Old Bailey Proceedings.
2nd January 1860
Reference Number: t18600102

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
2nd January 1860
Reference Numberf18600102

Related Material



A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—an obelisk (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters—the figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.


OLD COURT.—Monday January 2d., 1860.


Before Mr. Recorder and the First Jury.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-131
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown

Related Material

131. GEORGE TAYLOR (40), and THOMAS JOHN NICKS (29), were indicted for stealing 6 cwt. of bristles, and two casks, value 170l., the property of Joseph Barber and others, from a quay adjacent to the Thames; Second Count, charging Nicks with feloniously receiving the same.

MESSERS. ROBINSON and POLAND conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM CHILD . I live at 23, Sebbon-street, Backchurch-lane, and am a shipping foreman at the St. Katharine's Docks—on Saturday, October 22d, I shipped thirty-seven casks of bristles on board a barge called the Barber, which belonged to Mr. Spencer, the lighterman—as I shipped those casks, a person of the name of Covington, one of Mr. Spencer's men, received them from me, and I took the numbers in this book—the numbers ran from 72 to 108, both inclusive—this is in my own writing—I did not take notice of the tiers exactly in which they were packed—there were three tiers; as near as I can remember—I cannot recollect which part of the barge was filled first—I took no notice how they were stowed—numbers 86 and 101 were the two last that were shipped—I think they were on the top of the tier.

RICHARD COVINGTON . I am a labourer in the service of Mr. Spenocer, a lighterman—on Saturday, 22d October, I recollect loading the barge, Barber, with some bristles—I stowed the after part of the barge first—this is a model of the barge (produced)—there were ten casks in the fore part—five in the bottom tier, three in the next, and two on the top—I do not remember the numbers of the two on the top—they would be the last two put into the barge—there were twenty-seven in the after part—I took them away from the quay—I put the two tarpaulins over them—I took them to the entrance of the dock—I saw the barge on Monday-night, between 5 and 6, safe as I had left it—it was then at Galley-quay—I put some nails in the tarpaulins—Galley-quay and Brewer-quay are all one concern—there is

Chester-quay, Brewer's-quay, and Galley-quay—they are all in the occupation of Messrs. Barber, and all adjoin each other.

DAVID FINNIS . I am a labourer in the employment of Mr. Spencer, a lighterman—I remember on Monday, 24th October, bringing the barge, Barber, from the outer lock, St. Katharine's Dock, to Brewer's-quay—it was about twelve o'clock when I came out of the docks—there was then a tarpaulin over a quantity of casks—it was nailed down—I left the barge at Galley-quay—I was on duty there watching until about 2 o'clock on Tuesday-morning—when I left then the barge was in exactly the same state as when I brought it out.

THOMAS HALL . I am a labourer in the service of Messrs. Barber of Brewer's-quay—on Tuesday, 25th October, I saw a barge at the dock loading—I first saw it at ten minutes past 8—I began to unload it—I first moved off the tarpaulins—I took off the foremost one first—it appeared to be in a perfectly undisturbed state—there were ten barrels in the front tier—I began to unload that first—the top two would be the first removed in the ordinary course—they would then go on to the quay to the scale to be weighed—the unloading took an hour and a half altogether—there was a stoppage of about a quarter of an hour, in cousequence of the unloading of a cart on the quay.

JAMES HUNT . I am a lighterman in the employment of Mr. Spencer—on Tuesday, 25th October, I was at Brewer's-quay from twenty-minutes to half-past 8 in the morning—I noticed a van there—I took no particular notice of what sort of van it was; it was a four-wheeled van—I did not notice in what state it was, whether it was dirty or clean—it stood about ten yards from the barge, Barber—there were some casks on the ground, five or six; they might be three or four feet from the van—I saw two men with the van—to the best of my belief one was Taylor, and the other a man called Bobby Oddleggs—I knew him by sight; he was not employed by Mr. Spencer; I believe he is a carman—I afterwards went to the premises of Messrs. Best and Sons, in Henrietta-street, Cavendish-square, and saw a van there—I cannot say whether that was the van that I had seen on the Tuesday morning, at the wharf—it was a four-wheeled van—when I went to Messrs. Best's premises, I tried the height of the van with regard to my dress; I thought it corresponded too high with the one I saw in the quay—when I was at the wharf on this Tuesday morning I should have caught my dress against this van if I had not moved on one side—I did not catch it—it was in consequence of that I tried the height of the van when I saw it at Messrs. Best's premises—I thought it was too high.

COURT. Q. You thought the van was higher than the van you had seen on the quay? A. Yes.

JAMES SAUNDERS . I am a foreman in the service of Messrs. Barber at Brewer's-quay—I produce my delivery book—I find on 25th October an entry in my writing of the delivery of 10 baskets of mineral water by me to Mr. Best—I enter in this the goods that I deliver out the same evening; this (produced) is the delivery order—twenty-six appear to have been delivered on the 25th October—this is my own writing—I delivered ten by myself, and other men belonging to our firm delivered the rest—there is an entry here in my handwriting of the number delivered altogether that day—it was twenty-six hampers—I delivered ten by the men; the men delivered them—I did not see Taylor there on that day—my men delivered them while I was attending to another job—I saw the cart; it was Mr. Best's, as

far as I could recollect, without looking at the name—I had seen the cart before.

COURT. Q. Are you able to state about what time in the day it was? A. About 2, I should say, or between 2 and 3.

THOMAS BEST . I am a member of the firm of William Best and Sons, 22, Henrietta-street, Cavendish-square—Taylor was in our employment as a carman—in October we had a large quantity of mineral water at Brewer's-quay—I gave directions to Taylor to cart some of it away—he brought the tirst lot away on 20th October—this is the order—he brought three or four loads on that day—on Tuesday, 25th October, he brought three loads away—I did not see him on that morning until after his return from the city, which was between half-past 10 and 11—that was his first load from the quay—he continued to work for us from Tuesday the 25th till the following Mouday, the 31st—on the Tuesday-morning he did not come to his employ—I expected him on that day, as usual—he did not come, but I received this, letter, which I believe to be in his writing—I think I received it on the, Wednesday—(Read: "1/11/59. Dear Sir, I humbly crave your forgiveness for absenting myself from your business, but through lending myself in an affair, not knowing the liability I put myself in, I hope you will forgive me, your humble and obedient servant, G. Taylor"—addressed, "W. Best and Sou, 22, Henrietta-street, Cavendish-square")—My van is not a large one it is a four-wheeled one, with one horse—Taylor had been in my employment about two years—he had 1l. a week wages, and his lodgings over the stable—I remember the witness Hunt coming to look at a van at my premises—that was the same van that Taylor used to cart those things.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE (for Taylor). Q. You say you saw Taylor between half-past 10 and 11; do you mean that he was then coming in with the first load? A. Yes, it was about that time that he would arrive—during the two years he has been with us he has borne a good character; we have had no fault during the two years—he was trusted with a good deal of property—he was the man that did all our city work—he did not come from Priestley's to us—he was out of employ when we took him—I did not go to Messrs. Priestley for a character—I knew he had been in their employment—I do not know how long—I do not know that he was there fifteen years.

MR. ROBINSON. Q. You do not know under what circumstance he left, perhaps? A. Well, I have heard.

JOHN EDWARDS . I am an assistant in the examining floor of the silk department at Brewer's-quay—I have known Taylor twenty years—on 25th October, I happened to be half-an-hour over my time and as I was going across Tower-hill I saw Taylor going in the direction of Postern-row—from the direction he was in he must have come from Thames-street—Posternrow would be in the direction of the Minories—he had a cart with two casks in it, like bristle casks—I have since been to Messrs. Moses' place in Leadenhall-street and seen a number of casks—they were shewn to me by a gentleman in the firm; they did not shew me the casks, but I went round and round the warehouse, for there was a great number of casks, and I picked out some casks similar to those that I saw in Taylor's cart—it was a two-wheeled cart, because it made me make a remark when I met with him—I said "Hallo, George! what, have you got in your old trade again as a carman?" and he said "Yes, sir"—he then went on towards Postern—row, and I went to my place of business—I should say this was very near upon half-past 8 o'clock in the morning.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. Do you know Brewer's-quay? A. Yes; I have known it twenty-seven years—I should say the cart was not a hundred yards from Brewer's-quay.

MR. ROBINSON. Q. I believe Brewer's-quay is between the Tower and the Custom-house? A. It is at the further end of Thames-street, coming on Tower-hill—it is near the Tower-stairs, from Thames-street.

CHARLES COOPER . I am a traveller in the employment of Messrs. Moses, Brothers, 57, Leadenhall-street, bristle merchants—I have known Taylor for some time as the foreman of Mr. Priestley, who used to do our work, and does now—I know a person of the name of Richardson—he called at our premises on Wednesday, October 26th—I did not see him when he called, but he had left two samples of bristles—I saw him afterwards on that day—he left this card (produced)—he represented himself by this card to be the traveller of Mr. Nicks—I do not know whether the card was afterwards given to Mr. Thorold—when I saw Richardson he produced two samples of bristles, which had been left some little time previous—he took those samples away with him—we asked him to leave them, but he would not—they were tied up with bark—they were tied up similar to this bundle (produced), with the exception that the bark was on instead of having slipped off—the bark was perfect round the bottom—it goes round the bottom—both these bindings were bark—it was twisted bark at the bottom—the samples of bristles that Richardson had, were Mammontoff bristles—they come from St. Petersburg—the German bristles are tied with string, not with bark; that is the generality of them—the Polish are tied with bark; they are sometimes classed with the German—their value depends entirely on the quality of the bristles—the Russian will fetch the highest price; the best sort—this description of bristle, the same as the samples that Richardson had, would be more readily saleable with bark on than with string—being tied with string would deteriorate them from 5l. to 6l. per cwt. in the sale—Edwards did not come and see the casks in my presence—according to what we have given, the price of the white bristles would be about 35l. per cwt.—the others, the grey, are worth from 16l. to 17l.—those (produced) are what I mean by grey—the price of three cwt, would be 105l—three cwt. of the grey at 16l. would be 48l.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE (with MR. GIFFARD for Nicks.) Q. I understood you to say that when these bristles were brought to you the bark was round them? A. Yes—we were invited to purchase articles that had the indication on them of being Russian bristles—the bark does slip if a good deal pulled about, not otherwise; they do not slip in the casks—if turned out of the cask or in bulk, half-a-dozen bundles might slip—I do not see what the reason would be for fastening them up with string after having been shewn with the bark around them—we are one of the principal dealers in the trade—we are very large dealers—the market is not at times heavily stocked with this commodity, nor is there at other times a dearth of it—it is a regular trade—in sending the article to us, they would perfectly well know it was being sent to persons who well knew the article and its value, as well, I should say, as anybody in London—I think there are five or six dealers in this description of article—I believe that the quantity brought over and the quality of the article is pretty well known to all us dealers—they are generally imported by ourselves—this very article might have been imported by ourselves, and I believe it was—Mr. Matthews, who purchased some of these articles, is also a large dealer, one of tho largest in London—I have seen the whole bulk of these bristles,

with the exception of the two casks; we have got the remainder in our own warehouse—the quality would not vary; they would pretty well be the same one year as another—there have not been any sales lately of that quality of bristle to my knowledge.

MR. ROBINSON. Q. Is Mr. Matthews precisely in the same line of business as yourselves, or does he manufacture them? A. His brother manufactures bristles, but not he; he is only a dealer the same as ourselves—Matthews, Brothers, is the firm—this brother that manufactures them is not a partner in that firm, he is a distinct one altogether—he does not carry on his business at the same place.

JAMES THOROLD . I am clerk to Moses and Son, of Leadenhall-street—on 27th October, in consequence of information, I went to Nicks in Worship-street, and took this card with me—I asked ldm why his traveller had net been respecting the bristles he had offered us previously—he said, "Well, the fact is I had a better offer for them"—I told him he had offered the bristles to us, and he must stand by his bargain—he said that he thought his traveller was going to make a mess of it, and was going to cheat him in some way to make something by him—he mentioned Richardson as his traveller—I had not mentioned any name—I only said his traveller—he said that if we would give 1l. per cent, more than we were going to give, we should have them in spite of his traveller—I was to go back to Messrs. Moses to see whether they would do so, and to hasten my coming back he would pay cab hire and give me 1l. for myself—this was between 1 and 2 o'clock—I went back, had a conversation with Messrs. Moses, went back to Nicks, and told him we should take them, but he ought to let us have them at the same price as his traveller's friend was to have them at—he said, "We cannot, because we are under obligations to him"—he did not tell me the name of the traveller's friend—I asked Nicks for a memorandum, and he gave me this contract—(This was dated October 27th, 1859, and signed by Nicks, stating the sale of the bristles at 16l. and 22l. net wish, and that they were to be fetched away within one hour, or the contract to be null and void)—I asked him why he wanted them away so quickly—he said that if we did not take them away, his traveller's friend would come and fetch them away, and we should not get them—I asked him for some samples which he had in his hand and which had bark round them—he said, "No, they must go with the bulk"—he offered to show me them up stairs, but I said I knew nothing about them—as I went out I saw two of his carts loading at the door, and said, "If you are in such a hurry to send them away, send your cart with them."—he said, "No, I always like parties to take them away themselves"—as I was leaving he said, "You will bring the money for them, of course?"—I said, "I cannot do that as I do not know the quantity"—he said. "Well then, you can bring a blank cheque"—I told him that Messrs. Moses would not allow me to fill up a blank cheque, but I would bring him 50l. on account—he said, "I will give you that which I promised you"—he said that it was the first transaction we had had, and he dare say it would not be the last—when I get to Messrs. Moses they declined taking them.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Did he want the money to be paid before the goods went out of his premises? A. Yes—I offered 16l. and 22l. by Messrs. Moses's orders; they wanted to get them 1l. under the price, of course.

JAMES MATTHEWS . I am in partnership with my brother at 138, Upper Thames-street, as bristle merchants—I have another brother in the same trade in the same street—on 22d October a person named Richardson called

on me about noon, I think, and presented a card and a bundle of white and a bundle of grey bristles—they were tied up with bark, and I never saw any like them before—he afterwards left and took the samples with him—he returned again about 3 o'clock, or a little before, and in consequence of what he said I accompanied him to Nicks' premises in Worship-street—he went to the counting-house and brought Nicks out, and introduced him to me as having come to look at the bristles—Nicks requested me to go up stain and he would follow—I went up with Richardson to the first floor, and found a quantity of bristles arrauged in piles on the floor, tied up in bundles with bark, to the best of my recollection—a man and a girl were engaged in tying up some loose bristles in a small heap on the floor, which had broken—there were some loose barks with the bristles, but whether they tied them with bark or string I do not know—Nicks was in the room; he followed me up—either he or Richardson replied that the bristles had been packed in bags and some of them had become loose in carriage—I said, "That is a very unusual way of packing bristles, in bags"—he said that he suspected the parties who sent them to him were not accustomed to pack bristles—Nicks said that he had formerly sold bristles on his journeys; shoemakers' bristles, I think he said—they are the most expensive kind, and sometimes sell as high as 30s. a pound—the man and the girl handled them very badly, and I said, "It fidgets me to see them handle them in that way," and took a bundle up and tied it myself to show them how to tie them up—there were about three hundredweight of each kind of bristles in the room—Nicks then went down stairs; I followed him and asked him if he could not take something less for the grey bristles—(Richardson had mentioned the price)—he said no, and that Messrs. Moses would take them at the price he asked—I agreed to take them at 15l. per hundredweight for the grey, and 21l. for the white, subject to 2 1/2 discount for cash, and an allowance of 6d. a pound for those which had been retied and which were loose in the room—he engaged to send them home either that afternoon or the next morning—I said that we closed at 5 o'clock, and he might send them before then or next day—I went there about 3 and left about a quarter of an hour afterwards—about half-past 10 next morning Richardson brought them in a cart with this invoice—(This was made out in ilie name of T. J. Nicks, for 100l. 1s. 6d.)—I gave Richardson a cheque for 100l. 1s. 6d. and crossed it "City Bank," as I understood from Richardson that that was Nicks' bank—the bristles were tied up with string, except one bundle, which was tied with bark like this—this weighs something less than one pound—on Monday, 31st October, one of our people opened some of the bundles, and some of these labels (produced) were found in some of those which had been retied; they were evidently accidentally tied up with the loose bristles; here is the name of Memantoff on it—the officers first came to our place, I think, on the Tuesday—Ray came first to make enquiries—I gave the officers the bristles either on Tuesday or Wednesday, and they took them all away.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Were they weighed at your premises? A. They were re-weighed—I should think the string weighed rather more than the bark—they were brought in a cart, tightly packed in baskets—I consider the price a fair one—I am a very large dealer—I had never seen this particular kind of bristle before, but I knew that they had been fetching a high price, which I think was beyond the value—I think if he had asked 1l. a hundredweight more I should have declined them on account of the price—I do not consider them of anything like the value which has been put upon them by the prosecutor—I

have been in the trade some thirty years, and have been six times to St. Petersburg buying bristles—these are got up differently to any I ever saw in my life; each bundle is sent with a printed label—Nicks is not, I believe, a bristle merchant—this is a description of article which a person not in the trade would not know the value of—there was no concealment in the transaction between me and Nicks, or anything to excite my suspicion, or I should not have purchased the bristles—the sample I first saw had bark round it—my attention was first called to their having string round them by our warehouseman—I should not have paid a larger price, because there was bark round them and not string, unless they weighed more in consequence; but there is a certain value on marketable goods in good condition, though that would not effect the value of the bristles themselves—the sample tied with bark would be a sufficient indication of the manner in which they were originally tied, and I have no doubt that the bulk was originally tied with bark, and to the best of my, knowledge they had bark round them when I saw the bulk, but I cannot positively state—I had never seen Nicks before, but his traveller called on me.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. Is Nicks's a large warehouse? A. Yes; it is a place where I should not have expected to find stolen goods—an extensive business is carried on there—there is the name on the door and an address at Liverpool as well.

MR. ROBINSON. Q. When you went on the afternoon of the 27th, you believe they were bound with balk? A. Yes; but when they came next day they were all bound with string, except one bundle—I think that string would be heavier than bark—I do not think there was a tie of bark And a tie of string on the same bundle; that would have struck me at once—German bristles come tied with string—I found, perhaps, five or six labels.

JAMES THOROLD (re-examined.) I was present when Edwards came to look at the casks of bristles at Messrs. Moses—he saw some of the thirty five casks by the ship Cossack—I do not know the numbers of those thirtyfive casks—I know where they came from.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. How? A. By the bill of lading—that is not here—I never saw a Mainmoutoff cask before—I have got some casks now with Mammontoff bristles in them.

FREDERICK RAY . I am clerk to Messrs. Spencer, lightermen—on Tuesday morning, October 25th, about twenty minutes past 10—I counted the casks of bristles from the barge, Barber—there were thirty-five, and the officials said that two were missing—I did not notice the numbers then—I made inquiries respecting the missing casks, and, in consequence of information, went to Nicks's place in Worship-street—I had two inspectors outside—I saw Nicks, aud asked him if Mr. Beattie was in—that is one of his travellers—he said that he was not—I said I understood that he had some bristles for sale, and had shown two samples on the Corn Market—Nicks said that he had sold them that morning—I asked him how many he had sold, and what the weight was—he said ten or twelve hundredweight—I asked him what price he had sold them at—he said about 200l—I then came out and saw Major and Dyer—further inquiry was made on the same day, and I went to Messrs. Moses—I did not go to Mr. Matthews' till the 31st—after leaving Nicks, I went to the Corn Market and saw his traveller, Mr. Beattie—I had some conversation with him, and went down to Brewer's-quay—Mr. Thorold came there, at 4 o'clock or a few minutes afterwards, and from information I received, I went to Moses and obtained this contract (prochtcect)—it has the name of Richardson on the back—on 8th

November, I saw Taylor at the Wapping police-station—I had known him some years before by sight—he said, "It is a bad job;" I said, "It is"—he said he had never seen the bristles except two or three bundles at Nicks's place, loose: that he was guilty to a certain extent, having received money for them as his commission, and that Nicks came up to his place on the morning of the 31st, and said that he bought them of him (Taylor) as be could not get out of it, or could not help it—on coming away I said, "Is there any thing particular you wish to say to me?"—he said, "Nothing particular; it will all come out when I am brought up"—I saw him afterwards, but he made no remark—I produce one of the samples—it was taken from the bulk at my request.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. Were not his words "Having received some money for the carriage of them?" A. No; "Having received some money as my commission for them"—I did not put down the words in writing—I made this memorandum (produced) of the conversation two days after, or it might have been the third or fourth evening—it was not all written at the same time—I wrote it when I could find time—this, which is headed November 8th, I wrote two or three days after the 8th—I did not get a copy of the depositions and copy them—I did not see a copy—I wrote this after I had given my evidence—no one told me to write this—if I had had nothing else to think of I should not have wanted to put it down—the first day I was examined at the Mansion-house was, I think, the 4th November—I was examined as to Taylor on the 10th—I put this down two or three days after the examination—I never saw a copy of the depositions in my life, and do not know what it is—I saw reporters at the Mansion-house, but did not see what they wrote—I had not a newspaper by me when I wrote this—I had seen a newspaper.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. When did you write this latter part? A. I cannot tell you within a day or two—I cannot say whether I wrote the whole of this page at the same time—I had it under my blotting paper for two or three days, and then I put it in my pocket—I did not tell Nicks who I was—he did not know that I had anything to do with the bristles, and I did not wish that he should know—I took good care that he did not.

MR. ROBINSON. Q. Was the bundle that was taken out of the bulk, like this? A. With the exception of the string being off the foot of it, it is as when it was taken out.

HENRY DYER . I am an inspector of the Thames-police. On Monday, 31st October, I went with inspector Major, to the premises of Mr. Nicks, in Worship-street, about 2 o'clock in the day—I saw Nicks—Major addressed him in my presence; told him that we were two inspectors of police, and asked him if he had bought any bristles—Mr. Nicks replied that he had—Major asked him about what weight, and he said about five hundredweight and a half—Major asked him what he gave for them—Nicks replied 51l.—he asked him if he had sold them? Nicks said that he had sold them to Mr. Matthews for 100l. and some odd shillings—he said he had bought them about last Monday or Tuesday—Major asked if he knew the man he had bought them off—I did not hear what Nicks said in answer to that; he replied, "If you will wait until 3 o'clock, my young man will be in, and he will tell you all about it; I want to go away to get a cheque cashed"—he went away—he had a piece of paper with him; I don't know whether it was a cheque or not—before he went away, iuspector Major asked him if he had got any entry, in any book, of the transaction—Mr.

Nicks replied that he had not—nothing was said about a bill to my knowledge—it was about twenty minutes to 3 when Nicks went out from his couuting-house—Major and I remained there until he returned; that was about twenty minutes'past 3—he returned with the gentleman sitting there, his solicitor I believe—in the course of conversation that gentleman said, "It does not look a bnsiness—like thing not to have an entry in any book;" and he said "If you know the man's name, why not tell the officers?"—Nicks then said, "His name is Taylor; I don't know his address, but if you will call to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock, I will give it to you"—Mr. Nicks's young man had not come in, and Mr. Nicks said he supposed he was out on the drink—Major and I went next morning at 11 o'clock, and saw Mr. Nicks, and he then gave us the address of "George Taylor, 49, Windmill-street, Wimpole-street, Cavendish-square"—this is the paper (produced)—we went direct from Mr. Nicks's premises to that address—we could not find Taylor there—he lived there, but, from inquiries we made, he had been out very early that morning—we went several times that day, and the following day or two also, but could not find him—on Thursday, 3d November, I went again to Nicks's premises about half-past I—I told him I had come upon an unpleasant affair—I had come to take him into custody for receiving six hundredweight of bristles, knowing them to be stolen—he replied, "It is a bad job; I have expected it—I know no more about it than what I have told you: have you got Taylor?" I said "No we have not, for we believe he has absconded"—I took him into custody—on the way to the station I cautioned him that whatever he said might be used in evidence against him—he said he had known Taylor for the last fifteen years—next day, as we were going to the Mansion House, he either said, "I would sooner have given 100l. than this should have happened,"or" I would sooner hare given 100l. than I should have been taken"—on 8th November this letter was received from Nicks at the police-station—I did not receive it or read it—in consequence of directions from Superintendant Evans, I went to Nicks's premises on the 8th—Taylor was then in custody—I did not see Nicks at hh premises that evening—I saw him on the morning of the 9th—Nicks said to me, "Oh you have got him."—I said "Who?"—he said "Taylor"—I said "Oh yes"—he said, "I wanted to give you a little information; where waa he taken; at Islington? as not he?" I said "Yes"—Nicks said, "Did he say anything?"—I said "That is a question I can't answer you,"—that was all that passed at that interview; he did not give me any information—when I went the second time, on the 9th, I did not take a letter with me.

Cross-examined. Q. But you knew, did you not, that a letter had come from Nicks? A. Yes; I was told so, but I did not know it for a fect—I did not see the person myself—I don't believe Evans saw him—I think Mr. Ray saw him—I won't be positive, but I think he did—either Mr. Ray or the constable Donovan saw the messenger come with the letter—when the messenger came Taylor had been in custody two hours—Major asked him (Nicks) if he had an entry of the transaction in any book, and he said "No"—I adhere to that—he did not reply, "I have a cheque in my hand I want to get cashed, and if you will let me, my young man will be in at three o'clock, if you will call again"—I swear that—I did not search his premises for his books, no more did Inspector Major—the books on the premises were not taken—no examination was made of them—Major was not there when I took him in custody—I never heard him say that he had got Taylor's address somewhere but could not find it. I will not swear he did not say so or that he did, neither one or the other—I never have done so.

ROBERT MAJOR (examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE). I had some conversation with Nicks—I recollect his saying something about Taylor's address, he said he had got it somewhere, but he could not find it then—I asked him whether he had an entry of the transaction in any book or any bill, and he said, "I have a cheque in my hand I want to get cashed, and if you will let me, my young man will be in at three o'clock, if you will call again;" that was exactly what he said.

COURT. Q. He at no time denied that he had no entry in his books? A. No.

JEREMIAH DONOVAN (Thames-policeman). I took Taylor in custody on Tuesday 8th November between one and two o'clock, in Rodney-street Clerkenwell—I told him I was a police constable, and I wanted him—he said "What is it for?"—I said "you know what it is for"—he said "No I do not,"—I said "For the bristle affair"—he said "I think you are quite right, I meant to have given myself up on Saturday last"—I took him to the station and charged him—I do not know anything about a letter being written by Nicks.

JAMES CHRISTOPHER EVANS . I am the superintendant of the Thames Police—on 8th November the prisoner Taylor was brought to the police-station in custody—I said, "Taylor, you are apprehended for this charge in consequence of Nicks having told the officers that he bought the bristles of you"—he said "Well, I sold him the bristles, but not for myself; I sold them on commission for another person"—I said "Are you disposed to say who that person is?" he said "No; it is not likely"—I said "Very well then, you must be charged on suspicion of stealing them," and the charge was taken—this letter was handed to me at the police-station on 8th November by one of the officers—that was after Taylor was in custody—in consequence of that letter I gave some directions to Dyer—I do not know how long Taylor had been in custody when I received the letter.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. Were you examined at the police-court? A. No, I was not—I sent word to the solicitor for the prosecution on the morning of the examination that if I was wanted I would attend—and the answer was that I should he subpœnaed—I did not cross-examine the man—the prosecutor was present—he did not wish to charge the man if he was an innocent agent in any person's hand—being a carman, he thought he might have been employed, and if he had told by whom he was employed, he was not disposed to charge him—I have never made any enquiries about the man called Oddlegs; I have never heard his name mentioned until now.

EDWARD SAYER . I am clerk to Messrs. Barber of Brewers-quay—he has two partners.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you know anything about the way in which business is couducted at that quay; A. Yes; when goods are required to be taken away, there is a delivery order—a foreman is employed to see the goods delivered; he is in attendance now.

THOMAS HILL (re-examined). I do not know how many casks were landed from the barge—I did not keep a tally of them—there were ten casks in the fore part; I did not count how many there were in the other part—I saw all that were in the barge unloaded—I can only swear to what we found before the beam; I can't swear to what was abaft the beam—I know all were unloaded.

FREDERICK RAY (re-examined). I counted thirty-five casks of bristles that

were landed out of the Barber—I did not see them landed—I looked all over the quay and did not find any others—I did not look at the numbers.

A great many witnesses deposed to Nicks' good character.



Confined Twelve Months.

NEW COURT. Monday, January 2nd, 1860.

PRESENT—Mr. Ald. Hale; Mr. Ald. Abbiss; and Mr. COMMON


Before Mr. Common Serjeant and the Fourth Jury.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-132
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

132. MARTIN ZUCHRYTA (66) , Maliciously cutting and wounding Jonas Chaplin, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

MR. LANGFORD conducted the Prosecution.

AARON BATZYONSKI . I am a native of the kingdom of Poland—the prisoner came over with me in 1832—he can speak English very well.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. You have known him a long time? A. Yes; he bears the character of a kind, quiet, humane man; an honest good natured man—he lost his wife three or four years ago—he was for some time in a low desponding state—he sometimes complained of a pain in his head, and is not like the same man in his manner and behaviour.

JONAS CHAPLIN . I am a coal-merchant and live in Cambridge-terrace—on 23d November, about 5 o'clock in the evening, I was in the Wiltshire beer-house and saw the prisoner there—I did not notice whether he was there when I went in—I took up a newspaper and began to talk to some persons there—the prisoner accosted me and asked me about the probability of a war between France and England—I asked him what country he came from—he said he was a German—I asked him how long he had been in England; he said many years—I asked him whether he liked this country better than Germany; he said "Yes; Germany is a low unhealthy country"—he asked me what religion I was, I said a Protestant—he said he was a Catholic, and he extended his hand to an old gentleman, Mr. Stoner—he asked me to drink, and asked me to read the paper—I said I could not—it was getting rather dark—he said if I could not read it he would give it to some one that could, and went back to the party he was drinking with—I then bid him good night—he said "No, don't go yet"—he backed himself against the door, and said, "Don't go yet, have another glass of ale"—I said "No, I won't take any more"—I looked at him and went and sat down in front of the window—nothing more passed between us—I saw the newspaper at my feet; I took it up and found it was the Telegraph—I was holding it up before me, and the prisoner deliberately stepped from the door and stabbed me in the abdomen and in the chest—I was not aware that I was stabbed—I thought I was struck, but he left the knife sticking in my chest—I got up and said, "You old villain, what do you mean by striking me like thist"—he made no answer but went away—this is the knife—it went through the newspaper and through my trousers and shirt—I had not given him the slightest provocation—I spoke to my friend, and was taken to the London Hospital.

Cross-examined. Q. Are you quite recovered? A. Not quite—I had given the prisoner no provocation—we talked about a war and the probability of it; nothing more than anybody might have spoken about.

SAMUEL HURLIN . I reside in Hackney-road—on 23d November, I was in the Wiltshire beer-house—I saw the prisoner there—I did not see him do anything, only he asked me to drink—when he left the room, I followed him and gave him into custody—he did not say a word—he tried to get away.

JOHN CLEWIN GRIFFITH . I am house-surgeon at the London Hospital—I was there on 23d November—Mr. Chaplin was brought there between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening—he had a wound in the abdomen about half an inch long—it was not probed, as that might have been an injury—it is impossible to say how deep it was—it was likely to have been produced by this knife—he was also stabbed in the breast, but the weapon had been stopped by the breast-bone—he has recovered from the wounds.

ROBERT TYLER . I am a writer, and live at 32, St. John's-terrace Hackney-road—I was in the room at the Wiltshire beer-house in front of the bar, and saw Mr. Chaplin reading a newspaper—the prisoner deliberately rushed to him and stabbed him, first in the abdomen and then in the chest—the knife was left sticking in the chest; Mr. Chaplin himself got it out—I took charge of the knife and the newspaper—there was not the slightest provocation given to the prisoner.

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY of Unlawfully wounding— Confined Six Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-133
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

133. THOMAS KEANE (49) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin; to which he PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Nine Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-134
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

134. ELIZABETH SPARKES (23) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin on 3d December; also unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin on 22d December; to both which she

PLEADED GUILTY .**— Confined Twelve Months on the first Indictment, and Six Months more on the second.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-135
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown

Related Material

135. JOHN DERRY (27) and JOHN BURKE (34), were indicted for a like offence. MESSRS. ELLIS and DOYLE conducted the Prosecution.

ESTHER WILCOX . I am barmaid at the Globe public-house—on Tuesday evening, 13th December, the prisoners came between 7 and 8 o'clock—Derry asked for a pot of stout and put down half-a-crown to pay for it—I examined the half-crown and broke it with my teeth—I told Derry it was bad, he said "You are a liar"—he asked me to give it him back which I refused to do—I kept it in my hand till my master came down, and the prisoners were given in custody—I gave the half-crown to the policeman—I had seen the prisoners once or twice before.

Cross-examined by, MR. RIBTON. Q. Were they quite sober? A. Yes; they had come in about an hour before and had a pot of beer; another man paid for the beer on that occasion—a great many come there to take beer.

Derry. Q. We had four pots of stout and a quartern of rum? A. No you did not.

LOUISA GARLAND . I live at the Union Arms, Union-court, Holborn—on the evening of 13th December, I saw the prisoners between 6 and 7 o'clock, in the bar at the Union Arms—they came in together—Derry asked for a pot of beer and put down a half-crown—I said it was bad; he said it was not, and tried to bite it—Burke looked at it and said it was bad; Deny said it was not, for if it was he could break it with bis teeth, for he could break iron—they took the half-crown away—I don't know which

took it—it was one of King George IV—it was not the one that was afterwards uttered by them—another man was called in who paid for the beer—I had tried the half-crown with my teeth—I am satisfied it was bad.

Derry. Q. We had three pots of beer? A. Yes, you and another man—I did not see you show the half-crown round to the persons who were there.

RICHARD GILBERT (City-policeman, 230). I was on duty in Holborn on 13th December—about 20 minutes before 7 o'clock in the evening I saw the prisoners together at the Crown and Horse-shoe public-house at the corner of Bartlett's-bnildings—Derry went into the house and Burke stood outside—in about 5 minutes Derry came out, and they had some little conversation—I watched them to the end of Union-court and then went back to the Crown and Horse-shoe—I went to the Globe and took the prisoners in custody.

JAMES HILL (City-policeman 210). I went to the Globe and took the prisoners—I received this half-crown from the barmaid.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am inspector of coin to 'the Royal Mint—this half-crown is bad.

DERRY— GUILTY Confined Six Montlts.


2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-136
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; No Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

136. JOSEPH POMEROY (40), and ELIZABETH SOPHIA POMEROY (40) , Feloniously making counterfeit sixpences.

MESSRS. ELLIS and DOYLE conducted the Prosecution.,

JAMES BRANNAN (senior). I was formerly an inspector of police—I am now in the service of the Mint—on 13th December I went to 16, Little Warner-street with inspector Briant and other constables, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon—I found the street door open—I went up to the first floor, forced the door open, went in the room and found the female prisoner sitting by a clear bright fire drawing her hand from a bag which hung by the fireplace; she put her left hand to the fire on which this iron spoon was placed with molten metal in it, and this get was in it as it now appears—I seized her by the shoulder, and she said, "Oh Mr. Brannan"—I said, "Well Mr. Pomeroy, we have come to pay you a visit"—she said, "I have been driven to this by Joe; I never knew anything about this until he taught me; you knew me when I was a little girl, before I was married: he drove me and my little gifl to it, who is now in Colney Hatch, I never knew anything about it till he taught me"—at that time she called a little boy from an adjoining room and said to him, "Fetch. Joe from the beer shop over the way"—I then instructed a sergeant to go and take Pomeroy in custody—I searched the room, and in the bag alluded to I found a plaster of Paris mould for casting sixpences quite hot, and a piece on cloth forming a pad—on the table I found three counterfeit sixpences quite hot (produced)—on the same table I found a galvanic battery jar containing a solution of acid, and a file with white metal in its teeth—I found a knife with plaster of Paris adhering to it, and this piece of glass in the cupboard with plaster of Paris adhering to it—this is the pad—it was rolled up for the purpose of holding a mould—it is impossible to hold it in the bare hand—I went to the cupboard and found a galvanic batteryplate, three pieces of copper wire which had been dipped in solution, some plaster of Paris in powder, two tins containing black composition used to give the coin a dull appearance, and another bottle containing acid—while I was in the room Joseph Pomeroy was brought up

in custody to the landing—he said, "Well, Mr. Brannan, what are you doing in my room?"—I said, "Joe, I have instructions from the authorities of the Mint to pay you a visit"—he said, "You know I was not convicted the last time"—I said, "Whether you ought not to have been is another thing, for you have had a pretty long run"—he said, "You were never clever enough to get me to rights"—I said, "If you are not to rights now as you call it, you may be some day"—what he meant by being to rights was, that I had not been clever enough to get evidence to get him convicted—he made a rush at the table on which I had placed all the things—he was pulled back, placed on the landing again, and searched by Brannan and Evans—he said in my hearing, "I will be upon my oath, I have not been in the room since a little before 1 o'clock to day."

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. Are you quite sure he was in the room at all? A. He was; and if I had not held the table he would have turned it over—I am quite sure it was not another person—Moody attempted to get in but was kept back—this woman has been tried before with this man, and the man was acquitted—I believe the acquittal was because a character was given to him by some persons who do not knot him so well as I do.

BENJAMIN BRAINT (Police-inspector). I went with Brannan and saw the female prisoner apparently near a bag—she had been sitting and was half up—I saw Brannan take from the bag a plaster of Paris mould quite hot and wrapped in wrappers—I saw him take some sixpences from the table; they were quite warm—I saw him find the jar, and file, and other articles—I took the female prisoner, and found in her pocket a piece of silk tied in a knot with two good sixpences in it—at that time the male prisoner was brought in, he broke away from sergeant Brannan, rushed into the room and said, "Hallo, Mr. Brannan, what are you doing in my room?"—the female prisoner said, "O, Joe, why did you not come when I sent for you?"—he replied, "Do you think I was coming in here when I knew what was up?"—the woman then said to Mr. Brannan, "You know I have had twelve months at the Old Bailey all through this man," meaning her husband; "and eight months at Maldstone; it was all through him, and he wan acquitted: I was obliged to do this to find him in money, or else he was always knocking me about"—I found this book on the mantelpiece in the room, and the man said, "That is my rent book, I occupy two rooms; you will find my rent all paid up to the last three weeks."

JAMES BRANNAN (Police-sergeant, G 21). I accompanied Brannan and the constables to 16, Little Warner-street—I went to Moody's beer-shop, which is directly opposite the house—I saw a little boy, who had been sent by Mr. Pomeroy to the beer shop, coming away from the door—I went in but I did not find Pomeroy at once—I saw Mr. Moody, the beer-shop keeper—I asked him for Pomeroy—he said he did not know such a person—I went in and found Pomeroy in a water-closet in a yard in the back premises—the door was shut—I opened the door and said, "Well, Mr. Pomeroy, what did you run away for"—he said, "Well, I should be a d—d fool to stop, knowing what was up"—I said, "Then I suppose I need not tell you we have got your wife, Mr. Pomeroy, in custody for coining; you had better come over and be present at the search"—he said, "No, I shall not; I was not in the room at the time, therefore you can't make out a case against me"—I got the assistance of another officer, and took him over to the house; and directly I got to the room door he broke away from me, and

ran into the room where the coin was found—I afterwards secured him and took him in the passage—he was searched, but nothing was found on him.

ARTJUR ELLIOTT (Policeman, G 104). I went with the other officer and assisted in taking the prisoner to the station—I was in the waiting room with the two prisoners the next morning, and I heard the man say to the woman in a low tone of voice, "When you go inside, tell the Magistrate that the woman in the adjoining room gave you the money to get the things, and that you had no money when I left the room, and that will get me out of it"—I told him what I had heard him say to his wife, and told him I should tell the Magistrate when I went in the court—he said, "You may tell him what you like"—the female prisoner then called me aside to speak to me—I said to her, "Do you wish your husband to hear what you have to say to me"—she said, "Yes"—I then called her husband, and she said, You know, Joe, you was doing this for two years before I married you, and I did not know how to do it until you shewed me"—her husband said, "You are a b—y liar"—she then said, "You know it is true, Joe, and many times you have knocked me about when I have not had them ready for you"—her husband then advanced towards her, and I got between them fearing he would do her some violence.

Cross-examined. Q. Did he not say, "Tell the truth; was it not Mr. Clark gave them to you? A. I did not hear any person's name mentioned—he did not say in my hearing, "Come, woman, tell the whole truth, and then I must get off"—I was not there all the time.

THOMAS EVANS (Police-sergeant, G 22). I was with the party at Little Warner-street—I went with Sergeant Brannan to the beer-house and saw Joseph Pomeroy taken—I saw him leave the back room while Moody was in conversation with Sergeant Brannan—he went into the yard, and was found in the water-closet—I heard what passed with him and Sergeant Brannan—I went with him to the house, 16, Little Warner-street—I did not go up stairs directly—I went back to the yard to see if there was anything in the yard—I afterwards heard him say that he had not been in the house since 1 o'clock, and I heard him say respecting the back room, "It is no use your searching that, you will not find anything there."

WILLIAM WEBSTER . This is a mould for making sixpences, of Queen Victoria, of the date of 1856—these three sixpences are from this mould, and are all bad—in this rag are two sixpences which were used as a pattern for making this mould—the mould is in a soft state, and there is a small band either of paste board or tin, and the mould is put into that—this iron spoon contains some of the same metal of which these sixpences are made, and a part of the metal is in this piece of get—this is a battery plate, and this file has been used for filing the sharp edges off the coins—this piece of rag is for holding the moulds—this battery is for plating the coins after they have been made—these sixpences had just been made; they are not finished.

Elizabeth Sophia Pomeroy's Defence. My husband knew what I wan doing; he brought me over four sixpences from Moody's, and told me to get them ready for him, and of course I did so. I went over to Moody's and told my husband I was going out a little way; I went, and did not get home till late. I had a drop of drink; a very little gets over me; and when I got home I could not unlock the door. A policeman unlocked it for me, and I was afraid to go up stairs. My husband heard me and came down, and made use of bad language; and said if I entered the place he would be the death of me. I did not see him after that, till the Tuesday; he was conscious of what was going on.

MR. COOPER called

RICHARD MOODY . I am landlord of the Shakespeare Head beer-shop—I have known Joseph Pomeroy about eight months—he has to do with the anti-strike movement—he worked for Mr. Pritchard, in Warwick-lane—he is a carpenter—he used to go out early to work at the usual hour—he worked at Pritchard's till the lock out, and after that he wrote certain letters to the Times newspaper and tried to bring about the strike—he was appointed paid chairman of the anti-strike movement—after that he went to work at Mr. Yardley's, in Wood-street, Clerkenwell—he worked with him three weeks—I recollect the day when Brannan and the others went in his house—he came over to my house at half-past 9 o'clock to see if there were any letters—he was in the habit of having letters for men to go on the work—he remained about twenty minutes—I saw him afterwards about a quarter or twenty minutes before 1 o'clock in my house, and a little boy came and asked him to go over the way—he went, and came back, and said his wife called him to look at her shoulder, and he said if she were not drunk it would not have happened—I knew that she was almost always out, and she would stop out three or four days—she came over one night, said she had signed the teetotal pledge, and he gave her some money, and never saw her for three days afterwards.

Cross-examined by MR. ELLIS. Q. You never heard anything bad of this man? A. No; I never heard that he had been tried, till after this occurrence—I heard it from Mr. Brannan, and I never was more surprised—I thought him the most honest, straightforward man I ever knew in my life—he has always gone by the name of Pomeroy—I recollect Sergeant Brannan coming over to look for him—on that Tuesday morning Pomeroy came to me and said, "Did you hear the row"—I said, "No"—he said, "My wife came home after two or three days, drunk, and I would hot let her in—she kept knocking, and I came down and pushed or knocked her away"—the police tried to take him that night and could not, and they said they would have him to-morrow—Brannan came to my house, but Pomeroy told me that they came to his house about the row; and when Brannan came to me I thought it was so, and I thought it was a sad thing that a hard working man should be locked up—when Brannan came to me he said, "We want Pomeroy"—I said, "Tell me what you want with him"—he was rather hasty, and I was the same—on my oath I did not believe that this man was wanted for something else—I did not tell the officer that Pomeroy was not there at all—I might in the heat have told him I did not know him, because he called me a fellow—he said, "You, fellow, point me out Pomeroy"—and I said, "Who do yuu call a fellow?" thinking he wanted him for ill-using his wife—I did not say I did not know him—I could not say I did not know the man; it was impossible—I swear I did not say that—the officer said, "Where is Pomeroy"—I said, "What do you want with Pomeroy"—he said, "Never mind, fellow, we want Pomeroy"—I never told him I did not know Pomeroy—there was another man there in plain clothes—I did not, to my knowledge, say I did not know Pomeroy—I have no recollection of it.

COURT. Q. Did you say you did not know him, thinking it was hard that an honest man should be locked up? A. I don't believe I did—I said, "Find Pomeroy."

MR. ELLIS. Q. Have you ever said that Pomeroy was at work at Myers? A. No; he was to go there to work on the Monday morning—I was with him when Mr. Myers engaged to take him into his yard—I was examined before the Magistrate—I was merely asked two or three questions.

Elizabeth Sophia Pomeroy. Mr. Moody is quite a stranger to me—he knows nothing about my drinking. Witness. Yes I do, I have frequently seen her come home drunk.

SARAH CLEMENTS . I know the person who goes by the name of Mr. Pomeroy, and I know Mr. Clark—they have been coining money for some time—I never heard Mr. Pomeroy say anything about destroying the things—I heard Mr. Clark say that they had destroyed the things—I know that Mr. Pomeroy gets tipsy; she was very seldom sober—I never saw the man tipsy but once, and that was when the strike was on—I had to let him in because his wife took away the key—he was in the habit of leaving early in the morning, and coming home late—she was more out than at home—she was not at home two days before she was off again.

Cross-examined by MR. ELLIS. Q. Are you quite blind? A. I have very little sight—I can see when I am close to a person—I can discern a man from a woman—I could see Mr. Pomeroy perfectly when in my room—I, have known her ever since 1st August.

ELLEN PRIOR . I and my husband lodge at 16, Little Warner-street—I have known Mr. Pomeroy—she has been in the habit of coming home drunk, very much so, and calling the man down many times—he has been an honest, hard-working man, gone out early in the morning, and come home late at night—he was in the habit of being called up in the morning—the policemen have knocked him up at 4 o'clock—I live in the kitchen—I never go in their room—they were quite strangers to me—I have heard him beat her when she has come home.

JAMES PRIOR . I am a pantominist, and live at 16, Little Warner-street—I only know the prisoner by sight—I have been in the habit of seeiug this woman come home frequently in a state of drunkenness—I have seen the man go out early, and come home late—I have opened the door for him when his wife has taken the key and stopped out for five or six days—when she came home he has ill used her—on one occasion she broke the panel of my door, and on one occasion she asked if I had got any coffee or tea—I called to him, and said, "Why don't you take your wife in,"—he said, "What is that to you; if I have got a bad bargain, you give her in charge."

Cross-examined by MR. ELLIS. Q. How did you come here? A. When I heard the case was going on I presented myself to Mr. Moody—I went to him in consequence of what Mr. Clark said to me—I knew the police were coming—when they came, Pomeroy was over the way at the public-house—I was desirous that this woman should be taken, because she has been at it a long time—I knew the man was innocent of it—he was out at work—she would come home tipsy, and he would knock her down stairs—he took her in after a good deal of ill treatment, and he said, "I wish you to keep your room, and if you don't keep your room, I will break your d—d neck."

ELLEN PRIOR (Re-examined). Q. Did you go to Newgate when Mr. Pomeroy was there? A. Yes; I was asked to go, and I saw her there—she said, "The person in the front room, Mr. Clark, has frequently drank with me, and passed some of the bad coin"—she said Mr. Clark changed it.

Cross-examined by MR. ELLIS. Q. How came she to say that? A. Because I went into Newgate—I was asked to go by some friends of Mr. Pomeroy—not Mr. Moody, but some persons who were in Mr. Moody's—they said they would like some one to go to Mr. Pomeroy, and I offered my service.

WALTER THOMAS . I have known Pomeroy eight or nine months—he was chairman to the Anti-Strike Committee—he was elected by men and by

gentlemen—I have seen his wife—she has been, I am very sorry to say, a most dissolute character—I have never seen him with more money than he ought to have—I have been out with him twenty or thirty times—I never saw him with much money, and that was good—I am a watch-maker, and live at 6, Crawford-place.

Elizabeth Sophia Pomeroy. Q. Have you ever seen me intoxicated? A. Yes; a dozen times; I have seen you drunk about the street; a most disgraceful character.

WILLIAM CROUCH . I am a bricklayer—I knew Pomeroy before the strike—I have been out with him—he has repeatedly said he did not know where his wife got her money to get drink.

Cross-examined by MR. ELLIS. Q. When was the strike? A. On 6th August—I knew him about three weeks before that—I knew him to be an honest, and industrious, and honourable man.

JOHN POMEROY . I am brother of the prisoner, and a carpenter—on Saturday, 12th December, I engaged him to work for me, and to come on the Monday—he came, and I was not ready, and I told him to come on the following morning, and he came about half-past 11 o'clock—he asked me for a 6d., and I gave it him, and he had had 7s. 6d. of me on the Saturday—he was a hard working industrious man—since he formed this unhappy connexion, I have seen him but very seldom—he was always ready to work and do well—I never knew him to pass bad money in my life—I don't recollect him being taken into custody eighteen years ago—he was at work for me.

MR. ELLIS called

WILLIAM HENRY POLLARD . I was present when Moody was examined before the Magistrate—what he said was not taken in writing—the deposition was taken, and the Counsel for the prisoner called witnesses—Moody, and the woman who is blind (Clements), were called—Moody was examined at some length—he said that Pomeroy had been working that day at Myers at Lambeth, and he returned to his beer-shop between 12 and 1 in the day—he was reminded of the time that workmen leave work, and was asked how he accounted for his being there so soon—he said he had been working at Mr. Yardley's.

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. Are you sure? A. Yes—he said that Pomeroy had been working at Myers', some little time, aud been to his work early that morning, and he knew he had been to work, and came back between 12 and 1 o'clock—the question was whether Sergeant Brannan had gone into Moody's to take Pomeroy into custody.

JAMES BRANNAN , senior (re-examined). About eighteen years ago Pomeroy was taken for stealing carpenter's tools—he was taken to Worship-street Station, and I believe he was remanded—I searched his lodgings, and found a mould with an impression on it.

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. What was it? A. A mould with an impression scratched on it—I found some metal that had been melted—I submitted it to the Mint solicitors, and they did not press it, because he was then under another charge—I did not mention this when he was last tried, because he was acquitted, and I was not allowed to tell it—I did not give the information to the attorney—they have known his character for years—on my oath I don't know that when he was charged about those tools he was acquitted—when I went to his place I found a mould, a ladle, and other things—I had nothing to do with the carpenter's tools.

JAMES BRANNAN , junior (re-examined). I went over to Moody's in search

of Pomeroy—I said to Moody, "Will you point me out Mr. Pomeroy"—he said, "I don't know such a name."

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. Did you find him sitting there? A. No; I saw two or three persons there—I asked them where Mr. Pomeroy was—nobody answered but the landlord.

THOMAS EVANS , (re-examined.) I heard Moody asked the question, and he said he did not know Pomeroy.

ARTHUR ELLIOT (re-examined.) I went there and saw Moody; he said he did not know such a man as Pomeroy.

JOSEPH POMEROY— GUILTY .— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.


OLD COURT.—Tuesday, January 3d., 1860.



Before Mr. Recorder and the Second Jury.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-137
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

137. WILLIAM JONES (19), Was indicted for unlawfully cutting and wounding Alexander Williams, with intent to murder him; to which he

PLEADED GUILTY .— Death Recorded.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-138
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

138. WILLIAM HALES (23) , Feloniously forging and uttering a request for the delivery of goods, with intent to defraud; also, for unlawfully obtaining goods by false pretences; to which he

PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-139
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

139. MICHAEL HAYES (22) , Feloniously cutting and wounding Henry Hughes, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm.

MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution.

HENRY HUGHES . I reside at 4, Douglas-place, Northampton-row, Clerken well, and am a sub-warder in the Middlesex House of Correction, Coldbath-fields—on the morning of 9th December the prisoner was in the prison—I was on duty overlooking him and other prisoners cleaning; it was the middle flight of stairs of the second misdemeanour prison they were sweeping—they had done stoning, and had put the stones on the top of the staircase—they had all done except the prisoner; he was engaged in cleaning with the stones—these (produced) are similar to the stones used—they are used for rubbing the floors—this was about a quarter-past 11 in the morning—I desired the prisoner to stone the steps down, and, being very wet over night, they were very dirty, and he did them very badly—I was going down the stone steps, and saw they were not clean, and I desire him to do them over again—as I was walking down the stairs, I had got about two or three steps below the prisoner, I heard something fall; I looked towards where the other prisoners were employed, and asked them to be more careful, or they would hit me on the head—before I had scarcely got the words from my mouth I received a blow on the head which knocked me against the wall almost insensible, and the prisoner rushed on me, and hammered me, and violently used me, and kicked me about different parts of my body, which roused me again—I caught hold of the collar of his coat and waistcoat, and held him till the other prisoners came to my assistance—after they had got hold of him I went, down stairs and called to them to come down, so that I could get some

assistance, for I was in the building by myself—the prisoner was secured by the other prisoners—my head bled very much—I was Btruck with one of the stones—he kicked me about my shoulders and chest while struggling with him, and after I had got hold of him by the collar he kicked me three times in the private parts; but the distance was almost too short to do me much injury—at the time he was striking me he said, "Do it again"—repeating the words I had said to him, and he kept punching me all the time he was saying those words.

THOMAS LYNCH . I was in the House of Correction on 9th December—I was engaged with the prisoner and some others in cleaning the floors—the last witness, Hughes, was there—I was standing at the bottom of the stain witli my back towards the officer and the prisoner, when I heard one of the stones drop before me, I looked round and saw Mr. Hughes staggering against the wall—I went up towards him, and while going towards him I saw the prisoner kick him twice in the body—I pulled a handkerchief out of my pocket, and placed it on Mr. Hughes' head—he was bleeding very much indeed; it flew all over the wall.

WILLIAM CHARLES ALLEN . I was in the House of Correction on 9th December—two or three minutes before my attention was called to the stairs, I heard the officer tell the prisoner to be particular in cleaning the stones from the edge of the stairs, which it seems he neglected—my attention was called to the circumstance through hearing a deep inspiration, a kind of hiss—I put my head round the wall that supports the floor of the upper passages and saw the prisoner in the act of striking, with a stone in his right hand, the head of the officer—it missed the officer and struck the wall, out of which it took a large piece—the stone in his right hand fell to the ground—with the one in his left he began beating the officer at the back of his head on the right side—they were stones similar to these produced—I was about three stairs higher up—I went down and threw my arms round the prisoner; being stronger than I, he managed to fling me off in a great degree, and threw me backwards against the stairs—I immediately put my arms round him again—he said, "Let me get at him; let me get at him; I will darken him"—there were two or three other prisoners in the building helping us and I immediately called out by number to one above me to come down stairs, which he did directly, and he said "He is in a fit"—the prisoner replied, "No I am not in a fit; let me get at him"—there was a cell pot placed on the stairs ready for removal and he struggled very much to get at that, saying, "Let me have it, I will darken him."

Prisoner. There is not a word of truth in it; it is all lies.

HENRY SWANN . I am a sub-warder in the House of Correction—I went to the rescue of the officer—after taking the prisoner before the governor, I locked him up in a cell; while doing that he said, "I will hang for him; I will hang for him yet, either now or some other time."

HENRY WAKEFIELD . I live at 52, Russell-square, and am surgeon to the House of Correction—I examined Henry Hughes at the infirmary on 9th December—there was a severe wound behind the right ear, rather more than an inch in length—it was not very deep—it was not so much the severity of the wound as the concussion consequent on the blow that he was labouring under—the wound was precisely such as would be inflicted by such a stone as this—he has been under my care since—he has never been able to return to his duty, he was so severely shaken by the blow.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate was read as follows:—"That morning, I was rubbing the stairs; this man was finding fault with me; he

told me to rub the others after I did these; I was so tantalized, that I threw the stone at him."

GUILTY .— Six Years' Penal Servitude.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-140
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

140. ROBERT WATTS (19) , Stealing a gelding, value 15l. of Alexander Oppenheim.

MR. DICKIE conducted the Prosecution.

RICHARD JOHNSON . I am in the service of Mr. Oppenheim, 2, Theresa-terrace, Hammersmith—I remember taking a horse to Slater's-fields, in Turn-ham-green, in October—the shoes were taken off the hind feet before he went to grass—I saw it afterwards in the field, and saw it after that at the police station, and am quite sure it was the same horse—I can't exactly recollect the day of the month I last saw the horse in the field—I took it there on 20th October—I saw it on the Thursday following—I saw it again on Saturday, and I think again on Tuesday—I did not miss it at all—I did not know it was gone—I saw it at Hammersmith on 8th December—I had not seen it between the Tuesday after 20th October till the 8th December.

JOHN MANSELL (Police-sergeant, T 1). I apprehended the prisoner on 8th December at Wandsworth—I told him he was charged with stealing a horse from Mr. Slater's fields at Hammersmith—I did not say when—he did not say anything at that time—he made use of some observation, I could not understand what it was, for he was crying very much, but on the way from the Wandsworth police-court to Hammersmith station, the horse was being led, and he said, "I bought the horse of a man at Turnham-green"—I cautioned him about saying anything—I took him to the station at Hammersmith—he did not name the man on that occasion—I charged him at Hammersmith station with stealing the horse, and from the police-station to the police-court at Hammersmith, he said, "I gave 6l. 10s. and a silver watch for the horse"—he asserted at the police-court that he bought it of a person of the name of James Worsley, of Turnham-green—his father applied for a summons to compel Worsley to attend—I have seen Worsley since and he denied it—the prisoner was not present then—Worsley is not here.

GEORGE BISHOP . I am a cattle dealer—I was at Uxbridge on 27th October—the prisoner came to me there and asked me if I knew anybody who would buy a useful cob—I said I did not know, what sort was it?—he said one less than 10l.—I said I would look at it—he showed me the horse—it was lame and had got his two hind shoes off—I asked the reason of that—he said he did not know; he had bought him—I said I did not much like it, but coming down the yard I bid him 4l. then four guineas, and he sold it to me—I asked him if he knew anybody in the town—he said, "No"—I said, "You are a perfect stranger to me, I shall not pay you till I see some one you know"—he said "Mr. Haddon knows me"—I said "When he comes to market, I will pay you"—about 4 o'clock I said "Come along, you may as well go and take the money for that horse"—he said "No; you fancy I may have stolen the horse; I with not take the money till I do see a respectable man"—I said "Which way are you going," and he said "Up here, to meet Mr. Haddon"—I said "That is my way home, I will walk up with you"—we walked up the road together, up by the Standard—I said "Are you going to take the money for that horse, or no"—he said "No"—at last I went in and paid him before the landlord, and who should come up at that moment but Mr. Haddon—I said "Do you know anything of this man"—he said "Oh, yes"—the prisoner said "I have sold this man a horse, and he

fancies I have stolen it"—I said "You cannot blame me"—he got up in the cart with Mr. Haddon and rode away, after having a quartern of gin—the horse was in a very distressed condition when I bought it—I asked him the reason, and said to him, "I think the horse is too cheap, and I shall not pay you till such time as you find a respectable man to take the money."

FREDERICK HENRY COLLINS . I am the landlord of a public-house at Hammersmith—I remember Mr. Oppenheim's horse being brought by Johnson about 20th October—it was brought to the door, and he went with it into the field—I saw the horse put into the field—I missed it on the 28th—I looked for it—his hind shoes were taken off just before he was turned out—I thought the horse was worth about 15l. at that time—there are several marks about the horse by which I could swear to it, and my coachman has driven him in my carriage—I saw the horse at the police-court—it is a very nice-looking little horse, and in good condition when it was turned out.

GEORGE BISHOP (re-examined). The last time I saw the horse it was at the police-court—that was the horse that this witness saw.

JOHN GRANT . I am in the service of Mr. Slater, a butcher of Kensington, who has a field at Turnham-green—I recollect Mr. Oppenheim's horse being brought on 20th October—I saw it in the field afterwards on several occasions—the last time I saw him safe was on 26th—on Friday morning 28th he was not there—I missed it about ten minutes past 6 in the morning—there was a railed fence round the field—he could not get over it himself—he was turned out along with several horses—there was a rail fence on one side, a hedge, and where gaps had been, there was a rail fence—it would be difficult to get through the hedge, but the fence was broken the night the horse was stolen—I discovered that on 28th—I was not there on the morning of 27th—it was broken between 26th and 28th—I afterwards saw the horse at the police-court—I cannot say it was the same horse because he had got blisters on behind, and I cannot tell whether they were white legs or black legs, but it resembled the horse about the body—to the best of my belief it was the horse.

GUILTY .**— Confined Six Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-141
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

141. RICHARD CRITCHLEY (33) , was charged on the coroner's inquisition only with killing and slaying


MR. MC DONALD for the prosecution offered no evidence on the inquisition; the Grand Jury Jiaving thrown out the bill.


2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-142
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

142. ELIZA COLLINS (35) , Stealing 7s. 6d. the property of William Hudson, from the person of Mary Hudson.

MR. COPPER conducted the Prosecution.

EDWARD ROWE BOSTOCK . I am a gentleman, residing at 16, Loraine-place, Holloway—on 22d December, about half-past 1 o'clock in the day, I got into an Islington omnibus to go to the city—I sat on the third seat on the left hand side as you enter—I cannot say whether the prisoner was in the omnibus at the Angel, Islington, but she was there coming down the City-road—she was sitting on my left hand side—Mr. Hudson was sitting on the opposite side, and next the door—I remember the bus stopping at the canal in the City-road to admit a passenger—he took up his position on my right, between myself and another gentleman—upon that the prisoner got up and left the seat adjoining me, and went immediately opposite—there was a lady between the prisoner and Mr. Hudson then—the first thing that

attracted my attention was this woman moving from adjoining me, where there was only one person in the division, and going opposite where there was already two—she fidgetted about a great deal, and somewhere about Finsbury-square the omnibus stopped, and the lady sitting next her got out—the prisoner then moved up to Mr. Hudson's side—I noticed her throwing her left arm about her a good deal, drawing a large shawl about her, and in doing so she raised her shawl, and I noticed her right arm stretched across her own lap towards Mr. Hudson's side—the omnibus stopped at the Bank and a passenger there got out—while it was stopping Mr. Hudson's took a purse out of her pocket; on opening it I saw she looked very much surprised, passed her hand again into her pocket, and looked into her purse, and flushed in the face a good deal—I enquired if she had lost anything—she said she had lost all her money, 7s. 6d.—I then taxed the prisoner with having taken it—she denied it—I told her to stand up, taking her by the shoulder, and when she got up 4s. fell from her lap into the omnibus—a gentleman sitting on my right gathered it up, among the straw, and searched, but 4s. was all he could find—I requested the conductor to stop when he saw a policeman, and call him, and I would give the woman in charge—the prisoner stated that the money must all be there; that Mr. Hudson must have dropped it herself, and immediately began searching among the straw—she picked up a shilling here and another there, which I presumed she dropped, for they were not there before—8s. 6d. I think was found—1s. more than was lost.

Cross-examined by MR. TINDAL ATKINSON. Q. Then, as I understand it, there were three women in one compartment? A. There were—there was a brass rod in the centre dividing the omnibus in two—I travel much in omnibuses—there may be something suspicious in a person getting up from one side to go to the other, persons generally like as much room as they can get—she went from the uncrowded side to the crowded side—some of the omnibuses are ventilated at the end—I can't say whether this one was—I have felt the inconvenience of a draught on one side of the omnibus when the window has been open at my back, but not from the wind blowing in from the aperture—I can't say whether this omnibus was ventilated from the top; it might have been—it was not very cold about this time; not frosty—it was on 22d December—I don't know whether the thaw had set in—when the woman rose the money fell from under her shawl—I saw it fall—I did not see the money in her lap—it might have been on the edge of her dress—I don't think she could have swept it down from the seat with her dress—I saw it fall from under her shawl when she rose.

MARY HUDSON . I am the wife of William Hudson, a carman, of 35, Trinity-street, Liverpool-road—I was in this omnibus on 22d December—I had 7s. 6d. in my purse—it was quite safe when I came from home—I did not feel it after I was in the omnibus, but I am quite certain it was there after I got in the bus—it is a leather purse with a clasp to it—the prisoner sat on my right hand side—at the Mansion-house I got my purse out to pay and on looking at it it was quite empty—it was shut and the money gone—on my opening the purse the gentleman asked me if I had lost anything, seeing me look very much surprised—I said I had—he asked how much—I said 7s. 6d.—he ordered the prisoner to stand up—she did so, and I saw 4s. drop from her lap—it fell from under her shawl—I picked up 4s. from the straw—I told her that was not all; there was 7s. 6d. when I left home—there was no hole in the pocket—there is one hole that is requisite in the pocket, but there were not two—I did not look at my pocket till the next

morning—I then found a hole there—the prisoner said the day before, "You had a hole in your pocket and you dropped it through," and I said I had not one, and next morning I had a hole in my pocket—I have the pocket with me—it is not exactly a cut—I have not touched it since; it is just as it was—I took it out of the dress this morning.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you wear crinoline? A. No; I wear a full skirt, what I am wearing now—I sometimes have to repair my dress—I am not sometimes surprised to find a hole where I did not expect it, but I never found one in my pocket like that before—I had not been in any body else's company on this morning—I took the 7s. 6d. from my kitchen at home—I put it into my pocket, not loose—I put it in my purse; I am quite sure of that—I never put money loose in my pocket, only halfpence—I always take care to secure silver in my purse—I am quite certain I did not take my money out for any purpose before I got into the omnibus—I had no occasion to do so—I did not feel my money while in the omnibus—the entrance to my pocket is a side slit in the skirt—it is not one of the old-fashioned pockets that tie round the waist.

ROBERT HAWKRIDGE (City policeman, 444). I was called to take the prisoner into custody—she said the woman must have dropped it—she was searched at the station—she had 6s. 11 1/2 d. and a brooch—they were taken from the prisoner by the searcher at the station—I did not see her searched—she was taken into a separate room—they were delivered to me in the presence of the prisoner—the person who searched her did not say anything when she delivered them to me—they were put on the dock at the station, stated to have been found on the prisoner. GUILTY .†— Confined Twelve Months.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, January 3rd, 1860.


Before Mr. Common Serjeant and the Fifth Jury.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-143
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

143. FRANCIS BUCHANAN (32) , Stealing one watch, value 12l., the property of Frederick Holmes; to which he

PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Six Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-144
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

144. MATILDA JAMIESON (18) , Stealing 1 table-cover, 2 bed gowns, and other articles, value 1l. 9s. 6d., the property of John Jenkins, her master; also, 1 bed-gown, value 1s., the property of Alice Rich; to both which she

PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-145
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

145. GEORGE HAYES (18) , Stealing 1 box, value 1s., and 30lbs. of tea, value 5l. 8s. 9d., the property of Thomas Searle; to both which he

PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-146
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

146. WILLIAM COOK (22), and WILLIAM VAUGHAN (43) , Stealing 2261bs. of mixed chaff, oats, and barley, value 20s., the property of the London General Omnibus Company; also, 951b. of mixed chaff and oats, and 4 sacks, the property of John Nelson, the master of Vaughan—Second Count charging Cook with feloniously receiving the same; to which

VAUGHAN PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.

MESSRS. COPPER and GIFFARD conducted the Prosecution.

CHARLES BAKER (City-policeman, 635). On 12th December last I stood opposite the Bull Inn, Aldgate, and watched about two hours and a half—I saw the prisoner Cook and a lad come out of the Bull-yard with a tilted van with two horses—the lad was with the front horse—I followed the van to Mark-lane in company with Bull, a detective—when we got there the van stopped—we watched it for a few minutes, and, saw Cook undo the back part of the van—we went up to him and told him that we were excise officers, and wanted to search the van for spirits—I got up on the van and saw four sacks of mixture, consisting of chaff, white and black oats, and crushed barley, and some cut clover—on seeing those, we told him that we were two detective officers, and asked him where he got the four sacks from—he said that a man put them into the van in the Bull-yard—we asked him who the man was, and he said he did not know—we told him he must consider himself in custody for receiving four bags of mixture—when he turned round to go to the station-house, we told him that anything he said, would be given in evidence against him—he stated that a man asked him to buy four bags of sweepings of a manger, and that he gave 10s. for them—we asked him then whether he should know the man if he was to see him—he said, "Yes"—we then took him to the station-house and locked him up.

JOHN MARJ BULL . I am one of the detective officers of the city of London—I was watching with the other policeman—I saw a tilted van come out from the Bull Inn—I corroborate all that the last witness has said—we had been watching those premises some few Mondays previous—I afterwards compared some mixture with this—it appeared to me to correspond.

JAMES BARBER . I came up with Cook's van on the morning of 12th December—I went with Cook to the Bull Inn—I saw the prisoner Vaughan there that day—I saw him put the mixture in the van—I did not see anything paid,—I saw Vaughan get the mixture out of the loft at the Bull Inn—when Vaughan put the mixture in the van, Cook was in the stable—I did not see him take any of the mixture or the sacks.

ROBERT ETHERINGTON . I am foreman to Mr. John Nelson of the Bull Inn, Aldgate—the prisoner, Vaughan, was horse-keeper—he had not authority to give anything away there—I have seen the mixture that was taken away from the van—I know one bag; it is Mr. Nelson's—all the sacks were Mr. Nelson's—the London General Omnibus Company have something like one hundred horses in our yard, but Vaughan has no connexion with them at all.

BENNETT BALL . I am foreman to the London General Omnibus Company, at Bell-lane, Spitalfields—I examined the three sacks of mixture produced by the policeman—in my judgment, a portion of it came from Bell-lane—I am in the habit of sending some of it daily to the Bull-inn, for the horses of the Omnibus Company—the barley and oats which I send are bruised, and those in this mixture are bruised—the whole of it did not come from Bell-lane; that in three sacks did—it corresponds in appearance with that which I send for the purpose of feeding the Company's horses—it belongs to the General Omnibus Company.

Cook's Defence. I did not know it was stolen.

GUILTY on the Second Count.— Confined Three Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-147
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

147. HESTER WEBB (25) , Unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child; GUILTY .— Confined Three Month.

THIRD COURT—Tuesday, January 3rd, 1860.


Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq., and the Sixth Jury.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-148
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

148. JAMES SIMPKINS (19), and HENRY JOYCE (18) , Feloniously having in their possession a mould bearing the obverse and reverse sides of a half-crown.

MESSRS. ELLIS and DOYLE conducted the Prosecution.

CHARLES GASCOIGNE (Policeman, H 98). On Wednesday evening, 14th December, I went with another constable to 5, Wilson's-place, Flower and Dean-street, Spitalfields—I saw a man in the passage, who gave a signal, by knocking on the wainscoting with his hand—I seized him by the collar and shoved him into the street—I then looked through the key-hole of the front room, ground-floor, and saw Simpkins standing by a table which had a plate on it, in which I could plainly see some half-crowns—he was turning them over, and Joyce was by his side with a ladle in his hand containing hot metal—I forced open the door, and, on Simpkins seeing me, he threw something down which looked like plaster of Paris—it appeared to be a mould—he stamped on it—I seized him by the collar—the other policeman rushed to the plate, and got five half crowns out of it, but dropped these two (produced) on the ground—I picked them up—Simpkins succeeded in struggling to the plate, and got all the half-crowns that remained in the plate, and threw them into the fire—I saw them fall through the grate, and picked up this metal (produced) out of the ashes—he then threw this little phial on the fire, containing liquid of some sort, which was spilt, and I picked the bottle out—we secured the prisoners, searched and found two files with metal in the teeth, two phials, some plaster of Paris, a saucer of sand, and some pieces of a mould—I picked up these two unfinished half-crowns—the landlord locked up the rooms, and we took the prisoners to the station—on the way, Simpkins said, "Jim, we are cocked to rights this time"—nothing was found on them—I went to the room again next day—(The COURT considered that evidence could not be given of, what was in the room unless the landlord was called to prove that he had kept the key)—we brought away at the time the broken pieces that Simpkins stamped on—Mr. Webster, the officer of the Mint, sent me the second time.

Simpkins. When you took me in custody there was no mould found; you were sent back to search again, and still there was no mould found; but when we were remanded and brought up again, you produced this piece of a mould. Witness. I found it the first time—I did take down a piece of soda and say it was ammonia: I thought it was.

WILLIAM BRIGLER (Policeman, H 218). I was with Gascoigne, and saw him. peep through the key-hole—when I got in, he was struggling with Simpkins—I saw the coins in a plate on the table—I seized five, but dropped two of them—I kept the other three in my hand—I saw Simpkins stamping on something just by the fender, inside the fire-place—I laid hold of him to pull him away, and found some pieces of white plaster on the hearth—he threw the remainder of the half-crowns into the fire—they went through into the ashes—I picked up some, and Gascoigne picked up some—they were then melted—I saw them dropping through—I saw Gascoigne pick up a ladle which was quite hot—I saw him take a red-hot bottle out of the fire—we

then seized both prisoners, and made a search—I have heard what Gascoigne said was found; that is correct; Simpkins said, going to the station, that they were "cocked to rights this time"—that means they were caught.

Simpkins. The other man said that the metal in the ladle was scalding hot? Witness. It was hot—I dropped it again because it burnt my fingers.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am inspector of counterfeit coin to the Mint—these five half-crowns are counterfeit, and from one mould—here are some pieces of plaster of Paris which may have formed part of a mould, but there are no marks on them by which I can say for certain—these half-crowns have been made from a mould; and, supposing the metal from which they were made to be hot, the mould must have existed two minutes before—it could not be longer—these are made of precisely the same metal as this in the ladle—it is Britannia metal, or melted pewter pots—I have sufficient experience to know from the touch that it is the same—here are two files which are used for the purpose of making the milling, and some sand which is used to clean them before they put the extra coating on to blacken or discolour them—this ladle is used for melting the metal—this piece of metal fits into the bottom of it, and must have come out of it—I have looked carefully at these coins—I have examined and found that they are all from one mould—here is one little peculiarity in the "r" of Georgius, a small mark or indentation—they all have that peculiarity—here is a little box containing two fragments of a mould for half-crowns—the larger fragment merely represents part of a letter, and the edging of the coin—the smaller piece has the letter "r" on it; and under the lower limb of the "r" is the same mark which is on all the half-crowns—that informs me that these two fragments must have been part of a mould for a half-crown—no other coin than a half-crown of George the Third has such a letter of this size.

MR. ELLIS submitted that the mould being now connected with the, prisoners, he was entitled to give evidence of where it was found, to which the COURT assented.

CHARLES GASCOIGNE , re-examined. I found these two fragments of a mould on the Saturday, two days after the prisoners were taken, on the hearth near where Simpkins stamped—I had seen the room locked by the landlord when I went away on the Wednesday night—it was still locked when I returned on the Saturday—I unlocked it, and nothing was disturbed that I could see—I saw the remains of plaster of Paris on the hearth where the stamping took place, but it was too small for me to pick up.

Simpkins's Defence. I had been to the Docks, and borrowed a shilling of a man who was coming for it that day I gave a girl 3d. to clean the room; and going along the street I met Smith, who said, "Is there anybody in doors? "I said, "Yes, a girl." He asked me if I would let him lie down, as he had been up all night; I said, "Yes." I went home at 5 o'clock, and there was a strange chap there, who went out, and the policeman immediately broke in. There is no doubt that they are the guilty persons, and the persons who gave the information. I took up one of the half-crowna to show him, and the moment I did so the police came in. I am guilty of knowing that the things Were in the room, but I had only been home half an hour.

Joyce's Defence. I went there on the Wednesday night for the shilling the young man owed me. I was sitting by the fire tying my garter up, and the policeman says he saw me with a ladle in my hand. That is false.

James Tassel, of 22, Bencroft-place, Mile End-road, gave Joyce a good

character; but George Tuffs (Policeman, K 389) stated that he had had him in custody for passing a bad half-crown in November.



Ten Years' Penal Servitude.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-149
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

149. MARY ANN ROGERS (18) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. ELLIS and DOYLE conducted the Prosecution.

MARY SETTINS . I am the wife of Edward Settins, of Park-place, Old Ford-road—he keeps a chemist's shop—on 22d December the prisoner came and purchased a pennyworth of violet powder, two-pennyworth of pills, and three-halfpennyworth of lozenges, making 4 1/2 d.—she gave me a half-crown—I thought it looked bad, took it to my neighbour, Mr. Smith, and he returned with me to my shop—I said to the prisoner, "You have given me a bad half-crown; did you know it? "she said, "No"—I asked her if she was known to any neighbour; she said, "No"—I said, "You must give me back my goods"—she did so, and said she had no more money—while this was going on Mr. Smith went away, and came back with a constable and a young man named Joyce (See last case), whom I saw here just now—I gave the half-crown to the constable—I brought back the same half-crown that I got from the prisoner.

Prisoner. Mr. Smith had it in his hand.

JAMES SMITH . I am a butcher, and live next door to the last witness—on 22d December she came to me with a half-crown—I looked at it and found it bad—I kept it in my hand, went for a policeman, and afterwards gave it to him—I am sure it is the same—I cannot say whether I gave it to the policeman or any one else, but I saw him get it; whether I gave it him, or she did, I do not know—when I went for the policeman two men were waiting opposite, one of whom was Joyce, who had given me a bad shilling a little while previously—he was about twenty yards off, and was given in custody.

Prisoner. There were two half-crowns. Witness. I believe there were—one of them had been passed before; the policeman had it—there was also a shilling, which was supposed to be Joyce's—I had given Mr. Settins change with that half-crown a week before.

MR. ELLIS. Q. Did you mix the two? A. No—Mr. Settins produced the second, and I got the first from Mr. Settins—I did not mix them—I believe the second one was brought out on the second occasion, but it was not mixed with the other—it was bad—I do not know what has become of it.

COURT to MARY SETTINS. Q. What has become of the other half-crown? A. The constable has it—a young man came in a week before with it—I asked Mr. Smith if it was bad, and he said it was—the man ran away, and we kept the coin—we afterwards had a shilling passed—that and the half-crown were kept separate, but when the prisoner brought the other half-crown, after she was given in charge, my husband brought out the first one.

GEORGE TUFFS (Policeman, K 381). On 22d November Mr. Smith gave a man into my custody on a charge of passing bad money—I took him to the police-court, and charged him—the prisoner was given into my charge at the same time for uttering this bad half-crown to Mr. Settins—I took her to the police-court, and she was discharged, because there were not witnesses enough—she gave the name of Harriet Lawson there.

Prisoner. Q. Did not Mr. Settins say that she wished I had run away as she did not want the trouble? A. Yes—I did not see the two half-crowns

together in Mr. Settin's hands—she gave them to me separate—the other was not along with this.

ELIZABETH WESTON . I am barmaid at the Shepherd beer-shop, Bromley, Middlesex—on Tuesday, 29th November, the prisoner came with a man named Joyce—they were together—Joyce asked for a pint of half-and-half; which came to 2d.—I served him—he threw down a florin—they both drank out of the pot, and I gave Joyce 1s. 10d. change—I bit the florin, suspected it, and laid it on the under counter, as two or three more people had to be served—they sat down, and then I gave the florin to the boy, Tulley, and told him to take it to Mr. Rogers at the other house—Joyce got up, drank out of the pot, handed it to the prisoner, and walked to the door—she emptied it, and was going to follow him; but I detained her till Mr. Rogers came, when she was given into custody.

WILLIAM TULLEY . I am potboy at the Shepherd beer-shop—on 29th November Miss Weston gave me a florin—I took it to my mistress, Mr. Rogers, across the road.

ELIZABETH ROGERS . I am the wife of Francis Rogers, the landlord of the Shepherd beer-shop—on 29th November the little boy, Tulley, brought me a florin—I kept it in my hand and gave it to Dagan.

EDWARD DAGAN (Policeman, K 71). The prisoner was given into my custody on 29th November—she gave the name of Ann Rogers—Mr. Rogers gave me this florin (produced)—the prisoner was searched by a female, and one shilling, two sixpences, and 4 1/2 d., in good money were found on her.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These florins are both bad.

GUILTY .*— Confined Nine Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-150
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

150. ANN MARSHALL (26), was indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. ELLIS and DOYLE conducted the Prosecution.

MARY ANN GATLAND . I am the wife of Richard Gatland, a tobacconist of 13, Goldsmith's-row, Shoreditch—on Friday evening, 16th September, the prisoner came for half an ounce of tobacco—I said, "I have not got enough; will a quarter of an ounce do?"—she said, "Yes;" and I served her with it—it came to three farthings—she tendered me a bad florin—I went next door with it, came back and said, "This is a bad florin, do you know it is bad?"—she said, "No, I do not; pray do not give me in charge, I will pay you for the tobacco"—I said, "No, I shall detain you till the policeman comes; I intend to give you in charge; I believe you were here on Wednesday night last"—I detained her and gave her in custody—I cannot say that she had been there, but I have every reason to believe it by her manner on both occasions.

MR. ELLIS stated that he could not carry the case further.


2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-151
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

151. THOMAS BUCKLEY (18) , Unlawfully uttering a counterfeit florin, having another in his possession.

MESSRS. ELLIS and DOYLE conducted the Prosecution.

HARRIET BULL . I assist my uncle, Henry Thompson, at his coffee-house, Thornhill-place, Caledonian-road—on Wednesday, 21st December, about half-past 6 in the evening, the prisoner came for a cup of coffee and a slice of bread and butter—he gave me a florin, and I gave him a shilling, a six-pence, and 4 1/2 d. in copper, in change—the shilling had a King's head on it, I am positive—he put the shilling to his mouth—then threw down a shilling which was bent, saying, "Do you wish me to have this?"—I took it up and said, "You don't mean to say I gave you this?"—he said, "You

did; do you wish me to have it?"—I said, "Certainly not, if it is bad"—I gave him another and kept the bad one—I had put the florin he gave me in my pocket—I had no other florin there—I examined it about two hours afterwards, when the policeman came, and found it was bad—I gave it to Stammers, and my aunt gave him the shilling—I know the shilling (produced) by the mark the policeman put on it in my presence—it is a Queen's shilling.

Prisoner. You sounded the florin and put it in the till; I heard it go in. Witness. I have no till.

HUBERT STAMMERS (Policeman, N 136). On 21st December, I was with Newbold, in plain clothes, in the Caledonian road, about half-past 6 o'clock, and saw the prisoner and two more lads standing against the wall, about two doors from Thompson's shop—they commenced running from the shop—we followed them, caught them, and told them we should take them on suspicion of having counterfeit coin—I saw the one whom Newbold took, drop a bad shilling—I picked it up—they were discharged, there being only one shilling against them—I afterwards went to Thompson, and received a shilling from him, and a florin from Ann Bull—Newbold and I afterwards went to the place where we had seized the prisoner—and I saw Newbold find two bad florins in the mud—this piece of tissue paper was on the top of the mud—that was about an hour afterwards.

Prisoner. Q. Was I on the same side as the other two? A. No; you were on the other side of the road, but you were all in company, for I had followed you half a mile—I had seen you with the other two all the evening.

WILLIAM NEWBOLD (Policeman, N 151). I was with Stammers, and assisted in taking the prisoner and the other lads—a policeman in uniform, named Higgings, who is not here, had charge of the prisoner—I was not in uniform—I saw the prisoner draw his hand out of his trousers pocket, throw something away into the mud, and put his foot on it—I saw it fall—I noticed the spot so as to know it again—we then went on to the station-house, and on the road I saw another lad drop a shilling, which I picked up—I afterwards came back to the spot, and found these two florins and this piece of paper in the mud.

Prisoner. Q. When you saw me draw my hands out of my pocket, why did you not come to me? A. Because I was holding a prisoner at the time, and I expected he had got some money on him—he dropped a shilling.

ELIZABETH HUNT . I am a widow, and manage a coffee-house for my brother at Weston-place—on 23d December, a little after 7 in the evening, the prisoner came for a cup of coffee and a slice of bread and butter, which came to 1 1/2 d.—he gave me a shilling—I detected it and sent it by my niece next door, to see if it was good—she came back, gave it to me bent, and said that it was bad—I gave it back to the prisoner—I put the change down, and the prisoner said I had only given him 9 1/2 d. instead of 10 1/2 d. but I am sure I had given him full change—I gave him in charge—a neighbour got the bad shilling from him, gave it to me, and I marked it and gave it to Sheriff.

Prisoner. Q. Did you not take your shilling into the parlour, and say that you had not got change? A. No; I never moved from the shop.

MARTHA MAHEN . I am a niece of the last witness—she called me into the shop and gave me a shilling—I took it next door, saw it tried, and it was returned to me as bad—it was bent on the counter—I brought it back and gave it to my aunt—the prisoner gave her another shilling—my aunt

gave him in charge, after a little dispute—I saw the shilling given to Sheriff—it was the same that my aunt gave me.

HENRY SHERIFF (Policeman, S 457). I took the prisoner at Mr. Hunt's coffee-house, and received a bent counterfeit shilling, but have lost it—I searched the prisoner and found nothing on him.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . This shilling and florin are both bad—the shilling, said to have been dropped, is also bad—these two florins found, with the tissue paper, are bad, and from the same mould as the first.

GUILTY .— confined Eighteen Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-152
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

152. HENRY GRIFFITHS (47) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. DOYLE and O'CONNELL conducted the Prosecution.

ELIZABETH JONES . I am barmaid to Mr. Epiteau, of the Cafe de L'Opera—on 31st October, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the prisoner came and asked for two bath buns—I served him—he gave me a bad five shilling piece—I suspected it, but gave him change—I afterwards found it to be bad—I put it in my purse and showed it to Mr. Epiteau on 53d December, having kept it in my purse all that time.

Prisoner. I was not in London in October; I was in Scotland. Witness. I have no doubt whatever of you.

COURT. Q. Are you sure it was the end of October? A. I am almost sure; it was Monday I know—I have ascertained that since, but was afraid to say so at first.

GEORGE EPITEAU . On 23d December I received this crown from the last witness and gave it to Bennett.

SARAH JONES . I am also barmaid to Mr. Epiteau—on Friday, 23d December, the prisoner came into the bar about half-past 8, and asked for two bath buns—he paid with a 5s. piece—I sounded it on the counter, and at that moment the waiter, Edward Freeman, laid hold of him by the shoulders and said, "I think old chap you have served us so before"—the waiter said to me, "Here, hand over that to me," and I gave him the crown.

Prisoner. Q. Did not you say William, William, I do not know whether it is not bad or not? A. No; I did not utter a word—his name is not William—I did say, "Don't handle him so roughly"—that was when the prisoner was trying to get away from him.

EDWARD FREEMAN . I am waiter at the Cafe de L'Opera—on a Monday at the end of October, a person came in there for two bath buns—I cannot say whether it was the 31st—I saw him served by Elizabeth Ann Jones—he gave her a 5s. piece—she gave him the change, and after he had gone she called my attention to it—it was bad—the prisoner is the person, I am quite sure—I saw him in the shop again on Friday, 23d December, and recognised him before he asked for anything—I kept a sharp watch on him—he asked for two bath buns and was served, and handed a 5s. piece in payment—directly he put it down I collared him, and said, "You nave been here before and I expected to see you again"—I asked for the crown piece, and he snatched it away from me and concealed it in his collar next his skin, I believe; but I had it long enough to see that it was bad—he said he had never been into the house before, and that he was a servant in the neighbourhood; he was without a hat on both occasions—a constable was sent for—the prisoner refused to be searched, and we fetched another policeman—he was put in a cab, and before he got seated, the policeman

said, "There it is," and I picked up a crown piece and gave it to the constable—I did not see the prisoner throw it.

Prisoner. Q. How do you know it was bad? A. By the sight and feel of it—my knuckles never touched your neck—you said, "If you want to search me take me to the station and search me.

COURT. Q. When you seized the prisoner by the collar, did he want to sit down? A. Yes; but he only offered to sit down and be quiet after he had attempted to get away.

THOMAS BENNETT (Policeman, C 157). On 23d December, I was called to Mr. Epiteau's, about half-past 8 o'clock—he gave the prisoner in charge—a cab was sent for, and on getting in I saw him put his left hand outside the cab, and saw something glitter past the lamp—a 5s. piece fell—I called to Freeman to pick it up, which he did, and gave it to me—this is it (produced), and this other Mr. Epiteau gave me—I searched the prisoner at the station and found some coppers, this knife, and a key.

Prisoner. Q. When I got into the cab, had you not hold of my hand? A. Of your right hand—I took hold of both your hands in the first instance.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These coins are bad, but from different moulds.

Prisoner's Defence. I know nothing of the first transaction; I offered the second believing it to be good. I never had it in ray possession after the waiter had it. I never had it in the cab I was never in custody. I have a wife and three children, and am 47 years of age.

GUILTY .— Confined Six Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-153
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

153. WILLIAM SAWYER (18) , Unlawfully having counterfeit coin in his possession.

MESSRS. DOYLE and O'CONNELL conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN SHECKLETON (Policeman, S 132). I remember seeing the prisoner on the 13th of last month—I saw him on the canal bridge at St. Paul's-terrace, Camden-town—he had nine rabbits on a stick—I passed him and went in search of another constable—I came back—I asked him the price of the rabbits—he said, "One shilling"—while I remained in conversation with him another constable came up—I then saw the prisoner put his left hand into his trousers pocket—we were standing on the foot path over the canal bridge—he drew from his pocket two parcels, one brown, and the other black—this brown stuff (produced) was the covering of one of the parcels—I then took the prisoner in custody—he threw one parcel into the canal; the other went on to the towing path—I kept him in custody for about 20 minutes on the spot, until I got another constable—I then went in search of what I saw fall into the water, but it sank before I could get it—I then went on the other side where this brown one fell, and the witness, Wingrove, took it up and opened it in my presence—he went with me to the station, and gave it to me there—these four bad shillings (produced) were in the parcel—the covering is a sort of canvas bag—it is the same that I received from Wingrove, and the same which I had seen the prisoner throw away—I never lost sight of it from the time it left his hand till it fell on the towing path.

Cross-examined by MR. LILLEY. Q. Were you a member of the police at the time this happened? A. Yes; I was in uniform—it occurred about 1 o'clock in the afternoon—I did not speak to him when I passed by him at first—two females and another man were with him then—I returned to him in about five minutes after I had passed him—the two women and the

man were still with him—they neither of them said a word when I spoke to the prisoner about his rabbits—they said nothing during the whole of the time—when I seized hold of the prisoner, the other man made his escape in a moment—I am quite certain that I did not go after that man at all—I did not, move from the spot—I addressed my remarks as much to that wan as to'the other—they were both standing side by side—I put out my haud towards the other man; he was too quick for me—one was on the carriage way, and the other on the foot path, near the parapet of the bridge—I did not hear the man or the woman say anything to the prisoner—I did not hear the man ask the price of rabbits—I did not go after that man at all—when I put out my hand towards him he ran away and escaped—I am certain he did not put his hand into his breeches pocket or any other pocket in my sight; nor when he was running away—I have been in the force seven years next May.

DAVID WINGROVE . On Tuesday, 13th December, I saw the last witness holding the prisoner at the foot of the canal bridge, at St. Paul's-terrace—I looked over the bridge—I did not see the prisoner throw anything—I saw on the towing path a little bag; this looks very much like the one I saw—I got over the rails and dropped down and picked it up—the constable met me through the other side of the bridge—I showed it to him and what it contained—it contained four bad shillings—I went with him to the Rtation-house and there gave it to him—the shillings were wrapped up in a bit of paper which I lost.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These shillings are all bad—two are from one mould, the others are from different moulds—there are three moulds altogether.

JURY to JOHN SHECKLETON. Q. Were the two parcels thrown over the bridge before or after the man left? A. After; but he had not got more than three or four paces—I had no possible doubt as to who threw the money over.


THOMAS NEWEY (Policeman, P 299). I have known the prisoner for the last three years to be the constant associate of coiners, smashers, and thieves—he has been in custody on several occasions and was once convicted under the Criminal Justice Act.

WILLIAM FINCH (Policeman, P 396). The prisoner was in my custody in April, 1859, for uttering counterfeit coin, and was sentenced to six months from this Court.

I am the prisoner's sister—this man has only had him once, and he got discharged—he said that if I treated him outside he would not come in and speak against my brother.

Judgment respited.

OLD COURT.—Wednesday, January 4th, and Thursday, January 5th, 1860.

PRESENT—The Right Hon. the LORD MAYOR; Mr. BARON MARTIN; Mr. JUSTICE BLACKBURN; Mr. Ald. COPELAND, M.P.; Sir JAMES DUKE, Bart., M.P., Ald.; Sir FRANCIS GRAHAM MOON Bart, Ald.; Mr. Ald. LAWRENCE; Mr. Ald. MECHI; Mr. Ald. HALE; and Mr. COMMON SERJEANT Before Mr. Baron Martin, and the First Jury.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-154
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

154. DAVID HUGHES (50), was indicted for, that he having been adjudged a bankrupt, feloniously did neglect and omit to surrender himselfto the Court of Bankruptcy upon the day limited for his surrender—Seven other Counts not fully setting out the proceedings in bankruptcy.


conducted the Prosecution.

In opening the case MR. BOVILL directed the attention of the COURT to the wording of the 251st section of the Bankruptcy Act (12 and 13 Vic. c. 106), and invited an expression of opinion as to whether the words, "with intent to defraud," applied to the concealing, embezzling, and other offences alluded to in the section, or whether they were to be taken as applying only to the non-surrender: thu point had been referred to by Mr. Baron Parke in the Court of Criminal Appeal, in the case of Reg. v. Davidson and Gordon (Dearsley's Crown cases, 586), but had not been argued or decided. MR. BARON MARTIN considered that the intent to defraud, mentioned in the 251st section, applied to the intent tx the act of non-surrendering; but he would rather hear such evidncee as was considered necessary, and deal with the points as they arose. MR. BAVILL further referred to the cases of Reg. v. Hilton, 2, Cox's Criminal cases, Req. v. Arnold, Sessions Paper, Vol. XLIV. p. 649, and Reg. v. Lewis, Session Paper, Vol. XLIX. p. 63, as shewing that the mere production of the adjudication was sufficient to establish the fact of bankruptcy, without putting the prosecution to the formal proof of the various stages of the proceedings. MR. BARON MARTIN, although inclined to think such proof unnecessary, considered that the evidence had better be adduced, that if necessary, the matter might be reserved and decided.

THOMAS COLLINS . I am clerk to Thomas Hamber one of the messengers of the Court of Bankruptcy—these papers (produced) have the seal of the Court of Bankruptcy upon them—I find here a petition for an adjudication of bankruptcy and an affidavit of Ebenezer Hunt—the petition is dated 4th August, 1858, and the affidavit is made the same day, verifying the allegation iu the petition—this is the original affidavit—here is also an adjudication of bankruptcy before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn on 5th August, 1858—it appears by the proceedings that the adjudication was disputed—I find a notice to dispute the adjudication—I find that the adjudication was confirmed on 12th August (The adjudication was here put in and read; it in dated 5th August, 1858, in the matter of David Hughes, scrivener dealer, and chapman. MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE proposed to read the confirmation of the adjudication. MR. HAWKINS objected to its reception at present, it being is no way traceable to the prisoner, or to anything to which he was a party. MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE submitted that it was made evidence by the 10th section. MR. BARON MARTIN thought the more regular mode would be first to prove the service of the duplicate adjudication in the manner prescribed by the 104th section)—I have the summons here—a day was limited for the bankrupt's surrender—I also produce a copy of the London Gazette of the 13th August, 1858—(MR. HAWKINS objected to the reception either of the summons or the Gazette, there being no certificate by the registrar of the Court with respect to the former, as required by the statute, nor any seal of the Court upon the Gazette. MR. BOVILL contended that the Gazette was evidence of itself. MR. HAWKINS admitted that with respect to the Gazette its mere production would be sufficient but for the 240th section, which expressly directed that all documents should bear the seal of the Court; the bankrupt was the person who was to take notice of to advertisement in it, and he had a right to know that that advertisement was inserted by the authority of the Court of Bankruptcy. MR. BARON MARTIN was of opinion that the Gazette was admissible, and that the section refentd to

a mere regulation applicable to the proprietor of the Gazette, with respect to the insertion of advertisements; but he would suggest to the counsel for the prosecution to prove the case by the steps-directed by the statute.

EDWIN BOWERMAN . I am assistant to Mr. Hamber one of the messengers of the Court of Bankruptcy—on 5th August I served a duplicate of the adjudication against David Hughes—I served it, at 10, Canonbury-place, Islington, and at 13, Gresham-street, city, by affixing it on the office door—I put it on the door of Mr. Hughes's office—I believe that is on the second floor—I fastened it to the door with a wafer—the one I left at Canonbury-place I left in the hall—I fixed it against the wall with wafers—I believe 10, Canonbury-place, was the last known place of abode of David Hughes; and the office where I affixed the notice was the last known place of business.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS (with MR. GIFFARD). Q. You never saw him at Canonbury-place, did you? A. No; I don't know that I knew his name till after the bankruptcy proceedings—I had never seen him at his place of business—I do not of my own knowledge know what his last place of business was—I only know what I was told—the notice that I left at Canonburyplace, I fixed on the wall, in the hall—that was the only mode in which I served it—I believe the office in Gresham-street where I fixed the notice, is on the second floor—I would not be positive about that—I believe it was—I made no memorandum of it—I made an affidavit a day or two afterwards of the day on which I affixed it—I don't think I made any memorrandum on that day—I have no doubt that it was on that 5th that I served it—I think I can positively say it was the 5th—I will say so—I believe there was on the door in Greshain-street, a reference to a Mr. Saow—I saw something there and read it—it was stating that papers and messages were to be left at Mr. Snow's—I recollect seeing that—I believe I did go to Mr. Snow's on that Saturday, I had the duplicate adjudication with me at the time, and I went from Mr. Snow's office to Mr. Hughes's office, and stuck it on the door—I left no copy of it anywhere else except at Gresham-street and Canonbury-place—there was nobody in the office at Gresham-streeet; if there was, they did not answer the door when I knocked—there were persons in the house in Canonbury-place—Mr. Ventom, the auctioneer, was there when I got there, and Mr. Hughes's groom was there, or a person who represented himself to be so—he was living in the house—I stuck up the adjudication in the hall at the bottom of the stairs—I believe my father saw me do that, but I am not quite certain—I should say nobody else saw me do it; he and I went together—I don't recollect who opened the door for me when I went—I recollect going into the parlour—I did not see any female servant in the house, I examined these copies of the adjudication myself personally—when I affixed the adjudication in Canonbury-place, it was in the evening, I think about 5 o'clock as near as I can recollect—I had served the one in Gresham-street before that, about 1 or 2 o'clock I think—the duplicates which I affixed were signed by the Commissioner; I remember that.

MR. BOVILL. Q. Were you present at the adjudication. A. I was not—I had the adjudications—they were under the seal of the Court, as well as signed by the Commissioner—I have no doubt this (produced) is the notice that I saw on Mr. Hughes' office door—Read: "All letters and messages for Mr. Hughes to be taken to Messrs. Black and Snow, solicitors, 22, Collegehill, Cannon-street, in whose favour Mr. Hughes has relinquished his business")—I went to Mr. Snow, one of the gentleman referred to in that notice, and made a communication to him.

DR. DONALD FRASER . I have occasionally prescribed for the prisoner—I

was not his ordinary medical attendant—his ordinary medical attendant is very infirm—Mr. Hughes lived at 10 Canonbury-place—I attended him professionally duriug the latter end of June and the beginning of July 1858; the 4th or 5th July, I think, was the last time—his place of business was 13, Gresbam-street—I was in the habit of seeing him very frequently, he having been my professional adviser for years.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. How long had you attended him? A. During the latter end of June and the beginning of July—I had occasionally prescribed for him, but his regular medical attendant was ill at that time—Mr. Hughes was suffering from derangement of the liver and the digestive organs, and from great anxiety of mind and general derangement of the nervous system—I advised him to take a trip on the Continent for a few weeks—he told me that there were some matters pressing upon him, and I advised him to take a little change on the Continent for two or three weeks—I considered at that time that he was not capable of attending to business.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. You say you advised him to take a trip on the Continent? A. Yes; go up the Rhine—he had stated that then were some little matters pressing very seriously upon him—he mentioned two sums of 9,000l. and 7,000l.—I was not at all aware that ho was about starting for Australia; I wish I had been—I understood it was only a temporary mattor—I had bad business dealings with him myself—unfortunately there were money matters between us.

MR. BOVILL now proposed to put in the confirmation of the adjudication; MR. HAWKINS objected, but first submitted that the proof of the service of the duplicate adjudication was insufficient, and that it ought to have been left with some inmate of the house; if there had been no one there who could have received it it would have been a different thing, but according to the evidence iliere wat a servant of Mr. Hughes at the house in Canonbury-place with whom it might have been left, instead of which the messenger had only fixed it by wafers in the hall; that was not such a service as came within the spirit of the Act; the same objection applied to the service at the place of business, there being a direct intimation given to all comers that messages were to be left with Mr. Snow. MR. BARON MARTIN was of opinion that the service in both instances was sufficient. MR. HAWKINS then proceeded to object to the reception of the confirmation of adjudication; they should first of all prove that some step was taken ty the bankrupt. MR. BARON MARTIN expressing an opinion that this portion of evidence was not necessary, MR. BOVILL did not press it. Upon the London Gazette being tendered as evidence MR. HAWKINS objected; it must first be shown that there was no notice, disputing the adjudication, otherwise they could have no right to publish it. MR. BARON MARTIN was of opinion that the requirements of the Statute had been complied with and it might be read. It was then put in and read; it was dated A ugust 13th 1858 and stated that whereat a petition in Bankruptcy had been on the 4th August filed against David Hughes, scrivener, dealer and chapman, and he having been declared a bankrupt, he was required to surrender himself to the Court of Bankruptcy at Basinghall-street on 24th August, at 12, and on 27th September at half-past 11 o'clock.

THOMAS COLLINS (re-examined). I attended at the Bankruptcy Court on 24th August, and also on 27th September—the bankrupt did not surrender on either of those days—I was present during the sitting of the Court during both those days, and I am able to say that he did not surrender.

MR. HAWKINS. Q. Where was Mr. Commissioner Goulburn on the 27th

September? A. Mr. Commisioner Holroyd was there, Mr. Gouiburn was not; he was not in attendance during any part of the 27th September—I can't say that there was more than one Commisioner in attendance that day.

COURT. Q. Mr. Commissioner Holroyd was there? A. He was.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Was he doing Mr. Commissioner Goulburn's business that day. A. He was the Commisioner of the day in rotation—he took the general business of that day.

EDWIN BOWERMAN (re-examined). On 13th August I served a summons at the bankrupt's premises, it was a summons under the seal of the Court, and signed by the Commissioner—I served it at Canonbury-place and in Gresham-street—I put it in the same place as I did the adjudication—there is here upon the proceedings a duplicate of the summons that I so served.

MR. HAWKINS submitted that this duplicate was not admissible, that the original document itself should be produced. MR. BOVILL in reply, referred to the case of Reg v. Arnoldt Sessions Papers, Vol. 14, page 649. MR. BARON MARTIN was of opinion that it was not necessary to produce the original, MR. HAWKINS called the attention of the Court to the judgment of CHEIEF JUSTICE JERVIS in the case of Beg v. Gordon which supported the objection he had just taken. MR. BARON MARTIN did not think the rule of law there referred to, applied to notices, neither himself or MR. JUSTIC BLACKBURN had any doubt upon the matter.

MR. HAWKINS. Q. At what period of the day did you serve the notice? A. Some time in the middle of the day I believe; I can't say positively—I think it was about the middle of the day, at both places—I examined that which I affixed, with the document before me—to the best of my belief it was about 1 o'clock, on 13th August, that I served it—(This was read, dated 15th August, 1858, and was a summons to the bankrupt personally to appear before Mr. Commissioner Gouiburn on 24th August, and 27th September—signed by Mr. Commissioner Fane).

EBENEZER HUNT I am in partnership with my brother—we carry on business as drapers and furnishers—we are the petitioning creditors against the bankrupt—we had supplied goods from time to time to him—on 4th August, 1858, 294l. 0s. 7d. was due to us for goods supplied; that is on the trade account—on the Friday after the 20th August, I went to Mr. Hughes's office and endeavoured to see him, but was unable—I enquired for him but was not able to ascertain where he was.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. Who did you see? A. I saw Mr. Haines, a clerk—the 294l. 0s. 7d. arose on goods supplied—I did not deliver all the goods—I received the order for some of them—I do not know that I delivered the goods or any part of them—I do not think I did—the orders I speak of were not orders in writing—the 294l. 0s. 7d. begins in the commencement of 1857—I am now looking at what Mr. Hughes himself gave me the order for—it is in my clerk's hand-writing—I do not know when he wrote it, certainly since the bankruptcy proceedings, not within the last day or two; it was about a month ago, from what I know—in the early part of 1858, I received the order for those things, from Mr. Hughes himself—there was oil-cloth ordered in 1858, in fact it was to furnish two rooms, the offices for the occupation of a Mr. Palmer—the order was given personally to me by Mr. Hughes—the articles were chairs, sofa, easy chair, two fenders, two rugs, two sets of fire-irons, and I believe there were two coal scuttles—I don't know that that is all—it is all I can recollect at the present moment—I saw the oil-cloth delivered—the value of that might be 10l. or 12l.; I dare say it was as much as that—I cannot

say that I saw anything else delivered, but I saw them in those rooms after the delivery, before and after the bankruptcy—the whole of the goods that I have enumerated amount, I should think, to 60l.—I mayf have omitted some things—I omitted the Turkey carpet and rug—what I have mentioned did not come to 60l.—I do not know that I have now told all—our books are here—I saw the oil-cloth, the Turkey carpet and rug, after the order was given—I should think that was about thirteen guineas the two—I saw the sofa—I should think that might be perhaps 9 or 10 guineas—I saw the easy chair; I should think that came to 5 or 6 guineas; I believe I sat in it—I saw the rug in the other room, and I saw the fenders—the fenders might be about 30s. or a couple of pounds—I saw two sets of fire-irons; they might be about 30s. perhaps—there were half-adozen cane-bottomed chairs, about 30s. the half-a-dozen, and I think there was an arm-chair that I omitted to name—that was not the easy chair that I sat in—the arm-chair might be worth 2 guineas—I do not know that you have got all now—I have told you all that I can recollect.

MR. BOVILL. Q. Is this the account you made out; did you see it at the time? A. Yes; it correctly describes all the things that were sent.

COURT. Q. Did you apply for payment at all? A. I did.

MR. BOVILL. Q. You say that paper accurately describes all you sent in 1858? A. All that I had the order personally from Mr. Hughes to supply for those offices—the things here mentioned are, or were, of the value of 60l.—it is 60l. 10s. 2d.; that is at the regular trade price; that was the account in 1858—independent of that, he owed me 144l. at the end of 1857—with respect to that account of 144l., he told me in the course of March or April, 1858, "Hunt, I intended to have sent you a cheque for your trade account, but I have been rather short of money and will do it in a little time"—that remained unpaid down to the time when he went away, and it remains unpaid still.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. I think you have already stated that you are one of the petitioning creditors? A. I am one—I have known the prisoner nearly twenty years—he has been my solicitor for fifteen years—I have from time to time entrusted him with money for the purpose of investing on mortgage or any security that he represented to me was good and sound—I trusted to his discretion and judgment in those matters; he was my solicitor—I think the first time that I entrusted him with money in that way, was about 1843—on that occasion I entrusted him with a sum of 600l.—he sent me deeds—I expected he would lend it on mortgage—he told me that whenever I had any money to spare, he had securities, or could obtain securities for the investment of that money, and it was in consequence of that, that I entrusted him in 1843 with 600l.—he only told me by the deeds what he had done with it—he sent me some deeds, and I believe it was lent to a party—I kept the deeds—I cannot say exactly up to what time, because when he wanted them, from their being paid off, as I supposed, he sent for them, and I returned them to him then—I believe the deeds were transferred to some other name than the original one—I do not recollect that the prisoner ever told me so—I do not know a person of the name of Webb at all—there was the name of Webb in my half-yearly accounts that were rendered (looking at tome papers)—these accounts do not commence quite so early as the one we are now speaking about—accounts were rendered to me by the bankrupt—these are the accounts; I believe they are the writing of one of the clerks that was in the office at the time—I have frequently had conversations with the defendant about those accounts,

from time to time, for they were frequently being exchanged—he always sent me two; one to be returned signed, and the other I kept for my own purposes—I have frequently conversed with him on the details of them that applies to the whole of these accounts.

MR. HAWKINS. Q. Will you undertake to swear that you ever spoke to him about that particular account? (selecting one) A. Yes, I will, about this particular account that I have in my hand—I do not mean to say that this paper was produced—I do not know that any paper was produced at all; he did not always produce papers when he conversed with me about money—I cannot speak to any particular conversation—I cannot say whose hand writing—this is; I should suppose an accountant's—I believe it is either in Mellers handwriting, or Ellis's—should not like to swear to their handwriting.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Whosever writing it is, have you talked to the prisoner about the contents of that document? A. Yes, I have—I did not receive it from his hands; very likely it came by post—I received the balance of the account from Mr. Hughes by cheque; that is, the balance of the interest—(This account was put in and read: it commenced on 8th June, 1858, and was headed, "Mr. E. Hunt in account with Messrs. Overton and Hughes." It contained on one side three items of loans, to Thomas, 1,000l., Anderson 5l. and cash 100l., and on the other, cash on mortgage 1,000l., and do. Burnt repaid 600l.; the balance of the interest was 78l. 10s. 8d.; the account was examined 6th February, 1851.)—I received some deeds from Mr. Hughes to represent this amount, when it arrived at this amount—this other account was settled in the same way, but I do not recollect any particular conversation—(This was a similar account examined August, 1856, amounting to 4,450l., consisting of various items to the names of Perryman, Thomas, Cheatle, and others.)—I had entrusted him with that sum of money, mentioned as "Perryman 600l." to invest—I had entrusted him also with 1,000l. to Thomas of Albion-place, and 1,000l. Wells, ground rent, Cheatle 600l., Dalston 500l., and Dalston 1,000l.—all those sums of money were entrusted to him to invest—I was sometimes acquainted with what the securities were to be; not always—sometimes he would write a letter, "I have such and such securities; will they suit you?"—the signature, "Overton and Hughes," to this letter (produced) is in Mr. Hughes's handwriting—the next is signed by Ellis, the accouutant—the next is signed, "David Hughes"—that is signed by Hughes—(The following letters were here put in and read:—"7th June, 1850—To Mr. Ebenezer Hunt. Dear Sir,—We have a safe investment for 1,000l., interest at 5 per cent to commence this day, payable half yearly, on 24th June and 25th December a proportionate part. Be so good as to send us a cheque by bearer, crossed Currie and Co. Overton and Hughes."—"16th July, 1852. Dear Sir,—Herewith we beg to hand you cash account in duplicate, which we trust you will find correct. Please return one copy signed. For Overton and Hughes; R. Ellis."—"31st December, 1852. Dear Sir,—The property at Highbury, upon which 500l. has been advanced by you is about to be transferred, and I will thank you to call and sign the transfer deed the first time you are passing this way, and in the meantime I shall get you good security, and the interest will continue as heretofore. David Hughes."—"15th October, 1857. Dear Sir,—If you have any money to advance at a short period on a note payable at a banker's, on deposit of deeds at 7 per cent. I have a client who will require such in a week or two. David Hughes"—The name of "Palmer and Co" was put up over the office that I

furnished at Mr. Hughes's desire—I think both Mr. Hughes and Mr. Palmer used these offices afterwards, but I understood in the first instance that that was to be separate for Mr. Palmer's use—on going there I occasionally found both there—I cannot say whether any portion of this paper (produced) is in Mr. Hughes' writing—I saw Mr. Hughes before he left this country, two or three days previous to the 30th June—I first heard that he had left, when I received a circular, on a Friday after 20th July—in consequence of the receipt of that circular I went down to his office—it was not closed, but there was a notice outside on the door, on some plate, directing his parcels and letters to be taken to College-hill, to Black and Snow—independent of the trade debt there was 4,450l. due to me from Hughes, and there was 300l. more—that 300l. was not money that I had entrusted to him to invest—it was, more properly speaking, money on call, that I might have whenever I chose to call for it—the 4,450l. was money entrusted to him to invest, and which I am a loser of, with the deeds—I think there was only 500l. or 700l. that I let him have on call—when I went to the office I saw Mr. Haines; he referred me to Messrs. Black and Snow, where I went—I saw Mr. Snow—I got no money—I did not learn from them where the bankrupt was gone to—I asked him if he would look at my deeds—I did not learn where the prisoner was, or where he had gone to—I enquired, and was told he was gone away for the benefit of his health.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you afterwards get a letter from him yourself? A. No; afterwards, before I went to the office—I got the circular letter—I afterwards got a letter from him stating that he was at Melbourne—I heard where it was stated he was gone—I heard that a few weeks after he had gone—I heard that he had gone to Australia on board the Red Jacket—sometime afterwards I received a letter from him from Melbourne—I can't exactly tell when that was; it might have been in April, 1859—I made an application for a warrant to arrest him in Australia, and sent Brett the officer out for that purpose—that might have been after the receipt of the letter—it appears that he was brought from Australia, I believe, by Brett—the last time that I entrusted the prisoner with any money was about 1st February, 1858—that was the 300l. that I have been speaking of, on the call account—it was only in two transactions that he had money of mine on call—that was this 300l. and a previous 500l. or it might have been 700l.; I can't say exactly—on each of these occasions he paid me interest for the money—no, not for the last; he was to pay me interest—the agreement was, to pay 5 per cent, interest for these two amounts—I believe the last time before that upon which he had received money from me for the purpose of investing, was in 1856—that was two sums of 500l. each—they were to be invested on good security—the name of the borrower was not told me at that time—that was in March and May, 1856—I do not know that this "1,000l. in hand, Dalston," in this account in 1856, was made up of these two sums of 500l.—there was a 500l. previously—I cannot tell you which of the items this refers to—I see I have signed this account—I know that he had 4,450l. of my money in his hands at this time—I believed that some portion of it had been invested at that time, because I had got the deeds—I do not at this moment know what was uninvested—I don't know that I had any conversation with him after May, 1856, with regard to these two particular sums of 500l.—this is the interest account.

Q. What is the meaning of this "In hand, Dalston? "did not you understand that that was money upon which he himself was to pay you interest and to give you a mortgage upon the Dalston estate? A. He told me that he

would give mo security two or three times the value of my advances—it was not understood between us that he was to be the borrower of these two sums of 500l., and that he should give me security upon the estates—he did not say what he should give me—it was not understood between us that he should have the loan of these two sums, and give me security—I did not know what security would come to me until it came—I did not know that he was going to have the money, and to use it himself—I did not inquire when this account was sent in, upon what security these sums of 500l. had been invested, not even when I saw Dalston written here—I had such implicit confidence in my own solicitor that I considered any deeds that he sent me were perfectly correct—I had not got any deeds in August, 1856, in respect of these last two sums of 500l.—I did not inquire at all what this "In hand, Dalston" meant—of course I saw that the interest was being paid upon them from the respective periods when I advanced them to him—I did afterwards have handed over to me some deeds, which professed to be securities—you have the deeds there—you can look at them—he sent me those deeds as security for my money—he was my confidential solicitor—I cannot tell you upon what day I got these deeds—I believe it was somewhere in October, 1856—after October, 1856, I felt perfectly satisfied that my 4,450l. was safe—I did not know that Mr. Hughes was himself the borrower of the money at that time—I did not know that my money was outstanding and that he was paying me interest upon it as a loan to himself—I never knew it—I believed these deeds were security for my money—I did not consider Mr. Hughes was the borrower—I considered that he, as my solicitor, found me sound security—the last advance I made to him before March, 1856, I believe was in 1854—that was 600l. to a Mr. Perryman—that was a specific loan to Perryman—the sum before that I believe was two sums of 300l. to a person of the name of Cheatle—I believe that was in 1852—when he sent me the deeds I considered that it was a specific loan to Cheatle—I advanced these two sums of 300l. on the 15th and 23d November, 18541 believe—I don't know when I got the deeds—I can't tell how soon after that I learnt that Cheatle had got the money—I never inquired whether he had got the money—Mr. Hughes did not tell me that he wanted the second 300l. to make up Cheatle's loan of 600l.—he wanted 600l. and these two sums of 300l. made the 600l.—Cheatle's name was not mentioned to me as the person who wanted the money—it waa mentioned to me when I saw the deeds—here is the application for it—the whole of this is in the prisoner's handwriting—this is the application upon which I lent the two sums of 300l.—(Read: "9th November, 1852. To Mr. Ebenezer Hunt. Dear Sir, I have a security of a life estate in the dividends of 600l. stock, standing in the books of the Bank of England, in the name of Mr. John Williams, of Oxford-street, Silk-mercer, a policy of assurance for 600l. and two houses of the value of 400l., would this suit you or your brother? Yours faithfully, David Hughes")—That is the letter upon which I advanced the sum of 600l. but I never received the dividend referred to there of Mr. Williams of Oxford-street—there was no charge ever made to me by Mr. Hughes for lending my money—no commission or anything of that sort; he was my solicitor—it was in that character that I handed him over the monies—I am one of the assignees—I don't recollect the number of ounces of plate that Mr. Hughes left behind in his house—the furniture and plate realized about 2,300l.—I don't know whether there was 1,600 ounces of plate amongst that—there was a large quantity of plate—that 2,300l. was realized by a sale under the bankruptcy—I am

not aware that there is any reserved price put when there is a bankruptcy sale—I have heard that there was some building property at Shepherd's Bush, Dalston, and Holloway, and also a house in the Poultry, the house, in Gresham-stieet, and property at Turnham-green—we have no power to touch them—there may be property of considerable extent—I have assertained, through the solicitor to the assignees, the extent of the property—I understand that it is property to a considerable extent, but I know nothing about it—I have informed myself, as assignee, as to the value of this property as much as I have considered it my duty to do, through my solicitor—I have taken interest enough to realize everything that is possible to be realized—I know the house in the Poultry—I do not know whether it has been sold—I do not know the value of it—I have heard Mr. Hughes say that he refused 17,500l. for the house in Gresham-street—I have not heard the names of the people who offered it—I believe it was taken for the Agra Bank—I certainly did not take the trouble to enquire whether that offer was made for it—I do not know whether it has been sold; it may have been; I have not ascertained the value—I leave such a concern as that to my solicitor.

MR. BOVILL. Q. With respect to these houses at Shepherd's Bush, is there one which is encumbered? A. I believe they are all encumbered—we have realized I should think between 4,000l. and 5,000l. under the bank ruptcy—the assignees are involved in, I believe, seven chancery suits—I did not see the prisoner's house till the time of the sale—some carriages were left behind unsold—there was I think, a brougham, or something of that kind, aud a four-wheeled phaeton—I think there were two ponies—the carriage horses had been sold previously.

Q. You have been asked whether you entrusted these monies to Mr. Hughes as your solicitor; did you know the defendant as a scrivener or as a solicitor? A. I have heard a little about it lately, and I know a little more about it than I wish to know—I heard nothing about it till I heard it discussed under the bankruptcy—I was not aware that Mr. Cheatle was the person proposed: that was left entirely to Mr. Hughes—in 1856, he owed me, I think, 4,445l.—it was 4,440l. odd—those were the names or assumed names of persons from whom the money was supposed to be due—I received from him in 1856 a bundle of securities—I do not know the precise date—these (produced) are them—this deed does not state from whom the mortgage was, or to whom—I do not know that I took the trouble to open the deed and read it or see from whom the mortgage was—I believe I read a portion of Trist and Lucas' deeds, because I knew the individual who had them before me—this purports to be a mortgage by Hughes—I never got from him any securities for the 4,450l. except this bundle of deeds, and I have never been able to realize a single sixpence upon them—I first heard that he had gone to Melbourne about a fortnight after the 24th of July—I cannot say to a few days—I do not think it came out at the same time how he had gone—there were so many rumours at the time that we hardly knew what to believe.

The prisoner's accounts were here put in; the last item of which was dated November 4th, 1856, of a transaction between David Hughes and Ebenezer Hunt.

ARCHIBALD SCOTT LAWSON . I am a solicitor, in partnership with Mr. Eyre—in June, 1835, Messrs. Trinder and Eyre, our predecessors, were employed to obtain some money for a client, from Mr. Hughes, and I was then their managing clerk—the money was deposited with Mr. Hughes by a person

named Woodman—I saw Mr. Hughes on the subject several times—Mr. Woodman had been a client of Mr. Hughes, and he died, leaving Mr. Hambridge his executor, who instructed a client of our's in the country, a solicitor, to obtain an account of all money transactions between Mr. Woodman and Mr. Hughes—I wrote Mr. Hughes a letter first and afterwards saw him, and he furnished the firm of Tripder and Eyre with this account (Produced. This was dated 1855, and was the account of the executors of D. Woodman with David Hughes)—Miss Woodman was also a client, and after her death Mr. Hambridge represented both—I applied to Hughes for the payment of the money shewn to bo due by that account, and I think the whole of it has been paid—there was 400l. on security when Mr. Hughes left the country—the papers have been out of our hands, and therefore I do not know whether it was paid or not—he handed over to me certain deeds for, I think, 300l. which Woodman had deposited; upon which I wrote this letter and sent it by post. (Read: "1, John St., July 12, 1855. Woodman, E. and D., deceased. Dear Sir, will you be so good as to inform us whether the transaction between you and Miss Woodman in reference to the loan of the 300l. on the deposit of the title deeds relating to the Linton property is evidenced by writing in any way, and whether there was any agreement between you and Daniel Woodman, as to the continuance of the security, in writing: if so, we shall feel obliged by your forwarding them to us; we must also request you to be good enough to pay the 400l., which you proposed to advance on a mortgage, for Miss Yeates' benefit, as mentioned in your statement of accounts to us. Mr. Hambridge will now arrange that, and all other matters relating to the trust, through his present solicitor. We shall be glad to receive a cheque for the amount immediately; the other matter and the accounts shall have out best attention, and we remain, yours truly, Trinder and Eyre. David Hughes, Esq. 13, Gresham-street")—I received an answer to that letter, but have lost it since my examination in the Bankruptcy Court—I have a copy here—(Read: "13, Gresham-street, July 13th, 1855. To Messrs. Trinder and Eyre. Woodman E. and D. deceased. Gentlemen, I am surprised at your's of yesterday; all money received by me is received at interest and subject to six months call, and I either find security or hold the money without security, as most convenient to myself; these sums were so received by my late firm, and as I considered the course taken as somewhat offensive, as well with reference to these sums as also to my account, I shall be glad to be informed whether this mode of application is approved of and sanctioned by Mr. Hambridge. With respect to the 400l. for which mortgage is being taken by Miss Yeates, I received instructions from Mr. Hambridge to make the proposal to her, and she having assented to it, the same was forthwith prepared, and as the legacy is due to Miss Yeates I can hardly suppose that Mr. Hambridge would wish to alter an arrangement which he himself first proposed, and which indeed cannot now be changed. Signed, David Hughes"—on 10th November, 1855, we received 550l. from the prisoner—I recollect seeing him in July, 1855—I cannot pretend to say exactly what he said, but he explained the style in which he did business—he said, "I receive monies and I give security; I can give you this security, "taking one out of his safe;" or I can give you another security, at another place"—I also objected to the mode in which his bill of costs was made out; he had not specified the items—he called his clerk to bring in a large book, and explained to me the nature of his entries there; attendance from such a date to such a date, so many guineas—he

said he was not in the habit of making it in the ordinary form in which solicitor's bills are usually made out—he charged the attendance in a lump, and I made the remark "You make out your bills more like a medical man"—he said "Yes, it is easier"—I then said, "There would not be so much difficulty in proving you a scrivener as we have in many cases"—he smiled and said, "No," or some such expression—I had gone there for the purpose of receiving the money, and with regard to ulterior proceedings if I had not obtained a settlement.

Cross-examined by MR. GIFFARD. Q. Do you know that he had been solicitor for the Woodman's a great many years? A. I have reason to think he had—what he said in reference to security, was not security for payment by him of money he had in his own hands, and I was acting on such strict instructions that I could not do otherwise than as I did—all the charges were charges made as solicitor—they formed an item in his account—it was, to the best of my recollection, so many attendances and procuring such and such deeds to be executed.

ROBERT YOUNG ELLIS . I was clerk to the bankrupt from 1842 to 1854—I was acquainted with the nature of his business—this (produced) is a book which was kept under his directions, but it is not in my writing—I have known him to have sums of money in his hands for the purpose of investment, and he has invested that money from time to time, but whether to clients of his own, or under the direction of his clients, I cannot tell—he has invested money to a considerable extent—this is a list of the different sums of money that he held from different clients, for the purpose of investment: it is headed, "In hand"—the mode in which it was invested does not appear in any other part of the book—this book contains a general account of the monies that he held, belonging to different persons, and the mode in which it is invested—I know his writing—I believe these directions to the papers to be his, but should not like to swear to it—it is "Law Times, 3 insertions"—(Read: "Solicitors having clients who are capitalists, may, by addressing Palmer & Co. Waterlow's, stationer, arrange for the safe investment of capital, and thereby secure a lucrative London business")—I do not know how he used to charge.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. When do you say that this book.' was written, this list? A. The date is to it; the first date is 1853; that is on page 25—I cannot say when page I was written, but it can be ascertained from the books—I should think it was about 1853—it could not be after that—I should think it would relate to matters previous to 1853—I left Mr. Hughes in 1854, and have had no transactions with him since.

ALFRED JACOBS . I am clerk to the official assignee—I produce from the bankrupt's books a journal marked 444—17.

MR. HAWKINS. Q. Where did you get that from? A. It was brought by the messenger.

THOMAS HAMBER . I am the messenger under the prisoner's bankruptcy—I took possession of his books in Gresham-street, and among them this one now before me—I handed it over to the official assignee—I also took possession of this cost book, No. 9, in Gresham-street.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. Would it be part of your duty to be acquainted with any of the proceedings as to any money received? A. No—I believe the officer who took him in custody would be able to give you information on that point—I know nothing about any communications received from Mr. Gattie Jones.

ALFRED JACOBS (continued). Cost book No. 9 was also delivered to me

by the messenger—I find in it, at page 420, two entries of lump sums charged for making advances—one is, "To attendance on you on your requiring advice, and making some memorandums for you, and arranging as to the security to be ultimately given by you for payment, 10 guineas"—that is charged to D. W. Dax—another is "J. Anderson; attending on you and making memorandums, and making arrangements, as to securities to be ultimately given by you for payment, 15 guineas"—at page 564 I find a gross lump sum of 20l.; the entry is the whole page—at page 700 I find again a lump sum to Mr. Tear: "Yourself and Mr. James; instruction for deposit, attending you therewith, reading over and attesting execution, 1l. 1s.—at page 742 here is a sum of 20l. charged to the Rev. J. R. Tucker—that is an entry of half a page—at page 778 here is a charge of 30l. to a Mr. and Mr. Gorton, on the loan of 500l.—"Attendance on Mr. Gorton on her requiring a further advance, and arranging to write to her; writing to Mr. Gorton and agreeing to make the required advance; attending Mr. Gorton and arranging the same; writing to Mr. J. Cave, and requesting him to inform us whether he had received any notice, &c.; drawing fair copy for service; instructions for affidavit; drawing same; 30l."—in cost-book No. 9, page 90, I find an entry of 2l. 2s., to Mr. Edward Allport, "July 9th, 1851: attending you, taking out patent and advising you thereupon"—at page 111 here are two lump sums, "Mr. Jeremiah Allport; several attendances between January and December, 4l. 4s.—at page 281 here are two lump charges of 1l. each: "November. Instructions for case, &c. 1l.: 1851, promissory note, and arranging to make advance of 200l. &c."—it is a very long entry.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. Do you find that instead of ordinary solicitor's charges of 3s. 4d., and 6s. 8d., they are all lumped together like a doctor's bill? A. Yes; I find that applies whether it is a debt, or lending money, or anything else.

JAMES ABBISS , Esq. I am one of the Aldermen of the City of London, and am one of the assignees in this case—I have known Hughes about 10 years I should think—I have had transactions with him—I have given him money to find security for me—that was first done some five or six years ago, I should think; I cannot say exactly—I rather think he applied to me for money, and he was to find security—I let him have money, and he found me security—I knew nothing personally of the security; I trusted to Hughes's judgment—I did not know anything of the person to whom the money was advanced—Hughes has had altogether 700l., in, I think, three different transactions; I cannot charge my memory perfectly—I think about four years ago was the last transaction—I remember one of the securities being paid off, but the money remained in Hughes's hands to re-invest—it was not re-invested—the sum that was to have been re-invested, but was not, was 250l. I believe—I applied for that money and got it—I made application, I think, 12 months before I got it, and was put off by various excuses—I saw Hughes upon it myself—when I applied for the money, he said that I could not have it without giving six months notice—I gave the six months notice—he did not, at that time, say anything about re-investiug it for me—the note was returned to me as money in hand—I was dissatisfied with that, and required the money—I did not get it at the end of the first six months: I communicated with him again, and insisted upon having the money, and ultimately I got the money—besides these transactions the prisoner has made applications to me to advance money.

MR. HAWKINS. Q. Were they in writing? A. I had several applications from Mr. Hughes in writing.

MR. POLAND. Q. Have you looked for those letters? A. No; I destroyed them—I remember quite well the contents of one letter; it was an application for 1,000l., for which he could get me good security, and he offered me 6 per cent.—I should think that is about four years ago, as near as I can remember—I did not advance it—I have had more letters than one, that I have destroyed—they were applications to me to advance money, and offers by him to find security.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. Is it four or five years since you had any application from him for money? A. I think about that time—I think he has had money from me three different times—there was a sum of 600l. advanced to, I believe Smallpiece and Galton are the names; and my impression is that it was 700l. not advanced to those two gentlemen only, there was another name, but I cannot say that there was another 100l. advanced—I cannot say without referring to my books—I cannot tell without referring to my books whether that was during the time that Mr. Overton was in partnership with Mr. Hughes—it is seven or eight years ago—of that sum of 600l., 300l. was paid off by Mr. Smallpiece—I think that was at the time that it was advanced to Galton, or some other name—I received interest on that 300l. for several years from Mr. Hughes—I received a yearly or half-yearly account from him—I do not think that I have got one of those half-yearly accounts—I have destroyed them—he debited himself in those half-yearly accounts with the 300l. and interest as as a debt due from himself to me, paying interest regularly as a loan to himself, and calling it money in hand—I was not in partnership with Mr. Downing: he was co-trustee with me—I always received the interest on this money—I do not recollect, at the present time, how it was reduced from 300l. to 240l.—I think 100l. was repaid afterwards; there remained 300l. and 240l.

Q. Was the 240l. money which had been paid off by Mr. Galton? A. I think that is the name, and there was the name of Turner also, I think—Mr. Galton was paid off and received interest upon that—I received interest for all money advanced to Mr. Hughes from 1853 down to the time of his bankruptcy—the 300l. was paid off with interest three or four ago; I don't remember the date: I could tell by reference to my books at home—a portion of Smallpiece's money was paid off—I received interest down to the time of Hughes's bankruptcy—I was not aware that the money was in his hands until eighteen months before I received it—I was dissatisfied at its being returned as money in hand, and made an application for it—after that I received it.

THOMAS LOCKETT . I am a lead and glass merchant of 10, Norton Folgate—I knew Mr. Hughes during the time of his carrying on business, and entrusted him with money to invest from 1843 to 1851—as far as regards the commencement of the account the security was named by him, I think, but at the latter part of the time he selected the security.

HENRY ROPE . I am a grocer of Whitechapel—I entrusted the prisoner twice with money to invest for me—I left it to him to find securities for me—I did not personally know the name of the borrower, or the nature of the security—this (produced) is a letter I received from the prisoner—it bears his signature—I placed money in his hands in 1849 and 1850. (Letter read: "25, Old Jewry, 31st December, 1852. Dear Sir, the property at Highbury, upon which 500l. has been advanced by you, is about being transferred, and I will thank you to call here to execute the transfer deed the first time you pass this way—the day for settlement will

take place about 21st January next, but in the mean time, I shall obtain for you a good and safe security, so that the interest will continue as heretofore. Yours faithfully, D. Hughes"—the money never came into my possession afterwards

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. In 1849 who was the money advanced to? A. I think it was to a Miss Thomas, at Highbury—it was on the security of some premises at Highbury—the property in the second transaction was represented to be at Dalston—I was not personally aware that Mr. Hughes had property at Highbury and Dalston—my money was lent on those representations.

MR. BOVILL. Q. Did you give him the money to invest, and did he tell you the nature of the security afterwards? A. The first was given to advance on mortgage, and the other in the same manner.

EDWARD HART . I am an accountant—I have gone through some of the bankrupt's books—the amount of his debts, according to his books, is 160,400l. 14s. 1d.—I have been through his books from 1844 to 1855, and find that his drawings out exceed his profits 41,725l.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. You have included in that, mortgages and everything? A. Yes—I have taken the cost of the property mortgaged as appears by his own ledger: the cost price, not the improved value of it—I do not know that a great deal of the property has been improved by coming into use for building operations—I believe there have been a great number of houses built, because the books show the ground rent—I do not know the number—I think there are seven houses built upon one property—there are fourteen houses on the Turnham-green property—I do not know whether the rest of the estate has been laid out with sewers and roads formed—I believe ground-rents, amounting to 240l. per annum, have been created on the Holloway estate—I have taken the ground-rent into consideration in estimating the value of the property: I beg your pardon, I was looking at another page, I have taken that property at what it cost him only—I have not seen any estimates made by surveyors—I simply had his books—I have seen a property sheet filed by the bankrupt, I have it before me—my estimate of 160,000l. is the balance of accounts which are opened in his ledger—I did not get one of them from his balance-sheet—it is the amount of his indebtedness, not of his property—his Shepherd's-bush property is stated to be thirty-two acres—I have put the value of that down at 7,622l. being the amount of the cost—all the improvements are added to the original cost in that 7,000l.—I have taken that as the cost price, with simply the sum expended on it—I have not taken into consideration the increasing value given to the land in consequence of the expenditure—I do not, knew that that property has been valued at 25,000l. by Mr. Oakley—Mr. Neave is not here—I did not hear his examination before the Magistrate, I was not there—I read it—I do not know what the Turnhamgreen property consists of of my own knowledge, but according to the bankrupt's statement it is twenty-four acres odd—the ground rents, created upon that are 70l. per annum, and it is stated that that is half an acre only, leaving the other twenty-three acres to be disposed of; but the ground rente have been sold by the bankrupt—I got that from one of his books containing a list of the property, the same book that contains his estimate of the value—I do not find in the same book an estimate of the Turnhamgreen property; the 184,000l.

MR. BOVILL. Q. Is that one of the bankrupt's books? A. It is—I know that because it bears the official assignee's number.

MR. HAWKINS. Q. Is that the book you got the 360,000l. from? A. No; I got that from the ledgers—I have not been referring to this book while I have been giving my answers here—I got it from the official assignee's office—the ledgers are here—I did not get from the official assignee the estimate which has been made of this property by their own surveyor—I did not learn from the official assignee that the value of the Turnham Green property was 28,000l.—I do not know that there is anybody here that has made an estimate of the value of it—I cannot myself say as much as a surveyor as to the value of the property when developed—I have not got the book of information now—I had every opportunity of going through the books—they were regularly kept—the ledgers and cash-books were kept very regularly indeed—I was able to get every information so far as my inquiries went, not quite so much as I should expect to find in any books; but as far as my inquiries went I found that the accounts had been regularly kept down to the last month—there was not in the books every farthing of property accounted for; some was not down at all—there was the Birkbeck school, a small property which he values at 600l.; but the estates are all entered there and the cost laid out upon them—I do not know whether the property-sheet I have mentioned was found with the books—I do not know who found them—it was the messenger's duty to take them—I know nothing about the Agra bank.

MR. BOVILL. Q. You have been asked about these various properties and ground rents, do you know whether any part of the property remains to the beneficial interest of the bankrupt? A. I do not.

REV. FREDERICK SILVER . I am one of the executors of a lady named Fencott—I remember having an interview with the prisoner at his office in Greaham-street, in consequence of some money matters in connection with that estate—it was at the latter end of 1857, I believe—about 7,000l. was alleged to be owing to the prisoner on Miss Fencott's estate—there were of couple of bonds—I went for the purpose of obtaining payment of the money—I saw the prisoner, and applied for payment—he said that money was very dear at that time in the London market, and it was most inconvenient for him to pay—I asked him what time he could mention to pay, but he declined giving me any time—I thought it my duty to hint that if we had not the money soon we must take proceedings—he said that he should give no preference to one creditor over another, and that if we did he should seek protection in the Bankruptcy Court—I afterwards sent a couple of letters to him—I cannot remember the dates of them—these are them (produced) (Read: "67, Cornhill, June 18, 1858. Dear Sir,—Since my arrival in town I have seen Mr. James, and had detailed to me the particulars of the conversation which took place between you and him a few days ago. You will not, I feel sure, be surprised when I say that I was not at all satisfied with the proposal you appear to have made to him, or that I look on matters as he does. I wish you distinctly to understand that my determination to act with decision in this matter, (as was expressed to you in my last letter,) is not in the lewt altered. I told Mr. James last evening the course I meant to pursue; that I should this morning have an interview with my solicitors (Messrs. Wilde, Rees, Humphrey, and Wilde, of College-hill) and arrange with them to take the matter in hand and follow it up in the usual way, should the sum due at Midsummer not be paid on the 15th prox. My object in writing now is to say that I have made that arrangement (I have not mentioned your name yet to Messrs. W.); and I have to request that the 1,700l. be paid to my account at Silver and Co.'s, 67, Cornhill, on or before the date referred to,

unless you wish to pay it through Messrs. Wilde. I should have called on you, but I saw no object in so doing. I may state that Mr. James has left the matter entirely in my hands, and this is my ultimatum. Sigued, Frederick Silver")—he 7,000l. was payable in two instalments on the preceding half-year and on the year coming due—I received no answer to that letter, and then sent the following—(Read: "June 30th 1858. In re Fencott. Dear Sir,—I merely write to say that I have had an interview with Mr. James, who showed me this morning your two notes. I regret I cannot comply with your wish respecting the deeds (which Mr. James has transferred to my custody). I am advised to hold them, and only part with them as the amount of the debt is liquidated. I need not say that my plans are not in the least disarranged, or my purposes altered by your letters to Mr. James; nor will it be of any avail in this matter to hold any further correspondence with him, as he very properly, although with reluctance, allows me to act as I see best, and as, indeed, I should act even if I had not his sanction. Signed, Frederick Silver")—I never got a farthing of this money, and, in consequence, placed it in the hands of Messrs. Rees & Co.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. 1,700l. was the sum? A. Yes; in two instalments, less 300l. probate duty—I do not know when it was advanced—I forget whether I was asked at Guildhall any question in reference to the preference—I simply answered to questions asked me—it was about the latter end of 1857 that he told me he would give no preference—I simply pressed him to tell the time when he could pay; and upon his saying that he could not, I said that I should consider it my duty to place the matter in the hands of my solicitor—he said, "If you do, I shall seek the protection of the Bankruptcy Court, for I shall not give preference to one creditor over another"—that was not the whole of the conversation—I was there, I should think, an hour.

JOHN REES . I am a partner in the firm of Wilde, Rees, Humphrey, & Co.—I was consulted by Mr. Silver respecting the obtaining a bond and a deed of covenant—7,000l. was payable by instalments of 1,000l. a year—in consequence of instructions I received, I applied at Mr. Hughes's office on 10th July, 1858—I did not see him and was not able to obtain information where I could see him—I saw a gentleman who I believe was his managing clerk, and he declined to tell me where he was—I then wrote this letter to the prisoner—(Read: "16th July, 1858. Mr. Hughes. Sir,—We are in structed by the executors to apply to you for payment oi the sum of 1,700l. and interest due to the estate of the late Harriett Hancock, and to inform you that unless the amount be paid to us by Monday next, at the latest, proceedings will be taken to enforce the payment. Signed, Wilde, Rees, Humphrey, & Wilde.")—Hancock was written in mistake for Fencott—we received no answer and no money.

THOMAS VALENTINE HEWITHSON . I am clerk to Messrs. Currie—I produce a promissory note dated 24th March, 1858, at four mouths, for 1,500l., due July 27th, signed by the prisoner—that money has not been paid—also another promissory note for 1,000l. signed by the prisoner, dated 5th July, 1858, at two months—we discounted it, placed the full amount to his credit, and charged him for the discount—I can give you the rate, but not the amount—these cheques (produced) aro all signed by the prisoner—"13th July, 1858, pay self or bearer, 400l.; 13th July, 1858, pay self or bearer, 400l.;" that was not paid till the 16th—"16th July, pay self, house or bearer, 30l.;" on 17th July, "pay self or bearer, 150l."—that makes 980l.—the last date in the pass-book is July 24th, 1858—a cheque was cashed on that date—the balance left in our hands at that date was 64l. 1s. 6d

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. Had Messrs. Currie been Mr. Hughes's bankers some years? A. They had—it is very possible that a good many other cheques were paid in the month of July—Messrs. Currie have been in the habit of discounting occasionally for Mr. Hughes—on 20th July there was a smaller amount than he had been in debt in previous years, and the larger amount as well—520l. is put to his credit on June 26th—they have been in the habit of discounting to a very much larger amount than that—whether there would have been any difficulty in discounting to a larger amount would depend upon the security offered—there was security given, promissory notes and property as well—we never discounted for him so largely as 9,000l. except in 1854—his banking account was an average one, but the gross money passing through his hands in the course of the year was full 60,000l.; that is, taking the average of the last eight or nine years—the average would be 64,000l. annually—all the other advances have been paid—there was 5,300l., standing to his credit in January, 1858—there was this payment of 2,000 to Mr. Hambridge in 1858—I know nothing more about his private matters—I was not privately acquainted with him.

MR. BOVILL. Q. Were the last two advances on collateral security? A. Yes; we never discounted his notes without collateral security, but the collateral security has not turned out worth 6d.—this 64l. balance is after crediting him with the 1,500l. and the 1,000l.

RICHARD EAVES . I am clerk to Messrs. Wilson and Chambers, shipbrokers at Liverpool—I recollect seeing the prisoner in Liverpool on 20th July last year—I saw him on board the Red Jacket, a vessel bound for Melbourne in Australia; his wife and family were with him—I don't recollect seeing his name on his luggage—the vessel sailed on 20th July—I had occasion to address the prisoner by name—I called him Mr. Dyer, and he answered to that—he did not take the berths of me; his son came down to arrange with me for the berths—it was on board the ship that I addressed him by the name of Dyer—his son was one of the parties on board—he was not present when I called the prisoner Dyer.

Cross-examined. Q. His wife was with him; and how many children were there, members of his family, nine I think? A. Eleven in number—when I called the prisoner by the name of Dyer, I said, "Mr. Dyer"—any passenger whose name I do not know I ask them—the Red Jackd sailed on 20th July—I can't say the date that it reached Melbourne—I have so many ships to do with that I forget; she was about 70 or 80 days on the passage, if I remember right—she would not touch at any port at all.

PERCY JOSEPH TRAVERS . I was on board the Red Jacket on her voyage to Melbourne—she does not touch at any port—the prisoner and his family were on board—they went by the name of Dyer—I am not quite sure about the time of the arrival at Melbourne—after we got in sight of Melbourne Heads a steamer came alongside—Mr. Dyer did not tell me what he was on the voyage out; he did not say anything about his means to me—I heard that he had made some assertion on board—I did not hear him say it myself—when the steamer came alongside, it was then about 40 or 50 miles from the port—I think four officers came on board altogether—I believe the prisoner went away and hid himself in the fore part of the ship—he was ultimately taken into custody in the ship—the officers came on board—he secreted himself—he turned up again about an hour afterwards—I think the doctor of the ship found him.

Cross-examined. Q. You did not see the doctor find him? A. No; the

officers told the captain they came to look for a certain passenger of the name of Dyer—a gentleman named Mr. Jones came on board; I believe he is a solicitor out there—I did not hear what took place between Mr. Jones and Mr. Hughes—Mr. Jones came on board with the officers—I do not know that Mr. Hughes afterwards went into Mr. Jones's office as a clerk.

MR. JACOBS (re-examined). Mr. Gattie Jones' was acting as agent for the assignees at Melbourne.

WILLIAM ISON . I have known the prisoner for many years—he has been in the habit from to time of investing money for me—on 20th September, 1849,1 received a letter from him; this is it—it is in his hand-writing (Read: "20th September, 1849. To Mr. Ison. Dear Sir,—we have obtained for you a security for 800l. and money in the funds of ample value; a part of Hearne's, about 300l., will be paid off in a few days, so you can send us as much as you can spare and we can make up the difference; the interest will be 5 per cent from this day. Overton and Hughes")—I also received this memorandum from him—(Read: "800l. at 5 per cent, on the security of 5/9 parts or shares of 10,690 3s. 7d. 3 per cent consolidated annuities; 1,580l. 3 per cent, reduced annuities; 1,050l. 31/4 per cent. annuities, now standing in the name of the Account General of the Court of Chancery to a separate account entitledil "the reversionary personal estate of Joseph Faint. Received of Mr. Ison this day 400l., the difference to be taken from Hearne's, and interest account. Overton and Hughes, 20th September, 1849"—on 17th December, 1849, Overton and Hughes sent me an account—(This was headed, "As we now stand" and contained several items, amongst which was "Faint, 800l."

MR. HAWKINS objected to this head of evidence as irrelevant to the issue. MR. BOVILL was prepared to tender a large body of evidence from creditors, to show fraudulent conduct on the part of the prisoner for several years; and he tendered it on this ground, that they were persons who would have had a right to examine the bankrupt as to these transactions, had he surrendered; and upon this evidence the Jury might be asked to infer that his non-surrender was in consequence of the knowledge he had that these fraudulent transactions would be exposed, and was, therefore, with intent to defraud his creditors. MR. BARON MARTIN doubted whether the evidence would be available for such a purpose, but as it did go to prove the trading, he could not reject it, if it was insisted upon. MR. BOVILL dicl not offer it for that purpose, but to show the intent to defraud (See Gordons Case). MR. BARON MARTIN did not think that was the sort of intent to defraud which was contemplated by the Statute; it would show that the bankrupt had strong motives for avoiding exposure; it was for the prosecution to decide upon which set of Counts they would rely, those alleging an intent to defraud, or those that did not contain that allegation. MR. BOVILL was prepared to ask for a conviction on both sets of counts; they were not inconsistent with each other. MR. BARON MARTIN would receive the evidence if it was offered, but would certainly reserve the point if he did so. MR. BOVILL, after some consultation, stated that rather than have any question reserved he would not offer the evidence.

MR. HAWLOMS to MR. LAWSON. Q. At what time in the day is the London Gazette published? A. I cannot speak confidently upon that, but I think late in the day—I have always understood the rule to be that by the payment of an extra fee you may get an advertisement in up to 2 o'clock—the publication is in the course of the afternoon or evening—I believe the messengers can give you the best information, because I have frequently had occasion to consult with them upon putting an adjudication in the paper—I

should think you could not get an advertisement in so late as 5 or 6 in the evening—I believe there is a strict rule not to take anything after 2 o'clock—it is published about 4 o'clock.

MR. BOVILL. Q. About the time of publishing the eveniug papers, between 3 and 4 o'clock, I believe? A. I think so.

JAMES BRETT (This witness was called at the request of MR. HAWKINS, and his deposition was read over to him as follows.) "I am a city detective officer—I obtained a warrant at the Guildhall Justice Room in the month of April last, to apprehend the bankrupt, and I proceeded to Australia with that warrant—I went to Melbourne—I arrived there on the 7th June last—I found the bankrupt at South Yarra, near Melbourne—he was living there with his family—he had a house there—I took him in custody and I brought him to London—I read the warrant to him—at the time I took him he said, "I will go back with you willingly.

Cross-examined. He did not express to me that that was the first time he had heard of his bankruptcy—he said, "I will go back with you willingly, and I shall be able to put it all right"—he asked me to read the warrant—I shewed him the warrant, and I said, "I will read it to you now, or at the police-station—he said, "I should like to have it read now," and I then read the warrant to him—at the time he was very excited, and said, "That's all; it is not forgery, because I have committed no forgery—on his way to Melbourne he said something about his affairs, but he appeared so confused that I could not understand what he did say—on the voyage home the prisoner did not say in my hearing that he had left a power of attorney to realize his property—he said something of the sort—the bankrupt did not say anything to me about his having been made a bankrupt." That is correct—I took him into custody on 7th June.

MR. HAWLOMS submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury; in order to establish the offence charged, it was necessary to prove, first, that the prisoner was a trader; secondly, that he had committed an act of bankruptcy; and, thirdly, that there was a good petitioning creditors debt; admitting that there was evidence as to the two last named points, he contended that the first was negatived; that so far from any trading as a scrivener being made out, the evidence established merely the ordinary relations of solicitor and client; he referred to a dictum of MR. JUSTICE GIBBS in Adams v. Malkin, 3, Campbells Reports, 534, in which the trading as a scrivener was explicitly defined; and urged that the present case could not he said to come within that definition. MR. BARON MARTIN having no doubt that upon that point there was evidence for the Jury, MR. HAWLOMS proceeded to take several objections upon the proceedings in bankruptcy; first, as to the petition, upon which the adjudication was founded; the petition described the bankrupt's residence as at 13, Gresham-street, which was in fact only his place of business, and therefore not strictly speaking hit residence: secondly, as to the advertisement in the Gazette; by the 104 section it was directed that such advertisement should clearly appear to be by the authority of the Bankruptcy Court; in the present case no such proof appeared; neither did the advertisement contain the appointment of the two days limited for the surrender of the bankrupt, which the 104 section seemed to require; it did not set forth the adjudication, or any particulars, but merely stated that he had been "declared" a bankrupt, a term, not to be found in the statute at all: thirdly, as to the summons; that was a summons to surrender, not to the Court, but to Mr. Commissioner Goulburn, on certain days, and by the evidence it appeared that that Commissioner was not in attendance on those occanons, so that the bankrupt could not possibly have complied with that summons;

he further contended that the non-surrender must be proved to be wilful; it was not enough to show that he had committed an act of bankruptcy by leaving this country, and so delaying his creditors; the case of Blake v. Lee, Ambler's Reports, 307, clearly shewed that the non-surrender must be a wilful one; all that the evidence disclosed here was a temporary pressure; there was no threat of bankruptcy before the prisoner quitted this country, nor any evidence of any intimation to that effect, but the steps taken were after he was on his way to Australia, when it was physically impossible that he could have any knowledge on the subject.

MR. BARON MARTIN , without calling upon MR. BOVILL to reply, entertained no doubt that there was evidence to go to the Jury on all the points; as to the trading, in his opinion, and that of Mr. Justice Blackburn, there was ample evidence; all the others were purely technical objections, and there was nothing in any of them; as to the residence, a man's place of business was in reality more properly speaking his residence than the place where he slept: with respect to the other matters, by the 6th section, the Bankruptcy Court was made a Court of record, and asingle Commissioner constituted a Court; the adjudication was the important matter; it was the judgment of the Court that that had taken place which constituted a man a bankrupt, and it was the judgement of a Court of Record; the 104 section went on to provide the steps to be taken for the purpose of giving notice of that adjudication, and it enacted that the Court should cause notice of the adjudication to be given in the London Gazette; that had been done in this case, and that notice stated that a petition had been presented, and that the prisoner had been declared a bankrupt—what could possibly be a more formal notice? the use of the word "declared" was probably in pursuance of some precedent authorised by the 8th section; the Court was then to appoint two public sittings of the Court, and he had no doubt that that had been done in a manner that was in sufficient compliance with the 14th section; there was nothing in the 25st section requiring that the notice to the bankrupt should be given subsequently to the publication in the Gazette; all that was required was that notice in writing should be given to him in the manner prescribed, after the Court had arrived at its determination; that having been done, and the publication in the Gazette having taken place, the statute was satisfied: by the 6th section, the Court and the Commissioner were identical, and whether on the day in question one Commissioner or another were present, was utterly immaterial; there was a Court, to which Court the bankrupt was bound to surrender: with resect to the non-surrender being wilful, it was enough at present to say that there was evidence on that point to go to the Jury.

MR. HAWKINS applied that the points he had submitted might be reserved, but neither of the learned judges entertaining any doubt as to any of them, the application was refused.

GUILTY .—See next case.

Third Jury.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-155
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment

Related Material

155. DAVID HUGHES was again indicted for unlawfully obtaining 575l. by false pretences.



WILLIAM HUNT . I am a draper, carrying on business at 182, Shoreclifccn, under the name of William aud Ebenezer Hunt—I have known the prisoner about 14 years, and have employed him as my solicitor—iu April, 1855, he had 1,000l. of my money to invest in bond fide securities—I received from him a bundle of papers as securities, he having my money in his possession at that time—I believe this to be the same bundle—there was an envelope

outside—I do not know in whose handwriting it was—it was seut with the deeds: I was not at home when they arrived—I had seen Mr. Hugha previously, I believe, but the principal thing was through my brother, who is here—I had had a communication with Mr. Hughes myself, and he said he would find me good security, but did not tell me what the nature of it would be—it was after that that I found these parchments and this letter at my premises—my brother told me that he had found it—I had no communication with Mr. Hughes after those papers were sent to me—I have received interest on that loan of 1,000l. from Mr. Hughes every half-year down to January, 1858, due Christmas, 1857—I have not got the accounts of that interest, but I believe my solicitor has—I was not acquainted with any transaction with Mr. Elmes—I was not aware that he had any charge against him upon this property—this (produced) is the mortgage to myself bearing date April 30th, 1855—(MR. HAWKINS objected to this evidence, the writing not being proved).

WILLIAM HAINES . I am a clerk to Mr. Hughes—I was one of the attesting witnesses to this mortgage deed—I saw Mr. Hughes execute it—(This was read in part only, and after reciting property at other places, mentioned the property at Maryland-point, Stratford).

WILLAIM HUNG (continued). I received these deeds from Mr. Hugles—I did not look through them to see if they contained any property at Stratford, as I placed every confidence in Mr. Hughes as my solicitor—I have had other mortgages; but, with respect to this 1,000l. I have not received any other deeds—I handed to Mr. Nelson all the deeds connected with that 1,000l. as I received them.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. When did you see Mr. Hughes on the subject of this mortgage to you, if at all? A. The first instalment he had towards the 1,000l. was from a mortgage of Keats, money which he had in his possession—that was in 1851—I cannot say when I first saw him in reference to this particular mortgage of 1855—I have seen him on all my matters, but never at any other place but his office—I have seen him so frequently that I cannot call to mind exactly when, because I have seen him upon every mortgage—I have left money with him, and told him to look me up a bonâ fide mortgage.

THOMAS JAMES NELSON . I am solicitor to this prosecution, and also to Messrs. Hunt—on 27th July, 1858, the two Messrs Hunt handed me all the deeds they had, and among them was this bundle—I have searched through them all, and there are no deeds whatever relating to the Stratford property at Maryland-point, except the mortgage itself—they were tied up with this envelope outside them—I examined them the day I received them.

Cross-examined. When were they delivered to you? A. On 27th July, early in the morning; 11 o'clock—I received all that both the Messrs. Hunt had—I have not searched their deed box—all I know is Mr. Hunt gave me some deeds out of a large box, and he said that he gave me all he had.

WILLIAM HAINES (re-examined). I am attesting witness to this contract of the sale of houses in October—I saw the prisoner sign it, and no doubt I saw Mr. Elmes sign it, because I see it is so filled up by me.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. When do you say that it was signed? A. I should say upon the date—(MR. HAWKINS contended that this deed was not evidence, it having no stamp. MR. BOVILL submitted that by an Act of 1854, every instrument liable to stamp duty was admissible in exidence in any criminal proceeding, although it might not have the stamp required by lax.

THE COURT considered that it was admissible—(Read: "I, William James Elmes, of Three-colt-street, Limehouse, Middlesex, do hereby acknowledge myself to be the purchaser of the property described in the within particulars, this 13th September, 1855, for the sum of 675l.: and I have paid 100l. as a deposit and in part payment of the said purchase, and I hereby contract and agree with the vendor to complete the purchase of the same, in every respect agreeably to the within particulars and conditions of sale as far as the same is applicable to a sale by private contract. Signed, William James Elmes. Balance 575l. I, the above named vendor, acknowlege to havesold theproperty to the above named William James Elmes, and to have received the deposit as specified above. David Hughes."—(A desaiption of the property at Maryland-point, Stratford, followed.)

SAMULE HEATH . I am a solicitor of 10, Basinghall-street—in September, 1855, I was consulted by William James Elmes, as to the purchase of some property at Maryland-point, Stratford—I received an abstract of title in refeicace to that property, which purported to come from Mr. Hughes—from that abstract I prepared these requisitions of title (produced), and sent them to Mr. Hughes—I afterwards received them back with the answers attached as they are now, and in consequence of those answers I advised my client to complete his purchase—after one or two other answers had been given, which were necessary, the deeds were prepared, and on the day of the date I went with Mr. Elmes to Mr. Hughes's office, and Mr. Elmes, in my presence, paid the balance of the purchase money, 575l.—I received the deed of conveyance at the same time, and also the title deeds—I did not know of this property being mortgaged to any one.

WILLIAM HAINES (re-examined). These requisitions of title are signed by Mr. Hughes, and the answers to them are in his writing, on the side where the signature is—the words," I do, or shall I obtain," to requisition five, and also the answer to the next requisition, six, are in Mr. Hughes's writing—I am the attesting witness to Mr. Hughes's signature to this deed of conveyance, and to this receipt for 675l. endorsed on it—that is Mr. Hughes's writing.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. How long had you been clerk to Mr. Hughes? A. Over nine years—there was a very large quantity of business in his office; an immense number of deeds were prepared and executed, and also a great number of abstracts and requisitions of title—these requisitions of title came into my hands at Guildhall police-court—I may have seen them before that in the office; I think I must have—they are prepared by a Mr. Richards, a very old man, who is head clerk—they are in his writing; he is the conveyancing clerk—the answers to the questions are in Mr. Hughes's writing—a good many abstracts would go before Mr. Richards—he, to a great extent, conducts the conveyancing business—he is a person of experience—all on this page is not Mr. Richards's writing—requisitions five and six are Mr. Hughes's, and the rest are Mr. Richards's—I only had to do with it at the conclusion; the receipt of the money—I concluded the purchase—I had nothing to do with the title—that was investigated by Mr. Richards—I dare say I received the money myself—I was present with Mr. Elmes' solicitor—I saw Mr. Richards here yesterday in attendance with the witnesses for the prosecution.

MR. BOVILL. Q. Although Richards is the conveyancing clerk, who used to attend to property when it was put for sale? A. I should think Mr. Richards would have attended the sale—Mr. Hughes would give directions for property to be put up for sale—this (produced) is an abstract of the requisitions prepared in Mr. Hughes's office—(MR. HAWKINS contended that this would not be evidence against the defendant; that though it might make him

civilly liable it could not make him criminally so. THE COURT was of the same opinion, unless the prisoner could be shewn to have been a party to it.)

WILLIAM JAMES ELMES . I paid 575l., having previously paid 100l., deposited on the same property at Stratford—I was not acquaiuted with any iucumbrance existing upon that property at that time.

Cross-examined by MR. HAWKINS. Q. You are not the prosecutor of this indictment? A. "No; I have nothing to do with it—this is no charge preferred by me—I had nothing to do with the requisitions of title, and never saw them or heard of them until this prosecution—I handed my money to my attorney to lay out for me—we were both there together—the property was advertised, publicly placarded in London, Stratford, and in the defendant's office, and that was the reason I knew of it.

MR. BOVILL. Q. I believe you claim the property from Mr. Hunt as against his mortgage? A. I bought it, and gave the full value for it—I claim to hold it against Mr. Hunt's mortgage, and there is a chancery suit between us.


Ten Years Penal Servitude on the Jirst indictment, and Fourteen Days on the second.

Before Mr. Justice Blackburn.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-156
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

156. WILLIAM BEITS (19), was indicted for feloniously causing a false entry to be inserted in a certain register of marriage.

MR. SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution.

REV. RALPH ST. LEDGER BROOKMAN . I am the assistant curate of the parish church of St. Leonard, Shoreditch—it is my duty to enter the marriages in the register book—this is the register which I now have before me—on the 11th of September, 1859, there is an entry of a marriage between Louis Gashion and Alice Betts—I celebrated that marriage—when the parties came into the vestry I asked them first of all their names, taking the boy first—he said his name was Louis Gashion and that he was 18 years of age—as is usual when persons are under age, I asked whether he had got any parents—he said they were both dead—I asked whether he had not an uncle or guardian—he said he had—I said that he must give his consent to the marriage, or else I should not marry them—we never many persona under age unless we have the consent of their guardians—upon my saying this, the prisoner presented himself—I think I told the clerk to call him in—he was outside the door—I first of all asked him what his name was—he said "William Gashion"—I said "Louis Gashion says that he has no father or mother, and that you are his natural guardian"—he said "I am," or "Yes"—upon that I said "Do you give your consent to this marriage between Louis Gaahion and Alice Betts?"—he said "Yes;" upon which I said "Are you not foolish in allowing such children to marry?"—he said there were particular circumstances in the case—as the girl was under age I said that her father must be present to give his consent—the prisoner then went out of the church to find the father of the girl—he brought him back with him and the parties were then married—my scruples were not removed; but I was obliged to marry them, the legal objection being removed—it is the custom to make all the entries in the egister, except the signatures, before the the marriage takes place, before the commencement of the ceremony, in one of the books, we keep two—we enter all the particulars of the marriage—the book before me is what is technically called the register—I made all the entries in respect of this marriage, except the signatures, in one of the books before the ceremony—I cannot say whether this is the book, I am not sure—the false entry would be in both books—this

is the register which I am bound to keep by Act of Parliament—the two books are copies, one of the other—we have not got the other book here—(Entry read: "1859: Marriage solemnized at the Parish Church of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, in the county of Middlesex, September 11th, 1859; Louis Gashion, 18, bachelor, gold case maker, 26 Old-street, and Alice Betts 18, spiuster, servant to Thomas Betts, silversmith: married according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, after banns. Signed, Louis Gashion, Alice Betts, William Gashion, uncle to the man, Thomas Betts and Eliza Betts.")—the name "William Gasbion" is in the prisoner's writing, the words "uncle to the man," are in mine—I derived the information which caused me to make the entry, from the prisoner and also from Louis Gashion—after the marriage Louis Gashion, Alice Betts, Thomas Betts and Eliza Betts came into the vestry and signed the register in the usual course—as the prisoner had professed to be the uncle or guardian of the youth I insisted on his coming into the vestry and signing the register likewise—I called out rather loudly "William Gashion, you must come in and sign the register," and I pointed out to him the usual place for the witnesses to sign—I had not then written the words "uncle to the man"—I did not write those words until the Wednesday following—I should not have written those words unless he had said he was uncle to the man—I wrote them because I believed the statement he had made.

Prisoner. You have made a mistake in one part of your statement; it was my father you spoke to about the children being too young to be married; you said "These persons are entering life very young," and my father said "Well, perhaps the sooner they begin the sooner they will be ended;" and you said, "Ah, I am afraid they will never have done with trouble till they have done with life." Witness. That is quite a mistake; you are refering to a conversation that took place after the marriage; what I have stated took place before the marriage and before the father had come—I am not the party to whom the application would be made to have the banns published—that would be the parish clerk.

JOSEPH GASHION . I carry on business in Brick-lane, St. Lukes—I have a brother named Louis—he will be 16 years old on the 20th of this month—he is the person who was married to Alice Betts—he has no uncle named William Gashion—up to the period of this marriage Alice Betts was a serant in my employment, and, according to the best of my knowledge and belief, she is the prisoner's sister—she left me in August—I knew nothing about the marriage—the prisoner is on relation to me or to my family—I have seen him come into the house to ask for his sister, but nothing more than that—my brother Louis would be entitled to some money if he had behaved himself: it is in my power to prevent it—this signature "Louis Gashion" is my brother's writing—this signature "William Gashion," is the prisoneri's writing—there is no person named William Gashion.

Prisoner. Since your brother has been married to my sister, have not you made several offers to send him abroad? Witness. Yes; but you have got him so entirely swayed that he is completely ruined and would be here in poverty—I only do it to keep him from further crime.

COURT Q. At the time that Alice Betts was with you, was she with child? A. No; not while she was in our employment—I believe not.

JAMES BRANNAN (Police serjeant). I took the prisoner.

Prisoner. Q. Did not you find me at Messrs. Moses ana Davison's in Aldgate? A. yes.

Prisoner's Defence. I wish to say that for two or three months previous

to the time that they were married I had not seen my mother, or father, or sister, or Louis Gashion, and on the Saturday, a week previous to the marriage, I heard through an aunt of mine that my sister was in the family way, and that young Louis Gashion was turned out of his brother's house, and my sister had gone ostensibly to another situation, but my mother went and inquired, and found she was not there. From subsequent inquiries they found that they were living together as man and wife, in firnished lodgings. My mother and father attempted to separate them. They quarrelled in the street, and Louis attempted to strike my father. The banns were published unknown to me a fortnight. I ran after Louis the length of the street, to inflict some personal chastisement for the injury he had done my sister, but he ran away. I saw nothing more of him till the Friday when they were to be married on the Saturday. My mother came and said, "Well, William, your sister is in the family way, so that they will be together, and they will be married on Saturday; your father is going, and he is so angry that unless there is somebody to represent then they will not be married; your sister is in that state that if you do not go they will have to pay somebody, and they are very poor." I consented afier a little while; I wanted nothing from them, I was earning thirty shilling! a week. I went and did it with an amiable intent, but I have done wrong, I know. I provided them with some food on the day they were married. He said, "I have an uncle living in the lane," meaning Petticoat-lane, "who has no objection to my getting married; he has supplied me with the money, but being a Jew, he will not go to church with me." I thought the difference of creed was the reason. He never promised me a halfpenny; he is in attendance now and you can examine him. I allowed them a trifle a week and did not see them till after I was taken, and I am keeping them at this present moment; that is all I know of the matter; I must leave it entirely in your hands. My mother is in attendance. I should like your Lordship to understand that I had no conception of the law connected with the case when I signed the book.

GUILTY .—Recommended to mercy by the Jury.— Confined One Fortnight.

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, January Ath, 1860.


For the case of Charlotte Hubble, tried this day, see Kent cases, page 244.

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, January 4th, 1860.



Before Mr. Common Serjeant and the Seventh Jury.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-157
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

157. JOHN SULLIVAN (19) , Robbery on James Galway, and stealing from his person, 1 watch, 1 chain, and 2s.; his property.

MR. PLATT conducted the Prosecution.

JAMES GALWAY . I am a tailor, and live at I, Worley-court, City—on 27th December I was going down Half-moon-court, Whitechapel, between 9 and 10 o'clock—T had a watch and chain and two shillings in my righthand

waistcoat pocket—I had seen the watch just before—I was quite sober—the prisoner followed me through Half-moon-passage, and I afterwards saw that there were two men—he knocked me down with either his hand or list—I do not know whether he pushed me or what, but I fell, and he hit me when I was down, at the back of my left ear, but I did not feel it milch—he had one hand in my right-hand waistcoat pocket, and hit me with the other—I looked in his face, and saw two or three others behind him, one of whom was a female—I called "Police" two or three times, and a policeman came almost directly—the prisoner pulled away his hand, took my watch and money, and ran away—the policeman brought him back, in a few minutes and said, "Is this the man?"—I said, "It is"—I don't recollect that the prisoner said anything—my watch and chain were worth six guineas—I have not seen them since.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALEF. Q. Had you been drinking a little? A. I was sober—I had seen the prisoner before when he was in trouble; and had been kind to him—I had not just come out of a public-house—I was a little lower down than the Red Lion—I was taking a walk—I had gone in at one house in Whitechapel, and had two pennyworth of gin and water—I left home not so late as 4 or 5 in the afternoon, and had been walking about till 9 or 10, but had only had two pennyworth of gin and water—I never spoke to the prisoner in my life.

COURT. Q. I thought you said you had been kind to him; did not you speak to him on that occasion? A. No; but he was pointed out to me.

FREDERICK HOOPER (Policeman, H 182). I heard a cry of "Polioe" saw the prisoner running fast, and asked him what he had been doing—he gave no answer, and I took him back about three yards to the prosecutor, who was a little excited—he said he had been knocked down and robbed of his watch and chain and 2s.—he pointed to the prisoner and said, "That is the man who did it"—the prisoner said nothing to that—I took the charge at the station and he said nothing then.

Cross-examined. Q. Was the prosecutor sober? A. Quite.

Mr. Meicalfe here stated that he could not struggle toith this evidence

GUILTY .†— Confined Six Months.


Before Mr. Common Serjeant

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-158
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

158. WILLIAM HARRIS (33), and GEORGE JONES (27) , Stealing 1 iron gas-pipe, valus 24s. the property of Sir Samuel Morton Peto and others.

MR. COOPER conducted the Prosecution

JAMES LEWIS . I am in the employ of Sir Samuel Morton Peto and others, at Prince Regent's wharf, West Ham—on 13th December we had a gas-pipe lying on that wharf which is in the occupation of the prosecutors—I saw the gas-pipe that morning about 10 o'clock—it was one entire pipe, about nine feet long—I missed it about half-past 4 o'clock—I saw the two prisoners that day about half-past 1 o'clock—they were coming in the direction from the Prince Regent wharf together—they each of them had a bag on his back—I followed them as far as the white gates—they went through a little distance to Eagle-street and put their bags down and rested—the bags were not so large as sacks—they appeared to have something

heavy in them—after Jones set his bag down and rested he went away from the bag—he had seen me passing—when I saw he was gone I called the police—I gave Harris in charge, and a minute or two after I saw Jones coming back in that direction—on his coming back Heythom asked him if that bag belonged to him—he said it did, and on his saying that I gave him in charge likewise—Harris said, what did I know about the iron; that iron came off the marshes; that they bought it of two navvies.

Cross-examined by MR. TINDAL ATKINSON. Q. When had you fceen that iron pipe there last? A. About lialf-past 10 o'clock—that was the only iron pipe that was lying there—I am the superinteudant of the worfi there—I can't say bow long the iron pipe had been there—I know it had been there for six months—it was lying on a plank stage where the crane is, where the men walk over when they are at work—there was no shed or roof over it—it was not an old piece of pipe, it was new pipe-there were five pipes left when the last were put down, and this was one of the five—we very frequently leave pipes exposed for six months—I know Messrs. Peto aud Co. have had that wharf in their occupation for seven years—I don't know that it ia their private property; it is in their occupation—when I first saw the prisoners they were about half a mile from the wharf, as near as I could guess—it was from a quarter to half-past 1 o'clock—our men come from their dinner and commence work at 1 o'clock we had but very few men at work at that time—some of them come that way to our place when we have them at work—the prisoners were coming in a direction from the wharf—I was at the entrance of the dock, and the place I saw them at was between the place where I stood and the wharf—they came towards me from the wharf in the public highway—I did not ask Harris whose bag it was—I did not hear him asked that.

RARRIS HEYTHORN . I am storekeeper to Messrs Peto and Co. on their works—on that morning I had to go down to the saw mills near the Prince Regent wharf, in the occupation of Messrs Peto and Co.—I think they have used it for five years—as I was returning from there I saw the two prisoners with something on their backs; it looked like something very heavy in two bags—they were walking from the Princo Regent wharf—I and Lewis followed them, and overtook them just through the white gates in Eagle-street—they had just put the two bags down just at the entrance of Eagle-street—Harris way given in custody; Jones had left—I went through the street and met Jones who was coming back towards the bag—I took hold of him, and he walked back with me to the place where the bag was left—I said to him, "Is this bag your's?"—he said, "Yes"—he was given in custody—the pipe that was in both the bags was broken in pieces—I examined the pieces of pipe; they belonged to Sir Morton Peto and Company.

Cross-examined. Q. Were they coming from the reed bed? A. Yes—when I first saw them, I think they were about 150 yards from it—they were near the Prince Regent's wharf—there are no men now employed near the reed bed—they are not making a Metropolitan sewer on that road—it is on the Barking-road, not near there.

JAMES LEWIS (re-examined). I have seen this pipe and examined it—this is a portion of the pipe I saw in the bags that morning; here are the two ends of it.

JOHN WAYLAND (Policeman, K 182). I am stationed at West-Ham—on 13th December about 1 o'clock, I was on duty in North Woolwich-road—I went towards Victoria Dock; I saw the two prisoners coming in a

direction from Prince Regent wharf; they had two bags with them—I was afterwards called by Lewis—the prisoner Harris was there, and the two bags were lying on the ground near Harris—I asked him what he had got there, he said "Some pieces of iron—I asked where he got it; he said, "We bought it from two navvies who came over in a boat from the mud-ship—I took both the prisoners in custody—I assisted in putting the pieces of this iron together—there were 2121bs, in all—these are the two ends of it—I took the prisoner's boots off, and went to the wharf and compared the boots with marks I saw there—the number of nails in the boots exactly corresponded with the marks—I made a comparison with the foot marks coming from the wharf—my opinion is that those boots made the impressions in the ground—I have not the boots here; the prisoners have got them—I made the comparison of the length and the width, and the number of nails—there were some tops of nails worn off in Jones' boots—there were no toe pieces—the marks corresponded.

Cross-examined. Q. How did you make the comparison? A. We could not make an impresion by the side, the ground was frozen; we put the boot over the foot-mark—I found foot-marks with nails by the side of the wharf—that is not the public road—I can't say if that is where the men walk—I don't know whether the men go to work in that direction; I have never seen them—there are not many houses—it is our duty to look after kitchens at night—I never had an opportunity of seeing whether the men go in that direction to their work in a morning—there were very few other foot-marka besides those I saw—I looked first to see where the foot mark was—I had both Jones' and Harris's shoes—I tried Harris's first; I put it by the side of the impression first, and then put it into it—the shoes were rights and tofta—I then took Jones's shoe to see if that corresponded, not with the same marks, I tried it with other footmarks—I compared them with twenty or thirty footmarks in a distance of between 100 and 200 yards from the wharf—as they came from the wharf, they had to go along the bank, and then they went on the pebbles, and we could not trace them there.

JAMES LEWIS (re-examined). I went with the policeman to compare the boots with the footmarks, as nearly as we could do it; and, in my opinion, the impressions in the ground were made by these boots—the iron pipe was whole when I saw it last on the wharf—there was no hammer found on the prisoners or near the spot, but in a place in the reed bed, there was a large granite stone, and it had some rust upon it, and some smaller stoues; and there was a hole in the ground where they had dipped the iron in with their hands so as to make it all over mud—the pipe was wet and muddy all over when I found it in the bags.

HARRIS— GUILTY .†— Conined Nine Month.

JONES— GUILTY .*— Confined Twelve Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-159
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

159. ANN MOORE (32) , stealing 6 shirts, value 15s. the property of Charles Marchant.

CHARLES MARCHANT . I am a mariner, and live at 3, Dock-place, Victoria Dock-road; my wife is a laundress—the prisoner has been in her service; I can't say how long—on 7th December, I saw five shirts and a sheet safe about 9 o'clock—they were lying on the arm of a sofa in the frout parlour in my house—I missed them next monning between 7 and 8 o'clock—I have seen the shirts since, but not the sheet—I saw them on the Sunday following—when I missed them on the Thursday, I examined the back of my premises and saw there were marks of a female foot—it was very muddy,

and there were marks of a person lying down on the sofa—I saw the prisoner on the Sunday morning; she was coming to the house—I asked her why she did not come in the front way, instead of coming the back way when she come home on Wednesday night, and I told her I believed she had robbed me of some shirts and a sheet—she said, "I have taken the sheet and shirts to iron"—I told her I did not think she had taken them to iron, at my wife never gave out anything to be ironed by her—she went out in the back yard and tried to get away—I said to her, "Don't tear the pawntickets up if you have pawned the things"—she said, "I have not pawned them; and if you will let the matter drop I will take you to Woolwich to the woman's where I left them, and will get them for you"—I said, "It is very cruel of you, and I will give you in charge"—I gave her in charge and I and the policeman went to the place where she said they were, and found the five shirts—they were lying in the room at the foot of the bed—they were rough dried, ready to iron—they had been starched when they were on the sofa ready for my wife to iron—the prisoner used to come to work on Wednesday, and she left on Thursday and went to Woolwich—she had lived entirely with us—she got work elsewhere but usually returned to us on Wednesday night—I did not see her on that Wednesday night at my house; she got in at the back, and the window was left open at the back—the boy got in at the window and unbuttoned it.

Witness. The window fastens with a button—we did not know that it was undone—the other place was where she lodged the three nights she was away from us.

Prisoner. I found the window wide open; they were gone to bed and I got in.

JOHN WHITE (Policeman, K 207). I took the prisoner in custody—I told her the charge—she said she was very sorry for it, she had only taken the things to iron—I took her to the station, and then went to the place where she said she had left them, to Mr. Sheeley, a common lodging-house keeper—I found the shirts there, and there was a ticket of a sheet found on the prisoner.

Cross-examined. Q. Did she not say, "I am very sorry, I did not intend to steal them, I only took them to iron, I left them at Mr. Sheeley's, a common lodging-house-keeper, at Woolwich?" A. Yes, she did—I had some conversation with Mr. Sheeley about them—she said that the prisoner brought them there to iron, and she wanted to iron them there on the Saturday night, and she had refused to allow her—there was a duplicate found on the prisoner, but the pawnbroker could not identify the party who pawned the article.

Prisoner. I took them to iron.

COURT to CHARLES MARCHANT. Q. Did the prisoner usually leave on the Thursday when she came home on the Wednesday night? A. No; she stopped the rest of the week—my wife kept her, to keep her from the streets—she went off to Woolwich where she used to work the first part of the week.



Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-160
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

160. JOHN WINTER (26) , Stealing 1 tray, 3 spoons, 3 forks, and other articles, value 8l. the property of William Vaughan, in his dwelling-house; to which he

PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Month.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-161
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown

Related Material

161. WILLIAM JAMES (22), and CHARLES COVILL (20) , Unlawfully breaking and entering the dwelling house of Henry George Noyes, with intent to steal. Mr. W. J. ABBAM conducted the Prosecution.

ELIZABETH WAKEFIELD . I am cook to Mr. Henry George Noyes, of Church-lane, Lee—on 23d December I was going down stairs, and I saw the prisoner Covill standing outside the window of an empty room—I afterwards went into the pantry, where the plate is, and I saw the prisoner James with his body half in at the pantry window—the window was not open before, but he had opened it—it was half open, and a piece was cut out of the windowframe—he was going in the direction of the plate, which stood on the dresser, and I think he had hold of the tea-pot—I said, "What do you want there," and they ran off—Covill stood outside with a basket in his hand—he had not moved from where I first saw him—he was in the same place—I went outside and gave information—I did not follow them any further than the gate—I had seen the pantry window that morning, not an hour before I saw the prisoners—I looked at the window; it was shut and fastened with a catch between the two windows—I had seen Covill a little better than a week before, one Monday; he came about the dust—I had heard something like a stone at the window some minutes before I saw James—I had seen him with Covill before.

Cross-examined by MR. THOMPSON. Q. How long had you been in this service? A. Six months—there are two other servants-there is no medicine carried out; my master is a physician—the kitchen is on the same floor with the pantry, which is very near the empty room—the three windows are all in a row—the kitchen is near the stairs, and there is a short passage—I am cook there, but my duty is not entirely confined to the kitchen—the plate is not in my custody—I don't have anything to do with the plate—I had seen the prisoners before—they had come with the cart; but about a week before Covill had come alone with the cart, and I would not let him have the dust because the proper dust-man had complained about it—I had seen him before—he had had the dust the time before that—I had heard something like a stone at the window, and I thought there was one broken—that was five or six minutes before I saw the prisoner—the pantry is a very small room—I went in at the door and shut the window down after the man had ran off—I went in the pantry before he ran off—the door was wide open—I had been in the pantry and put the plate there an hour before—there was a tea-pot, dessert-spoons, and butter-knife, and other things—I am prepared to say that I looked at the window and saw it was fast—I did not shut the door when I left, it always stands open—I did not stay in the room a minute after the man ran off, I ran up stairs, and ran after him as fast as I could tear—Mr. Noyes was the person who had shut the window the day before—she is not here—nor Mr. Noyes—I don't know that the inspector is here.

Covill. Q. Did you see me run away? A. Yes; your horse and cart were not at my master's door, they were at the corner of Blessington-road—I saw you run with your basket through the yard, and to the corner of the road—when you got to the horse and cart you walked on.

THOMAS GLEED . I am a potman—on 23d December, about half-past 1 o'clock, I was going down Church-lane, Lee, I saw the prisoner, James, running—I stopped, and h e went through a railing and across a field—he got to the corner, and then he turned round to see if any one was looking after him—I went down Church-lane and I saw the servant on the edge of the foot-path looking down—in consequence of what she said, I went for a policeman,

and we went in the direction of Lewisham Church, and there met Covill with his mule and cart—James had disappeared—he was taken in custody afterwards, but I was not present at the time—I had seen Covill and James both together before on that raoruing—I can't say at what time—it must have been before 1 o'clock—I knew them well.

Cross-examined. Q. How long have you been potman in that neighbourhood? A. Since Whit Monday, and I was nearly four months at another place before—I saw James running and I stopped and saw him run acroa the field, and then I got on and saw the young woman coming to the edge of the path—it takes me about five hours to deliver my beer, going iu and out—I knew James before, by his going about for dust—I saw no more of him after he ran across the field—I saw his face when he was coming towards me down Church-lane, and he leaped through the fence and ran across the field, and then he turned and looked round—I did not meet a policeman—there were several persons passing the laue—I never heard any alarm—I should say that James had got the best part of half a mile whenl met Wakefield—I could see Mr. Noyes house from where I first saw the man running—you can see that from the lane—it may be 100 yards off or nearly that.

Covill. Q. Whereabouts did you see me with my cart; A. About three doors off with your mule and cart—about three yards down Blessington-road, walking by the side of your mule.

JAMES DEAN (Policeman, R 187). I went after Covill on that day—I found him, and said to him, "Where is your companion that you have bad with you to day?"—he said, "I have had none—I told him that I bad information that he had had a young man with him—he said he had not had one with him that day, and he had not been round Lee that morning collecting dust—I told him to return with me and go back to Church-lane—I took him to Dr. Noyes and I examined the foot-marks—it had been I frost that morning and there was a mark in the dirt—I examined the window and there was a little piece cut out of the sash—I found on him this small clasp knife—when I took him he was about three-quarters of a mile from the house.

JOHN FLETCHER (Policeman, R 308). On 23d December, I apprehended James—I found on him this clasp knife—I told him the charge and be made no answer.

Covill. I own I was round about 2 o'clock that afternoon, but not in the morning. I went to Mr. Noyes and the servant came to the window and said, "What do you do here?" and I immediately walked out.



Confined Eighteen Months.

Before Mr. Justice Keating.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-162
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

162. CHARLOTTE HUBBLE (30), was indicted for the wilful murder of her new born child.

MR. TINDAL ATKINSON conducted tlie Prosecution, and MR. SLEIGH the Defence.

GUILTY . of unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth.— Confined Eighteen


Before Mr. Recorder.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-163
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

163. LOUISA FENTON (17) , Unlawfully obtaining 3 pairs of boots of William Robert Waller, by false pretences.

MR. LANGFORD conducted the Prosecution.

ELIZA CUTTING . I ara a shopwoman in the service of William Robert

Waller n, boot and shoemaker of Woolwich—on Monday raorniug, 12th December last, the prisoner came to the shop: she said she wanted some boots for Mr. Vant—she did not say what boots—she said Mr. Vant was a draper at the bottom of the street—she did not say anything else, only that he was not particular what boots—she said that Mr. Vaut had sent her; that was all—I gave her three pairs of boots, because I believed her statement about Mr. Vant to be true—she did not say in whose employment she was.

JOHN VANT . I live in High-street, Woolwich—on Monday, 12th December last, the prisoner was not in my service; she had been—she left, I believe, in February, 1859—I did not give her authority on 12th December, or any other day previous to that, to go to the shop of Mr. Waller to get any boots—I had not given her any authority to apply for and receive the boots—there is a Mr. Vant—she is not here—I can answer that she had not authority from her, I had not seen her at my house, and she had not been there—she was not in the habit of coming—I have not seen her have any conversation with my wife since she left.

WILLIAM WALLER . I am the grandson of William Robert Waller—I remember this girl coming to the shop on 12th December—I heard what she said to Eliea Cutting—she said Mr. Vant had sent her for some boots—I don't know that she said anything else—she did not say in whose service she was—she only said that Mr. Vant had sent her—after that I saw Mr. Cutting give her three pairs of boots—she then went out of the shop—I followed after her to see where she went—she went in the direction of Mr. Vant's shop—when she got past the shop she began to run—I ran after her—I followed her some time, at last I lost sight of her—I should think Mr. Vant's shop is between 100 and 200 yards from my grandfather's—I am certain she did not go into that shop.

JOHN NEWEL (Police-sergeant, R 59). On 12th December, from information I received, I went to a house in Warwick-street, Woolwich, and found the prisoner in the front room; she was at that time fitting one of the pairs of boots on—I looked on the bed and saw the other two pairs lying there—I took them up and told her that she must consider herself in custody for obtaining the boots under false representations—the prisoner stated that she had been sent by Mr. Vant—she said that she was very sorry—I then took her to the station—on going there I asked her how long she had been out of Mr. Vant's service, and she said some months.

GUILTY.— Judgment respited.

Mr. Vant stated that fie had made inquiries respecting the prisoner, that her parents had turned her on the world, and that she had been driven to bad courses.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-163a
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

163. EDWARD SMITH (21) , stealing 65 yards of carpet, the property of John Stone.

MR. LANGRORD conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM HUNT . I am a police-constable of the parish of Woolwich—on Wednesday evening, 14th December, about a quarter-past 8, I was at the steam-boat pier at Woolwich—I saw the prisoner after he was on board the steam-packet—I went onboard the packet and went to North Woolwich—when we arrived there I spoke to the prisoner—I asked him what he had got there—he told me a carpet—I said "Where did you get it from? he said he bought it—he could not tell me where—I took him into custody, and took him to the railway-station until a policeman came, and I gave

him into the custody of John Sargeant—this (produced) is the carpet—I found it on his shoulder—I took it from him—when he arrived at the station he had it on his shoulder.

JOHN SARGEANT . (Policeman, R 107). On Wednesday evening, 14th December, I saw the prisoner in custody of Hunt about half-past 8, at the North Woolwich railway-station, in the waiting-room—this roll of carpet and a sack were there at the time—I asked the prisoner how he accounted for the possession of the carpet—he stated that he had bought it at Woolwich—he did not say where—but having previously received information that a roll of carpet had been stolen, I took him to the station at Woolwich—while there be stated that people ought not to leave things outside the shop as a temptation for hungry persons—before that, I asked him how he accounted for the possession, and he said lie had bought it—I also asked him who the sack belonged to, and he said it was his

CHARLES JOSWOLD . I am an apprentice to Mr. John Stone, draper, at Woolwich—on Wednesday, 14th December last I saw this roll of carpet in a recess at the corner of the shop window, outside—I put it there myself—I last saw it there safe about half-past 4 o'clock—I went out and came in and missed the carpet—it was then about 5—I know it was Mr. Stone's property—there was about 65 yards, value 2l. 16s.

Prisoner. Q. Are you sure there is 65 yards? A. I am not quite certain—there were 71 in the morning—I think a short length was cut off—I do not know how much—it stood close to the window, about five feet from the door I should think.

Prisoner. It was not against the shop at all; it is a shame for persons to expose their goods as they do.

The prisoner was further charged with having been before convicted.

HENRY FORD (174, Kent county constabulary.) I produce a certificate of a summary conviction—(Read: "Sittingbourne, 20th December, 1858. Edward Smith pleaded guilty to larcency. Confined 6 months.") The prisoner is the person.

GUILTY .— Confined Nine Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-164
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

164. JOHN BADGER STEVENS (35), was indicted for bigamy.

MR. LANGFORD conducted the Prosecution.

THOMAS WATSON (Policeman, 124 R). On the evening of 29th December last I went to the prisoner, and told him I was going to take him in charge for bigamy—I took him into custody—I went to the parish church of Pluinstead, and there saw the parish clerk, who gave me a copy of a certificate (produced)—I compared this with the register book of Plumstead church (This was a certificate of a marriage solemnized at the parish church of Plumstead, in Kent, dated March 13th, 1847, between John Badger Stevens, of full aqe, bachelor, tailor, to Martha Lovell, spinster y and witnessed by Frederick 'William Wolfe.)

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. How did you compare it? A. With the book. I read it, aud then saw that it was the very same as the book.

FREDERICK WILLIAM WOLFE . I am a founder, of Plumstead—I remember being present at a marriage in 1847—I can't remember the date—I went to the parish church with the prisoner and a woman of the name of Martha Lovell—I saw him married to that women—I saw the rites solemnized—I went into the vestry, and signed the register book as a witness—I suppose I

am the Wolfe spoken of in that certificate—I last saw the woman Lovell about ten minutes ago—she was alive—I have not spoken to her.

Cross-examined. Q. Are you quite sure she was alive? A. Yes, and I am quite sure this is the man—I have seen him several times since—he happens unfortunately to be my brother-in-law.

MR. LANGFORD. Q. He is the brother of your wife. A. Yes; his real name is John Badger Stevens.

MR. COOPER. Q. You have known him to be a good husband? A. I always found him to be a very respectable person, and the whole family believed that the first wife was dead—I have known him all this time—he was very affectionate to his wife—the first wife, after he married her, lived at Charlton with a person of the name of Saunders, his aunt—he left her to the best of my belief—they went from his aunt's to Devonport about three years after the marriage, about 1850 or 1851—since then I know he has lived apart from her—I saw the prisoner about twelve or eighteen months after they went to Devonport—they then lived separate—there was an impression in the whole of his family that the first wife was dead—I have heard it from the prisoner, this last five or six years—I have seen letters that have been sent to her seut back—not more than two—that might be about five years ago—I cannot be positive—when the prisoner told me that his wife was dead he did not say how he came to know it—I never made any particular inquiry.

MR. LANGFORD. Q. Do you know Mr. Brain, formerly Lovell, the sister of this man's wife? A. No, I do not—I do not remember this man marrying a woman of the name of Simpson—I do not know that about the time he was living with a woman of the name of Simpson he was told that his first wife was alive—I never made particular inquiries.

CAROLINE BRAIN . My name was formerly Lovell—I am sister to the prisoner's first wife—they were married from my house in 1847,1 cannot say exactly the time—he lived with her after their marriage, about eighteen months at his aunt Saunders'—they went to Prospect-row, I think, after that; they went to Bloomfield-row then; then he locked her out of doors, and she sheltered in my house—he took her from my house to Devonshire—I have heard from her lately—I have been corresponding in letters always; for almost two years she did not write to me—I wrote to the Post-office, Devonshire—I lost sight of her not quite two years—I did not have any conversation with the prisoner in 1857—two years ago he had me up to the Magistrate at Woolwich, because I chastised him about burying the other wife and walking about with another person; I thought it not right, and my poor sister alive—I said, "It is very fine of you to pass my house with another person, and you have just buried a second wife, and my poor sister in Devonshire not able to get a living"—he said he would very well make me shut up my noise, and he took out a summons—I never spoke to him but that once, and he said he would have me up for it, and so he did—I never lost sight of my sister—I have got her here with me—I never said anything to him about supporting my sister—he never offered to do so.

Cross-examined. Q. Are you the originator of this prosecution? A. No; my sister is.

ELIZA DAINES REGENT . I live at Plumstead, in Kent—I was married to the prisoner in July, 1858, at Shoreditch Church—his father and mother were present at the marriage—I have had one child by him—I did not know before I was married that he had a wife alive, and it was not known in the family—he has always been a good husband to me.

Cross-examined. Q. Always treated you kindly and affectionately? A. Yes, and kind to his child.

THOMAS WATSON , re-examined. I did not go to the church of St. Leonard, Shoreditch—I produce a certificate of the marriage—the last witness gave it me—this is a copy of the certificate of the marriage with his wife who was dead.

ELIZA DAINES BEGENT , re-examined. I got this certificate when I was married, in the vestry—I saw the clergyman make an entry in the book, and I signed it.

GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.

There was another indictment against the prisoner for a like offence.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-165
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

165. EMILY SMITH (25) , Stealing 5s. and 7s. the property of Frederick White, her master.

MR. LANGFORD conducted the Prosecution.

FREDERICK WHITE . I keep the White Horse Inn at Lee, in Kent—the prisoner was my barmaid for ten months up to Sunday, 11th December—there was a till in the bar which she had the care of—this is it (produced)—here is a bowl for coppers in it—on 9th December, about 12 o'clock at night, I cleared the till as is my custom, leaving a certain sum in to commence with next morning—the prisoner had then gone to bed—I found half-a crown and 3s. concealed under the bowl for the coppers—I marked them, replaced them, and went to bed—I had had suspicious previously—on Saturday morning, about 11 o'clock, which was the first opportunity I had, I went to the till and missed the marked half-crown and 3s. only the prisoner and the cook go in and out of the bar-parlour, and occasionally my wife—on the Saturday night the prisoner went to bed at half-past 12—I then cleared the till, leaving 10s. in silver and copper—I raised up the copper bowl and found two half-crowns and a florin—in the presence of Brown the policeman, I marked them, replaced them, and went to bed—on Sunday morning the prisoner was down before me—she had the command of the bar and the till—I went to the till about ten o'clock, lifted up the copper bowl and missed the half-crowns and florin—I then sent for Brown, whom I had ready at the door, called the prisoner into the parlour, and said, "There is money missing from the till"—she said, "Money missing from the till?" and looked very much confused—she kept saying so—I told Brown that she was the only person who had access to it, except the cook who lighted the fire, and that the prisoner must have it about her—Brown-said, "Come, pull it out; I am sure you have got it"—she begged of me to let her go—I said, "Let you go, I cannot think of anything of the kind; you will be getting into some other service and serving them the same"—she said, "Pray let me go; if Mr. White will let you go up stairs with me, I will give you the money up and all moneys that I have"—Brown said that she should not go out of his sight—she said that she was not going into the public line again, and begged me to forgive her—I saw Brown take two half-crowns and a florin out of her dress-pocket—she must have dropped it down the side of the bowl, as she could not get it out with the coppers in it—I found it at the side, upright—the bedrooms are all on one floor—the prisoner slept in a square room, down a little passage, in the corner—she went to town on the Saturday by the 10 o'clock train, I think—she came back about 1—she was absent three hours, or three hours and a half.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. Did not she go to fetch your children from school? A. Yes, my wife sent her;—my wife did not give her money—she had plenty of money of her own—she could

have had money to fetch my children if she had asked for it, but it would only be 1s., and we should have settled with her afterwards—it is only a 4d., fare—it would only be 1s. 8d. altogether, but she laid out 18s. in embroidery; so she made a good use of her time—I was not present—my wife is not here—the prisoner counts up the money every two or three hours, puts the silver in the bar parlour, and leaves 10s. to work with—my wife does that occasionally—I do not do it once a month—I merely do it at night, and that not always—if I am there I do it, but Mr. White generally does it—no account is taken of the money in the till—it is put on a slate in figures every night, and every two hours also—there is not another slate on the counter to correspond with that one—it is first put on the mantelpiece for us to count, and if it is right it is put back—this division is for silver, this for copper, and this for farthings—she does not pull this drawer out when she gives change—I always keep 5l. to give change—I meant change for a sovereign—when she gives change for small coins she gives it out of the till—the entries on the slate are copied into a book—I have not that book here—I do business to the amount of about 180l. a month—there are occasionally a good many customers to give change to, and more so on Saturdays—the box in her room was found unlocked, as far as I know, but I was never in the room in my life—the name of Ticer is over the door, and my name too—all the goods are sent in in the name of Ticer, but I am answerable for all moneys—Mr. Ticer has not been in the house for three years, but I see him on the Corn Exchange—when the prisoner went to London, or when she was out of the way, Mr. White's father, who is an old man, assisted in the business, and my wife occasionally—when Mr. White wanted money she did not take it from the till, but from the cash box—she never interfered with takings—I am always there.

MR. LAYFORD. Q. Is there a fund which you go to to buy necessaries? A. Yes—I allow a sovereign every morning for housekeeping.

JURY. Q. Have you repaid her the 1s. 8d.? A. No, because she was given in custody directly—the reason we sent her to London was because we found we were being robbed to such a frightful extent.

WILLIAM BROWN (Policeman, R 98). On Saturday-night, 10th December, after midnight, I went to White's house and saw him take the till out, and mark two half-crowns with a dot under the ear, and a florin with a cross, and a star inside—these are them (looking at them)—I was called in again on Sunday, 11th December, and Mr. White accused the prisoner of taking some money from the till—he asked her to give it to me—she made no reply, but afterwards said, "Forgive me, Mr. White, as I am not going into business again"—he said that he would not, but would have her locked up—I took from her pocket these two half-crowns, and this florin, which are the same that were marked on Saturday-night—she asked him to forgive her—she did not say that he owed her 1s. 8d.—I went to her bedroom—I asked her what money she had got, and she gave me this purse, in which I found a sovereign, and this half-crown, and some shillings.

Cross-examined. Q. No marked shillings? A. No; she said, "Don't lock me up Mr. White, pray forgive me, as I am not going into business again"—she said that she would go up stairs with Mr. White, and give up all the money she had—I went up, and she handed over the purse which was in a drawer, not locked—Mr. White was present when I marked the money on the Saturday.

GUILTY .*— Confined Twelve Months.


Before Mr. Recorder.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-166
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment

Related Material

166. HENRY WELSDON (21), and ROBERT WOOD (21), were indicted for a burglary in the dwelling-house of Edward Hart Smith and stealing therein 6 cruet tops and other goods, value 60l. his property.

MR. ORRIDGE conducted the Prosecution.

EDWARD HART SMITH . I am an attorney of 1, Argyle-villas, Barrington-road, Brixton—on the morning of 6th December I was aroused from my sleep, or rather, I awoke about half-past 5, and shortly before 6 I rang the bell for the servants to get up; a few momenta after the servant went down stairs she returned—in consequence of what she told me I went down into the dining-room—I found the table was strewn with wax matches, many of which had been partially burnt—the bottles from two cruet stands, which the night before had been left on the sideboard, were on the table, with the silver tops removed—a mahogany box containing plated dessert knives and forks was opened, and the half-dozen which lay on the top were removed—they had not lifted the tray—a silver waiter was also taken, and a silver caddy spoon, and a meerschaum pipe mounted with silver, and from the hall all the clothes that were there; six or seven coats—I left in the pocket of an Inverness wrapper a pair of gloves which I had recently used in shooting, in Cambridgeshire—I have since seen those gloves—these (produced) are them—I saw them subsequently at the police-station—the curtains of the room were pinned with some long brass pins, as long my finger—they had not been left so the night before—I had gone over the house the night before—I was the last up; everything was safe then—when the inspector came I examined the premises with him, and we saw that the entrance had been effected through a water-closet window; that would communicate with the whole of the house—the back door leading from the hall into the garden communicates with the garden by a small flight of steps—there is a balustrade immediately outside the door; one foot placed on that, and another on the conservatory, would enable a person to get in, or assist a person inthere were footmarks on the balustrade and the side of the conservatory—that part of my garden is gravel; there were no traces there, but there were traces in the next garden by which we distinctly saw where the parties had raised themselves, and also dropped in their departure—I did not find any chisel marks on any of my premises.

SARAH GRANT . I am a servant in the employment of Mr. Smith—I was called by my master on the morning of 6th December—it was a few minutes before 6—I was down a few minutes before 6—I have a clock in my room which I looked at—I went down stairs—I found the rooms all in confusion; I noticed the property had all been removed—I did not notice the doors—I went up to my master directly—my master had a dog there; it was out in the garden the night before; in the morning it was down in the kitchen he must have got into the kitchen during the night—I did not afterwards go down and examine the doors and windows.

EMMA SMITH . I am the wife of the prosecutor—I know these gloves By my having mended the right hand glove at the thumb and also between the fingers—they were in the pocket of an Inverness wrapper the night before the robbery—I should say I had mended them about three weeks before the robbery, and there were some fresh holes in the left hand glove

between the thumb and the first finger—Mr. Smith had put on his left hand glove two days before the robbery, and he had taken them off again because of the holes, and put them in the pocket of the coat again—I had not mended those holes.

WILLIAM AUGER (Policeman, P 334). On 16th December, in the morning, I was on duty in the Brixton-road, about half-past 12 o'clock—I saw the two prisoners in company with a third man—they came out of the Loughborough-road into the Brixton-road—not liking their appearance, I watched them—they went some distance up the Brixton-road, then crossed into a dark place—they stood there for some few minutes—one left the others and crossed over to the front of Pickford-place, opposite a gentleman's house—they stood there about a minute and a half, then passed over again to the others—in consequence of what I observed I took them into custody—after I had taken them into custody, and we had got within about 200 yards of the station, Welsdon struck me on the side of the head—he said "You b—I will go no farther with you," and tried to escape—finding he could not get away, he struck me two or three times—I was obliged to release the other prisoner, the third man, and he ran away—we then took the prisoners to the station—upon Wood I found this pair of gloves and this box of silent matches—after the charge was taken I went to the place where they commenced running and I found this candle thrown away—as they were running away, I saw Wood throw out his awn, as if to throw something away; I noticed the place—when it got daylight I went there and in the garden in front of a gentleman's house, I found this chisel—Wood wished very much to have the gloves returned to him again—he asked me for them two or three times—I had not been to Mr. Smith's premise, or noticed any footsteps there.

Welsdon. Q. Do you swear I threw this chisel away? A. I saw you throw out your arm—I could not swear you threw this chisel—it was dark.

WILLIAM HAMMOND (Policeman, P 10). On the morning of the 16th the prisoners were brought to me at the station—I took the charge, and after they were locked up in the cell, I took the two pairs of boots from the prisoners, and after it got daylight, by directions from the inspector, I went to the footmarks where they had attempted a robbery, next to Mr. Smith's, and I found these two boots correspond with the footmarks at 31, Barrington-road—that was at the back of Mr. Smith's house—I saw the footmarks made on the night of 6th December, on the morning of the 7th—I was the first that was there and saw them after the robbery, the inspector followed after me and he covered them over—the weather had been frosty during that time—I compared this pair of boots which I took from Welsdon; there is apecularity about these boots; the right boot is very remarkable, it is worn iu the sole, and it left an impression in the earth—it is much higher on one side, and that left an impression—the grouud was very soft at the time—the marks exactly corresponded with the shoes—there were other footmarks, but not sufficient proof as to Wood's—I saw the gloves found on Wood—he asked for them back two or three times, and I directed the constable to detain them.

Welsdon. Q. How long ago is it since this house was broken into? A. On 6th December—there was a mark of a chisel on the back door of another house near the prosecutor's, but not on the prosecutor's house.

WILLIAM SMITH (Police-inspector, P). I went to the prosecutor's house on the morning of 6th December—I saw some marks in the garden adjoining 31, Barrington Road—I covered those footmarks up—I was present

when these boots were compared with those footmarks—in my opinion they exactly correspond with the impressions left in the ground.

COURT. Q. How did you try them? A. By noticing the impression that was left in the ground and then placing the boot in it—I put the boot into the footmark; previously to doing it I noticed the impression that was left—I did not make a mark by the side of the impression—we endeavoured to get the mark up, but the ground was so soft it would not hold—I am quite certain that there were those marks before I put the boot into it, because I merely placed it in it—I am sure of that.

MR. ORRIDGE. Q. Was the morning of the 16th a frosty morning? A. Yes; so that I could not make a fresh impression, the ground was so hard.

Welsdon. Q. Have you got any other witnesses besides policemen to swear to the marks corresponding? A. The gentleman liviug at 31 was present also.

Welsdon's Defence I did not have the same boots on at that time. GUILTY

Welsdon was further charged with having been before convicted in 1856 to which he

PLEADED GUILTY.**— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.

WOOD— GUILTY Confined Twelve Months.

2nd January 1860
Reference Numbert18600102-167
VerdictNot Guilty > non compos mentis

Related Material

167. WILLIAM POSSLEWHITE (37) , Feloniously cutting and wounding William Knight on the head, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

MR. DOYLE conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM KNIGHT . I am a blacksmith, and live in Mason-street, Westminster-road—the prisoner has lodged in my house four years—I was paid 1l. a week by him, and had to allow him 4s. out of it, 2s., in the week and 2s. on Sundays—it was paid through his solicitor in the city—during these four years I have remarked some eccentricity in his conduct, sometimes considering himself to be the Duke of Gloucester and sometimes Oliver Cromwell—he always behaved very quietly up to the day he gave me the blow—on 15th December, in the afternoon, I was sitting in my kitchen, nursing the child—the prisoner came down stairs—I was just in the act of saying, "Good morning, Sir," and before I could get my eyes up he came across with this weapon (produced), hit me on the head, and then returned back and said, "Knight, those d—d theatricals have made you have a design against me"—my wife then came in and said, "What have you done?" and the prisoner said, "If you don't stand aside I might serve you the same"—I then ran across to a public-house—he was not pursuing me at that time—I then went to Mr. Goffs, the chemist's, and they would not touch the wound; they said it was too serious—I then went to the Westminster-hospital, and became an inpatient there—when the prisoner used those words I could not attach any meaning to them—I never had anything to do with theatricals—he used to go to theatres; he generally was fond of them—he had not been for the last two years—I cannot attach any origin to those words which the prisoner used when he struck me, except these eccentricities I have spoken of—he appeared rational in every sense of the word—he had an excellent memory, and if you asked him any question you could always get a correct account of any thing relating to history, or any thing bygone—he was always rational in his dealings with persons—he seemed to know what he was about; he would buy any thing, or do any thing, and go errands—he went after our dinner and supper beer, and always behaved in a rational straight-forward way, till the very moment he struck me—as far as my judgment goes he was rational and like other persons in every respect, except these delusions which he sometimes

had, that he was Cromwell or the Duke of Gloucester—he thought that his property had been done away with, but that his title was the Duke of Gloucester.

Cross-examined by MR. ROBINSON. Q. You have repeatedly heard him talk of it? A. Yes; I have heard him say that his belt, which he has not on now, was given him by the Duke of Cambridge as his baton of Duke of Gloucester—I have been told that he carried that about with him as an emblem of authority—he was not originally placed with me that I might take care of him—he came and took his lodgings—I afterwards received a certain sum from the solicitors—he never was restricted; he could have removed at any time—he was always perfectly harmless, and was a kind affectionate man—we all looked upon him with considerable affection—he was always treated as one of the family; there seemed no more harm in him than in the youngest child—we never had any quarrel—he always seemed to be very comfortable and happy in my company—there was no pretence for saying that I had any design against him—he used to lay out his money in collecting old weapons such as these (produced)—he has been collecting these things for nearly three years, one at a time; he never had much money—there was a coat, with a great many buttons, that he called his Oliver Cromwell coat, which was in pledge, and he asked me to lend him a sovereign to get it out, which I did; and he had no money on Sundays—this weapon he has had in his hand and been up and down stairs with hundreds of times—I always looked upon these things as harmless as a farthing doll—he only had 4s. a week—I have two children—he was very kind and affectionate to them—if my wife only just chastised them, he was the person to protect them and take them away from the mother, through kindness.

MR. DOYLE. Q. While with you he was not under any restraint? A. None at all—I was merely paid for his support weekly—he might have left me at any time if he had thought proper.

JURY. Q. What character did you receive with him when you received him into your charge? A. As a harmless, good lodger; in every respect as a gentleman, never showing any act of violence—I think he would drink at at any time, but, of course, I never allowed him, he never had the means, and I never saw him the worse for liquor in my life.

MR. ROBINSON. Q. He was formerly in the army, was he not? A. Yes.

ELLEN KNIGHT . I am the wife of the last witness—I remember this afternoon of 15th December when my husband was struck by the prisoner—I went into the kitchen immediately after—I observed that my husband was wounded; I went after him to see the consequences—when I first went in I said to the prisoner, "What have you done?" he said, "If you don't get out of the way I will serve you the same"—my husband ran over to the Mason's Arms; I followed, but they had then taken him to the chemist's shop, and taken him to the hospital in a cab, and I returned and found the prisoner sitting in the kitchen—nobody had called a constable then—there were men that had come across from the house—I said to the prisoner, "You have murdered my husband you had better get out of the house before the police come"—he said, "Mop up the blood before they come, and tell them I have done it from authority"—there was no more said; he went away—I did not observe that he carried the steel bar away with him.

Cross-esamined. Q. You always found him a very harmless humane kind creature, have you not? A. Particularly so; most kind in all respects.

SIDNEY EDWARD CLARK . I am house surgeon at Westminster Hospital—I

remember the prosecutor being brought in on 15th December—he was bleeding very profusely from a wound on the left temple, about an inch and a half to an inch and three-quarters in length, that it had cut down to the bone, but the bone itself was not injured; the temporal artery was divided—I had to apply two ligatures; I dressed the wound and sent him home telling him to come the next morning—then inflammatory action had set in in consequence of the injury, and I thought it right to take him into the hospital—he was in a dangerous state, not exactly of his life; he has nearly recovered—it was such a wound as might have been inflicted by one of the edges of this steel bar.

JOHN SPINKS (Policeman, L 56). On 16th December, I took the prisoner into custody—I told him he was charged on a warrant with violently assaulting one William Knight—he said he knew it, and he was very sorry for it—this bar of steel was with him—afterwards, at Knight's, where he lived, I found this steel instrument.

Cross-examined. Q. I believe he told you that that weapon was bu authority? A. Yes, and he had authority to use it.

NOT GUILTY on the ground of insanity.


View as XML