there would be many clerks in the office who are acquainted with Smallman. Butterworth I should like to have inquired into if I had a chance. The one I think may be right is Hierti. With regard to the announcement of winners which appears on May 6, the last date of posting would be Tuesday, April 28, at midnight, so that they would reach Middelburg not later than Wednesday. The subscriptions were at that time banked in Holland, and if I wanted any money from my Dutch bankers I just told them to send a draft on London for any specific

contest for whatever amount I required, £600, £500, £200. I cannot tell what was the subscription for that race, and ray banking account in London does not give me the slightest indication. After February, 1908, the money was all banked in England. As May 6 was a Wednesday, the results might have come ever on the Tuesday or the Monday. It must have been previously to May 6. We did not keep the results sent to the printer. We only had the copy sent back from the printer, when we had a number of consolation winners, whose names and addresses were not printed. Then Klinge would verify the names and addresses instead of taking them from the printed copy. Klinge kept records of how much money came in. I had no need to show it to Catling at all; he was not a partner. There was a record sent from Holland of the amount of subscriptions for each competition. The only record were the slips from the bank. When it was verified the bank would have no further use for it. I have no documentary evidence to show whether a profit or loss was made on that race. I can trace the amounts Catling brought over, but they do not represent the actual receipts in any one competition. As to the sealing of the envelopes in which the banknotes were sent out, I do not think I ever licked one in my life. I have an objection to it. Seeing that successful competitors get the prizes is, of course, a very important part of the business. No sealing-wax was used. The envelopes were wetted and stuck up in the ordinary way. Not only do I dislike doing that, but after the banknotes had been put in the envelopes Miss Gardiner had to put some literature in. That was the last thing that was put in, and then she fastened them. When she hack registered them she brought the registration receipts hack. When Mr. Catlin did it he was supposed to bring them back, but he was not checked. The register receipts were kept in a drawer in the office. When Miss Gardiner came back she put them with the papers connected with the competition. I did not keep a postage book. Our staff was a very small one and we knew each other's work. If Catling posted them I should not think it necessary to check him. With all my experience I trusted him as I would have trusted my own wife to do it. We started in September of this year to keep a record of the numbers of the banknotes sent out, not before. We did not send receipt forms as a rule to the competitors. If receipts were sent they were sent back to Holland; I never saw them any more. I never drew anything front the bank for D'Avyet's Contest, No. 17. The date mentioned for payment was October 22, 1907. When my daughter went over in October, 1908, she took possession of all the books and papers that were left. The place was in a dreadful state. Everything was torn up and the books partially destroyed. I never suspected D'Avyet until he did not ask for his money; I thought that was rather funny. The printer's copy, which seems to have been mercifully preserved, shows an entry in Klinge's handwriting that D'Avyet was a genuine-winner. I did not suspect D'Avyet for perhaps a couple of months afterwards, when he did not turn up for his money. I did not take any steps to investigate the matter; I thought I would wait to see

if he did turn up. The D'Avyet coupon would be destroyed with the others when they were useless; they were generally destroyed about every two or three months. I should not like to say that the letter from D'Avyet asking that his prize money should be sent to the Grand Hotel, Paris, is palpably in Klinge's handwriting; it has a certain resemblance, for instance, in the word "rules." (The Jury examined the handwriting.) The letter from D'Avyet was found during the course of this case amongst a mass of other correspondence, which was put in a bag. When I sold the business I was allowed to take my private correspondence away, which had been accumulating for a long time. It was quite by accident that it happened to be preserved. The literature was the last thing put into an envelope containing prize money, because I thought I would like to have a witness that the money was put in. I am not yet convinced that this was a bogus claim, though the writing of the D'Avyet letter has a resemblance to Kinge's. I can suggest no intelligible reason why the man should not have gone to the post office and got the money. He may be dead; he may be drowned; heaps of things—I do not know. I say that no person was acting in conspiracy with me. If D'Avyet had been acting in conspiracy with somebody else he might not go for it if he got a hint that there was something wrong. I have heard Catling's story that Klinge was in fact D'Avyet, and went down to Ramsgate to personate him with a cap and jacket purchased at Hope Brothers' to make him appear to be a yachting man. If I had known it to be a bad claim I should have divided the money amongst the other competitors. As to Browning, I kept back the amount of his prize money because I queried his coupon. I believe it was queried in Holland first. I gave the cheque to Catling to post, and when I asked him afterwards if it had gone all right he said, "Yes. "

Mr. Muir. The plain suggestion there is that Catling is a thief.

Witness. Well, I am in a very awkward position. He is my son-in-law, and every stab at him cuts my daughter. I have no registered letter, nothing to show that that money was ever sent at all; only his word. I cannot say what the deduction of £15 was for. It might have been for the "Drew" business. I did not know he was a bogus winner at the time; I know it now. My opinion is that the deduction was made in order to throw dust in my eyes. As to the Roe transaction, I adhere to my statement that Roe told me he was a winner as Rowlandson; he did not "allow" me to deduct from the £150 £145; I did it without his permission; we did not part very good friends, and I did not see him again till he appeared against me in this case. To the best of my belief Klinge was in London on June 16, 1908; I would not like to pledge my oath about it; I know he was here in Ascot week. As to the Butterworth coupon, I obtained only on Saturday last certain letters written by Jones to his wife saying that he had written that coupon. My belief is that Jones cashed the £100 note under dictation and compulsion; I would rather not say whom I suspect, but Jones was Catling's manager. I cannot say exactly when I first began to suspect that Catling was a party to the putting forward of these bogus coupons; it was after the case

started, as the evidence began to widen. In the early stages of the business Catling was quibbling about having a separate barrister; I said, "If you leave the question of defence to me, we will have a good barrister to defend us both." I did not say, "You did not post the letters, and you did not receive the registered letter from Cowley." I never discussed the Butterworth matter with him at all. I did not say, "You will hear in court our defence—follow the lead." I did say to Catling that I would tell something that would make his name ring through London. If you really want to know what I meant it was this. He had been very seriously mixed up with one of the originators and assistants in the pirated music business two years ago; it was a source of great annoyance to us all, and it was with considerable difficulty that he was kept out of the case; nobody knew who was at the bottom of that business; it was Jones and Catling.

Re-examined. Catling came into partnership with me on October 1, 1907; prior to that date no single charge had ever been made against me of running bogus competitions or providing bogus winners. On my oath I never had anything to do with providing bogus winners; I was under no financial necessity to be. I had established a reputation for conducting honest competitions. The total amount suggested in these charges is about £500; I was not in want of any such amount; between October 1, 1907, and October 1, 1908, I drew out of my bank £16,500 in notes and £5,800 in gold to pay prizewinners with.

(Monday, February 8.)

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, further re-examined. On September 4, when I had an interview with Price, I did not know that the Stanhope coupon was bogus. I had not looked at the coupons. I never knew it until September 24, when I was served with the summons in this case. When Price called at my office I challenged him as to the correctness of the whole of the coupons. I did not know the Dawson coupon was bogus until these proceedings started. I discovered exchange slip (Exhibit 132) on October 28, when I had sold my business and offices and my documents were taken to fotest Lodge. I cleared out the first week in November. I was last in Holland in January, 1907. The Butterworth coupon was also found when we were clearing out the offices. All these papers were found before we knew anything about Browning. I heard of Browning on November 12. Those which had been mentioned we searched for and found immediately and they were handed to the solicitor and have been put in evidence. These are the original receipts for the consolation prizes in the Browning competition. We also found the deductions; that of £1 3s. in competition 37, March 23, 1908, and others are all in Klinge's writing. I think the deduction of £15 in Browning's case has been made to throw dust in my eyes. It was a bogus winner, and those who were interested in it knew I was making inquiries. The deductions only come when we are going to pay the money. I should naturally, if a man was going to deduct

some money for betting purposes, think that he would be a legitimate winner. I have had nothing to do with the disappearance of Klinge. I employed ex-Inspector Downs, from whom I received report produced, to watch his movements, and I instructed Mr. Terry in Middelburg to watch Mrs. Klinge. Downs employed Williams to watch Jones; Miss Jessie Stoddart and Miss Gardiner and others have been trying to trace his movements up to the time the trial started. Flowerdew's have also been employed. In August I Was living at Maidenhead. Catling came there repeatedly to discuss the profits and account produced was made out at that time. It is in my writing. Catling had a copy. Cheque October 7, 1907, for £17 was given to Catling for expenses; he bad such cheques every week. He took over the management from the beginning of October, 1907. I think that is the first Cheque; it included wages of the Dutch clerks. November 1, £7 10s., is a similar payment to Catling; November 14, £13 14s. 3d., is a similar cheque. Some weeks I gave him cash or bank notes. On October 15 and 22 and November 10 Klinge received £15 each week for wages—Catling took those cheques over. The wages of the Dutch clerks would vary. On November 20 Catling received £11 2s. and Klinge £15; they would be wages and expenses. The total payments to Catling to November 24 amount to £74 6s. 3d. Those amounts appear in the pass book, but I have not the cheques or counterfoils; counterfoils are destroyed after a few months. I get through 200 cheque books in a year. £376 would be too much for four or five weeks' profits; that amount included three weeks before November 27. Cheque for £105 on April 23 could not have been given to buy postal orders for consoleation prizes. At that date we were running the racing competition, in which there were no consolation prices. This also applies to the payment of £130 on June 10. On June 19, when Catling paid £90 in gold into has bank, three days after the Butterworth £100 is cashed at the bank, there was no necessity for me to give him that money in gold and I did not do so. I had difficulty in getting a copy of Catling's banking account. I taxed him with that payment. He said he could not explain it; he would endeavour to find out about it. I did not instruct my solicitors to cross-examine Cowley as to whether he had had the Butterworth £100, because I had not received Catling's banking account. Cheque for £100 of December 9 was given to Catling to pay Foster. It is quite untrue that it was for the consolation pries in the McNulty competition. In the McNulty competition there were 30 competitors sharing £100 and getting £3 6s. 8d. each. Exchange slip produced (Exhibit 147) was originally written by Miss Gardiner for a £100 note; that has been altered into 84 sovereigns and £16 in half-sovereigns—I do not know in whose writing. I am not, an expert in handwriting and should not like to give an opinion. Documents produced are in Catling's handwriting. The "8" on the exchange slip is very much like his figure. (A number of specimens of Catling's handwriting were handed to the Jury and examined.) The exchange slip was in the possession of the bank

and was handed to my solicitors directly I received it. To pay the 30 competitors £3 6s. 8d. each would require £90 in gold and £9 15s. in silver, the odd 2d. each being paid in penny stamps. The consolation prizes in the McNulty were settled on November 7. At that time my Dutch bank had sent me money which I had not passed into my English banking account and I provided the cash out of that money. I did not give the four £5 notes from the Collins prize to Catling. They were never in my possession. I had no knowledge that Robinson was providing fictitious names and being paid for it by Jones. (The Recorder said with regard to the Morris and Singer fraud, that must have 'been Jones's fraud.) That is a case where I was undoubtedly defrauded by Jones. At that date Catling was paying most of the prizes. In the Singer case I paid £40 for the prizes to Catling, and I distinctly remember he dealt with that because only 11 winners were returned and he said I had provided the wrong money. He said, "You made a double bloomer. I got you the correct money and then you went and sorted it wrong." I had nothing to do with the competition in which an empty envelope was sent to Morris. I paid the £400 and the money was dispatched by Catling. I knew Jones was betting with J. and H. Drew. I asked Miss Gardiner to stop it because it was a London account and I did not like London accounts. I knew that Klinge had been to Jones's house repeatedly. I never sent Klinge to rehearse the cashing of a banknote at the Bank of England in order that he should give false evidence. He cashed no note for me. I gave him a cheque for £20 which he cashed at my bank. I never sent him to change any notes or to get the Butterworth banknote. Stockwich went to Klinge at Middelburg to get particulars of my business, which he afterwards purchased. I never instructed him to get Klinge out of the way. My daughter Jessie went over on October 17, 1908, and settled up all the business. I received from Stockwich letter purporting to come from Defries; he handed it to my solicitor. Klinge was in London during Ascot week. He brought over a lot of cash in connection with the Ascot and the Royal Hunt Cup. To the best of my belief he was in London on June 16. Ascot is always a heavy meeting. Klinge arrived in London on Monday or Tuesday morning of Ascot week.

HUDSON, recalled. I produce £20 note No. 38494. The stamp with the cashier's initial shows that it was cashed over the counter.

HARRY HARDING , recalled. I produce books showing when the issues of "Football Record" were printed by my firm. As far as I know, we were in the habit of printing them week by week. I really could not say whether the issue has always been dated Saturday.

JAMES McROBERT , manager of the Argus Printing Company. I have had some 30 years' experience of the printing trade. "Football Record" of January 4, 1908, was an issue printed by my firm. Looking at the machine book, I see we commenced printing at eight o'clock on the morning of Thursday, January 2, 1908. We printed a few after that, but practically we finished on January 3. The working hours are from eight a.m. to seven p.m. The number of

runs that day was 4,500. No. 1 machine and No. 10 machine were in use doing different sides of the paper. Having regard to those entries, the "copy" must have been supplied at the latest on the Wednesday. I form that opinion because when we get the "copy" from Mr. Stoddart we have to set the type, and the typing and stereotyping would require over 10 hours. The proof must have passed through somebody's hands some time on the Wednesday. Of course, when once the stereo is cast it cannot be altered.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. Friday was not the usual day we started printing. Looking at No. 29, which is dated December 21, I find the last date upon which claims may be received in Holland is Wednesday; that is marked in red. The results would be posted to reach us on the Thursday morning. We should not be able to start setting up the type until Thursday morning. I have no record to show how in this particular case it comes about the type was completely set the day before (Wednesday). I cannot remember 12 months ago. Assuming that we had information from Holland on the Wednesday, my record would be quite correct. I have no knowledge of how Mr. Stoddart gets his "copy." I am positive a proof was sent to Mr. Stoddart on January 1.

Re-examined. Our books, as tradesmen, are open to the inspection of the jury, whether we are printing for Stoddart or anybody else.

GWENDOLYN GARDNER , 78, Guilford Street, Russell Square. I entered Stoddart's employment as clerk 11 years ago. I left his employment, and after five years re-entered it three years ago. The earlier employment was at Red Lion Court and the later at 58, Fleet Street. I was with him when he started the "Football Record." Besides my duties with regard to "Football Record" I had duties in respect of J. and H. Drew, the betting business. The head offices of" Drew" were at Middelburg, where the cash was received. After Catling became associated with" Football Record" in 1907, Stoddart took a less active part in the business, leaving it to Catling and myself. My duties with regard to J. and H. Drew were to keep part of the books and attend to the correspondence. As regards the competitions, I paid the prize money and addressed the envelopes. After October, 1907, Catling had charge of the competition business, drew the cheques and received the money. Catling used to go to Middelburg on Friday night and return on Monday, bringing with him the queries and correspondence and whatever there was to bring from Klinge; sometimes he brought the postal orders. The winning competitors came by post from Klinge and were received sometimes on Wednesday, sometimes on Thursday. They would not be known when Catling left on the Sunday. Mr. Catling prepared the "copy" for the printers. The block for the" Football Record" was changed every week. One week the motto was "As sound as the Rock of Gibraltar," and next week something else. The blocks were done at Catling's office. As to the practice with regard to putting the prize money into the envelopes, if Mr. Stoddart was paying the money I would help him; if Mr. Catling paid the money he had his

own clerk, Mr. Jones, to help him to put the notes in. In the early part of 1907 this was done in our office; at the later period in Mr. Catling's. No post book was kept. Sometimes I posted registered letters and sometimes Catling did. I cannot say if Jones ever did; and if he posted letters from Catling they would not be posted from our office. Morris in one of the competitions was one of a dozen winners of £25. The amount was increased to £27 5s., but finally-altered back to £25 as the result of a re-search. The posting of the prizes in that particular competition was left to Catling. I have never been a party to sending a letter forward with nothing in it. When Stoddart put a large Bank-note into an envelope he would give the envelope to me, and before posting it I would put a yellow receipt from a "Drew" sheet and that week's coupon. The receipts, if any, would go to Middelburg. Klinge came over from Holland pretty frequently, perhaps every fortnight or three weeks. He has helped me to pay the prize money, and would take letters to the post just the same as I did, but the envelopes could all be traced to the Klinge posting. If Mr. Catling posted the letters I should not ask him for the receipts; I should take it for granted the letters had been posted. It was the practice for Klinge to make deductions both from the premier prize money and from the consolation money. £15 is a large deduction, and I do not think I remember one so large. I used the stamps that came over from Middelburg on the "wires." In case of an exchange slip I used to make it out, and the writing on the slip produced (Exhibit 131) is mine. I see that someone has struck out my handwriting and altered the manner in which the cheque was to be converted. I can express no opinion as to whose handwriting the alteration is in. I know I did not cash it because if I had done so I would have altered it in my own handwriting. I did not write the figures £100. He words "of Eight £5 notes" are not in my handwriting. Stoddart frequently went to the bank himself. I remember the D'Ayyet competition. I did not know at the time the prize money was not paid. It sometimes happened that when Klinge sent over on the Wednesday or the Thursday the winning competitions they were queried by the office. The payment of a queried winner would be left over. Stoddart generally drew the full amount of the prize winners, but I think on two occasions they were left to be inquired into. No books of account were kept in respect of the competition business. I kept part of the books of the Drew business; that was Mr. Stoddart's private affair. When Stoddart was away Catling provided me with money to pay "Drew" claimants. Two letters came from the person calling himself "D'Avyet." One I have been unable to find. I have searched for it at the Fleet Street office and at Forest Lodge. I quitted Mr. Stoddart's employment before the competition business was finally given up in November. Mr. Stoddart and Miss Stoddart took part in the search at Forest Lodge. We found numbers of prize winners done up in rolls, and the packet produced relating to the Browning contest. With regard to Cowley, from my knowledge of his appearance in the office I should not describe him as a bosom friend of Mr.

Stoddart. I never paid Cowley. I remember Cowley coming in June, 1908, but I cannot fix the date. Miss Stoddart came in while he was there. I went to tell Mr. Stoddart that Miss Stoddart was there, and as I did so I heard him say, "Get out." Stoddart was very angry. Cowley said, "If you do not give me £5 I know someone who will." Stoddart told Cowley he was to go out and never to let him see his face in the office again. Stoddart put Cowley out by the shoulders; I think he threw him out. After that disagreeable manipulation Cowley said, "You will be sorry for this." I remember that Klinge was over in the Ascot week. I never heard Stoddart instruct Cowley to go and get an address at Gravesend. Catling never paid anything himself in connection with the Drew business, but he has given me money to pay it when Stoddart has been away. In the months of July and August last year Stoddart had a house at Maidenhead, and only came to business occasionally. During that time Catling gave me several amounts to pay "Drew" winners. In particular I remember him giving me £50 in Bank of England notes to pay a cheque of Stoddart's that was returned by Wade because he had no banking account. The cheque was sent to Middelburg. I sent the notes to Wade. That is the only instance I remember of Stoddart's cheque coming back.

The Recorder. Are these notes referred to in the statement as cash?

Mr. Leycaster. No; we know nothing about them. This has come out since.

Mr. Abinger. These notes, which were paid to Wade, formed part of the Browning prize money.

Examination continued. I cannot remember the man Roe calling on Mr. Stoddart. I never saw him at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I recollect paying other sums to Wade, but not the amounts. The notes produced have all been passed through the bank at Earlsfield, where Wade lives. I cannot suggest any reason why, if they were sent to him in November, 1907, he should have kept them a whole twelvemonth. I do not keep any record of the numbers of the notes, I could not say whether those are the very notes I paid to Mr. Wade. I know I sent him the notes. I This business was transferred to someone else in October, and I ceased to be employed by Stoddart in October. I could not, therefore, have seen the notes in November, 1908. I cannot say whether the eight £5 notes produced are those I sent to Wade. It is not the fact that Stoddart produced the eight £5 notes and told me to pay the money to Mr. Wade. I received the money from Catling. Stoddart generally had a large sum of money in the office when he was there, whatever was required for the day; it might be £100 or it might be less. We never had much gold in the office—perhaps £20 or £25; always notes. A "wire" was sent to Middelburg every day at a cost of about 4s. per day. We never used the stamps attached to the postal orders. The bank gave us credit for them. I do not think the amount of stamps sent from Middelburg was more than about £2 per week, and what were not used for "wires" I used for

the parcels on Friday night. I do not know whether Catling had any remuneration from Stoddart in respect of "Racing Record." When Catling sent out the prizes he would send either Mr. Jones or Mr. Lennox to Stoddart's office for the envelopes.

(Tuesday, February 9.)

GWENDOLYN GARDNER , recalled, further cross-examined. I had known Cowley about two years. He was always very straight in his dealings with me, but he spoke against Catling and I did not like it. Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. If there had been any complaint with regard to non-delivery of the prize money the complaint would have come over from Middelburg at once. If any competitor had said, "I got a registered letter, but there was nothing in it but a circular," there was no record to show who was responsible. I could have remembered at the time, but I could not remember two years ago. I say that Catling was responsible for the payment of the prize in respect of the Browning coupon, because when he came into, the business he paid the prizes himself, both the consolation and the premier. I do not remember that Stoddart made any of the payments after that—at all events, for some months. There is no record in the office of any person signing as being responsible for putting the bank notes into the envelopes. There was no record of who posted the registered letters. It would, of course, be possible to open a registered letter 'by steaming. I do not think it was important to have some person responsible for the letters being intact. Stoddart paid the prizes and I always posted the letters. I believe Klinge has posted some, but there is no record to show whether I or Klinge posted them, but, of course, if the winners had not received their money they would have complained. Sealing wax was never used. Whether the competitions resulted in a profit or a loss had nothing to do with the matter. I never saw any return from Middelburg showing what the amount of the subscriptions to the competitions was. I believe a book was kept in which the expenses of the competitions were entered, but I had nothing to do with that and have no idea what it was like. Sheets were kept showing what had been expended on the competitions. To my knowledge, no book was kept which showed the total expenses of each contest. I know Klinge's handwriting. I do not think the D'Avyet letter, "I, the undersigned, S. W. D'Avyet, yacht Marque, hereby authorise Mrs. Fogg to receive any letters," is in Klinge's handwriting. In the address on the envelope, "G. W. D'Avyet, yacht Marque," the "D" locks like his handwriting, but I could not say whether the other is or not. I do not know Jones's writing very well and cannot say if the D'Avyet letter is written by him. The letter purporting to come from D'Avyet from an hotel in Paris looks like Klinge's writing. I cannot say whether Klinge was in London in September, 1907, or on October 28, 1907. It is too long ago to remember and I have no means of fixing the date. I am sure he was in London in the Ascot week of 1908 for one or two days. I remember it was in

Ascot week because it was a very heavy week. We discussed the starting prices for the Hunt Cup, which was won by Billy the Verger. Catling has looked after the proofs generally since October, 1907.

Re-examined. The form of the coupon was changed in October, 1907, and the new heading devised by Catling, and contains the name of D'Avyet as a prize-winner. Catling spoke in a slighting manner of Stoddart on two or three occasions, and familiarly to the clerks as" Joe." He spoke of him as if he did not like him. I do not know that Windust wrote to Catling," We will have a bottle of the best when Stoddart is in the dock. "

FERDINAND MARCUS COLLINGS , solicitor, Buckingham Street. On August 28, of last year, I was in the "Opera Tavern," Haymarket, in company with Mr. Hyde and three or four other men. There was a considerable number of people in the bar. Hyde is in a nursing home at 51, Welbeck Street, and absolutely unable to come here. I have met Cowley several times; he was at the" Opera Tavern" on this particular date. While I was there Mr. Windust came in. I had been introduced to him by a Mr. Lindsey. Some conversation-took place between us. He told a good many funny stories. Then somehow or other the name of Stoddart came up. Windust was abusive, and said that every night of his life he prayed for the death of that b—Stoddart, but God did not love him; that was how he finished up. He talks fairly loudly. He was not drunk; he was quite sober; it was at 11 o'clock in the morning. After that Windust went over to the corner of the bar where Cowley was sitting down, and without lowering his voice at all said, leaning over his chair, "Now then, Oowley, have you made up your mind to do what I asked? If you do I can 'shop' the b—"; of course, he meant by that he could do him a bad turn, put him away. Windust also said to Cowley, "I will look after you; you know I can and will." I heard this put to Cowley in cross-examination. He admitted part of it As to Klinge, I think I only saw him once, by the side of the Mansion House. It was during the morning before the sitting of the Court. He was in company with Windust. I only knew Klinge through him being pointed out to me. I would not like to swear really that it was Klinge, but I think it was. He was with two other men and Windust. I am afraid I cannot fix the date of this. It was before Klinge went into the witness-box at the Mansion House. I had been subpoeaned by Stoddart.

Mr. Muir: I suppose this evidence is admissible on the ground of his being a conspirator with Windust.

The Recorder: I suppose that is the object of it; you do not object to it?

Mr. Muir: I assume that is the object with which it is put forward.

The Recorder: The foundation of Mr. Abinger's case is that his client has himself been the subject of a conspiracy, and I presume he is calling this witness to support that part of the case.

Mr. Muir: It will necessitate my calling rebutting evidence to show what the fact was.

Mr. Abinger: I submit that Mr. Muir cannot conduct the case in that way. The Recorder: I should have thought the only remedy was to prosecute this man for perjury. Mr. Muir: Possibly his answer to perjury would be that he had made a mistake.

Witness. I said I would not like to swear to the man, because this is the first time I have seen him, but I thought he was the man. I am certain he is the man, but I could not swear to it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I saw Klinge in the witness-box. To the best of my knowledge that was the same man I saw in Mansion House Place that morning.

JAMES HENRY FOSTER , manager, Peckham branch, London, City and Midland Bank, produced a certified copy of Stoddarts account, and said he had known Stoddart eight or nine years as a man who had fulfilled his obligations honourably and straightforwardly. The account had been a very large one. Between October 1, 1907, and October 31, 1908, £16,400 had been paid out in notes and £5,648 in money.

ADA JANE STODDART , wife of prisoner Stoddart. My daughter married Catling in 1902. I have one other unmarried daughter, Jessie. I remember the summons being served on September 24. Mr. Grimes came to the house on the following day about five o'clock in our motor car. He had never been to the house before. My busband was not in. Grimes said he would like to see Mr. Catling. I said I thought the might be at home by this time and should I send down the car for him. Catling lives near us. Grimes said it was a good idea, so I sent the car, and Catling shortly afterwards came back with my daughter. Whilst we were waiting for Catling Grimes told me he had been to see Windust at Esher. My son-in-law and Grimes went into the drawing-room and my daughter and I went into the dining-room. In about 20 minutes my husband arrived with my daughter Jessie. I think they walked up. My husband came into the dining-room and I told him that Catling and Grimes were talking together in the drawing-room and my husband went in to speak to them. Afterwards they all three came out into the dining-room and joined us. Grimes said, "It is getting late; I must be getting back. What I should like to see would be Charlie Windust and Joe (Stoddart) have a good dinner together." Then Stoddart said to Catling," You must be catching your boat." Grimes turned to Catling and said, "I should not go if I were you. From what I heard this afternoon there is a warrant out and you would be arrested." Grimes then said that if £2,000 could be paid Catling would be out of this case. I asked whom it would be paid to. He merely shrugged his shoulders and said he did not know. My husband said, "I shall pay no £2,000. I have a perfect answer to any charge that may be brought against me." To that Grimes did not say anything. That was the end of the interview and they walked away, In the meantime Catling had gone home in the car. It is not true that my husband said to Catling, "You must leave the country to night." After they had gone my husband was very much upset and went to bed. This would be about a quarter past seven. The boat train leaves at nine o'clock. Jessie and I had a chat together and Mr. and Mrs. Catling returned later. Jessie being present, Mr. Catling said, "Do you think Mr. Stoddart will give that £2,000?" I said, "You heard what he said when you were here

before; I am sure he will not." Catling said he would have to get £2,000, and he said he was to let Grimes know before 11 o'clock at the "Empress" Music Hall. I sent one of the maids up to fetch Mr. Stoddart and he came down and said he had a perfect answer and he did not fear anything that Windust might say. Mrs. Catling said, "Well, if dad won't give the money, my jewels can be sold or my home or anything, if it means your liberty." Catling then told Grimes at the" Empress" that he would be with him in about half an hour. What was discussed in this conversation was how Catling was to be dropped out of the case; no mention was made of Mr. Stoddart being dropped out of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I was present in court when Grimes gave evidence. Inspector Collison did not call my attention to the fact that Grimes was giving evidence and say that if I was to give evidence I ought to leave the court. (Inspector Collison was put forward for identification.)

JESSIE STODDART . daughter of prisoner Joseph Stoddart. On September 24, when the summons was served, I came home with my father about half-past six. My father went into the drawing-room to Grimes and Catling and I went into the dining-room and remained with my mother and sisters. When my father, Grimes, and Catling came out of the drawing-room there was a lot of conversation. Grimes said, "From what I have heard this afternoon if £2,000 is forthcoming Mr. Catling's name will be dropped out of it altogether." The £2,000 was to be found the next morning. My father said, "I shall not pay a penny piece, as I have a perfect answer to all these charges." My mother said, "Who is this £2,000 going to be paid to?" Grimes shrugged his shoulders and said, "What I should like to see would be this man, Charlie Windust, and your father have a good dinner together and make it up." My father said, "Come along, Fred; it is time to catch your train. Catling turned round to Grimes and said, "Shall I go?" Grimes said, "No; from what I bear this afternoon you will be arrested if you do go." My father said, "You must go, Fred, because you know business over there is entirely at a standstill." Then Catling said, "I shall not go."" If you do not, somebody must." It is not true that my father said, "If you leave the country to-night it will be said that you are flying from justice." Grimes and Catling then left the house. Mr. and Mrs. Catling returned about half-past 10. My father had gone to bed. He was brought down in his dressing-gown. Catling said, "Will you pay this money, this £2,000," Joe?" My father said, "No, I will not, Fred." My father went upstairs and Catling turned to my mother and said, "Do you think: Mr. Stoddart will pay this money?" My mother said, "You have heard what he said and if he says no, he means it." Catling said, "Well, I must get this £2,000, and I shall have a bill of sale on my business." My sister said, "Well, Fred, it means your liberty. I will sell my jewels." Then he got on to the telephone to Grimes. Nobody went to Holland that night. Before the summons was returnable on October I at the Mansion House. I myself tried to find Jones's

address. I continually asked Catling for his address. Jones had a small tricycle which he used to keep in Catling's little garage. I tried to trace that motor-car, but could not find it. I was quite a month trying to find Jones before I went to see Mrs. Jones. Having traced Jones by his motor-car, I started watching the house where Mrs. Jones lived at 76, Elmsley Road, Wandsworth. A detectivenamed Williams took a room opposite and I myself kept observation on the house for three or four hours at a time. I never saw Jones go into his wife's house. Besides myself, Williams kept observation. I also employed Captain Gardner and another detective named Walford. Having failed to find Jones I called on Mrs. Jones on Nov. 6. I was anxious to find him because I thought he knew everything. I was anxious that my father's innocence should be established. I had also kept observation upon Catling because I thought that Jones having been his manager would come to his house. I saw Mr. Jones go to his house twice. During this period I had conversation with Catling. I went to ask him for an explanation of why he had treated my father in the manner he had done. He said, "I have got myself in a hole, Jessie, and I have got to get myself out at any cost." This was at his own house. He was there with his wife and Mr. and Mrs. Lawson, friends of his. I said to him, "I want an explanation why you have had my father's servant, Klinge, over, and had him in your father's garden all day long in the summer house?" I do not exactly know what reply Catling made to that, but during the conversation he said, "Get your father away; get him away to-night; take your car, get him to Dover, get him anywhere; he has got plenty of money." I said, "Why don't you go? You are the guilty one and you know it." He tried to frighten me by saying my father would be arrested in the morning at 11 o'clock. He did not tell me he had already been to the police. I said, "If my father is the guilty one, as you say, where is your proof?" He said, "Jessie, the greatest proof we have is that with that Butterworth money he went to the Argus Printing Company and paid their bill of £100." I have since ascertained that he had made that statement that day to the police. Mrs. Lawson turned round and said, "Oh! Jessie, do get your father away." After that I went, saying that I would tell my father what had been said. I remember being in my father's office in June or July last year when something happened with regard to Cowley. Miss Gardner told me someone was talking to my father in the front room and I said, "Well, you tell him that I am here." She went to the door, and as she knocked the door opened. There was a lot of scuffling going on, and I heard Cowley say, "If you do not give me £5 I know somebody who will." My father said, "Leave this office; never let me see your face in it again," and pushed him out. Cowley said, "You will be sorry for this." I went over to Holland twice, the first time on Tuesday, October 13. I went over to see Mr. Klinge to ask him what he was doing to the business, and to ask him why he had drawn £100 out of my father's bank without authority. When I arrived there and went to my father's office I was let in by Defries. I went into the inner room and handed him a letter from my father

giving me authority to go there and take full possession of the office. Mr. Defries took the letter. I said, "Where is Mr. Klinge?" He said, "He has gone to Rotterdam about his harp." Defries spoke fairly good English. The office was in a terrible state; papers and letters were littered about and coupons torn up. Mrs. Klinge came in and I put the same question to her. I next went over to Holland on the 17th. I saw Klinge at Herne Hill Station but did not speak to him. We crossed in the same boat, and I spoke to him on the boat. I said to him," What have you done?" He replied, "I am very sorry, Miss Jessie, for what I have done. I was with Mr. Catling on Monday, and he said it was best for me to do as I did as we had to save ourselves." I said, "I think it is very wrong of you if you are doing this to save yourselves to put it all on to my father." Klinge promised to meet me next morning at the office in Middelburg, but when I arrived at my hotel I found a letter from his solicitor stating that Klinge could not possibly see me, and whatever business I had with him I must do through his solicitor. I went to the office on the following morning, the 17th. It had then been swept up and cleaned. I saw Klinge at the office of his Dutch solicitor. I spoke in French because the solicitor did not understand English. I said I had come over to stop the business and to give the clerks their dismissal. The solicitor said I could not do so unless I gave compensation to Klinge, and I would have to sign a paper saying I would do so before I could go into the office. The Dutch law is that you cannot give a man who holds a responsible position a week's notice; you always have to give him six weeks' notice; so as Klinge had £4 a week I had to give him £24 in lieu of notice. Having signed the paper I was given the key of the office by Klinge, and went in accompanied by the detective Walford and Miss Gardner. There I had to argue with the solicitor to got Mr. Klinge to sign a paper, so that I might be permitted to draw the money out of the bank. He signed that, I went, and everything was satisfactory. That is the last time I saw Klinge. On October 13 I met Catling in Fleet Street. I said, "Look here, Fred, where is Jones? You must know." He said, "It's no good, Jessie; you will never find him now; he's gone to New York. I want you to tell your father that I am from to-day the bitterest enemy he has got. As I have got into a hole I must save myself. "

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. This is the first time I have given in evidence my account of my interviews with Catling.

Cross-examined by Mr., Muir. I went over to Holland to close up" the business there. I have had no experience of the business.

LOUISA GILBERT . My husband was formerly in the Royal Horse Artillery riding establishment at Woolwich. I was for some time in the service of Catling as a. maid. I remember Jones calling and seeing Catling on September 26. I heard Catling say to Jones that "he must pay the money "; the amount mentioned was either £200 or £2,000. On the next day Jones called. I heard Catling say to him that it was too late to pay the money; it had got into the police's hands. In the evening Catling said to me that Jones had eased

his mind and he could eat a good dinner. On the 29th Catling told me that Jones had gone away, and that if he was found he would tell a lie to get Catling out of it if Catling was in a corner. On October 11 a telegram came from Holland, and on October 12 Klinge and another man came and saw Catling. In the evening Stoddart came and saw Mrs. Catling. He said to her, "I want Fred. Why won't he come and face it out? He is not man enough to face me. He has had the money, tell me where he is, Maggie." She said she did not know where Catling was. I have never seen Stoddart and his daughter on bad terms; he has not in my presence cursed her or threatened to disown her; it is not true that he caught her by the arm and twisted it; it was hurt in a motor accident. Stoddart never struck me in my life. On October 20 Catling came down in the kitchen and said to me," Louie, if I was in a hole would you help me out of it?" I laughed and said, "Yes, sir; I would stand bail for you." He said, "Well, I want you to go to Court and say that Mr. Stoddart hit you." I said, "No, sir; I shall tell a lie for nobody." He said, I should have to go and I said I would not Mrs. Catling, who was present, said, "Neither of us will go, and if I hear any more of it I shall go and tell dad everything; there have been enough lies already in the case." On November 6 Mrs. Jones came. On November 8 Jones's brother came and saw Mrs. Catling; she afterwards told me that he had come for help for Jones; that Catling had asked Inspector Collison whether he might help him; that Collison had said "Yes," but only for charity; and that Catling had given £1. On the morning of November 6 Mrs. Catling called me into her bedroom; she told me that it was in the papers about me being struck by Mr. Stoddart, also herself; that it was an untruth and she was not going to have it, and was going to write to Collison. She did write a letter and I posted it. I saw the letter and read it. I forgot; I did not post it. Mrs. Catling said she would not write it now, because if this got into the hands of anyone they would not believe another word Catling said. (The letter was," The statement made by my husband that my father twisted my arm is wrong; my arm was twisted, but not on the occasion mentioned I write this in defence of my father. Mr. Catling must have misunderstood.")

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I am now doing nothing; I live with my husband; he keeps me; we have his furlough money; he was a driver in the Royal Horse Artillery; I have come up here from Derby, upon a wire from Mr. Alpe. I made a statement to him the night after I left the Catlings. I first went to Mrs. Stoddart and told her that the statement I had seen in the paper that Stoddart had struck me was untrue; she told me to go to Mr. Alpe. With regard to the letter, when Mrs. Catling decided not to post it I gave it her back; she threw it in the dustbin and I picked it out again.

HUDSON, recalled, produced the eight £5 notes in connection with the Browning case; they were paid in to the Bank of England, through the L. and S. W. Bank, Earlsfield branch, on November 6, 1908.

Mrs. JANET JONES, recalled. I first made a statement to Mr. Alpe and Stoddart last Saturday week. I went to Stoddart voluntarily and he took me to Mr. Alpe. On the night of September 28 I and my husband had retired to bed at 10 o'clock; we were awakened about 12 by a ring at the bell. My husband went and answered at the front door of the flat; I distinctly heard a voice say, "I want you"; Jones returned to me and said, "It's Catling, damn him." Jones then dressed and went into the hall. In about an hour he came back again; he said to me, "Stoddart won't pay that £2,000"; I said, "What's the matter with Mr. Catling then?" Jones said, "He has got the fear of God on his head. "Jones then told me to rise at six. o'clock, as he had got to meet Klinge at Herne Hill Station by the boat train. He left about 6.30 or seven, and I have never seen him since. Miss Stoddart has several times called on me and begged and implored me to find Jones. On last Saturday week I handed to Mr. Alpe a bundle of letters I have received from my husband; I did that because I thought Jones was getting a very bad name through this, and also I knew Stoddart was, so I would do what I could to save him. The reason I did not do it earlier was because I have known Catling for many years, and I did not want it to be through me that he fell.

Mr. Abinger tendered in evidence one of the letters written to witness by her husband.

The Recorder ruled that a letter written by an alleged co-conspirator, after he had absconded from just i.e. could not be admitted.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. When I gave evidence here before I had not these letters with me; I had not then bad any communication with Stoddart or with Mr. Alpe.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. When my husband left home on the 29th I had no notion that he was going to leave me; he just said good-bye in the ordinary way.

(Defence of Catling.)

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING (prisoner, on oath). I am the son of thomas Catling, for fifty years editor of" Lloyd's News." I have for 14 years carried on at 76, Fleet Street, under the style of Catling and Co., Limited, the business of process engravers; I am a Freeman of the City; this is the first time in my life that I have been placed in a position of this kind. In 1902 I married Stoddart's daughter; under the marriage settlement my wife is secured of £200 a year—£100 provided by Stoddart and £100 by me; for some years Stoddart in addition gave my wife £2 a week pin money. When, in 1907, I joined Stoddart in these competition's, I was financially quite independent of him. In October of that year I saw Stoddart; he said that the business in Holland was getting worse and worse; he was sure he was being robbed—he thought by Klinge and Defries—and it was agreed that I should go to Holland and have a look round. I went accordingly, Paying my own expenses. I found that Klinge was in absolute control. The results of competitions were sent to Stoddart by a letter leaving Middelburg on Thursday, reaching Stoddart's office about 11 a.m. on Friday, generally marked private. On returning to England

I saw Stoddart and told him I thought that if I made one or two radical alterations the business could be made to pay. This was one that I suggested; the postage to Holland is 2 1/2 d.; if we took sums of 1s. instead of 6d., competitors would have 30 lines for 1s. instead of 12 lines for 6d. I also suggested a change of printers.

(Wednesday, February 10.)

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING , recalled, further examined. The first week I went over to Middelburg there was a profit of about £20 to £30. That was Competition 21. Up to that time I understood from Stoddart there had been a continual loss. Klinge paid the money into Zips Bank. I left on Friday, November 1, returned to Herne Hill on Monday morning, and saw Stoddart. He expressed great surprise and was very pleased at the result. I asked for an agreement. He said he would ask Mr. Alpe to draw one up, which I believe was done and torn up by Stoddart. He said a letter would do now the competitions were paying. On November 27 he wrote a letter produced. On November 25, as the competitions were making over £100 a week, I asked Stoddart if he could give me something on account of profit as my hank account was small. There were expenses due of £23, and he gave me a cheque for £73, to include £50 on account of profit. At that time about £165 was due to me. There was a settlement on January 14, 1908, when we agreed my share of the profits at £426 10s. Stoddart gave me a cheque for £376 10s., deducting £50 cheque which I had received. That was for five or six weeks' competitions. I always arrived at Herne Hill at 8.30 a.m. and went home and breakfasted, when Stoddart called with his motor-car, took me to his office, and I handed over the money to him, together with an account which, was gone into and settled, and the money paid into his banking account, on which I had no drawing power. I deducted nothing whatever. It is untrue that I made out the account of the profits—I had no materials; Stoddart made it entirely himself, deducting such expenses as he said had been incurred, and he made out my share to be £426. Stoddart's statement that the £73 cheque included £60 to pay Willis is a wicked invention. I never had any money given me to pay Willis. I never paid any premier prizes at all; I never had any bank notes in my possession to do so. When the consolation winners were numerous I used to send the postal orders out. Sometimes £100 had to be split up into sixpences. I have never put a bank note into an envelope in my life. For the consolation prizes Stoddart would write or send Miss Gardiner to the post office with an order beforehand for the postal orders, because they would not keep such a large number at the post office and Stoddart would give me a cheque or send Miss Gardiner to get them. I had nothing to do with the payment of the premier competitors either here or in Holland. I received cheque for £45 of November 25, 1907. Stoddart never queried the name of Browning or any other name with me. I have never made or been asked to make inquiry into one single winner. I had nothing whatever to do with the Browning competition.

A discussion occurred as to whether the co-defendant Catling's evidence was evidence against Stoddart Mr. Muir submitted that what he said in the witness box was evidence for all purposes (Archhold, P. 395; Criminal Evidence Act). Held that that which would not have been evidence before the Act becomes evidence by the fact that the prisoner has elected to give evidence and has submitted to cross-examination.

Examination continued. I have never seen exchange slip Exhibit 131, nor the deduction. I never heard that Browning had asked to leave £15 on account. I have never heard of a deduction of over 45s. I agree the deduction is in Klinge's handwriting. I know nothing about it. I wrote on the exchange slip, "eight £5 notes and 5 sovereigns." The "45" at the top has been written in since. Looking at the exchange slip I think a cheque of £45 was handed me to change, but I do not remember what for. I have only been in Stoddart's bank four times. There may be 50 or 60 exchange slips with my writing on. I may have cashed that cheque and handed the change to Stoddart. I have never given Miss Gardiner any notes. I never gave eight of these £5 notes to he sent to a betting man. I now know there is a betting man named Wade, of Earlsfield. I had nothing whatever to do with the betting, with the "Racing Record," or with J. and H. Drew. Before these proceedings I heard of no such payment. It is absolutely untrue that Stoddart asked me to make inquiries about Willis, or that I told him he was all right, or that he gave me £60 to pay him. Stoddart is in a corner and if obliged to make some invention to get out of it. The cheque for £73 was £23 for expenses and £50 on account of profit. Stoddart has invented what he says. The Willis competition is before I started. Stoddart did not give me £100 to pay Foster. His story about that is untrue from beginning to end. The figures on the exchange slip Exhibit 147 are not mine. I produce specimens of my figures. (Same examined by the Jury.) I say that the flourish to the" 8" has been added since the slip was made out. With regard to Competition No. 25" Racing Record," Stoddart's statement as to Roe is absolutely untrue. I never paid the premier prizes. If four £5 notes, Nos. 01312 to 01315. part of the proceeds of cheque for £249 18s. are traced to my private account, they were paid me by Stoddart on account of profit and I put them straight into my bank. I never knew that any notes were being cashed at the Bank of England. I had no knowledge that Jones was connected as brother-in-law with Robinson. Jones was my manager and a co-director of Catling, Limited, with a salary of £3 7s. 6d. a week. Stoddart's story about there being 11 winners instead of 12, and about my saying he had made a mistake, is an absolute invention. With regard to Competition No. 40 and the payment of £396, the previous cheque for £100 on March 24 was to pay the consolation winners in the McNulty competition a week before. I admit having had the £100 on March 24 to pay the McNulty consolation winners. I deny having had £396 on March 31. In Competition 44 I had nothing to do with cheque for £530. I believe the £130 was given to Jessie Stoddart to buy stamps to send out for a competition in which a large number of persons got 6d. each. Jessie Stoddart was responsible for the addressing of the

envelopes. She had offices with a number of girls and traded as "Miss Jessie Stanton." It took a week to get the envelopes ready. I know nothing about Competition 46, and was never paid a cheque for £400 in it. Jones came into my employment when I was 21, 14 years ago. We had served our apprenticeship side by side at John Swain's in Farringdon Street. He was my manager and had power to sign cheques. Stoddart knew him well. Jones had a lot to do with his motor-car. and Jones used to go to the garage and assist his chauffeur. I knew nothing whatever about notes cashed at the bank endorsed Catling and Co., Limited. I was not a party in any way to any frauds that may have been committed by Jones. On May 26, 1906, Stoddart gave me a cheque for £100 and asked me to change it. I brought him back notes and he said, "You may as well keep them on account of profits." On June 19 he paid me £50 in gold on account of profits and £30 for money which had been laid out for stamps on June 2. On July 2 Stoddart paid me £100 in gold. I remember in the week ending July 4 Stoddart drawing out £328 in gold. It is not true that on June 9, 1908, he paid me £130 by cheque to bearer. I never paid money given me for profits through the post office. I paid everything into my bank account. My account is not credited with any such sum. The payment on August 28 of £102 12s. 3d. was a refunding of money spent by me for Stoddart. There were three cheques of £50, £50, and £2 12s. 3d.—£50 for Sully and Ford, £50 for stamps, and £2 12s. 3d. for a bet of Stoddart's which I had sent away. On Wednesday in Whit-week I went to Lindsay's in the Haymarket to see Cowley at Stoddart's request. I told Cowley Stoddart wanted him to make inquiry into two addresses. I wrote these addresses down on a piece of paper, which has been produced—Rawley and Naylor. I had nothing further to do with it. I know Cowley has been employed by Stoddart to make inquiries. After giving him these instructions I drove him in my motor towards Denmark Street, when he jumped down. That was June 8. On June 10 he came to me and gave me a white envelope—I think, directed" J. Stoddart." I borrowed the key from Miss Gardiner and put it in Stoddart's private room on his 'blotting pad. I had no idea what was inside the envelope. I saw him again on June 17 at four to five p.m. He came to my office, 71, Fleet Street, called me out into the court, and in a very, very confidential way said he had been up to Stoddart's office, Stoddart was out, and what was he to do with this, producing the Butterworth registered letter sealed up. I read the address on it. I was very surprised, because I had myself posted the letter the day before. I said I would take charge of it. (To Mr. Abinger.) This was all contained in my statement to the police at a very early date. (To the Recorder.) I knew this letter must have been improperly come by. I took the earliest opportunity of seeing Stoddart either that day or the next morning. I said, "Mr. Stoddart, what is the meaning of this?" and handed him the registered letter." There must 'be some fraud going on." Stoddart was very irate He said, "Don't be a frightened fool. The competition is mine, and

I am alone responsible for it." I said, "It is a pity you let me post the letter." I never saw Cowley again until he came to the Mansion House. (To the Jury.) I went down with Alpe to pay a fine for Cowley. We went down in my motor-car, and as Mr. Alpe had not enough money I advanced £2 10s. The new of Cowley being in trouble came from the Haymarket. I did not know what to do, and I simply went to Stoddart's solicitors. (To the Recorder.) Mr. Alpe paid the fine of £5 and costs. This was between the Butterworth incident and September. In June I was quite satisfied, at any rate so far as Butterworth was concerned, that gross fraud was being committed. That may have been an inducement for me to go and pay the fine for Cowley—not lest he should give me away; I had done nothing wrong. (To Mr. Elliott.) Stoddart repaid me the fine. On September 24, 1908, about nine p.m., I was at a lawn tennis club when Stoddart's servant brought a message. I would not go at first, but when she came a second time I went out and met Stoddart in his motor-car in Fyfield Road. He said, "There is trouble. Are you prepared to leave the country tonight?" I said, "What is the trouble about?" He said, "Over the Cowley matter, against you and myself." I said, "Well, that is nothing to do with me. I am not going away." He said, "You must, otherwise I shall be ruined. You must not go borne and have the summons—you must get away before you have it." As an excuse I said, "I have not got any. money, so I cannot go away." He said, "Oh, that can easily be got over. Let us go to the Empress and we can get some there." We drove to the Empress Music Hall and saw Grimes, who is the manager or proprietor, and whom we both knew. I bad been there pretty often and he always was very polite. Stoddart went in and fetched Grimes out after some minutes' delay. Grimes said, "Well, Fred, I am sorry to hear of this trouble." I said, "Don't you think I shall be silly to run away?" He said, "Have you done anything wrong?" I said, "No," and he said, "Well, you would be a fool to go." I declined absolutely to go. Grimes's account of that is absolutely correct. Stoddart then asked me to go to Jones's house and ask him to be at the office early next morning. This was about 10.30. Stoddart was in his suppers and his velvet coat; he went over to the" Prince of Wales" public-house hear the Empress, and I was driven in a car to Jones's place, when I saw Jones coming along. I delivered Stoddart's message and the car drove me home to my house. I then received the summons which had been left. The next morning I went to Mr. Alpe and had a conversation with him and later on with Stoddart. As we had not got the information, we really did not know what we were charged with. Alpe said there was a difficulty in getting a copy from the City Solicitor's office. Stoddart said it was absolutely imperative that we should know, and would I go down to Grimes and ask him to go and see Windust at Esher. Later on Stoddart's motor-car fetched me to his house, where I saw him with Grimes. Grimes's account of that interview in the drawing-room is quite correct. With regard to the £2,000,

Grimes said that if Price's debts were paid—he worked it out that there were four prizes, making £1,500 or £2,000—the matter might be settled. That seemed to be the chief trouble—the disgraceful way Stoddart had treated Price. On the night of September 28 Jones called on me and I afterwards saw Stoddart; I told him that Jones had told me that he had written out the Butterworth coupon at Stoddart's instructions, that he had taken the banknote to the Bank of England, signed the name of Butterworth, and handed the £100 in gold to Stoddart. I told Stoddart I was surprised that he should have used Jones in this part of the business. I asked to see the coupon and the claim, and Stoddart showed them to me; he said he did not think anybody would recognise the writing. When he showed me the claim the date it bore was June 2, the day prior to the race; it has been since altered to June 3; I said to him, "This is dated June 2, you have made a mistake." He said, "Oh, that's nothing." I told him that Jones had confessed to my wife that he had sent in the coupon and written the name of Butterworth; he simply shrugged his shoulders and said nothing. I said, "Jones is beside himself and does not know what he is going to do." Stoddart replied, "Oh, he need not worry: give him a fiver and let him go away till after Thursday." Jones turned up as usual that day and I gave him £5, wanting something done in Liverpool I sent him there. I have never seen him or heard of him since, directly or indirectly. The story that I visited him at his flat that night is absolutely untrue. In the evening of that day, after Stoddart and Klinge had seen Mr. Alpe, Stoddart told me he wanted me to make a statement to Mr. Alpe; I was to forget that I 'had posted the registered letters to Butterworth, Hierli, and Naylor.

Mr. Abinger protested against these matters being put to the witness, when they had not been put to Stoddart in cross-examination.

The Recorder said he would allow Mr. Abinger to recall his client if necessary.

Examination continued. I was to invent some excuse for Cowley's visit to me if anyone had seen him; I was to say I did not give Stoddart the Butterworth registered letter. I wrote out a statement, which Stoddart approved, and I sent it to Mr. Alpe. I attended the police court on October 1, and on discovering the line that was being taken for the defence I made up my mind to have nothing to do with it; the suggestion clearly put forward by Mr. Abinger was that Cowley was the thief in conjunction with Klinge; I knew he was not, and I would not back it up. I wired for Jones to return, addressing" Jones, care of Newell, Harrop, and Co., auctioneers, Liverpool"; I wired from the Fleet Street Post Office. I never had a reply to the telegram. Next day I saw Stoddart and told him I would have nothing to do with the idea of saddling the offence on to Cowley; he said, "I must stick to the tale; it would be suicidal"; I said I was not going to be a party to all the perjury and bogus defence and everybody getting into trouble; he said, "I must stick to it; it will be dismissed the next hearing. "I subsequently instructed a separate solicitor, Mr. Barnett On October 12 Klinge came over and I saw him in the presence of my father; in consequence of what Klinge said, my father went to the City Solicitor. Later on I had a conversation with

Inspector Collison in a City hostelry; there were present myself, my father, Collison, Klinge, and a Dutch journalist; I gave Collison certain information from which he prepared (not then, but afterwards) a written statement. The City Solicitor people declined to take the statement. At the hearing of the 15th Klinge gave evidence; I have not seen him since. Jessie Stoddart's account of what I said at the interview of October 12 is absolutely untrue. I did not say, "I have got myself into a hole, and I've got to get out at any cost." She said, You ought to have gone when he asked you," and I replied, "Oh, no, if there's any question of going away, he's got to be the one, not me." Mr. and Mrs. Lawson were present. It is absolutely untrue that I met Jessie in Fleet Street on October 13; I deny her story altogether. I was first introduced to Price in Stoddart's office; I had no interest in any financial arrangements between the two. Stoddart asked me to give Price what help I could; I agreed with Price that he should share my office; he used to come there every day; it is not true that. I had to teach him the business; he knew more about it than I did; he had been with Mackenzie. From start to finish there is no truth in the suggestion that there was ever any arrangement between Price and myself to put in bogus names. About August 27 Price did suggest to me, as we had had a disastrous week, could not some of the prize money be saved. Having had experience with the Cowley matter, I knew what he meant, and I said, "Don't you start any of that; if you do, I shall tell Mr. Stoddart immediately." With regard to the Stanhope coupon, I was in the office at Middelburg one evening after the clerks had gone; I went to put some money in the safe, which was not 20 yards from Klinge's office; Klinge and Price were in the office; the place was carpeted, and my footsteps were not very heavy; I evidently came upon them by surprise; when they saw me approaching they tried to hide something; I asked them what they were up to and they both looked very confused. I lifted up the blotting paper and found the Stanhope coupon; I knew there was something wrong because the figures were not filled in. Price and I had some words over it; the upshot was that I agreed not to tell Stoddart if Price tore it up; he said 'he would be ruined if Stoddart took an adverse view, and he had not got a penny in the world; he tore up the coupon and threw it away. Next day I returned to England, told" Stoddart the whole story; Price was recalled, to London by telegram and never went back. Subsequently I noticed the name of Stanhope returned as a winner; I told Stoddart I was surprised to see it; he said, "That's all right; I only printed it to have Price under my thumb. "I never received a single copper in connection with the Price business.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I wish the Jury to believe that I have never done a wrong action in my life and am guiltless throughout the whole of this business. I do not wish them to believe that Stoddart is guilty; it has never been my scheme to establish that I have told the whole truth in the Witness-box; Stoddart has lied from start to finish; all the witnesses who have borne out his statements have lied too. There is not an atom of truth in the suggestion that

my scheme was to get Stoddart to pay £2,000 to Windust so as to get my name dropped out of the case; nor in the statement that the next step I took was the visit to the Jones's flat at midnight; I was not there at all; the woman has committed perjury; Stoddart has bought all these witnesses. Your suggestion that my scheme was, "Klinge has absconded, Jones has gone away, if I can get Stoddart to go away I will go through the farce of going to the police and making a statement as it were in the interests of justice, and I shall be pronounced by all the world innocent," is absolutely ridiculous; I never invited or tried to get Stoddart to fly.

(Thursday, February 11.)

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING , recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I deny that having on October 12 failed to get Stoddart to fly the country I am now trying to get persons to come here and give false evidence as to the assault on my wife. I say that Gilbert has been bought by Stoddart to come here and lie. It is all got by Stoddart or his advisers. Gilbert was in his pay before she went to Derby. It was in the second statement to the police on October 27 that I made the statement about the yachting cap and Klinge going to Ramsgate. I did not know that Klinge had absconded before October 27. I did not know that Stoddart was going to keep Klinge out of the way. I do not know anything about Mr. Klinge's disappearance. I do not accept the suggestion that the reason I left out of the first statement to the police about the yachting cap and the part Klinge took in the D'Avyet competition was that if he had been there he might have denied it. It was not until Klinge told me about it that I told Inspector Collison. I think Jones has been used as a tool by Stoddart. It is not true that I have been using him as a catspaw right through. I have never been concerned with Jones in a criminal prosecution. I remember the prosecution of the "Pirate King" two or three years ago. I was not in any way interested in it. The charge made against Willett was that of disposing of pirated music. That pirated music was not printed from stereos manufactured on my premises. The whole of the work in that case was identified as having been done by the Direct Photo Engraving Company, of Farringdon Street. Jones was not the man who supplied the blocks. We were both subpœtnaed, but the subpoenas were withdrawn on the application of Mr. Alpe, who then appeared for me, and the work was afterwards identified as having been done by somebody else. I did not print these pirated stereos and put it on Jones, or put Jones forward as my catspaw; do not be so silly. I heard Singer swear that Robinson, the brother-in-law of Jones, asked him to allow his name to go forward as a bogus winner because I feared Stoddart might suspect me of swindling him; Singer would swear anything. Jones was one of the first signatories in the formation of Catling and Co., Limited. He also signed the articles of association of Mr. Stoddart's Cigarette Company. There is no managing director of Fred Catling and Co., Limited. I am sole "boss." Jones had

an honorarium of 100 £1 shares given him on the formation of the company, and was in receipt of a salary of £3 7s. 6d. a week. Mr. Alpe was the solicitor of the company, so that any information you have you have obtained from him. I know Jones bought a motor-car for which he paid £50 or £60. He paid £33 out of his own savings; I lent him the rest, and he returned me 10s. a week, and he has had the motor 4 1/2 years. He has never had two cars. As to Cowley, I formed no opinion as to whether he was an out-at-elbowed man or a well-to-do man. I heard him say in the box that everything he was walking about in except his boots belonged to Windust. Till I heard him say in the box he only got an occasional sovereign from Stoddart I understood he was in regular employment with Mr. Stoddart. I found him easily when I was making inquiries, because I knew he used to wait at the "Opera Tavern" for Stoddart, who was there six days out of seven, and practically lived there. I heard Cowley swear he went to Gravesend to arrange a bogus address in the name of Butterworth; I do not know that it was on June 10. I heard the witness May Andrews say he first came at the end of May before the Derby was run, but I heard that first from Mr. Alpe; she made that concession to him when he went down there. If I was sending in a bogus coupon to Middelburg in order to defraud my father-in-law the coupon would not necessarily have to get to Middelburg before the Derby was run. If we had all three combined I say it would be impossible to commit a fraud without Stoddart knowing of it; the suggestion is ridiculous. Stoddart asked me in quite a casual sort of way to post the registered letters in the Butterworth competition. Stoddart sometimes registered letters containing only £2 or £3. I often used to post letters for Stoddart. I realise that having had the third envelope in my possession for some time I could have opened it had I been so minded. Of the £90 I paid into my bank on June 19, £80 was given me by Mrs. Stoddart; the other £10 came from quite a different source. If the certified copy of Stoddart's banking account shows that no money to that amount was drawn out on that day, the account of course cannot lie. Stoddart paid me £50 on the 19th as my share of the profits and £30 for money expended. The £100 itself went to the Argus Printing Company. Stoddart told me he had paid it. If Stoddart never paid cash to the Argus Printing Company, but always paid by cheque, he must have told me another lie. I do not know where the money came from, but from the other swindles he had going on he must have had a pretty good lot of gold outside the bank. It is a deliberate lie to suggest that the £90 paid to my account on June 19 was the proceeds of a fraud committed by Jones and myself. Jones confessed the fraud to me in the presence of my wife before he disappeared. The statement of Mrs. Jones that I was outside her bedroom at 12 o'clock on the night of September 28 is a lie. I can prove I never left the house that night after I returned from the Brixton "Empress." Price lied when he said that in the first live minutes I saw him I persuaded him to do a wrong action in substituting a bogus winner. In August, when I used to be seeing him almost daily, he was constantly discussing

the chances of the competition. There was never any discussion as to addresses unless it was the addresses he had bought from Mackenzie. I never asked him if I could trust him. Either he invented the story or somebody else for him. I do not suggest that Stoddart got Price to invent the case against him. I do not think that Stoddart had anything to do with Price. I did not say to Price, "We are both on the 'square' and I will trust you, and I think you had better leave Masonry out of it." If I had been working with Jones to defraud Stoddart I should not have warned Stoddart about Price on my return to London. The telegram recalling Price to London was in consequence of what I told Stoddart. Stoddart seemed angry rather than shocked when I told him. I thought Stoddart would not allow the affair to go through, and that is the reason why I told him. Of course, if he had been arranging with me for Price to do this, he would not have been angry, but pleased; but another way of looking at the matter is that he did not want Price to do it because he had been doing the same thing himself and he did not want too many bogus coupons. We know that Price did get a bogus winner. Stanhope or Hudson, but it is a lie to say that I kept my part of the bargain by also providing as a bogus winner Mr. Dawson, Rose Cottage, Victoria Road, Barking. I did not know at the time that that address was provided by Robinson, the brother-in-law of Jones. I have never seen the coupon of this competition; Mr. Stoddart printed the coupon, and I think he is the only person who can supply the missing link. The document produced in my handwriting is the original" copy" for the printers containing the names of" Stanhope" and" Dawson." Price told us when he came back there were six winners, but he did not bring the names. It is absolutely untrue to suggest that Jones could only have provided that bogus winner ("Dawson") at my request. I do not suggest now, with my knowledge of this case, that Jones was not very extensively engaged in fraudulent transactions in connection with this business, but what I am going by is that he never had a penny to bless himself with and did not live extravagantly. I knew when I was in Middelburg that the" Stanhope "coupon at least was fraudulent, but I thought it was destroyed. When I prepared the document stating that" six competitors are lucky enough to predict the ten correct results, and, subject to the scrutiny, will divide the £100, "I had not got the list of names from Price. All Price's statements about the registered letter from Hudson is an invention to incriminate me. Price has been absolutely ruined, I take it. I stated yesterday that Stoddart is a very clever man, a genius, but I should not say that of Price, just the opposite. I deny that the registered letter from Hudson was produced at Middelburg in the presence of Klinge and myself. I appreciate the significance of the fact that we three men were over in Middelburg at the time that Stoddart was in London. The" Stanhope "coupon must have been made out after I left Middelburg. I did not know that a fraudulent new coupon was to be written out after I had left. I understand the" Stanhope" coupon was destroyed. I do not know whether I brought

over to England the letter in which Price expressed satisfaction with the way the business was being conducted. How could I know what was in a particular letter, when I brought over perhaps 50 or 60 in order to save postage? I never put up a penny toward? this transaction and I was not to derive any profit, as far as I know. I knew the only man who was spending any money was Stoddart, and he was not much out of pocket; he "pinched" all he could get. As to whether in saying that I am trying to have a slap at my father-in-law, I do not love him; I have good reasons for hating him. As I have already said, when I joined Stoddart in November, 1907. I was quite new to the coupon business, but I had been to Holland when I was courting his daughter. The business was then run by George Stoddart. They had a big Derby sweepstake cm. I had a letter asking me to come over as Stoddart and George Stoddart were both taking to drink and could not do any work. I went to assist them in bringing that thing through, and when it was over they were both helplessly drunk on the floor. I do not know that when I joined Stoddart in 1907 he was losing money hand over hand. He thought he was being robbed and that if the persons carrying on the business were watched and he got the money contributed it would pay. I think if you look at the bankbook you will and he borrowed £5,000. He only started the paper to" slang" Windust, and they nearly ruined each other. In the first six weeks my share of the profits was £476 10s. The competitions were a success, not because I introduced bogus prize winners but because I stopped the" slanging match" between Windust and Stoddart. Stoddart ruins every man he touches. You cannot leave out the central criminal. D'Avyet was before I started in Middelburg. Klinge had to do with that. I know a Mr. and Mrs. Lawson. Lawson has a yacht and he is a very close friend of mine. The name of the yacht may have been the Veronique, but he has had several. We were not in Ramsgate harbour on the Veronique at the time of the D'Avyet competition. Lawson had nothing to do with D'Avyet; you take it from me that was arranged by Klinge and Stoddart. Klinge told me he went down there by Stoddart's instructions. It is true that the date of the D'Avyet coupon, October 5, is the date when I arrived in Middelburg, but I have never seen the D'Avyet coupon. It is absolutely a lie to say that Klinge and I with somebody else, who was to personate D'Avyet, arranged the transaction, and that when we knew that Stooddart had queried the coupon we none of us had the courage to discover ourselves to him. I cannot explain why nobody ever collected the registered letter from Mrs. Frost, at Ramsgate. The list of prize winners was always communicated to the printers by Stoddart, excepting in Christmas week, when it was sent direct to the printer. Klinge did not wire to me announcing the prize-winners. The telegram produced is addressed, "Catling, Argus Printing Company," but that is the only one, I think, and it is stamped on Christmas Day. When I entered into this competition business I had plenty of money at my disposal. I can provide proof of that if you desire it. Being well off for money does not always say that the money is in the bank;

it was invested. I had perhaps £20 or £30 in the bank, that is all, I had been spending money for Stoddart, and on October 26 asked him for £50 on account of my share of the profits of the competition. It is a lie to say I was in great straits for money. I had taken a partner, a Mr. Fisher, and paid him out. He was not a partner but a co-director. He bought shares of the value of £1,000. Mr. Alpe was solicitor to the company, and had the preparation of the balancesheet. Fisher said he did not like the business, and I paid him £500 to go out. We each drew £5 a week out of the business, and £250 I returned as I guaranteed the book debts. We used to have a contract with "Lloyd's," but lost that when they did the work themselves. It is a lie to say the business was doing nothing. Fisher made the company and put in new plant. That is where the loss was. It is absolutely a lie to say that I suggested to Stoddart in that state of things he might put me in the way of making money in his coupon competitions. With reference to the Browning competition, I think the figures on the exchange slip are Miss Gardiner's handwriting. I heard her swear that it was her handwriting, but she would swear anything for Stoddart, absolutely body and soul. It is transparently clear that the thing is a" fake." Stoddart never gave me the cheque to pay the Browning prize money. I realise that if I was paying the money to Browning I should not want £5 in gold. I gave the eight £5 notes to Stoddart, who paid them to Wade. I heard Miss Gardiner say a cheque was sent to Wade to Middelburg, and that Wade having no banking account sent it back to Middelburg, whence it was returned to Stoddart, and that Stoddart gave Miss Gardiner the notes in question to pay the amount of the cheque. All that is a lie. Where is the cheque that was sent? Can you produce it? I tell the jury in all sincerity that she is a liar, bought and paid for. I never gave Miss Gardiner any bank notes. If you put it to me that I was" Browning" you put to me what is absolutely false. (Witness was subsequently requested to examine the exchange slip under the magnifying' glass.)

CHARLES JAMES FARLEY , cashier, Ludgate Hill branch of London City and Midland Bank, stated that the practice of the bank was for the ledger clerks to stamp cheques and exchange slips with an indiarubber stamp. (Witness was requested to examine the slip under a magnifying glass, and expressed the opinion that the slip had been stamped after the alteration had been made.)

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING , recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. All the football matches competed for were played on Saturday, with the exception of the first competition in the 1908 series. Coupons must be received in Middelburg on Saturday or at latest Sunday morning. The object of my going to Middelburg was not to check the coupons or to check Klinge. I could not have dealt with them without making a confidant of Klinge. Klinge was the only one who could get the letters from the post, and after they were opened, the coupons were put in a heap in the corner of the room by the clerks who had opened them. On the Saturday and Sunday I should be walking up and down the room seeing they did not steal

the money. The clerks could have done so in conjunction with Klinge. There was a system in vogue of each, clerk stamping the coupon. I dare say it was for the purpose of checking the clerks. I was suspicious of Klinge and Defries, because Stoddart had told me they were the two men who were robbing him. I went over to watch, to get the money and to bring it back. I did not know that bogus coupons were coming in, and I am not sure of it now. I suggest they were concocted in London and had never been through the post. I never made out a list of prize winners. I was never over there when the prizes were awarded or known. The Butterworth coupon was a "Racing Record" coupon. It was written in Stoddart's office by Jones at Stoddart's dictation. It is a lie to suggest that I dictated it. I delivered to Collison the receipts for the three registered letters. Miss Gardiner's statement that sometimes she and Stoddart used to post the premier prizes and that sometimes I and Jones would take charge of it when the operation would be carried out at Catling and Co. 's offices is a lie from start to finish. She is bought and sold to Stoddart. Klinge gave me the documents which he got from Stoddart's office, and which I gave to Collison. He had a whole bundle of things to destroy. These receipts were slipped inside another document which I handed to Collison. I can give no explanation of the note for £50 endorsed Catling and Co., Limited, being cashed at my bankers; and know nothing about it, it did not come from me. It is a lie to say that Jones was sent by me to cash it, and I do not think it sounds reasonable, seeing that I gave the receipts to the police. I received the four £5 notes from Stoddart. I was worrying him to get the money; I could only get it piecemeal; I have not got the whole of it yet, and I do not suppose I ever shall; I got it in small sums. The £100 on April 23 may have been paid by Stoddart to me; if so it went through the post office to purchase stamps and postal orders. I did not poet the Singer letter in Competition 32. I did not have charge of the Butterworth prizes. Stoddart asked me to post three letters and I posted them. In No. 32 competition there were two bogus prize winners, Morris, Brunswick Square, and Singer, a nominee of Jones. The date of the publication of the winners was January 25, printed February 4. I went to Middelburg on Friday and came back on Sunday. If Singer was not returned as an original winner I should not know. I do not recollect Singer's name other than seeing it in the coupon and finding it as a research afterwards; he was published in a later issue. Originally there were 11 winners without Singer. It came as a research after my reappearance at Middelburg the following week. It is a lie to say that I arranged it. It must have been done before I got to Middelburg. It is not necessary to pay 5s. for a scrutiny. If Jones was working for Stoddart these two did it. Stoddart was not clearly defrauded—he was clearly defrauding. I had none of Singer's prize money, although the banknotes have been traced to my bank. I do not say Jones was doing it on his own. It was Stoddart's artfulness that they were not cashed at his bank. If he had persuaded me to leave the country it would have been all me. Since the case started

I have been to the "Empress" Music Hall two or three times and have spoken to Grimes. I had nothing to do with what he said at the police court. When it was proposed that I should leave the country, we understood it was a charge of conspiracy only, and that one man could not be charged alone. I think honestly I do hate Stoddart. I did not tell Jessie Stoddart he was the bitterest enemy I had got—I was at home at the time she states I met her in Fleet Street and told her that. Windust wrote to me saying," The day that Joe stands in the dock we will have a bottle of the best." I have known Windust 27 years, and when I got that letter I was as much surprised as you pretend to be, and I took that letter to Mr. Alpe and said, "I am not friendly with Stoddart, but I do not want to see him come to any harm if I can help it. Forewarned is forearmed." It was given to Mr. Alpe as a secret document, not to be produced in a court like this. I think Windust was moved by a spirit of revenge, and I have always said so. His quarrel with Stoddart went back long before 1906. I do not know why he should have written me like that; he has written many letters to me while this slanging match was going on. I was offered the work for the book, but I refused it. I do net think Windust thought I should show the letter to Stoddart. He knew Stoddart and I never agreed; all our matrimonial life has been antagonistic to him. It is Windust who is going to putt him in the dock, not me. It does not show much hatred when I take the letter to Stoddart's solicitor. I have made no statement to my solicitor since Stoddart was cross-examined except to answer the lies he has told. I telegraphed to Jones on October 1 in Liverpool," Return at once; wire train; will meet you." Mrs. Jones has sworn a lie in saying that I stood at his bed and sent him off—he was at the office the next morning. I can bring all his fellow workmen to prove it. Collison did not take my statement down in front of me; the statement I signed was the only one read over to me. I told him that Stoddart had said I must not have a summons served on me. I would not exactly swear I told him. It may have escaped my memory at the time. It is a lie to say the statement is put in to rub in the case against Stoddart. Stoddart told me that he had paid the change of the £100 note to the Argus Company. When I told Collison that Jones did not know for what purpose this coupon was made out, I did not believe at the time that Jones did know; I did think he was an innocent dupe of Stoddart's. I do not agree now that Jones must have known the purpose for which the coupon was to be used. On the night I received the summons I met Jones outside his house and told him Stoddart wanted to see him the next morning. I went in Stoddart's motorcar, driven by his own chauffeur, and he afterwards took me to my home. After Jones did not come back I went round to see his wife and asked where he was. His wife told me she was in great difficulties and I gave her some money to pay the landlord. Cowley gave me a piece of paper in an envelope. After October 12 I saw the police nearly every day. I had done nothing wrong; why should I keep anything back? I was ready to assist the ends of justice. I

did not do it in favour of my father-in-law—he is the wrong one. If I had been in conspiracy with him, of course, it would have been a wicked and mean tiling to have done. I am quite willing that my statements to the police should go to the Jury. (The statements were read.) I attended a consultation with Mr. Ernest Wild and Mr. Cooper and the solicitors. Mr. Wild said he thought it was best to have one defence. After the first hearing I made up my mind to have nothing to do with Stoddart's defence. I was not going to commit perjury. I intended to sever my defence before the second hearing, but I was over-persuaded. I am sorry I did not do it. Mr. Alpe was my solicitor before he was Stoddart's. I introduced Stoddart to Mr. Alpe. On October 12 I received a letter from Klinge, which my solicitor has. (Same produced and read.) Klinge came over to see me. He had not got any money and his friend came over with him. I found the money and paid their expenses. The letter was delivered to mo on Sunday by express. He told me he did not want Stoddart to know he had been over until he got back. He said his life would not be worth a day's purchase if Stoddart knew it. His visit was not personal to me. I met him on a public platform. I saw him secretly so far as Stoddart's knowledge went. If he had not said, "Do not tell anybody—not even Stoddart," I should probably have told Stoddart. When he speaks of getting some money from him I cannot tell you what was in his mind. I did not ask him anything about it. It was no question of money to me. That is absolutely all I tell the Jury about it. Everything went from my mind when he told me he would not commit perjury. His confession took the form of what he told the police. Miss Gardiner's evidence is untrue, that when I went into partnership with Stoddart I took over nearly the whole of the working of the business. It is true that my clerk would help me in anything I had to do in the business. Jones was not my clerk—he was my manager and is a practical engraver. A man named Lennock was my clerk. Jones received £3 7s. 6d. a week.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I had charge of the preparation of the" copy" for the printers of the body of the paper; that does not relate to the winners; there is space left for that. I should receive the copy from Stoddart for the other part. In competition No. 31 I did not see a coupon from Rowlandson or Picknell. In book produced, under date January 2, I find" Stoddart coupons—making ready." That would be setting the type, making a matrix for the stereo, and so on. Then the next column is" machining." The whole of the work appears to be done on January 2. I should send in the corrections of the proof. The process of taking the matrix would be three or four minutes; the casting of the stereo five or six minutes, so that the whole thing would be ready for machining in about 10 minutes. Exhibit 149 is a cheque in Stoddart's handwriting—I believe both the signature and the body; I swear to the signature. The endorsement is either Jones's or Miss Gardiner's, in my opinion. Two bank notes produced are endorsed" Barnes, 15, Essex Road," in Jones's writing. I went over to Middelburg, arriving Saturday morning. The coupons were required to be posted

in London on the Friday and must be received there on Saturday. Sometimes a few of the letters were opened before I arrived, because we were receiving a lot of letters for J. and H. Drew and the bets would have to be entered. The chief object of my going over was to see the letters opened and that the cash was secured. There would be 12,000 to 15,000 letters received on each competition. No examination of the predictions was attempted. The sole object of opening them when I was there on Saturday and Sunday was to secure the money. An account was made showing the amount of money received through the post signed by Klinge. It was never signed by me. I would leave on Sunday night, or if there was a very big post on Monday night, arriving in London the following morning with the money. The coupons were arranged alphabetically; if a claim came in the coupons were searched, and if it was found to be correct the claimant was recorded as the winner. They had till Wednesday to send in their claims. The winners were sometimes wired to Stoddart—in the ordinary way they came by letter—they invariably arrived by Friday. They could not arrive as early as Wednesday. I have known them to be telegraphed on Wednesday.

(Friday, February 12.)

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING , recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I wish to correct a statement I made to Mr. Abinger. October 5 was my first visit to Middelburg, and I did not go again until Friday, November 1, 1907. September 28 was the date of the publication of the D'Avyet coupon. The sheet was posted on October 4, to arrive in Middelburg not later than Saturday, October 5. Claims for premier prizes must be posted not later than the 7th, and reach Middelburg not later than Wednesday, the 9th. I went to Holland for the express purpose of finding out whether Stoddart was being robbed and to see if I could make the business pay. I returned on Monday, reaching Herne Hill Station at 8.48 a.m. I said nothing to Stoddart on the point of his being robbed—we did not refer to it. I think Klinge came to England that week; he was over five or six times about that time; he might hare been over twice in a week. He was in daily correspondence with Stoddart. He copied his letters in book produced. On page 447, dated December 28, 1907, there if a letter of mine addressed to Terry. On page 339 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart of October 7, 1907. There is no other letter from Klinge to Stoddart till October 14. Between these dates Klinge was most likely in England. The 9th was the date for receiving claims in the D'Avyet competition. At folio 344 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart of October 17, 1907. The letter from D'Avyet from Paris on the same date is in Klinge's handwriting; he has attempted to make it a little bit rounder, but I will swear to it anywhere. Anyone who knew Klinge's writing would recognise it. Exhibit 31, the envelope with D'Avyet's address on, is in Klinge's handwriting—the pencil writing on it is not. Exhibit 32, the registered envelope addressed to D'Avyet, has a postmark London, December

22, and two postmarks Ramsgate, December 23. It is in Miss Gardiner's writing. The authority to the post office is Klinge's handwriting a little more disguised. At folio 347 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart dated October 22. The next letter from Klinge to Stoddart is dated October 28, showing that Klinge may have been in England between these dates. I recollect lending Klinge 10s. It was the day he went to Ramsgate to fetch the letter. I recollected because he told me, "You remember the 10s. you lent me—that was the day I went down to Ramsgate." He was over five or six times about that time, but I cannot fix the day. It was at the time he said Mr. Stoddart was out—could I lend him 10s.? I never saw Klinge in a yachting cap. Stoddart repaid me the 10s. a few days afterwards. I was always advancing money on Stoddart's behalf which I got back as petty cash. Stoddart never asked my opinion as to whether Klinge or Defries was robbing him, and I never expressed any. When the business started paying he did not seem to worry any more about it; he did not refer to the subject again. The first payment on account of profit was £60 out of a cheque for £73 on November 25. That would be for competitions 22, 23, and 24. As soon as the money was received we should know how much the profit would be. There would be the expenses and the prizes to deduct. No 22 competition would include Foster and McNulty. Foster was never paid through me. In the ease of McNulty the bank notes are endorsed in the handwriting of Jones. Stoddart made all the divisions of profit and kept the book. We were making £110 a week in profits after every possible expense which could be charged to the business and after every competitor bad been paid. McNulty and Foster were treated as winners who were going to receive their prizes so far as I was concerned. Somebody made a profit in these two competitions of over £400 with which I had nothing to do. I gave Inspector Collison Exhibit 34 "Football Record," October 12—D'Avyet. I got it from Klinge; I believe he got it from Stoddart's office. He had a heap of papers which he bad got away to destroy. There is the winning coupon in the name of Funnell. Stoddart kept all the winning coupons in his office. I could not say when Klinge gave it to me—I think it was after the prosecution had started and after be went to the City solicitors. The files of the" Football Record" were kept hanging on the wall; the winning coupons were always kept in the bottom drawer on the left hand side of Stoddart's desk. The file of the" Racing Record" was kept hanging in Stoddart's room and that of "Football Record" was kept in Miss Gardiner's office. I do not know what became of these files. They were there up to the date of the summons. I remember the Rowlandson contest only generally. We never had a disastrous week. In Christmas week there were a smaller number of letters, but that was expected. The expenses would be about £120 a week. In No. 23 competition the gross results were £594; No 24, £701; No. 26, £729. No. 25 was missed, and it was included in No. 27, which is £529 plus £100. No. 28 £620, No. 29 £426. That was in Christmas week. We cut all our expenses down; it was not a disastrous week; we

should not lose more than £50 or £60 that week. In the Rowlandson contest coupons were published December 21; the last day for posting coupons December 27; last day for posting claims December 30; last day for receiving claims in Holland January 1. At folio 446 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart dated December 27.

Mr. Abinger objected that the witness could not be asked to give evidence as to a document not in his handwriting.

The Recorder held that if the book was the regular letter book used in the office, with which the witness was acquainted, he could give evidence on it.

Mr. Abinger objected that that was not proved.

The Recorder stated that he would recall Stoddart.

Joseph Stoddart, recalled. I know nothing about the books kept in Holland. Letter book produced contains what purport to be letters to me, but whether I received them or not I could not say. It contains a series of letters all, or most of them, addressed to me by Klinge. Apparently that is one of the books in which he copied letters addressed to me. Held that the evidence was admissible.

Frederick Ernest Catling, recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Muir. The letter of December 27 is "Post is tremendously down—only one-third by usual mail, namely, 1,386, including to-night's, as against 3,366 last week. I am afraid we will not get more than about 4,000 letters in all." That is always expected and looked for in Christmas week. On folio 447 there is a letter dated December 28 written by me to Terry, so that I was in Holland on that date. On folio 449 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart. It was the practice to send in a list of new competitors in each competition so as to revise the postages. Klinge sent over the names of the successful winners and the name of every new competitor. On December 31 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart stating there were no deductions from 27 contests, and enclosing the winning coupon, A. E. Picknell; so that on December 31 Klinge had ascertained that Picknell was the winner and was sending his coupon to London according to the usual practice. That letter would reach London at 11.30 a.m. the next day. On folio 452 there is a telegram, "Add to winners of ten F. W. Dent, 46, Seaton Street, Chelsea. No scrutiny." Dent's name is inserted in the copy. On January I there is another letter from Klinge confirming that telegram. At folio 459 on January 7 there is another letter from Klinge to Stoddart. On January 8 Klinge writes," No scrutinies for No. 29. If any more claims in the morning I will wire you." I handed Collison receipts for three registered letters posted in Chancery Lane on May 12, 1908. these were in that coupon that Klinge gave me apparently by accident. I told Collison," These were with it; I do not know what they are; if they are any use to you you may have them." They were for Barnes. Collins, and Parse. If complete they show that only three out of the six winning persons in that competition got registered letters—an exceedingly useful piece of information for the prosecution—I can see it now, but I did not know it at the time. I had no knowledge at all that they related to this "Racing Record" contest, in which there were at least three bogus winners. I simply

gave them to Collison haphazard and he took them. I never suspected anything. I tried to get Collison a complete file of "Racing Record." I heard that Barnes's notes were changed at the Bank of England and that some of them were traced into my banking account. I had no knowledge of it, or I should not have given the receipts to Collison. Stoddart gave me these four £5 notes when I was worrying him for money. The four £5 notes contain a stamp of Zip von Teilingen, Middelburg. (To the Recorder.) Jones was evidently in this—but my confidence in him was all right for 26 years out of the 27. (To Mr. Muir.) Jones did not go to Holland to my knowledge, nor did Stoddart, in June, 1906. I did not go in June, 1908. I never went over during the racing season. Klinge may have been in London about that time. With regard to "Racing Record" Butterworth competition, May 29 would be the date on which the coupon would be published. The last day for sending coupons in would be June 2; the letter must bear the postmark of that date. That is Tuesday, the day before the Derby. The day for posting claims would be June 4, which should reach Middelburg June 6. On June 12 the winners were announced, and on June 16 I posted the three registered letters to Funnell, Diarelli, and Butterworth. On Monday, June 6, I saw Cowley and gave him a piece of paper with two names on to make inquiries. He did not report to me. I saw him again before Tuesday, 16th—on 10th or 11th. He asked me if Stoddart was about; Miss Gardiner said he was not in and he said, "I wanted to give him this," handing me an envelope, I think addressed to Stoddart and sealed. I got the key of Stoddart's private room from Miss Gardiner and put it on his desk unopened. I did not see Cowley again before I potted the letters unless I paid his fine between. (Mr. Abinger. The conviction was June 12.) On June 16 I posted the three registered letters in Post Office Court, just opposite Abchurch Lane, not very far from the Bank of England, at about 2 p.m. If Nash says it was between 2.30 and three it may have been so. I was alone, I left Jones at the office. Klinge was not with me; he was not in England; he signed for registered letters in Middelburg on that date. I was absolutely alone. If the Butterworth banknote was cashed at the Bank of England at three p.m. I know nothing about it. It has Jones's handwriting on the back of it. Jones was at my office when I left. I absolutely swear I was alone.

HUDSON, recalled. I have examined the cashier's hook with regard to the cashing of the Butterworth banknote for £100. It was cashed on June 16, 1906, at three p.m.

Frederick Ernest Catling, recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Muir. On June 17, late in the afternoon, Cowley handed me registered letter addressed to Butterworth, which I had posted the day before to Gravesend. I had no doubt then that there had been a fraud—I knew it. On June 19 £90 in gold was paid into my bank, together with £50 in notes. I got £80 of the gold from Stoddart immediately before it was paid in; £50 was given me on account of profit and £30 for money I had expended for him. The £50 was

not my share of profit, but was a payment on account; I was worrying him to get something out of him. I then knew that he had made £100 of fraudulent profit out of the Cowley-Butterworth coupon two days before—it was not my half—I had nothing whatever to do with "Racing Record." It was my share of profit on "Football Record," the same as he gave me £200 in gold at a later date. It is absolutely untrue to say it was my half of the £100.

JOHN McROBERT , of the Argus Printing Company, was recalled as to the details of the printing done for Stoddart in connection with "Football Record" in the first week of January, 1908. The printing having been done on Thursday and Friday, January 2 and January 3, witness was of opinion that the copy must have been delivered, set up, the proofs corrected, and the stereos made sometime on Wednesday, January 1.

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING , recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I have been told that Jones was cashing a good many of the notes which have been traced as the proceeds of these frauds through the banking account of my firm. I knew nothing about the frauds he was engaged in if he was engaged in any. It was a risky thing to do if neither Stoddart or myself knew anything about it, as bank notes can of course be traced. Jones told me he cashed the (Butterworth) £100 note, wrote on the back of it, and took the £100 in gold to Mr. Stoddart, to the best of my recollection, at the house where I was then living in Brixton. When I got to the house in the evening Mr. Jones was with my wife and the statement was made in her presence. Jones said he had written on the back of the note in Stoddart's office at his dictation. On September 24, the day the summons was served, before I got the summons Stoddart asked me to take a message to Jones asking him to see him at the office next morning. As to the necessity for sending such a message you must ask Stoddart, not me. I went in Stoddart's motor-car for the purpose of delivering the message. Jones ordinarily goes to my office in the morning, but he goes to see customers, and is not always back the first thing, and might be elsewhere in the morning. I knew nothing about Jones's connection with the Cowley matter until he told me personally. Stoddart gave me no hint or suggestion as to why he wanted to see Jones. On Tuesday, September 29, Jones was in my office to my knowledge till past 11 o'clock. By that time I had not met Klinge and had no knowledge that Klinge was coming to England. Stoddart told an untruth in saying that I went to meet him at Herne Hill Station. When I saw Klinge that morning in Stoddart's office presumably Jones had gone to Liverpool. Jones would have been a valuable witness for me, and that is why I wired for his return. Stoddart according to me was guilty and Jones was the innocent victim of Stoddart. Jones' signing the back of the Bank of England note was a very innocent thing to do if he had not done anything wrong. He had no reason to leave England except that he was upset and wanted to go away. Stoddart said, "Give him a £5 note and let him get away until he has recovered." I first heard it was going to be suggested that Klinge posted the three letters, including the Butterworth

letter, and Cowley cashed the note, at the first hearing at the Mansion House. I knew that the Cowley charge was laid against me and Stoddart. I am perfectly innocent, and according to my story Stoddart is guilty, yet at first I joined defences with him. I never saw Mr. Abinger in chambers in my life, and he did not appear for me by my authority or by my wish. I never saw Mr. Wild in consultation. I did not know on September 29 that when Klinge came over he got a cheque of £20 from Stoddart; I knew later on. I know that he changed the £20 note he got at the Ludgate Hill bank at the Bank of England. I did not know Klinge was to be a witness for the defence, but I know he was taken to Alpe and Ward's. I understood he was verifying my statement, and that he had made a statement to them regarding the Price incident. I did not bring Klinge over to England on September 29, and did not know he was coming.

Re-examined. Until Mr. Barnett appeared for me I had personally taken no part in the defence by attending conferences or anything of that kind, nor by instructing solicitors nor attending consultations with counsel. Until I attended the first hearing at the Mansion House I had no idea of the line of defence that was going to be taken by Stoddart and his counsel, and I was not consulted by them as to what line should be adopted. It was when I heard on the first day of the hearing the suggestion that Cowley and Klinge were conspirators that I decided to sever my defence. It was not right that Cowley should be called a thief-right off the reel when I knew who it was. I adhere to my statement that at no time have I been party to any fraud, or received the proceeds of any fraud. I was not at Middelburg on October 26, 27, or 28. My first visit was on October 5, and I did not go again until November 1. The receipts that I gave Inspector Collison were in the coupon I received from Klinge; it might have been by accident or by design. He gave me at the same time an armful of other documents. When I arranged with Stoddart to go over to Holland, he told me he suspected he was being robbed and asked me to keep an eye particularly on Klinge and Defries. In the course of my periodical visits I did not come definitely to the conclusion that they were robbing Stoddart, but I had my suspicions. It was impossible to make any definite statement to Stoddart on the subject. The only ground for suspicion in my mind was that the value of the letters increased per letter from 8 1/2 d. to 1s. 3d. I made no attempt to ascertain whether Mr. Stoddart was being defrauded by the introduction of bogus winners; I could not; I was not over long enough. Leaving London, on the Friday night; and arriving in Middelburg on the Saturday morning, I left on the Sunday night. My only object being to obtain such moneys as were sent and bring them back. I had no means of checking whether fraud was tasking place, as it might have been done either before I got there or after I got there. I was absolutely alone when I posted the three letters on June 16 and received the receipts from the post office. I gave the receipts to Stoddart by whom they were produced in the same way that he can produce other documents as and when required. I have no idea where Stoddart got the £50 he paid me

on June 19. The £30 was given me at the same time. Cowley never tried to get any money out of me on account of the £100. He never tried to blackmail me personally, or suggest that as I had done something wrong I ought to pay him something. The Cowley fraud was connected with racing with which I have never had anything to do. I have never backed a horse in my life. You may take it, therefore, that the profits in respect of which I received the £50 were in relation to "Football Record." There was no share of profits coming to me in connection with racing. If he had made a million I should have had no share in it. On the evening of Monday, September 28, on which it is alleged I went late at night to see Mrs. Jones, I went to the "Empress" Music Hall with Mrs. Catling, and after the performance was over we went straight home and I did not go out again. Next morning, when I got to my office about half-past ten, Jones was there. There is not the slightest truth in the suggestion that late on Monday night, September 28, or early in the morning of Tuesday I was at Mrs. Jones's flat as described by her, unless I walked in my sleep.

MABEL CATLING , wife of prisoner Catling. On September 25 my husband and I arrived at Forest Lodge about six o'clock in the evening. We found Grimes there with my mother. My husband and Grimes were alone in the drawing-room until my father came. I went home in my father's car and returned about three-quarters of an hour afterwards. As I returned I heard my husband and Mr. Grimes coming down the road. After some conversation Grimes left us and I and my husband returned to my father's house. When my father came down in his dressing-gown I said that £2,000 had to be paid, and would he pay it? He said, "No." I said, "Very well, if it means my husband's liberty, we most find it ourselves." Dad went away. Then my husband and I went to the "Empress" and had an interview with Grimes. After my husband and I got home we had some conversation about this matter. On the following Monday, September 28, Jones called to see my husband. I had previously, in the afternoon, had an interview with father and mother at their house. In the course of conversation about the case dad showed me two pieces of paper; one was a coupon and the other a claim in respect of the coupon, and he asked me if I recognised the handwriting. I said, "No, I did not recognise it, but I thought I did." When I afterwards saw Jones I said, "Are you mixed up in this affair?" Mr. Abinger objected that this was not evidence.

Mr. Elliott said this was a charge to which Jones was a party with Catling and Stoddart. Witness: My husband came in while Jones was there.

Mr. Elliott submitted that anything said in the presence of Catling would be evidence against Catling.

The Recorder: The statement of an accomplice is evidence against his coconspirators as long as the conspiracy is going on, bat the confession by some conspirator after it is all over is only evidence against himself.

Mr. Abinger: My friend is getting in a statement against Stoddart under this guise.

The Recorder said he could only admit the statement as evidence against Catling and would tell the jury that it was not evidence against Stoddart. It could only have been introduced for the purpose of prejudicing Stoddart, and he did not think it would do Mr. Elliott's client any good.

Mr. Elliott: I must take the risk of that.

The Recorder: I do not in the least know what this evidence is for. I do not think that anybody would attach the least importance to what Jones said. Jones is obviously, from all the evidence in this case, up to his neck in this conspiracy.

Examination continued. When my husband came in I told Jones to repeat to him what he had said to me. Jones repeated that he had signed the back of this £100 note and also written out the claim, and that he had cashed the note. My husband said to him, "Whatever did you do it for? What made you do it?" Jones said he was asked to do it. After that interview Jones left with us. My husband and I went to the" Empress" to see Grimes. We arrived about eight o'clock and stayed till a quarter past 11, when we went to bed. I remember being at home with my husband on October 7 when Mr. Lawson and my father came to the house. My father had heard that my husband intended to separate the defences. He pointed out to my husband that it was suicidal to do that and talked about the law and said that they must rise or fail together in a case of conspiracy. After a little while Catling said, "You will be pleased to near that we have decided to keep on with the defence." We told him we had already agreed to do so before he came. Mr. Lawson was present during the whole of this time. A telegram was written out, not on a telegraph form, but on an ordinary piece of paper. After the telegram had been written out; before my father left, my husband said to Stoddart he had heard mat he had had £2,000 out of the profits of the competition and asked him, "Would you correct the statement you have made with regard to the profit?" I also had heard that my father had made £2,000 out of it, and my mother had heard it. When my father was asked he said it was between £800 and £900; that was all. Later in the afternoon I saw them all again and subsequently went to Stoddart's house. My father was not there when I arrived. When he did come in I told him that Klinge was in England and had made a statement, but my father said he did not believe me. I said, "If you do not believe me, you may go down and see for yourself." My father said he did not believe Klinge was in England. We went down in a motor-car. There was an accident, and we knocked a gentleman over and it might have been serious. A clergyman interfered with my chauffeur and my father remonstrated with the clergyman. There was a little altercation and I tried to prevent my father doing anything. My father pushed me away and my arm got twisted. He did it quite accidentally. I went into my father's house and was for a time very faint and unwell. That is the origin of the story about the alleged assault upon me. When I went home I found my father and Mr. and Mrs. Lawson at my house. My father was very angry and said a number of unkind things about my husband and Mr. Lawson intervened. I heard a sound of scuffling in the hall. As to what the girl Gilbert said about the letter, I was very upset to find that my father had not got bail, so I wrote a letter, but I never gave it to Gilbert to

post, and it is not true I ever put it in an envelope for the purpose of having it posted. I put it in my writing-case, which has gone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. The summons was served about 10 o'clock and my husband got it at midnight. The amount required for Price's prize money was. I think, £1,600. The balance of the £2,000 was not to go to my husband. Grimes said he had been to Windust, but he did not say the money was to be paid to Windust. The condition of the £2,000 being paid was that my husband's name was to be dropped out of the case and the whole matter would end. I do not know who said it; that is what we, all understood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. The coupon and claims produced (Exhibits 5 and 6) are the coupon and claims which my father showed me. I do not recognise the handwriting; I think at is Jones's. I told my father I did not recognise it because I thought that Jones, being my husband's manager, he might be mixed up in it. I did not want to say anything about it.

(Tuesday, February 16.)

Charles Lawson, surveyor, 5, Angel Park Gardens, Brixton. I have known Catling about eight years, and during that time his reputation as an honest man has been beyond reproach. I had a yacht called the Veronique in October, 1907, but did not visit Ramsgate in her. I was not in Ramsgate at all that month. I know absolutely nothing about the D'Avyet competition, and never heard of it until I saw it in print. At the time counsel speaks of the yacht was laid up on the Hard in Hampshire and I was in Swaziland. I remember being in Catling's house in October of last year before the second hearing at the Mansion House, but I cannot say the date. Catling had sent over to my house to say he wanted to see me, and asking whether I would go to him or he should come to me, and knowing his trouble I thought it a greater compliment to go to him. Whilst I was there Stoddart and his wife came in. Stoddart hesitated a moment or two, and then said, "Does Mr. Lawson know all about our affair?" Catling said, "Yes," and Stoddart continued, "I have come to see you, Fred, about this defence. I understand that you have instructed a solicitor to act for you independently, and you have been to Barnett." Catling said he had. Stoddart said, "You are very unwise in this because you are upsetting what defence I have, and I am particularly any part in the case. Abinger has the defence in hand and I do not mind your going to Barnett and asking Barnett what you like, and I do not mind Barnett being in court, but I do object to him taking any part in the case. Abinger has the defence in hand and I do not want him interfered with. The case is mine and you have no right to interfere. Catling reproached him with not having taken him into his counsel, and said he had no idea what the line of defence really was. Stoddart said, "If you had wanted to find out there is no doubt you could have found out. I have been seeing you and been constantly in your office, but as a matter of fact it is nothing whatever to do with you; it is my affair not yours." I then said to Stoddart

that prior to his coming over Catling and I had talked the matter over thoroughly, and Catling had consented, at the request of Mr. Alpe, not to interfere, at any rate for the coming hearing. I added that I had been asked by Catling to meet Mr. Barnett on the steps of the Mansion House and prevent him entering the Court. Stoddart appeared satisfied with that, and left shortly afterwards, and a telegram was sent to Alpe. As a matter of fact, I waited on the steps till Barnett arrived; then I took his arm and led him away. I was next at Catling's house on October 12, the same day that Klinge was said to be in England. I was requested to go there to see Stoddart, who was waiting for his son-in-law. He was in a most excitable state. He first wanted to go where Fred was, and then said,' "What is this. I hear about Klinge being in England? I must and will find him if it be so." He further said he did not believe that Klinge could possibly be in England, because he had that day received a cable from him in a private code of which only he and Stoddart knew the deciphering. I told him I had been informed that Klinge really had come to England to make some sort of statement to the City Solicitor. Stoddart thereupon said he should not return without having seen him, and stated his determination to go to Herne Hill Station and overhaul the train from end to end. Catling would not come into the house and would not see his father-in-law, and was not present at the interview at any time. After Stoddart had heaped reproaches on Catling we got him from the dining-room into the hall, and the maidservant Louie tried to persuade him to leave the premises and got his hat for that purpose. Stoddart did not exactly strike her, but drove her against the 'balustrade of the staircase hurting her in the back. I was present with my wife at the interview on October 12 between Miss Jessie Stoddart and Catling. She never said, "Give me an explanation of why you have Klinge in your father's garden all day." He denied having Klinge in England. It is absolutely untrue that he said, "I have got myself in a hole, Jessie, and I have got to get out of it."

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. All this matter has absolutely nothing to do with me. I was requested to see Stoddart because I was Catling's friend and he reposed confidence in me. I did not know that Catling was engaged in a coupon competition. I knew he went' to Middelburg on some business. I never sent in a coupon to my friends' competition; I have never even seen a coupon; I had several yachts before I had the Veronique. I had a yacht called the Myosotis berthed in Ramsgate Harbour from August to about the end of September, 1906, I had a party on board that yacht, which included my wife and little boy, Miss Jessie Stoddart, and Catling. Catling' never discussed with sue the yacht Marquess; there is no such yacht. I was not in want of money in September, 1907. I was not well off; I never have been. I was adjudicated bankrupt some years ago; it may have keen in May, 1902. I owed no money; nobody came there. The liabilities were £287 19s. 4d., a very small affair. I then described myself as a surveyor. Since 1902 I have not been making a precarious living by promoting companies; I never promoted

a company in my life. I have been concerned with companies. I was not a director of the Montrose Matabele Company, Limited, the company has not started in business yet. I am chairman of the directors of the Staatsfontein Estates Company, Limited. There is no such registration as the Montrose Consolidated Land Company, Limited. I have never had offices at 1-5, New Bridge Street. I may have had county court judgments registered against me last year. I have not paid my creditors in bankruptcy; I do not owe them anything; nobody claimed. It is not true that I was in want of money in 1907. I have never heard of the name of Funnell.

Mrs. LAWSON, wife of last witness, remembered being with her husband one night last October at Catling's house, but could not swear to the date, and also at an interview between Catling and Miss Jessie Stoddart. She did not recollect Miss Stoddart asking Catling for an explanation of why he had Klinge in his father's garden all day, or Catling saying to Miss Stoddart, "I have got myself in a hole. Jessie, and I have got to get out of it at any cost."

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger, witness said she was very fond of yachting and owned the yacht Myosotis in the latter part of 1905 and early part of 1906. So far as she was aware there was no bill of sale on the furniture. She had private money, but her husband kept the house going.

FREDERICK HARRIS , process engraver in the employment of Catling, Limited. now the Commercial Engraving Company, spoke to last seeing Jones on Catling's premises on September 29 about a quarter past 10 o'clock.

ARTHUR HANKIN , a fine etcher in the same employment, gave similar evidence.

BRAHAM BARNETT , solicitor, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, gave evidence as to being instructed for the defence of Catling on October 5.

THOMAS CATLING , prisoner's father; CHARLES EDWARD BYGRAVE, photographer; HENRY BARTLETT MINTER, engraver; and JOHN LOBB, retired newspaper proprietor, gave evidence respecting Catling's character, and Mr. Elliott stated that other gentlemen could be called if necessary.

The Recorder. You may take it that his character is good.

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, further examined by Mr. Abinger, denied that (he had been a party to the alteration of the exchange slips relating to Browning and Foster (Exhibits 131 and 147). The slips were banded to his solicitors on January 30 of this year and he had not had access to them since they had been in his solicitor's possession. He denied that he had bought Miss Gardiner. Miss Gardiner left his employment when he gave up business, and became employed as secretary to a doctor in Oxford Street. With reference to the Butterworth coupon, it was not true that Jones handed him £100 in gold in exchange for the £100 Bank of England note. It was not true that Catling brought him a registered letter which he said Cowley gave him, and asked him what was the meaning of it; Catling never

brought any registered letter to him, and his evidence on that point was not true. He never saw the registered letter again after he had handed it to Cowley to post. Catling did not say, "There must be some fraud in it" and he did not say to Catling," Don't be a frightened fool; I am alone responsible," or language to that effect.

To the Recorder. With reference to the Rowlandson case, I do not remember receiving the document of which a facsimile copy has been produced from Klinge. Assuming that the document had been sent over from Holland, I should have received it in the ordinary course on Tuesday or Wednesday morning. Claims could come in up till Wednesday night, but it was generally the case that when it was a hard competition I should know absolutely on Monday night or Tuesday night who the winners were. Ordinarily we should receive the results from Holland to forward to the printers on the Wednesday morning. The "copy" would be immediately sent down to the printers and set up; a proof would be sent, corrected, and sent back in the course of the Wednesday. As far as my experience goes the stereotyping was done the same night the proof was passed. It was on the information conveyed in the document received from Klinge, which in some mysterious manner has got mislaid, that I caused type to be set up for two winners. The post would come in about 11 o'clock, and I should be in possession of the two winners on the Wednesday morning. I had not seen the proof when Roe called and wanted to know the amount 'he had won. He called upon me about some Monte Carlo business. I had known him before, but had missed him for four or five years. I knew him when he came to the office. He mentioned the competitions himself. He said, "How are the competitions getting on?" I said they were getting on all right. Then he said, "You will be surprised to hear I have won a prize." I said, "Oh, have you? That is strange;" I was surprised. I said, "What prize?" He said, "I want to know what my share is to be." That is the reason I got the proof from the Argus Printing Company. I saw the names of Picknell and Rowlandson. I knew he was not Picknell. It was quite understood between him and myself that he was Rowlandson. I recognised that he was entitled to £150 and that he owed me money, and I thought it was the only chance I should ever have of getting it. I said to him, "I shall not pay you any money." He said, "Well, what about the Statute of Limitations?" I said, "Never mind that." I took Ms word for it that he was Rowlandson and a winner. As I have said, I was constantly suspicious about winners and questioned the coupons. I hardly regarded Roe as a doubtful person; he had had a good position at one time in the Norwich Union.

The Recorder. If he was not a doubtful person his cross-examination was not justified. The object of the cross-examination was to suggest he was a thoroughly unreliable person. It is suggested he was a promoter of bogus companies.

Witness. I have only heard of that since this case started. I never questioned the genuineness of Rowlandson. I did not telegraph to Klinge requesting him to send the Rowlandson coupon over

because I thought that in getting my money back I was doing a very clever thing. There was no necessity to telegraph to Klinge for the coupon; I did not doubt that Roe had sent it. I was going to put £150 into my pocket, less £5, in payment of a bad debt. This man owed me the money. I never did get the coupon.

GWENDOLYN GARDNER was recalled as to her handwriting on the slips. She denied that there was any alteration made to them before they went to the bank. She denied that she had received a shilling from Stoddart in respect of this case and said she is now secretary and typist to a doctor.

RICHARD SMYTH , medical practitioner, Ramsgate, having deposed that the witness, Mrs. Harriett Fogg, was unable to attend by reason of rheumatic inflammation of the left knee and ankle, her deposition was read, formal evidence being given by Inspector Collison that the deposition had been taken in his presence.

Speeches of counsel occupied the remainder of this day and the whole of the 17th, 22nd, 23rd, and 24th February.

(Thursday, February 25.)

Verdict: Stoddart, Guilty of obtaining money by false pretences (except on the counts relating to Funnell), guilty of conspiracy; Catling, not guilty of obtaining money by false pretences, Jury unable to agree to a verdict on the conspiracy indictment.

The Recorder Discharged the Jury from giving a verdict in regard to Catling on the charge of conspiracy, and Catling was admitted to bail until next session in order that the prosecution might consider what course should be taken as to him.

The Recorder sentenced Stoddart to eighteen months' hard labour, and directed him to pay the taxed costs of the prosecution.

View as XML