Old Bailey Proceedings.
12th June 1865
Reference Number: t18650612

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
12th June 1865
Reference Numberf18650612

Related Material


Sessions Paper.








Short-hand Writers to the Court,








Law Publishers to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.



On the Queen's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Monday, June 12th, 1865, and following days.

BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. WARREN STORMES HALE, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; Sir SAMUEL MARTIN , Knt., one of the Barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer; Sir JAMES DUKE , Bart., M.P.; Sir FRANCIS GRAHAM MOON , Bart., F. S. A.; and Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEN , Knt.; Aldermen of the said City; RUSSELL GURNET , Esq., Q. C., Recorder of the said City; WILLIAM FERNELEY ALLEN, Esq.; JAMES ABBISS , Esq.; JOHN SILLS GIBBONS, Esq.; and ANDREW LUSK , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; THOMAS CHAMBERS , Esq., Q. C., Common Serjeant of the said City; and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR , Esq., Judge of the Sheriffs Court; Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery of Newgate, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

THOMAS DAKIN , Esq. Alderman.

ROBERT BESLEY , Esq. Alderman.







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, June 12th, 1865.

Before Mr. Recorder.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-582
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

582. DAVID LEES (37), was indicted for embezzlement.

GILBERT HUDSON . I am a clerk in the Admiralty—In June, 1864, I bought a watch of the prisoner from Mr. Shepherd—In September the prisoner brought me a note from Mr. Shepherd, and I paid him 9l. 9s. a few days afterwards—this is the receipt he gave me (produced)—he signed it in my presence.

JOHN COLSTON . I am in the coast-guard department—On 13th July last the prisoner brought me a race—glass from Mr. Shepherd—I bought it for 25s.—I paid him at the time, and he gave me this receipt.

HENRY HINDE . I am a clerk in the coast-guard department—On 6th June last I purchased a night—glass of the prisoner from Mr. Shepherd—I paid him 1l. 12s.—he gave me this receipt at the time.

WILLIAM HENRY SHEPHERD . I am a watch-and chronometer—maker in Leadenhall—street—the prisoner was in my employment as a dock traveller; he used to go round the dock for orders—if he received any money from customers it was his duty to pay it over to me on his return—he was paid by salary—he has never paid me these three sums—I have asked him about them on several occasions, and he has made various excuses—he never said that he had received the money.

JOHN BANYARD (City—policeman, 562). I took the prisoner into custody—he said if Mr. Shepherd would give him time he would pay him 10s. a week until it was all paid—at the station he admitted that be had received all these sums.

Prisoner. I throw myself entirely on the mercy of the Court, and hope the prosecutor will recommend me to mercy in consequence of my large family; the largest of the amounts I was robbed of.

GUILTY .—Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor.— Confined Twelve Months.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-583
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

583. JAMES TYLER (48) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. ORRIDGE and LUMLEY conducted the Prosecution.

CAROLINE HECKMAN . I live with my father, who keeps the Bavarian Tap—on 11th May, about half—past 11, I served the prisoner with a pint of

porter, he put down a half-crown—my sister Annie picked it up, and I told her in German to try it—she went into the parlour—I followed her in, and when I came back I saw the prisoner outside, looking through the glass of the door—he left the best part of his porter—I next saw him in the cell at Worship-street, amongst others, and recognised him—I am quite sure he is the man—I kept the half-crown in my possession, and afterwards gave it to my sister.

ANNIE HECKMAN . I am the sister of the last witness—on 11th May she gave me a half-crown; the prisoner was at the bar—I went into the parlour to try it, and when I came back the prisoner was gone—on 1st June I saw the prisoner again with another man at our bar—his companion asked for a pint of six ale—I served them, and his companion put down a half-crown—I put down the change which his companion took up—I kept the half-crown in my hand and took it to my brother to try it—the men left rather hurriedly—they finished their beer—I afterwards found the half-crown was bad, and gave it to Mr. Sweeney—my sister gave me the half-crown on 11th May, and I gave it up at the police station.

JOSEPH SWEENEY . I am clerk to Mr. Heckman—on 1st June the last witness gave me a half-crown—I gave it to the inspector at the station.

EBENEZER TERRY . I keep the Two Brewers public-house—on 26th May the prisoner came in and asked for a glass of ale—I had been cautioned against him—he gave me a bad crown—I told him of it, sent for a policeman, and sent him to the station, as I could not leave—I did not press the charge then, and I never saw him again till now—I was not examined before the Magistrate—I am sure the prisoner is the person—I knew him before.

JOSEPH AKERS (Policeman, H 132). On 1st June the prisoner was pointed out to me by Sweeney—I found the prisoner and another man at Mrs. Sweeney's public-house—I told the prisoner I charged him with passing a bad half-crown, and one of them said, "It is all right, policeman, come and have a glass of beer"—I declined—the other man then rushed out and got over the back wall, and the prisoner rushed into the street—I followed him and took him—he said, "I am not the man, I know nothing about it"—one half-crown I got from the inspector and the other from the solicitor to the Mint—one he gave me and one he kept—Sweeney did not give me a half-crown—I was present when the inspector received the half-crown from Mr. Sweeney, and he gave it to me immediately—I can swear it was the same, it did not go out of my sight—I received one from Annie Heckman.

WILLIAM HENRY POLLARD . I received a half-crown from Annie Heckman, and passed it on to this policeman who was in the room, and told him to mark it—I did not see the marks he put—it passed from my hand at once into his.

COURT, to ANNIE HECKMAN. Q. You said you gave it to the policeman? A. The policeman was present—I saw it pass from that gentleman to the policeman.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These are all bad—the half-crowns are not from the same mould.

Prisoner's Defence. I passed no money of any kind at the beef-shop.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-584
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

584. JOHN SMITH (21), was indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. ORRIDGE and LUMLEY conducted the Prosecution.

JOSEPH THORPE TAYLOR I keep the Horse and Groom, Chapel-place, Belgrave-square—on Thursday night, 25th May, between 7 and 8 in the evening, the prisoner came in and asked for a pint of porter and a screw of tobacco—he gave me a florin, which I put in the till, and gave him 1s. 9d. change—about an hour afterwards my wife found it was bad—I marked it and put it on one side—I had not taken another florin from anybody during that time—the next night the prisoner came about 9 and asked for a pint of porter and a screw of tobacco, and offered a florin—I knew him—I tried it at once, and showed him it was bad—I called a constable and gave him in custody—I gave the florins to the inspector at the station-house.

LYDIA TAYLOR . I am the wife of the last witness—between 8 and 9 on 25th I went to the till and found a bad florin—there were no others there.

ARTHUR JOHN BUNDOCK (Policeman, B 195). On 26th May, about 9 o'clock, I was called to Mr. Taylor's house, and he gave the prisoner in charge with these two florins (produced), which I returned to him,—the prisoner denied all knowledge of the florin on the Thursday night, and he said he was not aware that the one be had just passed was bad—I afterwards got the florins from the inspector—Mr. Taylor marked them at the station, and they were given to me.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These are bad florins.

GUILTY .— Confined Nine Months.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-585
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

585. JOHN SMITH (39), was indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. ORRIDGE and LUMLEY conducted the Prosecution.

WALTER WHITTLESEY . I keep the Cambridge Brewery, 10, High-street—on Friday, 12th May, about half-past 7, the prisoner came to my house and asked for a pint of porter—I served him—he gave me a crown, which I put in the till for about half a minute, took it out again and found it was bad—the prisoner rushed out, I went after him but lost sight of him—I kept the crown in my pocket till the following Monday morning, and then gave it to the policeman, 147 N—I have not the slightest doubt the prisoner is the man—there was no other crown in the till, or in my pocket.

SARAH RICKARDS . I am the wife of James Rickards, a tobacconist, of 18, East-road, Hoxton—on Saturday, 13th May, between 10 and 11, the prisoner came in and asked for an ounce of tobacco, and gave me a crown—I had not change, and gave it to a friend who was there to get change at a house opposite—in two or three minutes she came over and said it was bad—the prisoner asked me to give it him back, and I said, "No, it is a bad one, "and gave him in custody with the crown.

CHARLES JAMES HEAD . I am an oilman of Curtain-road—on Saturday, 6th May, between 8 and 9, I served the prisoner with articles to the amount of 8 1/2 d.—he gave a crown, which I put in the till—there was no other there—I gave him change and he left—about two hours after I found the crown was bad—I had not taken any other in the meantime—I marked it and placed it by itself—on the next Saturday, about half-past 2, the prisoner came again for an ounce of tobacco, and gave me another crown—he saw me looking at it, and asked me if I liked it—I said, "No, I have seen you before"—he reached across the counter, took it out of my hand, and left the shop, leaving the tobacco behind him—it is my belief the prisoner is the man, but I would not swear to it, I was busy at the time—my place is about three-quarters of a mile from Mrs. Rickards'.

ANNIE FARR . I live at 6, Walbrook-place—on the night of 13th May. I was assisting Mrs. Rickards, and saw the prisoner in the shop—Mrs.

Rickards gave me a crown, and I took it over to the Prince of Wales to get it changed—the barman tried it, broke a piece out of it, and gave it me back—I went back, and said it was bad in the prisoner's presence.

COURT. Q. Was it out of your sight at all before the barman returned it to you? A. No.

JAMES KELLS (Policeman, N 147). On the night of 13th May I took the prisoner—Mrs. Rickards gave me a part of a crown piece, I also received another from John West and another from Whittlesey (produced)—I searched the prisoner at the station, and found on him a half-crown, a florin, two shillings, and 9d. in coppers, all good money.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These crowns are all bad, and from one mould.

Prisoner's Defence. I don't know anything about those two five shilling-pieces. I did not know the other one was bad.

GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-586
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

586. MARGARET ANDREWS (22), was indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. ORRIDGE and LUMLEY conducted the Prosecution.

MARY ANN STEPHENS . I am twelve years old, and live with my parents at 14 Reed's-place, Kentish-town—on Friday, 12th May, the prisoner spoke to me near Lime-street, Camden Town—she asked me to fetch her a yard and a half of elastic at a shop, and she would give me a halfpenny—she gave me a florin, and I went into the shop—I was served with the elastic, gave the young lady the florin, and she said she had not got change—I then went over with it to the Eagle, and asked the barman for change—he bent it and gave it me back—I left the prisoner standing at the corner of Lime-street—she was not there when I came out—Mr. Thornback spoke to me, and I showed him the florin—I afterwards gave it to a constable at Mr. Thornback's shop—I then went to the station and saw the prisoner there—I recognised her, and said she was the person—she did not say anything.

WILLIAM JOSHUA THORNBACK . I am a basket-maker, of 74, Camden. road—on Friday, 12th May, about 3 in the afternoon, I saw the prisoner outside my shop—the last witness came by and the prisoner stopped her and gave her something—the child went into Lambert's shop—the prisoner ran across the road and stood and peeped round the corner and watched Lambert's—I did not see the little girl come out—I saw the prisoner running away, and then spoke to the girl, who showed me a bad florin—I went after the prisoner and gave her in custody—I told the constable in her hearing that she had given a little girl a bad florin—the prisoner said it was not her, and I said, "Come back to the shop and see"—the female searcher gave the inspector at the station a handkerchief and 4 1/2., which she said she had found on the prisoner.

MARY LAMBERT . I assist my mother at a Berlin wool-shop, 84, Camden-road—on Friday, 12th May, I served a little girl with a yard and a half of elastic—she gave me a florin—I refused to change it, and she went away.

WILLIAM LOOM . I am barman at the Eagle tavern—that little girl brought a bad florin there on the Friday afternoon—I bent it, and returned it to her.

MICHAEL TALBOT (Policeman, S. 133). On Friday afternoon, 12th May, I was on duty in Camden-street—Mr. Thornback pointed the prisoner out to me—I took her to his shop, and asked the little girl if she knew the woman—she said, "That is the woman who gave me this bad two-shilling piece"—she gave me the coin, and I took the prisoner to the station—I

marked the florin—this is it (produced)—the prisoner said the child most be mistaken.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . This is a bad florin.

Prisoner's Defence. I was going in the direction of this shop, when a policeman called me, and Mr. Thornback said, "This is the woman who gave the girl a bad two-shilling piece. "I said that he must be mistaken. The child was almost forced to say that it was me.

WILLIAM JOSHUA THORNBACK (re-examined). When the prisoner was brought back to my shop the little girl was asked if that was the same woman, and she began to cry, and said, "Well, I don't know; she had on the same bonnet"—she was frightened—the policeman asked her if it was the same woman, and she said she was quite certain it was—I saw the woman for twenty minutes—I have no doubt about her—she is the same person—she was going away from the shop when she was taken.

GUILTY .— Confined Six Months.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-587
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

587. EDWARD LOOSEMORE (15) , Stealing 40 cigars, and the sum of 8s., the property of William John Matthews.

MR. MONTAGUE WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution,

WILLIAM JOHN MATTHEWS . I keep the Freemasons' Arms, Long-acre—on the night of 12th May, I saw my house safe when I went to bed—I found in the morning that it had been entered from the back—I missed about 13c in money, and about forty cigars—this copper coin (produced) was with the money I lost—there is a carpenter's shop at the back of my house—I found a piece of webbing by my premises, doubled and tied in knots eighteen inches apart—this coin is a halfpenny—I chiselled it up—it is eaten away—it was found while making alterations.

WILLIAM ACKRELL (Police-sergeant, F 15). On the morning of 12th May, about 6 o'clock, I went to the prisoner's lodgings, 21, Bedford-street, Bedford-row, and found him in bed—I told him I was an officer, and should take him in custody for a burglary the night previous at the Freemasons' Arms—he asked me what was stolen, and I told him a quantity of cigars and money—he said that he knew nothing about it—I allowed him to dress himself—he said, "Well, I did have them; I smoked them till they made me sick, and the others I sold to a man in the street; I don't know his name or address"—I searched him, and found this coin in his pocket—I asked him where he got it from—he said he found it in the street—Mr. Matthews identified it.

Prisoner. Q. I told you I had bought the cigars? A. No, you amid you had had them.

FREDERICK KERLEY (Policeman, F 123). I examined Mr. Matthews' premises about 9 in the morning—the back premises were open, and I found this webbing suspended from some rails at the rear of the house leading into Mr. Matthews' back yard—it appeared to me as if persons had been concealed in the carpenter's shop, and come through the window on to the leads—I went with Ackrell and took the prisoner.

SIMON EMMANUEL . I am a cabinet maker—I have premises in rear of the Freemasons' Arms—this is my webbing—it was taken from my workshop on the night of 12th—I also missed some tools.

Prisoner's Defence. I was in bed and asleep at the time the robbery was committed; I picked the halfpenny up in Red Lion-street I have my mother as a witness.

ANN LOOSEMORE . I am the prisoner's mother—he was in on the Thursday

evening—I cannot state the date of the month—he was taken on the Saturday morning—he went to bed about 12 on the Thursday—he was out till 12, and he got up between 5 and 6 on Friday morning—he was at home nearly the whole of that day, and was in bed before half-past 10—I am sure he slept at home that night—he always sleeps at home—he was at my house when he was taken.

Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. Q. Where did you see him between 5 and 6 on the Friday? A. In his room—he slept in the same room as I did—he also slept there on Thursday—I am sure he did not go out after 12—I have seen him smoking cigars—I saw him smoking one on the Friday; he came in with one to breakfast about 10 o'clock—he told the gentleman that he smoked six, and they made him sick—that was on the Saturday morning—I only saw him with the one he was smoking—I called him between 5 and 6 on the Friday morning.

WILLIAM JOHN MATTHEWS (re-examined). The robbery was committed on Thursday night or Friday morning—I came down at a quarter-past 6 on the Friday morning.

WILLIAM ACKRELL (re-examined). No money was found on the prisoner.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-588
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

588. EDWARD LOOSEMORE was again indicted, with JOHN McCARTHY (18), and MICHAEL ROACH (17), who PLEADED GUILTY for a burglary in the dwelling-house of Edward Wood, and stealing 2 tankards and 10s., his property.

MR. MONTAGUE WILLIAMS offered no evidence against


MCCARTHY and ROACH.— Confined Eighteen Months each.

The following Prisoners PLEADED GUILTY:—

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-589
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

589. JAMES BURGESS*** (24) , to stealing a handkerchief, the property of Henry Hunt, from his person; also, to a former conviction in January, 1862, when he was sentenced to Four Years' Penal Servitude.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-590
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

590. MATILDA PEPPERELL (20) , to unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child.— Confined Nine Months. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-591
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

591. WILLIAM GILES (24) , to stealing 43 yards of merino, the property of Benjamin Worthy Horne and another.— Confined Nine Months; and [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-592
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

592. GEORGE JAMES (19), and CHARLES CHURCH (18) , to breaking and entering the warehouse of Robert Brown and others, and stealing 1 bag, 180 handkerchiefs, 639 scarves, and other goods, their property.— Confined Twelve Months each. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

NEW COURT.—Monday, June 12th, 1865.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-593
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

593. THOMAS HAYWARD (27), PLEADED GUILTY ** to uttering counterfeit coin, after a previous conviction.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-594
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

594. ALFRED FROST (21) , to unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.— Confined Nine Months. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-595
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

595. DAVID McAULIFF* (30) , to stealing in a dwelling-house, after a previous conviction.— Confined Eighteen Months. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-596
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

596. GEORGE HAYHOW (17), and JAMES SULLIVAN**(17) , to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of George Davis, and stealing therein 3 pairs of trousers and other articles, Sullivan having been before convicted.

HAYHOW— Confined Nine Months.

SULLIVAN— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-597
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

597. JOHN WILKINS THORNE (19), to six indictments for feloniously forging and uttering receipts for 29l. 1s. and 25l. 1s., with intent to defraud.— Five Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-598
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

598. GEORGE SMITH (19), and JOHN BROWN (17) , Unlawfully having counterfeit coin, with intent to utter it; to which Brown

PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Nine Months.

MESSES. O'CONNELL and GOUGH conducted the Prosecution, and MR. PATER the Defence.

FREDERICK THOMAS ALTON . I live at the Red Cap tavern, Holloway—on 6th May, Brown came in for a glass of ale and tendered a bad shilling to the landlady, Mrs. Corbett, who is not here—she was about to put it in the till, but I took it from her, and found it was bad—I had seen the prisoner there two or three weeks before, tendering bad money, and told him so—he said nothing—I broke the shilling into three pieces—he paid with a good shilling—I spoke to Mr. Rawlinson, went out with him, and saw Brown alone—he passed very close to a young man—I did not follow him—these (produced) are the pieces of the broken shilling.

JOHN RAWLINSON . I am a gardener, of Church-street, Hackney—on 6th May, I was at the Rod Cap, and saw Brown come in—he had some drink, and paid with a bad shilling—Mrs. Corbett took it up, and Alton took it from her—Brown left, and I followed him, and saw him join the other prisoner at the end of Thomas-street, near the Archway toll gate—that is five or six hundred yards from the Red Cap—Brown stood still till Smith joined him—they stood together a few minutes and then came past the Archway Tavern, where I stood—I saw a policeman coming, spoke to him, and followed the prisoners towards Finchley—they paid the toll-gate, and went through—I followed them behind a dung-cart, went across a brick-field to the Birkbeck Tavern, and found Brown inside drinking, and Smith outside, about five yards from the door—as Brown came out at one door, I went in at the other and saw the landlord, who came out with me, and we went after the prisoners, who were together in Jackson's-lane—I called out, "Hay!"—Mr. Hiscock laid hold of Brown, and Smith put his hand in his pocket and tried to throw something over the hedge—it was in whity-brown tissue paper—I laid hold of him and picked up two bad shillings close to his feet, and gave them to the policeman.

Cross-examined. Q. How soon after you saw the coin roll out of the paper did you apprehend Smith? A. Not half a minute—as he threw his body round to throw the money, be threw himself into my arms.

MR. O'CONNELL. Q. Did the parcel break when it was thrown out of his hand? A. Yes, against the top of the hedge.

WILLIAM HISCOCK . I am landlord of the Birkbeck Tavern, Archway-road—on 6th May, Brown came to my house for a glass of ale, and tendered a shilling—I gave him the change, and he left—Rawlinson then came in and spoke to me, and I found it was bad—I followed the prisoners, and shouted—I took hold of Brown, and told him he had given me a bad shilling—he said that he had not—I saw Smith throw a packet over the hedge, and I saw some bad shillings fall out—I afterwards looked into the hedge, and found these five bad shillings; I gave them to the policeman—this is the shilling Brown gave me—I marked it at the time—Rawlinson handed me two shillings which he picked up in the road—I saw another gentleman pick up two or three shillings which he gave to me, and I gave them to the inspector—I pointed out to Stone the place in the hedge where the packet struck.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you see anything in Smith's hand before the package struck the hedge? A. No; I had Brown in custody at that time.

SIMEON STONE . I am a miner, and live at Mr. Hiscock's—on 6th May, I saw Mr. Hiscock, Mr. Rawlinson, and the prisoners in the lane—Mr. Hiscock was holding Smith—he pointed out a place in the hedge to me—I beat the hedge with a stick, and got out six bad shillings; the last one was wrapped in paper—I pointed out the place to Rolfe—I gave the shilling to the inspector.

ADAM ROLFE (Policeman, S 123). Mr. Hiscock gave the prisoners into my custody with five bad shillings, and Rawlinson gave me two bad shillings—I handed them to the inspector—I found 2s. 10d. on Brown, in good money, and a key.

Cross-examined. Q. Did Brown say anything going to the station? A. Yes, he said, "It was not Smith who threw the money over the hedge; it was me.

CHARLES O'LOUGHLIN (Police-inspector, 8). The prisoners were brought to Highgate-station—I searched Smith, and found two shillings, nine sixpences, a fourpenny-piece, two threepenny-pieces, and two shillings in copper, all good—I produce the coins which Hiscock and Rolfe gave me.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am inspector of coin to Her Majesty's Mint—the shilling uttered is counterfeit—here are fourteen others all bad, and some of them from the same mould as the one uttered.

SMITH— GUILTY .—He further PLEADED GUILTY to having been before convicted of a like offence, in the name of George Brown, in November, 1863.— Confined Two Years.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-599
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

599. JOHN BURGESS and ROBERT PECK were indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. COLERIDGE and GOUGH conducted the Prosecution, and MR. HOLDSWORTH the defence.

ANNE HASLETINE . I am the wife of Samuel Hasletine, of the Mason's Arms, Buckingham-place—on 26th April, the prisoners came in—Peck asked for a glass of ale, which came to 1 1/2 d.—he gave me a half-sovereign—I gave him 9s. 6d. in silver, and was going to give him the coppers, when Burgess said, "Why need you change a half-sovereign when I have got coppers"—I thought there was something wrong, looked at the change on the counter, and found a bad half-crown amongst it—I said, "You have taken the good half-crown out, and put a bad one in"—Peck said, "It is all good and right," and took the change away—Young was in my house at the time.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you see a third man with the prisoners? A. No; I got the change from my bar-parlour—I had several pounds' worth there—they had plenty of opportunities of changing the half-crown while my head was turned to take the change for the glass of ale—I saw Peck in custody at the station about half an hour afterwards.

MR. COLERIDGE. Q. Are you perfectly sure that you gave two good half-crowns in change? A. Perfectly; I had taken the silver in my hand, and examined it—the prisoners' half-crown was more black than mine.

JAMES YOUNG . I was in the Mason's Arms, and saw Burgess and another man who I did not take notice of—I heard the dispute about half a crown, saw them leave, and followed them to the Euston-road, where a man joined them—I saw Peck outside a cigar-shop, the other two went in and came out, and Peck joined them in Osnaburg-street—I then went into the cigar-shop

with the son of Mr. Tilly, and Sarah Broden gave a bad half-crown to Mr. Tilly.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you identify the prisoners as being in the Mason's Arms? A. No; my impression is that Peck joined them afterwards—Burgess threw a half-crown to me, that was perfectly good.

MR. COLERIDGE. Q. Did you see the three together before they went into the cigar-shop? A. Yes, I did not see Peck join them, but I saw him with them.

Burgess. Q. Did I make a remark to you in the beer-shop? A. Yes; about-three half-crowns—I said it was a half-crown that you passed to me, and that I wished I had a pocket-full of them.

SARAH BRODEN . I am single, and assist in a tobacconist's shop at 424, Euston-road—on 26th April, the prisoners came in for two pennyworths of tobacco—I served them, and one of them gave me a half-crown—I asked if they had not got smaller change; one of them said, "Perhaps I have," and felt and said, "No, I have not;" I said "I must give you a florin, and four-pence in copper"—I did so, and they left—Mr. Young and Mr. Tilly then came in, and I took the half-crown out of the till.

Cross-examined. Q. Are your sure the prisoners were in the shop? A. Both of them—I saw no other men at the door, but I saw a taller man waiting in Albany-Street, who said that he was in the shop, but I said, "No, you were not".

CHARLES GANTON (Policeman, A 759). The prisoners were given into my custody in a public-house in Munster-street—I told Peck I took him for passing a bad half-crown in the Euston-road—he said, "I know nothing of it"—I took him to where the other two men were—McDonald has since been discharged—18s. in silver was found on Peek, and 5 1/2 d. in bronze; also, a pocket-book—on Burgess was found 9s. in silver, and 3d. in copper, which was given up—Sarah Broden gave me the half-crown out of the till.

Cross-examined. Q. Were the prisoners together? A. No; one was in one compartment, and two in the other.

Burgess. Q. Did you make some observation to the man who was with me respecting the money? A. No, McDonald said you must be mad.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . This is a bad half-crown, but it is a very good-looking one.

Burgess's Defence. I met the man that was discharged; he asked me to have a glass of ale; I gave the half-crown to pay for it; there was a dispute about it being bad, and I chucked it to the witness—I have been two months in custody for having a glass of ale, and going with him to buy some tobacco.

GUILTY .— The prisoners both PLEADED GUILTY to previous convictions; Burgess, in October, 1856, when he was confined one year , and Peck in August, 1858,four years' penal servitude.

BURGESS.— Seven years' Penal Servitude.

PECK.— Eight Years' Penal Servitude.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, June 13th, 1865.

Before Mr. Recorder.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-600
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

600. HENRY HUITSON (18) , Embezzling the sums of 1l. 9s. 3d., 4l. 13s. 9d. and 1l. 3s. 6d. of David Hyam and another, his masters.

MR. F. H. LEWIS conducted the Prosecution, and MR. BESLEY the Defence.

WILLIAM WATERS . I am a clerk in the employment of Messrs. Gray and

Co., merchants, 31, Great St. Helen's—I cannot say whether I paid the amount of this invoice to the prisoner on 8th April, it was paid out of our office—two persons pay and neither of us can tell who paid it—I may have paid it—I know that money was due to Messrs. Hyam, and it was paid.

Cross-examined. Q. When you are absent does another person pay? A. Yes; that person is not here.

JAMES GILLINGHAM . I am cashier to Messrs. Byer and Co., drapers, King William-street—on 17th May they were indebted to the prosecutor in the sum mentioned in this invoice, 1l. 3s. 6d.—I paid the prisoner that amount—he wrote this receipt when I gave him the money.

Cross-examined. Q. What date was that? A. 17th May—I believe it was Wednesday, it was about one o'clock I think—I recollect his asking for a small account of David Hyam and Co.—I said, "We have no statement of that account"—he said, "Perhaps you have a statement of an account to Davis and Co., as Hyam and Co. are using their statements"—I found this one which I paid him.

DAVID HYAM . I am senior partner in the firm of David Hyam and Co., foreign warehousemen—the prisoner was in our service—he collected money when requested—the gentlemen whose names are mentioned in these three receipts were indebted to our firm—I see the name "Henry Huitson "to all of them, it is in the prisoner's writing—on 25th May I called the prisoner into my private room—I told him we had reason to believe that he had received an amount from Messrs. Grays'—he said that he had—I said, "What have you done with it?"—he said, "I have lost it out of my pocket"—I said I did not believe him—he begged very bard that I would look over it and he would get the money in the afternoon from his sister, but I was determined and took him to the station—I said, "You may as well say whether there is any other money you have taken, "and he said, "Only two"—he mentioned the name of Prior, and another name which I don't recollect—I never receive money—I have not received either of these sums.

Cross-examined. Q. How long had he been in your service? A. I think some four or five years—I don't think he is eighteen yet—I don't know anything of his father, I saw him some years since—the prisoner received 35l. or 36l. a year from me, 13s. 6d. a week, he was paid weekly—he has lost his mother, his father re-married, and he has been living away from home—I did not tell him it would be better for him if he told me—I told him we had been robbed to a great extent—our chief clerk was there, the cashier was not; the chief clerk is not here—I said, "I can't overlook this, we have been robbed to a very large extent"—it was occasionally the prisoner's duty to go out on Saturdays to collect the money due on that day; not every Saturday; sometimes another might have gone—I think the cashier gave him the accounts to collect—he would sometimes call at one place and sometimes four or five, never a dozen I should say—he should have entered the accounts in the books on the Monday, he would not return on the Saturday; our business is entirely closed on the Saturday—his duty was to pay it into the bankers on the Saturday—he might have collected on Wednesday, but not to my knowledge—he could go out collecting when he pleased on the Saturday—we don't see him from Friday night till Monday morning—if he collected too late to pay money in on the Saturday, he would pay it in on the Monday.

MR. LEWIS, Q. Had he a book in which it was his duty to enter Moneys that he received? A. A book called a collecting-book, this is it (produced).

JURY Q. Did he receive board and lodging with his 13s. 6d.? A. No.

SEWARD JAMES ROSSITER . I am cashier to Messrs. Hyam and Co.—it was the prisoner's duty to render an account to me of all the moneys he received—it was his duty to enter in this book the sums he collected—there is no entry on 5th March of any sum collected by him—there is no entry on 8th April of the sum of 4l. 13s. 9d. from Gray and Co., there are five other entries on that day—there is no entry on 17th May of 1l. 3s. 6d., or of any sum received by him—he has never paid me any of these moneys—it was his duty to pay to me any sums that he did not receive on the Saturday.

Cross-examined. Q. He was in the counting-house, was he not, as a clerk? Q. Yes—there is no entry on 22d May, he was in custody on 24th—this hook was kept on our premises.

COURT. Q. Do I understand that there are no entries of these sums on those particular days or upon any subsequent days? Q. None.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-601
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

601. JAMES HENRY WILSON (41) , Forging and uttering an order for the payment of 10l. with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. METCALFE and PATTESON conducted the Prosecution, and MR. PATER the Defence.

SAMUEL WHEDDON . I am postmaster at Nether Stowey, near Bridge-water—money-orders are issued and paid at my office—I am supplied with a number of forms by the General Post-office, in books, each form is numbered, the order and advice are on one sheet—our practice is to enter the name of the payee and the remitter in a journal, then enter the amount and the office upon which they are drawn on the order, and give that to the person; the advice is made out with the names of the remitter and the payee and sent to the postmaster upon whose office the order is drawn—on 12th May a short dark man drove up to my office in a gig; his right eye appeared to me larger than the other; be alighted and walked into the office, carrying in his hand a black bag—he addressed me by name, saying he wished to be shown into a private room—he then said he was an inspector of the General Post-office, sent by the Postmaster-General, and that Mr. Cresswell was to have come with him but was prevented—Mr. Cresswell is the surveyor of the Western district I believe—he opened his bag and pulled out some papers and began to read them; he said that several letters that were posted at the offices at Nether Stowey, Carrington, and Holford had never been received; that a letter addressed to Sir George Crowe, Belgrave-square, had not been received, that a letter posted at Nether Stowey containing coin, the posting of which could be attested, had never come to hand—he also said that Sir Peregrine Acland had made complaints respecting his letters—I said that Sir Peregrine Acland's letters did not pass through my office; he said that some of them did, which is the case—he said that the Postmaster-General had issued peremptory orders for a searching inquiry to be made with respect to those letters—he said "1 have received a letter from some persons in London respecting a letter containing bank-notes, I have seen the reply to that letter, the letter was from a person who called himself Hamilton, and the address was, "Post-office, Camden-town, "I answered that letter and signed it, requesting him to make the loss known to the secretary"—I told him I could not give him any information respecting those letters, but most certainly every letter that was posted was despatched the same evening in the bag to Bridgewater—he then asked me what my average issue of money-orders daily or weekly was, and asked to see my

books—I brought them to him, he said they appeared correct—I told him I issued very few money-orders—he said that there was going to be an alteration made in the numbers of the money-orders sent to sub-offices, because the issue in large places, such as Bristol and Liverpool, caused trouble in the departments, and the numbers were entered by machinery—he requested me then to give him the orders, and I gave him a book numbered from 200 to 400 which I had never used—I brought the other book to him which I was then using, and he selected 100 from that, numbered from 101 to 200; he then requested me to stamp them to show the date in order to get them cancelled, but the order-book he said he should return to the storekeeper of the department—I stamped both the orders and the advices—he suggested several improvements that were to be made, he said the office must be kept more private—he asked me what time I made the bag up in the evening, I told him half-past seven—he said he should return then and come and see the way I made up my bag, and should bring a test-letter with him and get me to put a private mark on it which would no doubt lead to the detection of the offenders—he returned about half-past seven in the gig—he said he had been to Holford and there was great neglect there—I commenced making up the bag, and he asked me to grant him a money-order, which I did to a small amount—I proceeded to stamp the letters; he made several inquiries during the time and produced a letter which he called a test-letter—a Rifle band came up the street while he was there, I was looking out at the window—his horse began to get restive, and I went to the door and called a boy to hold it; when I came back the man had hold of the bag, holding it up—I put the letters in and sealed the bag up; in a few minutes the mail cart drove up, I gave the driver the bag and signed his bill—the man then said he should watch that fellow and he drove off—I afterwards saw the horse and gig at Mr. Rix's at Bridgewater, I picked out the horse from several others—these orders (produced) were some that the man selected, these are from 116 to 120—the advices and orders are both here—this is not my signature on the advices—there are also here numbers 131 to 135, and 136 to 137, the whole of them are forgeries.

Cross-examined. Q. What are you? I am a tailor, and I keep the post-office as well—the man called between ten and eleven on 12th May—that was the first time I had seen him—I had not seen the horse before that I am aware of—I saw it again about a fortnight ago I suppose—I was not so clear as to the gig.

MR. METCALFE. Q. What colour was the horse? A. Dark brown.

JAMES LAWES . I am boots at the White Hart, Bridgewater—on the evening of 11th May, I saw a short dark man in the commercial-room—he had something peculiar about his eyes—he asked me to get him a horse and gig in the morning to go to Stowey—I got him one from Mr. Rix's, and he started at half-past 9 next morning—it was a black horse, between a black and a brown—I put a black handbag in the gig—I saw him again at half-past 9 in the evening—he came back in the gig, and paid Mr. Rix for it—he then said he had a friend to meet at the station, and went off—he stopped there on the night of the 11th—between 11 and 12 that night I saw the prisoner at Mr. Phelps', the Commercial Inn, which is two or three minutes' walk from the White Hart—I also saw him on the afternoon of the 12th at the White Hart—he was in the bar when the other man came back with the gig—the prisoner left about six or seven minutes after him—the station is about ten minutes' walk off—there was a 10-o'clock train to Bristol that

night, and then the mail on to London at 11—they would hare had time to get that train.

Cross-examined. Q. Had you much opportunity of seeing the dark man you speak of? A. I saw him three times; I should know him again if I saw him—I had not seen him before nor the prisoner either—the prisoner went out of our house about five or six minutes after the other man.

GEORGE PHELPS . I keep the Commercial Hotel, at Bridgewater—about 9 o'clock on the evening of 11th May, the prisoner came there—he was dressed in light clothes—he called for six-penny worth of gin and water, and asked if he could have a bed—I said I believed he could—he then walked out of the bar into the archway leading into the yard, and spoke to a short dark man—I did not hear what they said—they both walked up the yard—I saw the short dark man's face—there was something peculiar in his right eye—they talked together about two minutes, and the prisoner then returned into the bar—he remained till 2 in the morning—we were in conversation during the evening—he was very clever in talking—I asked him whether he was in the commercial business—he said, "No; I am here under particular circumstances, on particular business, I am here to do others good, not myself"—he then entered into religious subjects—he brought no luggage with him—he asked me to knock at his door, which I did next morning—he took breakfast with me and paid his bill—he asked me where there was a barber, and I directed him—he called again about 11, and asked for a glass of bitter ale—before that, about ten minutes to 10, the little dark man called and inquired whether a gentleman dressed in light clothes slept in my house, and I said there was—I told the prisoner a gentleman called for him—he said, "Excuse me, "turned round, and walked away towards the railway station, and I never saw him again—he was the only guest who slept at my house on the 11th.

JOHN WESTCOTT . I am ostler at the Commercial Hotel, Bridgewater—on the night of 11th May, I saw the prisoner opposite our yard—he was dressed in tight clothes—there was a dark, short gentleman with him, with a black patent-leather bag—they stopped there a few minutes talking—the prisoner then walked across the road to the bar, and asked for a bed—he afterwards came out and went up the yard with the short man—they talked a little while together and then came back—the short man asked me where the White Hart was, and I directed him, and he walked off in that direction—it is a very little way off—the prisoner went into the bar of our place, and stopped there that night—I saw him in the yard next morning—I heard my master say that a gentleman had just been to inquire fox him—he said, "Oh, no, you must excuse me; I will not go in now, I am drunk"—he he then went away through the arch.

Cross-examined. Q. He was drunk, was he not? A. I cannot say he was—he had the appearance of a man that was intoxicated, in the way he rambled out.

CHARLES JAMES . I keep the post-office at 141, Whitechapel-road—we issue and pay money-orders there—on Saturday, 13th May, I received these letters of advice from Nether Stowey—they refer to these money-orders—the prisoner presented the money-orders—I asked him the name of the remitter—he replied, "Edgar Beeves"—I asked also in a casual way if he lived in the neighbourhood—he replied, "Wellington-street"—I said, "Stepney?"—he said, "No, Bethnal-green—I paid him five orders of 10l. each—my attention was first called to it by the Post-office authorities.

Cross-examined. Q. When did you see the accused again? A. In Bow-street

station the following Friday week, the 26th, I believe—I had never seen him before I paid him the orders—he was amongst six or seven others at the station—I partly guessed what I was taken to the station for.

MR. METCALFE. Q. Did they point him out to you? A. No, I picked him out; I caught hold of his coat—I am sure he is the man.

AUGUSTUS SHRODER . I keep the post-office, 53, Three Colt-street, Lime-house—on 13th May, a person came with some money-orders—I had previously received letters of advice—two bundles of five each were presented, amounting altogether to 100l.—the prisoner was the person who brought them—I paid him two—I did not pay him all, because I had not sufficient funds—I told him so, and told him to call again at 4 o'clock—he then went away, and shortly afterwards returned with another man—he wished to know whether I meant to pay the money or not—I said I could not pay, I should pay it at 4 o'clock—he said, "Do you mean to say you refuse?"—I said, "No, I do not refuse; I cannot pay it till 4"—we had some high words, and I received some abuse—he said he was the captain of a ship, and he could not detain the ship—they afterwards went away, and I never saw the prisoner again—these two orders, numbered 136 and 137, are the two I paid—the other eight were not left—I am sure the prisoner is the man.

Cross-examined. Q. How long after the 13th did you see him? A. I cannot exactly say the date, it might have been a fortnight afterwards, I really cannot say; it was when he was in custody—I never saw him before he came to my office—I was asked to go to Bow-lane—I knew I went there to identify the man—I did identify him—nobody pointed him out to me—I dare say there were six or seven others with him, and I selected him.

FREDERICK HERBERT LIST . I keep the post-office receiving-house, 8, Waterloo-terrace, Stepney—on 13th May, a person presented these five orders to me—I had previously received corresponding letters of advice—I paid the person who presented these money-orders—to the best of my belief the prisoner is the person who presented them, and to whom I paid them—I was afterwards taken to the station, and I selected the prisoner from amongst six others.

Cross-examined. Q. Are you quite certain that he is the man? Q. To the best of my belief he is—he was a stranger to me up to the 13th—he had his hat on all the time; but while he was receiving the money I was standing within eighteen inches of him, looking at him.

EDWARD HANCOCK (City-policeman). I took the prisoner on 26th May, in the Edgeware-road—another person was with me—I told the prisoner I wanted to speak to him—he said, "What about?"—I said, "Come here, I will tell you"—I then took him across the road into a shop, and told him he would be charged, with another man not in custody, for stealing a number of post-office orders from Nether Stowey, in Somersetshire—he said, "I know nothing about it; I shall say no more till I have seen a solicitor"—I took him to the station in a cab—he gave the name of James Henry Wilson, and refused his address—on the way to the station, be said, "I shall employ a solicitor; if it is my bit, I shall have to do it; I do not see how they can do that, I cannot write"—I had said nothing to him at all about forgery, nor had the other officer in my presence.

Cross-examined. Q. Did not you say "You will be charged with being concerned with another man in stealing from the post-office, at Nether Stowey, near Bridgewater, about a fortnight since, a large number of money-orders"? A. I believe those were my words—ho said that he knew nothing about it.

JOHN FOULGER (Police-inspector). The prisoner was brought to Bow-lane station on Friday, 26th May—he said that he should not say anything till he had seen his solicitor—I afterwards placed him with five or six other men about his own size and appearance, and the witnesses identified him as the person to whom they had paid money upon post-office orders—when I put him back in the cell he said that he had been made the mug in the business—I understood that to mean a person who had been led to do something by another—he also said, "I can see I shall get settled over the job; if they all say I did it, it is no use for me to say I did not"—he had said before that, that the witnesses were all wrong—I afterwards took him to Bow-street station—on the way he said that he would take ten years for it without going another yard—he said he had been in very bad health—that he had been under medical treatment for some time, and that he should not live to do it. (The orders were put in and read, they were made payable to the names of William Bright, Walter Smith and John Young.)

GUILTY .—He also PLEADED GUILTY to a former conviction of felony at Liverpool, in July, 1863, in the name of James Beadle. Ten years' Penal Servitude.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-602
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

602. GEORGE THOMAS (30), PLEADED GUILTY ** to breaking into the warehouse of John Cable and another and stealing 22 bolts of canvas and other articles, their property—He was also charged with having been before convicted of felony at this Court, in June, 1856, in the name of George Jones.

ROBERT NICHOLLS . I know the prisoner—I know of his having been previously convicted, in 1856, at this court—this is the certificate of his conviction—(Read: "Central Criminal Court, 7th January, 1856, George Jones convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling-house, and stealing therein.—Sentence, Four Years' Penal Servitude")— I was one of the officers in the case—I had not known him previously—I am quite sure he is the person.

THOMAS LOCKYER . I am a warder at the House of Correction—I have known the prisoner for years—he was here for trial—I did not see him—I made a memorandum in my book, at that time, that he was-here for trial, and I find the sentence in my book.

Prisoner. It is false—I have been convicted, but I never had four years.

NOT GUILTY of the previous conviction.— Sentence on the house-breaking, Seven Year's Penal Servitude.

The following prisoners PLEADED GUILTY:—

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-603
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > fine

Related Material

603. JOSEPH THOMPSON (44) , to retaining and delaying, whilst employed in the Post-office, a newspaper, in course of conveyance by post.— Fined 5l . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-604
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

604. JOHN McDONALD (19), GEORGE SMITH (20), and EDWARD SMITH (17) , to Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of James Hale, and stealing therein 39l.; Edward Smith having been before convicted, at Clerkenwell, in the name of Edward Dowell, in July, 1862.*— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

McDONALD.— Eighteen Months.

GEORGE SMITH.— Nine Months. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-605
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

605. HENRY CLARK (63) , to stealing 1 metal pot, of William Morris.*— Confined Nine Months. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-606
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

606. GEORGE SANDERS* (40) , to stealing 66 lbs. weight of veal, the property of William Frederick Masters; having been before convicted, in June, 1856, in the name of George Laurie .— Confined Eighteen Months ; and [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-607
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

607. JOHN COSTELLO* (21) , to stealing 108 yards of poplin, of Wm. Richard Sutton, after a former conviction, in February, 1864, in the name of John Bowers . Seven Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, June 13th, 1865.

Before Mr. common Serjeant.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-608
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

608. WILLIAM GREEN** (17), PLEADED GUILTY to Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of George Lane Fox, and to stealing therein a clock and other articles; having been previously convicted— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. And

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-609
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

609. WILLIAM ROSE (21) , to Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Sydney Edward Barnett, and of stealing therein 1 book-case, 8 books, 2 jackets and other articles, his property; having been before convicted— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-610
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

610. THOMAS FRANCIS HOLMAN (33) , was charged upon 3 indictments, with stealing 896 lbs. of sugar-sweepings, the property of Robert Holdsworth Carew Hunt and others, his masters, also, with conspiring with other persons to defraud his said masters.

MR. POLAND for the Prosecution offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY . (See page 72.)

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-611
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

611. THOMAS BROWN (28), and GEORGE STREET (40) , Robbery on Robert Harwood, and stealing from his person 1 watch, 1 chain, 1 puree, and 1l. in money, his property.

MR. WHARTON conducted the Prosecution, and MR. COLLINS Like Defence.

ROBERT HARWOOD . I am an artist, at Percy Street, Bedford Square—on 12th May, I was walking with Miss McClachlan in some fields near the Finchley Road—the two prisoners suddenly accosted us, and accused us of trespassing—I told them that we were not—Brown then went on with Miss McClachlan, and I followed across the corner of the field with Street: after getting some distance he said, "I am a poor man, and a little money will be acceptable to me, if you will give me a trifle I will say no more about it, but let you both return on the road"—I gave him about six shillings—Brown was some little distance off, with the lady; he took her over a stile, which separated us, but in a couple of minutes Street ran after her and went across the stile—she then returned to the corner of the stile with Brown—in a minute or two, Street returned to me with Brown, and told me to keep off the grass—when I got on the footpath Street was behind me and seized me suddenly by the throat, threw me down with violence, and Brown rifled my pockets of everything I possessed—he took my watch, chain, pin, purse, hat, and umbrella, a half-sovereign and some silver—they ran away, and by the time I had sufficiently recovered to see after them, they were out of sight—on the Monday following, I was with two policemen in the Regent's Park—saw the two prisoners together and gave them into custody.

Cross-examined. Q. At what time did you go out that night? A. At about ten minutes past 8, from the Eyre Arms—I live in Percy-street, it took me about three-quarters of an hour to the Eyre Arms—I was there about ten minutes—I did not go in—I had an appointment with the lady outside—I had known her about a week previously, I met her in some of the adjoining roads—I had seen her about twelve months previously for about half an hour—I had been out with her three or four evenings before in the same district—Finchley-road is about three-quarters of a mile or a mile from the Eyre Arms—it was not dark, it was not 9 o'clock when I met the men—I

saw two boys in the fields five or six minutes before the prisoners came up, and a lady and gentleman passed just before the robbery, but they were out of sight then—it was getting dark at the time the robbery took place—I was with the prisoners twenty minutes—it was almost dark when the lady and gentleman passed—we were full half a mile from the high road in one direction and two or three large fields in the other—I gave the 6s. before the lady and gentleman passed—I did not know that I was trespassing, I thought they made use of that as a threat—I thought it would not be the slightest use to tell the lady and gentleman, because when they had gone I should still be in the prisoners' power, and they would be more than a match for me—Miss McClachlan was with Brown when the lady and gentleman passed, she was out of my sight at that time, and I do not think she could have seen them—I did not cry for assistance, it was impossible, as I was suffocated—I went to the Britannia Tavern and sought for assistance—it was then about a quarter-past 9—I went to a policeman, and then went to different taverns to look for the prisoners—it might then have been between 11 and 12 o'clock—we walked a long distance towards Hampstead for a policeman—I described the prisoners at the station—I said that Brown was about 5 feet 9 inches, that they both wore caps and walking coats; their clothes were neither dark nor light, but a grayish colour, rather darkish than light—I had an appointment with the inspector to search for the prisoners—I was not with him when I saw them in the Regent's-park—I was only examined once at the police-court—I was brought up there twice—the lady was not present at the first remand—I knew the road she lived in, but did not know where she resided—I believe she went to the police-court on her own accord.

MARY McCLACHLAN . I am single, and live at York-place, St. John's Wood—on Friday evening, 12th May, I was with Mr. Har Wood—I saw the prisoners—I am sure they are the men—Street came tip first and said, "You are trespassing"—Mr. Harwood I think said, "No we are not"—the prisoners said that they were put there to prevent trespassing—Street took us both round the fields, and when he came to the stile he said that I might go—I refused to go, and kept with Mr. Harwood—we went back, and when Street found that I would not leave, he called Mr. Harwood back and left me with Brown—I went on with Brown, and then said that I wished to speak to my friend—Brown said that I could not—I said that I should, and I turned back and followed Street—Brown told me that they had turned to the right, and I turned to the right, but did not see them; I then turned, and saw the three standing together, but I did not see what happened—Street crossed to me and told me to be off, saying that I was to think myself lucky to get off without being locked up—I told him he had changed his tone, and pretended that he was Irish, but it was too late to do that as I could swear to them both, and that I should go into the road and find the first man I could and bring him—they then threatened to tie my hands and feet, and said, "You want keeping quiet"—I ran off, and found that Street had not followed me—I turned back again, but when I got to the stile I could not see any of them—I tried to jump across a ditch, but slipped into it, and then saw the two men running away alone, they had left Mr. Harwood—one of them said, "If we see her, we must keep her quiet, or else we must tap her and keep her quiet"—I was then in the ditch, they crossed the stile, and directly they had crossed I got into the field again, and found Mr. Harwood there—he had just risen from the ground, and had no hat or watch—I had seen his watch before that—I saw

the prisoners on the 22d, and recognised them directly they came into Court.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you see them in the dock? A. Before they got into the dock: I was not aware that they were prisoners, the police were behind them—I had seen Mr. Harwood on the Monday, and he told me they were taken into custody—I was not before the Magistrate at the first examination—Mr. Harwood did not give my address, he probably did not know it—we walked up to Finchley-road from the Eyre Arms, we started at a few minutes past 8—the robbery took place about a mile from the Eyre Arms—I saw two boys in the field, and a lady and gentleman had crossed just before; they came quite close to us both—I did not speak to them—I crossed the stile directly after them—the prisoners were not with us then, they came up three or four minutes afterwards—I did not see the prosecutor give them any money—I did not resist, because Street said in a lowish tone, "Go alone, it is entirely for your own good"—when we got into the next field he said, "You shall go one way, and your friend the other, I cannot let you go together, for our superintendents are watching us"—when the prisoners came up we were walking arm in arm—I had no chain on—I did not lose anything—I did not scream—I did not become frightened till I was in the ditch and the men said that the would "tap "me—the prisoners were dressed as they are now, I think, except that Street had on a black or darkish tie.

Q. Which of them had a hat? A. I cannot say, but I think it was Street; yes, I am sure now—I am quite sure Brown did not wear a hat—Street had a hat and Brown a hilly-cock—it was Brown that paid me particular attention—I cannot say whether he had a necktie, as his waistcoat was buttoned up—from the time I met Mr. Harwood to the time I was out in the road again was, I should imagine, half an hour—when the men passed over the ditch I was as near to them as I am now, but they did not see me, it was dark—at the station I left the prosecutor, and went home.

MR. WHARTON. Q. Did you notice whether Street had a hat or cap on? A. I think he had a hat, but I am not positive—if either of them had a hat it was Street.

JOSEPH SELBY (Policeman, F 137). On Monday, 15th May, about a quarter-past 12 o'clock, the prosecutor came up to me in the Euston-road, pointed out Street, and gave him in my custody—I told him he was charged with highway robbery with violence—I did not say where—he made no reply.

Cross-examined. Q. Did he go quietly with you to the station? A. Yes—he wore a cap and rather a lighter coat than he has now.

ROBERT BURTON (Policeman, F 30). On Monday, 15th May, the prosecutor pointed out Brown to me in the Euston-road, and I told him I should take him for highway robbery—he did not speak, but on the way to the station he asked me what it was for—I found 5s. 6d. in his pocket and 4s. in his month.

GUILTY .— Confined Eighteen Month each.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-612
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

612. MARY WERNHAM, Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. COLERIDGE and GORDON conducted the Prosecution, and MR. SHARPE the Defence.

ELIZABETH BLAND . I am the wife of George Bland of the Sun and Anchor public-house, St. Dunstan's Hill—on 1st May the prisoner came with a young man—she asked for half a quartern of gin, and tendered me

2 1/2 d. for it—her companion asked for half a quartern of gin and bitters, which she said she would pay for—he said, "I do not see why you should"—the man put down a bad florin, which I detained—he ran away—I kept the prisoner, but did not give her into custody, as I could not leave the house to get a constable—I had seen her on several occasions before—she came there in June 1864 for a pint of porter, and gave me a bad shilling—I told her not to come again, as I had Been her before—she said that she took it in mistake—I wrapped it in paper, put it on one side, and ultimately gave it to the policeman with the shilling.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you keep that shilling? A. Yes, wrapped in paper, in a glass in the bar—she said she knew nothing of the man. MR. COLERIDGE. Q. Was that subsequently to her wanting to pay for the liquor herself? A. Yes; they had been talking together in the bar—I also know the man, but had not seen him with her before.

JOSEPH ADAMS . I keep the Three Kingdoms public-house, Lower Thames-street—on 19th May, the prisoner came with another woman, between 2 and 3 in the afternoon, and asked for a pint of porter—the other woman paid for it; they both drank of it—the prisoner then asked me for change for half a sovereign—I gave her a good crown, and two good half-crowns—she then said, "Will you please to give me change for this half-crown?" holding it out to me—she gave it into my hand—I gave her the change, and kept it in my hand, as I was very busy, but somebody spoke to me, and I then found it was bad—they had both left the shop—I marked it, and put it on a shelf in the bar; it remained there a few days, and I afterwards gave it to the police—this is it (produced); here is my mark on it—I went to look after the prisoner, but could not find her—about a week afterwards she came again with the same woman, and I gave her in custody.

Cross-examined. Q. Who had access to the bar? A. Only myself, my wife, and my barman—the servant cleans out the bar in the morning, but I or my wife are always there—I took the half-crown from a shelf—I may have had thirty there—it was not the same shelf where I put the bad half-crown.

GEORGE CALLARD (City-policeman, 599). On 24th May, Mr. Adams gave the prisoner in my charge, with this half-crown—Mrs. Bland gave me this florin and shilling on the 26th, and came to the Mansion-house and identified the prisoner.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am inspector of coin to Her Majesty's Mint—these coins are all bad.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-613
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

613. JAMES TYLER (48), was again indicted for a like offence.

MR. COLERIDGE conducted the Prosecution.


Prisoner's Defence. I gave the 5s. piece, but did not know it was bad.

GUILTY .—He was further charged with having been before convicted.

WILLIAM HORNE (Policeman, H 142). I produce a certificate (Read. "Central Criminal Court, March 1862. James Taylor convicted on his own confession of uttering counterfeit coin, Confined Nine Months"—I was present—the prisoner is the person then tried in the name of Taylor.

GUILTY.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-614
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

614. WILLIAM BAYNARD (22) , Feloniously forging and uttering a request for the delivery of goods, with intent to defraud.

MR. HARRIS conducted the Prosecution.

JAMES COLLINS . I am assistant to the prosecutors—the prisoner brought me this order, and said, "I have brought an order from Steward's"(Read; Messrs. Hatton, please forward by bearer six gross of crimson orris lace. Seward and Co.")—I selected six gross, and sent it to the entering-room to be signed for.

Prisoner. Q. Did I give you that order personally? A. Yes; you did not take it to a gentleman with dark whiskers at the top of the landing—you went away and said that you would call for the goods—I did not ask you what colours in crimson—when you called again I did not speak to you.

ROBERT EDWARDS . I am entering-clerk to Hatton and Co. of Newgate-street—I remember part of the goods in question being sent to the entering-room, but being a large amount I went up to the manager to get it signed, and the person who came for them said, "I cannot wait; they had better be sent"—they were sent next day, and were returned, not having been ordered—to the best of my belief the prisoner is the man.

JOHN SEWARD . I am a polisher in the Borough—this order is not in my writing—I did not send it, and know nothing of it—the prisoner is a perfect stranger to me.

Prisoner's Defence. I was out of a situation, and advertised in the papers; a person named Gleed answered it, and asked me to meet him. he told me he was an agent for trimmings, and asked me to take this order to the warehouse; it was inclosed in an envelope; I presented it to a gentleman at the top of the landing, who told me where to go with it. Gleed said that he had an office in the City, and could get me a very good situation as light porter. He had a person with him who said, "What about that order from Se ward's; we had better send to Hat ton's and get them in; send them one. "I went, and after waiting some time I said that I would not wait, they had better send them, and the goods were sent Gleed is in custody, and if he had been charged with me he would probably have been honest enough to have stated so; we were brought up together at Guildhall with a man named Thompson, who I should like to call.

COURT to JAMES COLLINS. Q. Did you see the prisoner when he called again? A. Yes, but I did not speak to him; it was half or three-quarters of an hour afterwards—that was on a floor below where the goods would be delivered to him, and not where he ought to receive them.

The Prisoner called

WILLIAM THOMPSON , (in custody). I know the prisoner and Gleed—about two or three months ago I was with you in the City-road, and on another occasion in Tottenham-court-road, in the street, when Gleed gave you an order in an envelope—he said, "Take this order to Hatton's in Newgate-street, and you will get a parcel of goods; they are easy enough to come away, there is only a parcel of boys in the house, and they will ask you no questions at all"—the prisoner said, "Very well. "and he went with the order—Gleed said that he would sell the goods, and the prisoner should have one-third of the proceeds—I was to have the other third I do not know the writing of the order.

GUILTY of uttering . Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his youth, and thinking he had been drawn into it by swindling companions.— Judgment respited.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-615
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

615. SAMUEL PARMENTER (35), and THOMAS CAREY (26) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Charles Mead, and stealing therein 55l. 9s. 6d. the property of William Stephens, and 28l. 9s. 3d. of Uriah John Tomkins. Second count, Feloniously receiving the same.

MR. PLATT conducted the Prosecution, and MR. RIBTON defended Parmenter.

WILLIAM STEPHENS . I live at 18, Nottingham-place, Commercial-road, and am manager to Mr. Tomkins, of Green-bank saw-mills, St. George's-in-the-East—a house on the premises was occupied by Charles Mead, who was a servant of Mr. Tomkins, with his wife and family—on the evening of the 8th April I had 34l. in gold and 11l. 7s. 6d. in silver and coppers, which I locked up safely in the till in the office shortly after 6 o'clock—there was about 5s. worth of coppers, an Australian sovereign, and a bent half-sovereign among it—I went to the office about half-past 9 next morning, and found Sergeant Dillon there, the till broken open, and the contents abstracted—Parmenter has been a carman in Mr. Tomkins's service off and on for many years, but not continually—I never saw Carey till he was at the police court.

Cross-examined. Q. How many years has Parmenter been carman? A. Four or five.

JOSEPH LANE . I am clerk to Mr. Tomkins—I had 28l. 9s. 3d. about 2l. of which was in coppers—I closed the till at about 8 o'clock on Wednesday evening, and at half-past 5 next morning was called to the office, and found the drawer broken open, and the money gone—a crossed cheque was left in the drawer—the bent half-sovereign has passed through my hands once or twice; Mr. Stephens gave it to me, and I gave it back to him again.

Carey. Q. What mark is there by which you swear to it? A. It is bent, and in the bend there is the rim which I noticed.

Cross-examined. Q. Was Parmenter accustomed to take a little drink occasionally? A. Sometimes he would break out.

FREDERICK MORRIS . I am a saddler and harness maker—on the evening of the burglary I saw Parmenter at the corner of Green-bank, about twenty yards from the office—I was coming out of the White Swan, and he asked me whether Brown was inside, meaning the watchman—I said, "No"—he stretched his arms up and said, "I have been on the drink eight or nine days"—I said, "Good night, "and he went away.

JAMES BROWN . I am watchman to Mr. Thompson, of Green-bank—on the 28th April I went on duty at 8 in the evening, and left at a little before 11—everthing was then safe—I went into the square to some stables—I went back in half an hour and found the wicket-gate partly open—I bad locked it before I went away—I examined the premises and found the office door broken open—I called out to Mr. Mead, who lives close by, and then found the tills broken open.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you known Parmenter some time? A. Yes; he was sometimes in the habit of breaking out—I lent him sixpence sometimes—there is a public-house about 100 yards off, the White Swan—I very seldom drank there with him.

GEORGE VERDON . I live at 23, Old Gravel-lane, and work for Mr. Morris—on 2d April, at 20 minutes past 10, I saw Parmenter coming down the lane rather fast—I said nothing to him then, but as he was coming back again I said, "Halloa, Sam"—he said, "What cheer?" and went on.

Cross-examined. Q. Does he live not far from there? A. About eight minutes' walk.

EDWARD DILLON (Police-sergeant K 19). On 29th April I examined Mr.

Tomkins's premises, and found the office door forced open—I compared the marks with this old file, which has been turned into a jemmy, and which I found there with this lantern, and they corresponded in width—there were marks of the handle of it having forced the tills open—I saw Parmenter in High-street, Shadwell, that evening, about 10 o'clock, and went towards him—he saw me coming, and went into the Golden Eagle public-house—I went in at another door, and saw him pay for a pint of stout—he immediately left, giving the stout to another man, and went down to his lodgings—I followed him into the court-yard, and said, "You seem frightened at seeing me this morning, Sam"—he said, "Well, I saw you up at the top when I came down"—I said, "You are all of a shake this morning"—he said, "Well, I do shake, but it is from drink"—I said, "I suppose you have been on the spree all night"—he said, "No, I have not, I had no money; that man you saw me with at the top, gave me twopence to pay the penny I had to pay for a pint of ale; I was in bed very early last night drunk, with my clothes on"—I knew the man to whom he referred—I then left, and on the Monday, about 6 o'clock, I went to his lodging, and found him in bed—I said, "What you told me on Saturday morning I find is not true; you told me you were in bed drunk with, your clothes on, and I have evidence to prove you were elsewhere; how much money have you got in this room?"—he said, "What I have got is in my trousers pocket"—I put my hand into his pocket, and found a crown, a florin, 3s. and 6 3/4 d. in coppers—I said, "Is this all the money you have got?"—he said, "It is all the money I have got here"—I opened a drawer in a chest by the bedside, and found under a piece of paper 3s. in fourpenny pieces, and 2s. 6d. more—I saw a new white smock on a chair, and said, "You have plenty of money now, you have been buying new things"—he said, "I bought it at the top of the street last night, and gave 3s. for it"—that would be Sunday night—he also said that he bought a new blue shirt at the same time for 3s. more—I found about twenty pawn tickets—I then said, "I must take you into custody, I dare say you know what it is for"—he said, "I guess what it is"—I said, "You told me on Saturday morning you had not a penny, and now you have been buying new things"—he made no reply—I went to 85, Norfolk-gardens, Shored itch, about 8 o'clock, and found Carey there in bed—I told him I had information that he had got stolen property there—he said, "You will find none here"—I said, "How much money have you got in the room?"—he said, "What I have got is in a purse at the head of the bed "—I found this purse there, containing 1l. 7s. in silver, and on the mantel-piece 1s. 7d. in copper—I said, "Is this all the money you have got here?"—he said, "Yes; that is my money, and whatever you find in the room is mine"—I further searched the bed, and found this purse, containing 18l. 9s. in gold, among which was this Australian sovereign and this half-sovereign—I said, "Carey, you have got a great deal more money here than what you said you had"—he made no reply—I further searched, and found a puree containing three pawn tickets, one relating to a shawl pledged three days before the robbery—I said, "Now you have plenty of money, and you have been buying a quantity of new clothes"—he said, "That was pawned when I was out of work"—I also found this skeleton key filed out—I told him I must take him into custody for being concerned with others in breaking into an office and stealing a large sum of money—he made no reply.

WILLLAM FREESTONE (Policeman, K 135). I accompanied Dillon to Carey's lodging—I found thirty yards of black silk, 5 3/4 yards of black calico, a black coat and trousers, a handkerchief, a pair of stockings, a shirt, a pair

of shoes, crinoline, and other articles, all new, between the bed and the mattress.

Carey. It is false, they are not all new; half-a-dozen of the things I have had for months.—Witness. He produced these bills, and said so himself.

Careys statement before the Magistrate. "I have had the boots, pair of light trousers, hat, and crinoline some time—I wish them to be given up to my wife, and the pawn tickets—the calico does not belong to me."

Carey's Defence. The money and clothes are what I worked hard for; I have been getting the money together for the last month, because I was going abroad. I never saw this prisoner till I was at the station-house.

PARMENTER— NOT GUILTY . CAREY— GUILTY .**—He was further charged with having been before convicted in August, 1863, to which he

PLEADED GUILTY. Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, June 14th, 1865.

Before Mr. Recorder.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-616
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

616. ALEXANDRA KAY (25), and EDWIN SUTHERLAND (—), Unlawfully attempting to obtain 200l. of Robert William Scobell, with intent to defraud.

MR. BESLEY conducted the Prosecution MR. DALEY defended Kay, and MR. COOPER defended Sutherland.

WILLIAM ROBERT SCOBELL . I am an auctioneer, of 14, Billiter-street, City—I saw an advertisement in the Times, in consequence of which I called at Mr. Waring's office in the Poultry—I saw him, and two days afterwards I saw the-defendants—Sutherland came first to my office; he said that he came from Mr. Waring's office in consequence of a call from me as to the loan of some money, in reply to an advertisement; that the lady who wished to borrow the money was at Mr. Waring's office, and if I would remain in for half an hour he would bring her round—I asked the nature of the security to save trouble, he said that he believed it was some ground rents or some leases; that the lady was a person of property, and it was very important that she should have the money at once; that although he ought not to say it, she would pay any rate of interest, but, unless she had it then and there, she would forfeit a deposit made for the purchase of other property—I said that I would remain in to see her—after that he called again with the prisoner Kay and a somewhat elderly man—Kay said that she had the deeds of the property in her reticule—the elderly man said that she was worth a considerable sum, that she would shortly receive 4,000l., which was out on mortgage, which they would probably get me to re-invest—they stipulated that the deeds should be given up at once if the money was not advanced immediately, and Kay stipulated that no charge should be made if the money was not advanced—the elder man made the terms as to the advance of the money—they required the amount for four months; either 10l. or 15l. interest was to be charged for the loan of 1501.—I said that without the aid of my solicitor Mr. Baylis, I could not let them have the money; and asked them to meet me at his office at four o'clock; they assented, and I saw them all three outside Mr. Baylis's office at three o'clock—the two prisoners kept the appointment, and not the third person—Kay then produced some deeds—I believe these are them—a deed for ground rent was produced first, and then she said that we could have the leases upon which the ground rent was secured

—Mr. Bayl is asked her whether she had bought the ground and the houses; she said that she had—one of the deeds relative to the lease was not produced; Mr. Baylis observed that it would be no security without the other deed—Kay said that it was pledged for 50l. with some one, and that if I liked to release it and let the amount of my advance stand at 200l. I was at liberty to do so; to which I assented—Mr. Baylis examined her as to whether the houses were empty or tenanted—she said at first that they were let at 40l. a year each, and afterwards that they were empty in consequence of some dispute about the taxes—the names of the houses were mentioned—Mr. Baylis read over hurriedly some parts of the deeds—Kay said that she used to live down at Weaversfield; I do not know whether she said in one of the houses—I saw the two prisoners again by appointment on Saturday at twelve o'clock at Mr. Baylis's office—I said that we were unable to make the advance that day, and wished for a further appointment—they both insisted on the return of the deeds as time was of importance—Mr. Baylis said that we had gone into the matter and could not return the deeds for the moment—I left before them—next day, Sunday, I went to Sussex—I saw Sutherland at Mr. Baylis's office on the Monday morning—he was there waiting for the deeds—I do not recollect whether that was before or after I went to the Mansion House.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you been long in business? A. Five years on my own account—I have never heard of the "Cripplegate Loan Discount Company"—I never lost money in this way before—I have known Mr. Baylis three or four years—I had not consulted him about the investment of this money—I had more at my bankers than I cared to keep there, and wished to let some of it out—I have lent money before in a friendly way—I have not charged interest, and I have lent money to customers to secure a sale—I lent 150l. less than a week ago, and receive 5 per cent. interest till the sale can go on—I did not charge 45 per cent. to the prisoners, only 30; the money seemed so important to them that I did not think much of charging 15l.—I believed the deeds to be genuine at that time—when a person says that they do not care how much they pay, it is an inducement to charge more—I did not hear what Mr. Baylis was to charge—I saw him write an agreement—I did not take it from Kay when she was taken into custody—I did not say anything before the Magistrate about the taxes being unpaid or the tenants running away.

CHARLES BAYLIS . I am a solicitor of 30, Poultry—on 24th February I saw Mr. Scobell about a loan—the defendants came to the office while he was there, about three o'clock—I asked Kay if she was the person who required a loan of 150l., she said, "Yes"—I asked her the nature of her security—she said a ground rent of 16l. a year—I asked her for written deeds, and she handed the two deeds already produced—I looked through the assignment and found that it purported to contain a freehold, there being a lease of 29th November, 1861, recited in it—I then asked for a counterpart of the lease, which I looked through and then asked for the lease, telling her that as the ground rents had been purchased, the lease and the counterpart should go together—she said that the lease was with a friend, and on my pressing her as to whether any advance had been made on it she said, "Yes, 50l."—I then suggested to the prosecutor that he should increase his intended advance of 150l. to 200l. that the lease might be taken up—I asked her who Mr. Allin, the attestor to both deeds, was; she said he was a retired solicitor, and he prepared the deeds—I told them I would see Mr. Allin—Sutherland then asked me for a receipt for the deeds, which I

gave him, he read it and handed it to Kay—I looked at the plan on the deed—I asked Kay the names of the tenants—she said that the houses were unoccupied, the tenants having left the previous quarter in consequence of some dispute about the taxes—she said the rents were 40l. each—they then left, and the same day I wrote to Allin—they came again next day at twelve o'clock—I told them that I had seen Mr. Allin, and that I required some information relative to the title, which Mr. Allin had promised to procure, and that he would explain all to them if they could see him that morning, and they would know where to find him—Kay said, "This is very inconvenient; we want the money this morning, and as there appears a great deal of trouble about the matter we had better have the deeds back again"—Mr. Scobell was not present then—I said, "I cannot give up the deeds without the instructions of my client"—they left the room and remained outside the door from three to five minutes—I could not hear them talking outside my room—when they returned, Sutherland said I have arranged with this lady that I should wait for the deeds, and she authorizes you to give them to me—Kay assented to that and left, Sutherland remained—I asked him Miss Kay's address, he said, "Hanwell"—I asked him her Christian name, he said that I appeared very particular about the matter, and said, "My name is Edwin, my address is Boston-road, Hanwell, and I am a builder"—I left my office, leaving him there—I returned about three o'clock with Webb, a detective—I had agreed to see my client before twelve o'clock in the day, and Sutherland waited for the deeds—I then found both the prisoners in my clerk's office—I again told them that I could not give up the deeds without my client's instructions—they were both very violent, and Sutherland said, "We must have our deeds"—I refused to give them up—a tall man. then made his appearance, Kay addressed him and said, "We cannot get our deeds"—he said, "Oh, I will lend you the money on the deposit of the deeds"—I still refused to give them up, and he then said, "Well, Miss Kay, I will lend you the money on your I. O. U." and they all left together—an appointment was made for them to call on the Monday for the deeds—I went to the Mansion House on Monday afternoon with Mr. Scobell, obtained a warrant and placed it in the hands of Sergeant Webb—I saw nothing of the prisoners after I had been to the Mansion House—I do not know whether Kay kept the appointment on Monday, as I was not there—I was otherwise engaged—a person called three or four days after the warrant was issued and before they were given into custody for the deeds, but I demanded 3l. 3s. for them.

Cross-examined by MR. DALEY. Q. How long have you been in the profession? A. Seven years—I told the person who called that I would give up the deeds on a payment of 3l. 3s.—I should not have done so, but the officers were looking after the prisoners, and I did not wish the person to know that we were prosecuting the matter further—he only called once—he said, "You have some transactions with Miss Kay"—I said, "Yes"—he said, "What is it you want?"—I said, "My charge"—he said, "How much is that?"—I said, "5l. 5s."—he said, "That is a heavy sum," and I said, "Let Miss Kay call it 3l. 3s. and that will do"—no one called again—directly I saw the deeds I had suspicions—I did not give them into custody it once because I had not ascertained whether the property was in existence—they called on Friday, and I ascertained that fact on Monday—they did not call after that, we were rather desirous that they should—ground-rent is one of the beat securities—I have not been engaged in lending money for Mr. Scobell—there was a proposal to do so a week ago, but it is not concluded yet.

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. Have you seen a great many of these leases? A. A great many—there is not a map on every deed—the map is distinct from the deed if it relates to a large estate, but then it is fully described in the body of the deed.

MR. BESLEY. Q. Is this plan like other plans which you have seen? A. No; it is on a new piece of parchment, and the deed is on old parchment—I never saw one before without references to roads—the deed is indorsed, "Assignment of ground-rent," and anybody may know that that is unusual, because it is a conveyance and not an assignment—an assignment relates to households—I had my suspicions about the plan because it is drawn out of proportion—the only dimension is thirty feet, and there is 40 feet in front of the houses, and 700 or 800 feet behind, which is most unusual.

WILLIAM HARDINGE TYLER . I live at Franklands, in the parish of Weaversfield, Sussex—mine is a detached house, a mile and a quarter from Hayward's-heath station—I have lived there two years—I purchased it of Mr. Morrison, my son-in-law, on 5th August, 1863, and have the deeds in my pocket which show the title under which I purchased—I know Mr. Coules—his property and mine were once possessed by the same owner, and it all went under the name of Franklands—I am not aware of any Faulklandvillas—I know of no other villas than those on Mr. Coules's property that are as much as 40l. a year—I know the inhabitants—I visited my son-in-law there for two years before off and on—I know nothing of Alexandra Kay, a spinster, there, or of George Canfield.

Cross-examined by MR. DALEY. Q. I suppose some of the villas have not the names painted on them? A. There are some without names—my house is on a separate piece of ground—I have twenty-nine acres on one side, and some on the other—the road divides them—the whole of that portion which is called Franklands belongs to me or to Mr. Coules—there are villas on the part which Mr. Coules has—he purchased his from the same party that Mr. Morrison did about four years ago—there are no houses on any portion of the property except mine and Mr. Coules's, and the little cottage belonging to one of my labourers.

THOMAS COULES . I live at Weaversfield—I purchased some land two years ago of Mr. St. Aubin and Mr. Maltby—I have got my deed—there are only two finished houses on the property known as Franklands; one I live in myself, and the other is unlet—I have lived in mine ever since the date of the conveyance—the other villa has not been let since I have had it—some other buildings were commenced on the ground—I know nothing of Alexander Kay or George Canfield, or of any tenants quitting at the Christmas quarter—I do not know faulkland-villas.

Cross-examined by MR. DALEY. Q. Are there any unfinished buildings on your property? A. Yes; thirteen houses were commenced, but the grass has grown over the foundations—I commenced demolishing them—they are called in the deeds Nightingale-villas and Nightingale-grove—the deeds are dated in 1852.

WILLIAM KENWARD . I am the tax collector of Weaversfield, Sussex—I have resided there more than twenty-three years—I know nothing of any Faulkland-villas there—there are only two villas on the property finished, those which have been spoken of by Mr. Coules—I have never collected rates from a person named Kay, or known such a person as the owner of property there—I do not know George Canfield as the owner of property there.

Cross-examined by MR. DALEY. Q. May a person have ground-rents, and yet not pay taxes? A. Yes; the owner would be in the rate-book.

JOHN DOWN GORDON . I am a piano-forte maker, of 6, Eldon-street, Finsbury—I went to Rosebank-cottage, Hendon, last year—I saw Kay there—shew as called Miss Scott, and occupied the house with a person who called himself Alexander Kay—I heard him addressed by that name—I have seen him more than once, and knew him by that name.

Cross-examined by MR. DALEY. Q. How long were you acquainted with the Kay family? A. Seven or eight months—a Mr. Davis was present at our introduction, but he called himself Dean—I have been a pianoforte maker 21 years—I was in treaty with Miss Kay's brother-in-law for some timber at Rose-bank—it was cut down for me, but I did not take it away because it was represented to me as lime tree for piano-forte keys, and it was a different wood—I never treated to buy any part of the land—I saw the trees before they were cut down—I have not heard the gardener at Rose-bank address the female prisoner as Miss Kay—I have not said, "Good night, Miss Kay"—it is not her brother, but her brother-in-law who is named Kay—Mr. Scobell asked me to give evidence—he went to see a piece of land at Weaversfield about which Mr. Harvey let me in for 100l. by introducing me to Alexander Kay—I have not taken proceedings—it is only lately that I have known it—I sold a pony to Alexander Kay, and received a bill for it—I drew the bill on him—it was not paid—I never sent the pony—the bill is in my hands now—I gave him 25l. cash, and was to send him the pony, but I had doubts and did not—the bill was for 59l.—I took it up myself—I have known Captain Logan about a month—I had no bills with him—he was transported, he robbed me of 100l.

MR. BESLEY. Q. Are Dean and Harvey distinct persons? A. I first found out that Harvey was Dean; I have understood that Alexander Kay is Honeyman—I have never had my 25l. back, but I saved my pony—I saw Sutherland at Rose-bank Cottage, Hanwell—no one was with him; became to say that the bill would be paid at maturity.

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. Is Sutherland's lather a large ironmonger? A. His name is Guest, I do not know what he is.

JAMES ROWE HEARD . I am manager of the Cripplegate Loan and Discount Society, Limited—In January, 1861, they advanced 60l. to a person named Honey man, on security of the conveyance of a piece of land, of which these (produced) are the two deeds—in July 1861 I advanced a further sum of 20l. on the security of a third deed—application was afterwards made to me for a third advance, and I went down to Weaversfield with the female prisoner, and Alexander Honeyman and his wife, David Low, and the secretary to the company—we travelled by railway to Hayward's Heath, and driving in a carriage to Franklands, about three miles—it was at Mr. Tyler's and Coules's place—we talked over the further advance, walked over the land, and I said to the female prisoner, "Now point out to me the identical piece of land which this deed refers to"—a piece of waste land on the side of the road was pointed out, and I exclaimed against the apparent inadequate value of the consideration money expressed on the deed—I said, "You appear to have had a great many transactions with Mary Ann Scott; who is she?"—she said, "Well, she is a lady who has a great deal of property, and she buys estates and chops them up, sells them again, and makes a large profit; I have sold her an estate"—I said, "It is manifest that the consideration money is fully beyond the value of the land, and I shall report to the company as to a further advance—the female prisoner could hear Honey-man's statement; we were all close together and dined together—she said nothing—no further advance was made—we never got back our money—

she addressed Mrs. Honeyman as her sister—we dined in a cottage on the estate, but we mutually agreed that our company was not agreeable to each other, and we got into different carriages and separated—it was not until this case that I became aware that the same person who signed that deed signed "Alexandra Kay."

Cross-examined. Q. Is Mr. Alexander Honeyman in Whitecross-street? A. Yes, we did not feel justified in prosecuting him. (The deeds were here partly read, one of which referred to land at Dogfleet Common.) I have been down but cannot find any land referring to that deed.

Sutherland received a good character.


KAY— Confined Nine Months.

SUTHERLAND— Confined Six Months from the expiration of his former sentence (See Vol. 61, p. 508).

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-617
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

617. JAMES RICHARD BEECHCROFT (15), PLEADED GUILTY to felonionsly killing and slaying James Purdy. He received a good character, and his master engaged to take him back into his employment.— Confined One Week.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-618
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

618. MICHAEL McCOY, Feloniously killing and slaying Michael Webb; he was also charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with the like offence.

MR. WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution, and MR. COOPER the Defence.

JOHN DALLEY . I am a potman, and live at Blandford Mews, Mary-le-bone—on Whit Monday I saw the prisoner and the deceased together—they were both in liquor—I heard them call one another liars, and the deceased said that he would box McCoy—McCoy said, "Very well, if you can box, I will box you, "and asked him to give him time to go up stairs and change his boots, and then he would come back and fight him—the deceased took off his things to prepare for fighting, sat down on a door step, and waited till the prisoner returned—they then shook hands, and Webb said, "We will fight fair"—they fought four rounds, and after that I took Webb away, and helped to take him into No. 1. Baker's-court—he complained of his arms being paralysed, and his neck, so that he could not move them—I saw no foul blow struck.

Cross-examined. Q. When the prisoner said, "I will go in and change my boots first, "what had he on? A. great heavy pair, and he came back with a lighter and older pair—I did not see anybody put his foot on Webb, but something was said about it—I did not hear the prisoner say, "Webb, why should we fight, we have been neighbours together from childhood?"

THOMAS WEBB . I live at 3, Slade's-buildings, Blandford-mews—I am the deceased brother—he was between forty-five and forty-six years of age—I was fetched from my work on Whit Monday, and found him fighting with the prisoner in Blandford-mews—they fell down together twice—I helped to carry him to a house—he was quite paralysed, and had lost the use of his arms—I went and put my tools away and then took him to Middlesex Hospital, where he died at ten minutes past 5 next morning.

Cross-examined. Q. Were your brother and the prisoner always friends from childhood? A. Yes, they lived near together—they had worked together for the last eight or nine months, and seemed good friends.

HENRY ALBERT GREENS . I am house-surgeon at Middlesex Hospital—on 5th June the deceased was brought there quite insensible—the whole of his body was paralysed except his left arm—he died in the morning about 5 o'clock—I made a post-mortem examination the same day—there were no external marks of violence—the cause of his death was dislocation of the

bones of the neck—I do not think a blow with the fist would do that, but a fall would.

Cross-examined. Q. Did he say something to you about having fallen from a ladder? A. No, but somebody did—if he had fallen from a ladder some time before, excitement would not produce paralysis.

ALFRED LANG . I live at 18, East-street, Manchester-square—on Whit Monday afternoon, between 4 and 5 o'clock, I was in my shop, and saw the prisoner and the deceased drinking opposite my shop—they were old friends—an old gentleman came out of the public-house, and the deceased was larking with him—the prisoner stood up by the side of a wall, and I saw them give the old gentleman some sweet-stuff—the prisoner said, "Do not"—the deceased said, "Do not tease the old gentleman"—they led him down the court, and the deceased came back and said, "What did you see me do?"—the prisoner called him a liar—Webb said, "I am not a liar"—they agreed to box—Webb changed his clothes and said he meant to fight it out to settle it—he went into the Mews to change his boots, and I said, "Do not fight Webb,"—he went and shook hands with the prisoner and said, "We will fight here, and fight fair"—I saw them have four rounds—they fell very heavily, and Webb had his right arm round McCoy's neck—the fight lasted five or six minutes—the deceased was paralysed when he was picked up—they fell on one another—they could not help it.

COURT. Q. When was this? A. It was the first round that he took him round the neck—they had hugged each other before, and had falls—it was not the act of McCoy—they were struggling together—Webb was trying to throw McCoy, he slipped and they fell together.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-619
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

619. SAMUEL COOMBER, Feloniously killing and slaying Joseph Brown, he was also charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with the like offence.

MR. HOUSTON conducted the Prosecution, and MR. WILLIAMS the Defence.

JOHN GIBBS . I am a cab-driver, of Short-street, Maida Hill—on Saturday, 8th July, I was on my cab, going from the stand, there to the Eagle public-house, Clifton Road, which is two or three minutes' walk from the rank—as I turned a corner, I saw a man and woman talking together—the man appeared intoxicated, or I should not have noticed them—when I got to the Eagle, the prisoner rushed in front of them and exclaimed, "You are a pair of pretty b—s"—he struck the man, who had hold of part of the woman's dress, and said, "If you are a man put up your hands"—he then struck the woman—a man came out of the public-house and said, "Here, do not hit a woman, hit me"—the prisoner said, "Oh my man, you do not know what I have to put up with, she is constantly out with this man, leaving my children neglected; I have found them together frequently before"—he struck his wife a second time, and hit Brown a second time, who fell down—some girls was standing by, and the prisoner said, "I know her, she is as bad as any prostitute in Paddington"—I turned round, and when I saw them again, they were on the other side of the way—it being very dark I could not see much—I saw that Brown's hands were in front of him, but whether striking blows, or warding off blows, I cannot say—I went across to part them, and the man stooped to pick his hat up, and fell—the prisoner threw himself on the pavement, as if he was endeavouring to excite the woman to strike her husband—she then turned round to her husband, and struck his hat off, and kicked at him and said, "I will give you something

when I get you home"—I went into the public-house, and then went back to my cab on the rank.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you say that the deceased stooped to pick his hat up, and fell on the kerb? A. He fell close to the kerb—I had seen him fall from one of the blows previously—but he was so far intoxicated that he was hardly able to walk—the last I saw of him was, he went down the turning facing the Eagle.

GEORGE PRICE . I am footman to Mr. Watson—I know the deceased—he was coachman in the same family—I met him on this day about half-past 9 o'clock, by the Clifton Arms—we had a pint of porter between three of us—I saw him up to half-past 10—he was then partially intoxicated—I saw him next morning about 11 o'clock—there was then blood on the breast and right sleeve of his coat, also on his breeches, which were cut in three or four places, and his boots were saturated.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you know the deceased well? A. Yes; he told me on Sunday, that he had been in the habit of wearing a truss for some time, as he was ruptured, and could not pass his water, but that he had left it off for about a week, and he believed that was the cause of it.

JOHN RING . I am a surgeon, of Kilburn—I was called to see the deceased, about 10 o'clock on Sunday morning—he was sitting on the side of his bed—I examined him, and found him suffering from some injury from the abdomen—I found that he had been suffering from a rupture, and I imagined it might be from that, but there was no hernia—I passed a catheter, and found there was no water in the bladder, only blood—I called in another surgeon, and we were at quite a loss to know what was the matter—the man died that night—I made a post mortem examination, and found he was suffering from rupture of the bladder, as well as of the intestines—a large quantity of water had escaped into the belly—there were no marks of external violence.

Cross-examined. Q. If a man had been in the habit of wearing a truss and suddenly left it off, and got excited by drink, would that cause it? A. No; rupture has nothing to do with the bladder, but if he had been drinking and the abdomen was full, it might rupture, though I think a kick would be more likely to do it.

COURT. Q. Might drinking and then falling against a stone or a kerb do it? A. Yes.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-620
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

620. SAMUEL COOMBER was again indicted for assaulting Joseph Brown, and occasioning him actual bodily harm. No evidence was offered.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-621
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

621. MICHAEL KILDUFF (26) , Feloniously killing and slaying Catherine Costello; he was also charged on the Coroner's Inqusition with the like offence.

MR. LEWIS conducted the Prosecution, and MR. GRANTHAM the Defence.

HARRIET FRANKLIN . The prisoner and the deceased lodged in my house, in Frederick Place, Caledonian Road, for the last three months—her name was Catherine Costello—on 9th May, about twenty minutes past 7 in the evening, the prisoner came home for his tea—the woman was not at home, and he left—she returned a few minutes afterwards in liquor—she used abusive language to me, and my husband told her to go either in or out of doors—she said that she should not, and used words which I should not like to repeat—I heard her come In a little after that, but did not see her—I

heard the prisoner come in, a little after 2 o'clock, and go upstairs—I asked him to go to bed quietly, and he promised me be would—though I did not see him I heard him ask where his tea was, and heard the woman scream—I heard him strike her again, and she fell—I heard two screams of murder, and she said, "Don't, don't"—the prisoner came to my door about 6 o'clock in the morning, and said, "Mrs. Franklin, will you come and see my wife? she is either dead or dying"—I felt her hands and feet, told him she was quite dead, and sent him to fetch a doctor—he did so.

Cross-examined. Q. Has the woman ever been out for a whole night? A. She stopped away for two or three nights when they had a row, and then she came back again—I have seen her tipsy more than once before—we shut her door, and as she went down she knocked at my door, and said, "If I am Irish, I will fetch twenty more, and you shall have no sleep to-night"—she hit me an open slap on the arm—the prisoner was sober when he came home—he went quietly to his room as he promised me—he did not seem excited—he did not shut his door, till after I heard the blow and the cries of "Murder;" it was a little on the jar—I heard the blow, as soon as she got inside her room—I heard him strike her once or twice—I heard her fall as he spoke the words—I heard the blow struck—after she said, "Don't, don't," I heard him say that he would not work for her any more, while she kept the company she did—I only heard her fall once.

MR. LEWIS. Q. Was it directly after you heard the blow that you heard her screams? A. Yes; my room is adjoining hers, there is only just the landing between—I had given them warning to leave, as I heard they were not married, and I did not like it—she went by the name of Mrs. Killduff in my house.

MR. GRANTHAM. Q. Have you ever heard her cry "Murder" before? A. Yes, when he has been going to strike her, she has run away, and halloaed "Murder" at the bottom of the stairs, when he had not struck her, so I did not think anything of it.

THOMAS DELFORD . I am a horse-keeper and live in the same house—I heard a knocking at the door—I heard the prisoner come in—he said, "Thank you," to the landlady, and asked if his wife was in—she said "No"—he said, "Well, when she does come in, I will stiffen her nose for her"—she came in shortly afterwards—she went through into the back-room first—I heard her in the prisoner's room, and heard him ask for tea—she made no answer—there was a blow, and a hustle together, and then I heard a fall; it was quiet then for about a minute or so, and then I heard another scuffle, and heard her cry, "Police" and "Murder" twice—I heard a second fall, and all was quiet again—the prisoner then said, "You b—w—I shall never work for you any more"—there was then a third set to and I heard her say, "Don't, Mike"—I then heard a fall, and then three groans—they slept over me.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you get out of bed? A. Yes, and was going to fetch a constable, but I had heard her cry "Murder" before, at the bottom of the stairs, when the man did not strike her, so I took no notice of it.

GEORGE BUSH . (Police-inspector). I took the prisoner, and told him it was for causing the death of his wife—he said it was all through drink—the marks of blood on the floor had then been wiped up.

Cross-examined. Q. You did not understand him to mean his own drink? A. No.

SLATER, M. D, I am a surgeon—I examined the deceased on

Wednesday morning, a few minutes after 6 o'clock—she was quite dead—I saw marks of violence on her face and head, and two marks of blood on the right side of her neck, as if from the stains of bloody fingers—there was great lividity—I made a post-mortem examination next day, and found a round abrasion on the right-temple, about the size of a sixpenny piece, and on the right cheek, over the bone, an elongated abrasion—there was a wound, about an inch long, behind the right ear, from which blood had flowed—on the left jaw there was an abrasion, about an inch deep, and half an inch broad—there were several bruises on the forehead, and a small scratch on the left eyebrow, on removing the scalp, the vessels were much congested, and there was effusion of blood on the brain, which was the immediate cause of death—that might be caused by a fall or a blow, or even compression of the vessels of the neck, preventing the return of the blood—that would be much more likely from pressure—the other organs were quite healthy.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you examine the kidneys? A. Yes, I think one was slightly congested—there is a good deal of sympathy between the brain and the kidneys—a weakness of the kidneys sometimes extends itself to the brain, but not necessarily—the congestion of the brain might not be caused by congestion of the kidneys—there was no disease of the kidneys at all, but the vessels were full of blood—generally, when there is extravasation of blood on the brain, most of the organs are congested—I say that the kidneys being congested could not have caused the appearances of the brain—the marks on her neck could not have been from the strings of her bonnet—there was no mark of any ligature on her neck; it was two finger-marks, impressed with blood, which were washed off when I made the examination—death could not have been caused by those finger-marks—there might have been pressure over the vessels without leaving any marks—I do not know whether it was so, but I found frothy mucus in the air passage, which is a symptom of compression—if a person fell, with the head in a bad position, there would be frothy mucus, there would still be compression—if the neck is bent, so as to press upon certain vessels, the breathing could not go on—I have never known death caused in that way, but it is not impossible, or improbable—I dare say having a bonnet on, with the strings tied, would make it more likely, but then there would be some marks from the ribbons—the marks of violence might be caused by her falling against the bed or fender—but it would require several falls.

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY .— Confined Six Months.

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, June 14th, 1865.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-622
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Miscellaneous > fine

Related Material

622. JAMES LOOSEBY (33) , Unlawfully sending to Newgate-market 200 lbs. of pork, unfit for human food.

MR. SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM WHEATLEY . I live at Leicester—in April I had a sow, which was within three weeks and three days of farrowing—I would not have taken 6l. 10s. for her then—she died quite suddenly on the Thursday morning—I sent for Mr. Claythorn, the butcher, and he cut her throat, and sent for a man named Percival to dress her—I did not help him—another man next door did—I was present—I could not see anything—I am nearly blind—I could not smell anything—the prisoner came to me that day—

I sold the carcase of the sow to him, for 29s.—he took it away the next morning—I did not see him do so.

JOHN PERCIVAL . I am a pig-butcher of Leceister—on the morning of 6th of April, I went to Mr. Wheatley's place and dressed this sow—I opened it and took the entrails out—I took away the parts that are not usually sent to market—the carcase was not in a healthy state—it was very bad indeed—there was inflammation and mortification—I did not cut out the liver or kidneys—the smell was very bad indeed—I was about two hours and half dressing it—when I opened it, it was very bad—it made me very sick—I had to put a bit of snuff up my nose—it was not at all fit for the food of man—any one could see it was very bad.

ROBERT DAVIS . I am in the employment of Chaplin and Horne, carriers—I went to Loseby's, in Willow-street, Leicester, with a dray and hamper—I saw him, and he gave me a pig, cut up in quarters, for transmission to London—it was packed in the usual way for market—I believe I assisted him in packing it—I did not take much notice of the meat—the prisoner said to me, "It's a rough 'un, ain't it? do you think they will pinch it"—I said, "I don't know, if I was going to send it, I should put a paper in, 'Please show this to the inspector before offering it for sale'"—and he did so—I stuck the paper in the wicket of the hamper, that when the lid was thrown open, the salesman could not avoid seeing it—I believe this is it (produced)—I did not see the label on the hamper—I might have tied it on, but I will not swear—that hamper with the meat was transmitted in the ordinary course by rail to London, by that night's goods train—it would arrive the next morning.

CHARLES FORSBREY . I am a meat salesman in Newgate-market—I received on the morning of 8th April, a hamper from the prisoner—I saw this label and paper—I opened the hamper myself and shut it up again—it was offensive to my sight—I don't think it was fit for human food—I went to Mr. Wylde directly, to come and look at it—it was sent up packed and dressed in the usual way that meat is sent for market—I do not sell cats' or dogs' meat.

JURY. Q. Did you see the note? A. Yes; I read the paper before I saw the meat.

WILLIAM WYLDE . I am an inspector of meat in Newgate-market—on the morning of 8th April, my attention was called to a hamper, with a pig in it, by Mr. Forsbrey—it was dressed as for market—I saw it was four quarters of a pig, and a head, less the milk-bag, the kidneys and the flare—these were absent—they are ordinarily sent up with the animal—they indicate very clearly whether the animal is in health or not, especially a sow pig, dying from inflammation—the meat was in a very high state of inflammation, clearly showing that the animal had died, and must have laid dead some time previous to being dressed—it was totally unfit for human food—on 1st May, I went to Leicester and saw the prisoner—I cautioned him to be careful as to what he said, as I had come down to make inquiries about a pig he had sent to London—he then said, "Well, I shall not say anything about it"—later in the day, I saw him, in company with Sergeant Newell, of Leicester, and showed him the note I had from the hamper, and the label—he said, "The note is in my writing. The label was written by my direction. I bought the pig of a Mr. Wheatley, a neighbour of mine, for 29s. I have got myself into trouble and must get out of it"—I produced this paper and label—(Read: Sir, please to show this to the inspector, before offered to sale—James Loseby, Leicester—Robert Davis"

—"Mr. C. Forsbrey, 24, Warwick-lane, Newgate-market—from J. Loseby, Leicester"—Newell said to the prisoner, "You must have known it was bad—you are a good judge of meat"—he said, "I guessed it was not very good"—he said he had fetched it from Mr. Wheatley's, because he paid him for it at his own house.

JAMES NEWMAN . I am one of the inspectors of Newgate-market—I saw this carcase on the 8th—it was very bad indeed, totally unfit for human food.

CHARLES FISHER . I am a collector and inspector of Newgate-market, and have had seventeen years' experience—I saw this carcase—in my judgment it was totally unfit for human food—that was obvious to the eye of anybody.

CHRISTOPHER CRAYTHORN . I live at Leicester—I cut this pig's throat—it was then dead—I did not open it.

Prisoner. Q. It bled well at the time, did it not? A. Yes.

COURT to JOHN PERCIVAL. Q. When you dressed the pig what did you do with the milk-bag? A. I left it on just as it was, and also the kidneys and the flare—I left everything.

Prisoner's Defence. I sent the pig, and put that note into the hamper—I did not wish it to be sold if it was not fit. I had my doubts about it. I never saw the pig till the evening. I knew nothing about its dying.

GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months and Fined 50l .

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-623
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

623. HENRY WILLIAM GODFREY (46) , Stealing one pianoforte, the property of John Moore and another.

MR. SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN MOORE . I am in partnership with my brother, at 104, Bishopsgate-street—on 21st January, about 2 o'clock in the day, the prisoner called—he was a stranger to me—he asked for a piano-forte on hire—he looked at several—I showed him one, and we agreed that he should have it at 50s. a quarter—he was in the house but a very short time—I asked him for a reference, and he gave me the name of J. Kinnaird, Duke-street, Adolphi—I asked him if he was connected with the great Kinnaird, the iron merchant, and he said, "Yes"—I caused inquiries to be made in consequence—he called again, and we agreed that the piano should be sent on the Tuesday following, the 24th—I sent it on that day—the number of it was 984—I have not seen it since—my man has, he is here.

Prisoner. Q. Do you let new pianos on hire? A. Not very often—we do let them on special terms, varying from 58s. to five guineas a quarter—I won't swear I did not offer you one for three guineas—you led me to believe that the reference was to Messrs. Kinnaird, the celebrated iron merchants.

ALEXANDER FRANCIS McBETH . I am assistant and manager to Messrs. Moore—I saw the prisoner in our shop on the 21st January—I had no conversation with him—in consequence of some instructions I received from Mr. Moore I went to Duke-street, Adolphi—I found the name of J. Kinnaird written up at the door—I went in and saw a person who said his name was Kinnaird—I said, "You are in the iron trade, are you not?"—he said, "Yes, I am"—I said, "I have come on the reference of Mr. William Godfrey; you have done business with him"—he said, "Yes, I have had several transactions with him, and he has always paid me faithfully; you may trust him without fear"—I then left, and told my employers what I had heard—the piano was sent off on the 24th—some few weeks afterwards, according to our usual custom, we sent one of our tuners to tune the piano

—before he returned we received this letter, the next morning—(read: "Vine-street, York-road, Lambeth, April 4th, 1865.—Gentlemen, I was out of town when your tuner called. I leave again this evening. I have had the piano twice attended to, so do not trouble to send again. I will call and pay the quarter when due. H. W. Godfrey.")—I went to Vine-street on that same day, the 5th, and he was not in—I called again next morning and saw him—I said, "I have come about the pianoforte of Messrs. Moore and Moore's"—he said, "Oh, I have lent it to a friend"—I said, "Who is that friend? give me his name and address that I may see the piano and get it backagain"—he said, "I can't do that, but I will send it home to morning to you at 11 o'clock"—I then left—the piano was not sent the next day—I went to Vine-street the day afterwards, and found he had left altogether—a warrant was issued, and he was taken—in the meantime I made inquiries about the man who called himself kinnaird in Duke-street—I found him at 8, Tennyson-street, York-road, Lambeth, about one turning from the place where the piano was sent—I said to him, "I have called to see you upon giving me a reference from Mr. Godfrey; you know that be has pledged the piano, and you helped him to do it, and your name is Nash, not Kinnaird; how came you to say your name was Kinnaird?"—he said, "Oh, I was representing Kinnaird"—I asked him what business he could do with Godfrey, as he was a doctor, in the iron trade; and he said, "Oh, I have sold him drugs"—he was the same man I saw at Duke-street, and who called himself Kinnaird—at that time I had seen the piano at Messrs. Attenborough's, and identified it—it was number 984.

ROBERT WHITECHURCH . I am employed at Messrs. Moore's—on 24th January, by their direction, I conveyed a piano to 7, York-terrace, Vine-street, York-road, Lambeth—984 was the number of the piano I believe—I saw a person who represented herself as Mrs. Godfrey, who said her apartment upstairs were not ready to receive the piano, and the landlady told her to put it in her parlour, and they would get it upstairs—I got this paper signed for it—(read: "Received from Messrs. Moore and Moore a rosewood piano-forte, value thirty-five guineas, not to be removed without the consent of Messrs. Moore. Signed Ada Godfrey.")

JOHN BATCOCK . I am a carman—on 25th January I removed a piano from York-terrace, Vine-street, Lambeth, to Mr. Attenborough's, the pawnbroker's, in Greek-street, Soho, by the prisoner's directions—I left it at Mr. Attenborough's—the prisoner and another man went with me in the cart there.

JOHN GORING . I am manager at Messrs. Attenborough's, Greek-street, Soho—a person calling himself Nash called on me about 20th January—I saw him subsequently to that, with the prisoner, at our place—on 25th January they came and pledged a piano-forte for ten guineas—what was done on that occasion followed out the matter that was spoken of on 20th—Nash called to know if I would advance money on a piano-forte—I said, "Yes, I will, if it is not out on hire, and before I lend money on it I must' see the bill and receipt"—he said, "I don't think my friend has got the receipt"—I said, "Then I can't take your piano"—I saw no more of him till the 25th—he then came with the prisoner—Nash said "I have brought the piano-forte"—I said, "Have you got the receipt?"—he said, "Yes, my friend has got it"—I said, "Take the piano-forte into the warehouse"—I saw the piano, and said, "I will lend you ten guineas on it, show me the receipt"—he showed me a piece of paper—I asked if that was the receipt for the piano—he said, "Yes."

FRANCIS NORTON . I am clerk to Mr. Neate, solicitor to the prosecution—I served a notice on the prisoner in person to produce a certain receipt for a piano-forte—I have a copy of the notice here (produced).

JOHN GORING (continued). I filled up this form (produced). and asked the prisoner to sign it—he asked Nash to sign it—I said, "No, it is your piano-forte, and you must sign it"—he did so—(read: 11, Greek-street, Soho.—I have this day deposited with Mr. Robert Attenborough a piano-forte for ten guineas. 25th Jan. 1865.—Thomas Parker, 7, Vine-street, York-road, Lambeth")—the piano is at Mr. Attenborough's now—it has been identified—the receipt they produced purported to be a receipt for a piano-forte bought by Mr. Parker for 40l. in 1862, of Messrs. Moore—it was a dirty piece of paper, and had a hole in the centre, as if it had been on a file.

Prisoner. Q. What was the value of the instrument? A. It would fetch about 14l. or guineas in our auction sales—I had had two or three small transactions with Nash previous to this—you did not say this piano-forte belonged to you—you said it belonged to a friend of yours who was in a little trouble.

ANN HALL . I am the wife of George Hall, of 3, Duke-street, Adolphi—we let that house out in offices—a person whom I supposed to be named Kinnaird had an office there about eleven months—he left about six or seven weeks back—he used only to come for letters for a long period—I have not seen him since—in the early part of the year I saw the prisoner call in sometimes and see him—it might have been before this year.

Prisoner. Q. Can you mention any particular time that you have seen me there? A. I cannot remember—I had no conversation with you—I know your face well—I have seen you coming through the passage—I said at the Mansion-house that I knew your face well, but did not know where you went to in the office.

CHARLES BROWN (City-policeman, 654). I took the prisoner at 44, Clifton-terrace, Lower Kennington-lane, on 12th May—I told him I held a warrant to apprehend him for defrauding Messrs. Moore and Moore of a pianoforte worth thirty-five guineas, and asked him if he was the person named in the warrant—he said, "I am"—I told him he must consider himself in custody—on the way to the station he said, "I have written to Messrs. Moore, and I have sent them the duplicate. I did not think they would do this."

JOHN MOORE (re-examined). I received this pawnbroker's duplicate by post.

JOHN GORING (re-examined). This is the duplicate I furnished to the prisoner.

Prisoner's Defence. I did not obtain the property by fraud; I offered them the reference. I never led them to suppose that the reference I gave was to the great firm of that name. At the time the piano was sent the landlord was pressing me for rent, and threatened to take my goods, and I acknowledge I did get ten guineas on this piano, meaning to redeem it. I never was at Nash's office but once. I had no intention to defraud.

GUILTY .— Confined Eighteen Months.

The prisoner had been previously tried for conspiring with Nash to obtain the piano-forte, and acquitted.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-624
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

624. RICHARD McCARTHY (35) , Robbery on Ann Smith, and stealing from her person one watch, the property of Thomas Smith.

MESSRS. LANGFORD and HARRIS conducted the Prosecution.

ANN SMITH . I am the wife of Thomas Smith, of King Edward-street.

Mile-end—on Monday night, 22nd May, about quarter to 6, I was in High-street, Whitechapel—I turned down Goulston-street—about half way down I met the prisoner—He passed me twice, and the third time he put his elbow into my side, and caused me great pain—I had a friend with me, Sarah Roberts, and I told her that I felt a great pain in my side—the prisoner then passed me again, and knocked me down, and at the same time took my watch away, which was in a pocket in my breast—the chain was fastened to my brooch—I laid hold of the tail of his coat, and asked him to give me my watch—he said, "If you don't let me go I will kill you; you know you are not much in my hands"—I would not let him go, and he lifted me right off the ground and dashed me against the wall, and cut my knee open, and then I fainted—I was taken to a house, and had some water—I reported the charge at the station directly I got better—the value of the watch was 6l. 18s.—I have not seen it since—I am quite sure of the prisoner—I picked him out of a great number more the next day—this took place in Wentworth-street, which turns out of Goulston-street.

COURT. Q. When had you felt your watch last? A. Five minutes before—I had just seen the time by it—I had had it since the morning—it had been in pawn from the Saturday night till that Monday morning, as I did not get my money on the Saturday.

SARAH ROBERTS . I am a tailoress living at Limehouse—I was with the last witness on Monday, 22nd May—about half-past 5 in the evening we were going down Goulston-street—she had her watch in a pocket in her breast, attached to her brooch with a chain—the prisoner passed and repassed, and then came back again and accosted Mrs. Smith—what he said to her I don't know—I heard him break the chain from the watch, and then be knocked her down—she told me he had taken her watch, and I saw it in his hand—he then ran away—I called after him, and two policemen came down Wentworth-street, and I said, "That man has got Mrs. Smith's watch"—she then became unconscious, and was taken into a house—she was sober—I am quite sure the prisoner is the man—he was not taken till the next day.

ELIZABETH ORME . I am the wife of Joseph Orme, of 5, Eastrman's-court, Wentworth-street, Spitalfields—about half-past 5, on the evening of 22nd May, I was going down the court, and saw Mrs. Smith holding the skirt of the prisoner's coat, and she said, "Oh, he has stolen my watch"—he turned round, gave her a throw, knocked her down, and then ran away—I picked her up and gave her a glass of water—she was in a fainting condition—I had seen the prisoner before—I am quite certain he is the man—I had never seen Mrs. Smith before.

Prisoner. Q. Was not Mrs. Smith drunk? A. Not that I know of—she did not accuse me of stealing the watch, and I did not turn round and say it was you—it is false.

JACOB FOX . I am a baker at 20, Wentworth-street—on 22nd May, about half-past 5, I heard a row outside my shop—I went out and saw the prisoner knocking Mrs. Smith about—he was trying to break her chain, and all at once I saw him take the watch out of her pocket and run away with it—I ran after him about 100 yards, but could not catch him.

Prisoner. Q. Was Mrs. Smith drunk at the time? A. No, she was very much excited.

DAVID CARTER (Policeman E 88). On 23rd May, I took the prisoner—I said, "Dick, I want you"—he said, "So help mo God, I know nothing about it"—I said, "About what?"—he said, "About that job here yesterday"

—I said, "I shall take you on suspicion"—I took him to the station, placed him with several other men, and the witnesses all identified.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate;—"I have a witness in Court who can prove at the time the woman drunk; she was being carried home by two females. There was a mob following her, and when she came to herself she accused one of the witnesses here of stealing her watch, and to get herself clear she said it was I that done it. I know the woman to be a receiver of stolen property, by the name of the "Widow Smith."

GUILTY .—* Five Years' Penal Servitude.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-625
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

625. THOMAS LOCK (22), and JOSEPH HODGES (14) , Robbery on Mary Hyram, and stealing from her person a pair of boots, a bag, a bottle of gin, and 4d. in money.

MESSRS. MOIR and H. PALMER conducted the Prosecution,

MR. DALEY defended LOCK, and MR. SHARPE defended HODGES.

MARY HYRAM . I am 15 in July, and am the daughter of John Hyram, of 11, Abbey-street, Bethnal Green-road—on Saturday, 13th May, about 10 at night, I was walking along Church-street—I had a pair of boots under my cloak, and a bag under my arm, containing a bottle of gin and 4d. in coppers—two boys rushed on me and tried to snatch the bag—I did not let it go at first, but the biggest one pulled it off my arm, and the little one punched me in the mouth and knocked me down—they had followed me from the corner right up to the turning—my attention was attracted to them because I thought they were going to pick a woman's pocket—the little one put his hand over my mouth to prevent me halloing, after he had knocked me down—they then ran off—I ran after them, but lost sight of them—I saw them again at the police-station, and recognised them there as the same persons—I had no doubt about them—I had just bought the gin for 1s. 8d

Cross-examined by MR. DALEY. Q. Is there a street or lane there called Nicholl's-row? A. Yes, I was crossing Nicholl's-row, it is a dark place—this lasted altogether about two minutes—I was frightened—I saw them walking by the side of a woman—they were with the police when I saw them at the station, and they were the only two boys there—I afterwards went to the Portobello public-house, kept by Mr. Keeler—I did not accuse any one there of robbing me—I did not say that somebody in the public-house was one of the boys—I am quite sure of that—I remained there about five minutes—I was in the bar-parlour—I was frightened at that time—I had never seen Lock before.

Cross-examined by MR. SHARPE. Q. Was there a great crowd of persons in this street on that night? A. Yes, it was Saturday night, market night—I never saw Hodges before—the boys came up one on each side of me—I was holding the bag on my left side—it was Lock that came up on my left side—at the time he snatched at the bag, the other one struck me and put his hand on my mouth—they both ran away at the same time and in the same direction—they met me—when I saw Hodges again he was with the policeman—I said "That is the boy; "that was before he said anything to me—he did not say, "Is this the boy who struck you?"—the police told me they had taken two boys—they were sitting down in the station when I saw then—they were not in a dock.

MR. MOIR. Q. You say Church-row is very dark, did you see the prisoners before you got there? A. Yes, I had a full view of their faces as they turned round.

JAMES COWLEY (Policeman, H 117). On Saturday night, 13th May about 10 o'clock, I was standing at the corner of Club-row, and heard a cry of "Police, "and" Stop thief"—I ran across to Nicholl's-row and saw the prisoners—I would not swear to Lock, but Hodges I would swear to—they were running up Nicholl's-row—I followed and they ran into a doorway leading into some cellars—they are very dark, they lead into each other—they are open to the public if any one likes to go down—I stopped at the door while a brother constable got a candle, and we then went down into the cellars, searched about, and found Hodges in the second cellar, crouched up in a corner—he was taken into custody by 163 H—on the road to the station, I took Lock from a description I had of him—as soon as we got inside the station door, the girl said, "That is the one that came up and struck me in the mouth and took the bag from me."

Cross-examined by DALEY. Q. Is there a rail at the station-house where the prisoners are put? A. Yes; I believe these boys were sitting down—they were put in the dock afterwards—this (produced) is a correct plan of Church-row and the streets about there—there was another policeman nearer to the boys than where I was standing—I started after them at once—Nicholl's-row is a darkish place—there is some scaffolding at the end, where they are repairing a wall—there is a light from a public-house near—I have inquired about Lock, and find he is respectable—his uncle is a very respectable man.

Cross-examined by MR. SHARPE. Q. Do you know that Hodges works for Mr. Kearns? A. Yes, he does—I have never known anything against him before—I have been told by his master that he is a respectable boy—he lives within about 100 yards of Nicholl's-row-there are two or three cellars together at this place—I found a bag in one of the cellars—nobody could have thrown it into the cellar, it was in the second cellar—it must have been carried through the first into the second—there is a doorway open to the street, about two feet wide and four feet high, I dare say—I believe boys go down there, and play at hide and seek in the daytime, not at night I should think—people do not go down there for other purposes—I found a bundle close by the bag, which contained some collars; and I also found a jacket close by the bag—the bag was not open.

JURY. Q. Was the bottle broken? A. It was not.

MR. DALEY. Q. Where does Lock live? A. In Wheeler-street, very near a quarter of a mile from where this happened.

MR. MOIR. Q. Have you any belief about Lock? A. My firm belief is that he is the boy I saw running, but I would not swear to him—I know these cellars well—it is not possible for any one to chuck anything in there—Hodges must have passed the place where the bag was found before he got to the place where he was himself.

CHARLES CARLIN (Policeman, H 163). On Saturday night, 13th May, about 10 o'clock, I was on duty, in plain clothes, in Church-street—I heard a cry of "Stop thief" and saw two policemen, 150 and 155, running up Nicholl's-row—I ran after them, and saw a mob running towards Half Nicholl-street—I followed the mob, and saw the two constables rush into a doorway in Nicholls-row—I jumped over "150's "back into the cellar—I stooped down and crept into the cellar, which leads into a yard, and saw something like a boy or a man moving, and went into the yard—I then went down another cellar on the left—I stood there for a few minutes and halloaed out for a light, I then put my arm round a corner, and felt the prisoner Hodges—I held him and said, "Who is this?"—he said, "It was

not me, sir"—I said, "What?"—he said, "It was not me took it"—I said, "Took what?"—he said, "It was not me took the bag"—I fetched him up out of the yard.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you not know that Lock is the nephew of Mr. Lock the builder? A. I believe so—I believe the inspector of our division has come as a witness for him.

THOMAS KEELER (Policeman, H 155). I was on duty at the corner of Nicholl's-row, and heard a great many people calling out u Police, "and" Stop thief"—I ran past them, and saw the two prisoners running in front of the crowd—when I got within about half-a-dozen yards of them they turned the corner, and ran into a doorway—Hodges was on the right of Lock—Lock was carrying the bag in his left hand—they made a halt at the doorway, as they could not both get in together, and both fell down in the cellar, in consequence of there not being any staircase there—I also fell down in the cellar—I found it was very dark and low—I could not stand up in the cellar—I could see both their faces very plainly—I am quite certain these are the boys I saw.

Cross-examined by MR. DALEY. Q. Where were you when you first heard the cries? A. In Church-street, opposite Nicholl's-row. Cowley was close by me—Club-row is on the right of Church-street, opposite Nicholl's-row—Cowley was not nearer than I was—I did not see the boys when 1 first heard the cries—Nicholl's-row is rather dark—I believe there is a street-lamp at the corner, I am not sure—I was about four yards from the boys when they turned round sharp, and I saw their faces—I was not more than three yards from them when they tumbled into this cellar—I believe Lock was one of the boys—I am sure he was—I believe Floyd said he did not much think it was Lock.

Cross-examined by MR. SHARPE. Q. Do you say you saw two go into the cellars? A. I did—I found only one—I was in Nicholls'-row when I first saw them running, they were then between thirty and forty yards from me—the door of these cellars is two yards round the corner of Niclioll's-row, in Half Nicholl-street—it was the larger of the two boys who was carrying the bag—there are two or three cellars together, a person can get out of one cellar into a yard, and by an empty house, the doors of which are always open, he could get out into the fields, or into Half Nicholl-street, and also Nicholl's-row—there are two ways of getting out—nobody could have come out at the front of the cellars without my seeing them.

MR. MOIR. Q. Are you quite sure that the prisoners are the persons you followed? A. Yes, I have no doubt whatever.

COURT. Q. Where did you take Lock? A. He was taken in Wheeler-street—I did not see him in the cellar, I saw him enter the cellar.

MR. DALEY, for Lock, called

EBENEZER LEWIS . I am a shoemaker, and work for Mr. Groves, of Bacon-street, Bethnal-green—he occupies premises over Mr. Lock's, the timber-merchant's—about half-past 9 on 13th May, I was in care of the house during Mrs. Groves' absence, marketing—I was looking out at the window, and saw Lock coming out of Mr. Lock's—I called him upstairs, and he came up—he remained with me till Mrs. Groves came home, at 10 o'clock, and we started out together at ten minutes past 10—I was going with him to pay his lodgings—we went down Bacon-street, and when we got into Clubrow we saw a mob coming from Church-street down Club-row—I saw no police in uniform—we inquired what was the matter, and a little boy told us that a boy had knocked a girl down coming out of a pawnbroker's—we

followed them, and all the way going along there were some girls behind us dancing and singing—Tom Lock began talking to me about them, and he began to swear about them, and a man took hold of him with a light wide-awake on and a black band round it, and slung him on the ground—they were struggling on the ground two or three minutes when a policeman in uniform came up and took Lock in custody—he was not out of my sight from the time he came out till I saw him taken, he was beside me all the time—I went to the police-court and waited outside, but was not called as a witness.

Cross-examined by MR. H. PALMER. Q. Do you know Lock very well? A. Yes—this was a Saturday night—I don't very often go for a walk with him, it was an unusual thing—I know it was about half-past 9 when I saw him, because I looked at the clock before I looked out at the window—I was having my supper—I know it was Saturday night, because my mistress had gone out marketing, and I was paid on that night—I have called him up once or twice before—we sat down and talked, and I played the flute and he played the triangle till mistress came home—she is here to-day—we then went out for a walk—the place where I work is about five hundred yards, I should think, from where I saw the crowd—there was a mob outside the station—I did not know what he was taken for—I told Mr. Lock, the prisoners uncle, about it next day—I stayed at the station-house till 12 o'clock.

MR. DALEY. Q. I suppose when the man took Lock, you did not know he was accused of the robbery? A. No—I was afraid to interfere—I did not communicate with the mob.

MARY GROVES . I am the wife of Thomas Groves, a boot and shoe maker, of Bacon-street—we occupy one of Mr. Lock's houses—the last witness works for me—I was out on this Saturday night to make purchases—when I came back I found the prisoner Lock there, with the boy—that was just on 10o'clock—the boys went away from my place at ten minutes after 10—I have known Lock two years—I have seen him hard at work every day under the place where we live—I have always heard that he bears a very good character—I am sure this was on the Saturday night—I heard of it on the Sunday morning.

Cross-examined. Q. What time do you usually go out marketing? A. Betwixt 9 and 10—the market is about five hundred yards off.

COURT. Q. Does Lewis board with you? A. Yes; he lodges out—he has supper about 11, between 10 and 11—he had it on this Saturday night while I was gone—we leave off early on Saturday—he had bread and butter, I believe, for supper—he has got a tin-whistle and a triangle, and they were amusing themselves with that when I came back.

SAMUEL LOCK. I am a timber-merchant, in Bacon-street, Spitalfields—I have been there sixteen years in business for myself, and have lived there fur about thirty years—Lock is my nephew—he has been in my service eight or nine years—his parents are both dead—I can answer for his being an honest boy, or I should not have kept him—I have often sent him to the bank, and he has brought money back—I am sure he was at work on this particular Saturday—I should think it was 9 o'clock when I went out that night—he was in my place then—I am his bail.

Cross-examined. Q. When did you see him next? A.. At the station-house the following Sunday afternoon—he very often leaves me about half-past 7—he has his tea at my place—that is the last meal he has there—he never came back to supper—I know Ebenezer Lewis—I have seen him go

in and out of ray house—I know he works for Mr. Groves—I have seen my nephew and him speaking together—I have never seen them walking together—I heard of this from my wife about 2 o'clock on the Sunday—she asked me whether I had seen my nephew—I said, "No"—she said, "Well, you are not likely, he is locked up"—he was in the habit of coming to my house to breakfast on the Sunday, and we were surprised that he had not come—I said,—I will go up and see the poor fellow"—I saw the sergeant on duty, and I asked him if he had a person there named Lock, and what he was charged with—I saw the charge-sheet, and said, "Well, you are mistaken this time, for he is quite incapable of committing such an act"—I bailed him—I was before the Magistrate on the Monday morning—I did not give evidence—Lewis told me how this occurred—T told him to be up at the police court to meet me—my solicitor was there.

EUGENE KEILY . I keep the Portobello public-house—on the night of this occurrence, about 10 o'clock, the little girl Mary Hyram came into my house crying—she had a pair of boots to bring home to me—I said, "What is the matter, my dear?"—she said she could hardly tell me, somebody had knocked her down—I said, "Come into the bar-parlour; what will you have to drink?"—somebody came in at the door, and said, "We have got him, "and the little girl came out of the bar, and accused some of my customers—I said, "You must mind what you are about, accusing these children; they have come in with their mugs for beer"—I did not supply her with the gin.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you see her with any bag or gin? A. No, she was very excited indeed, not a limb on her was steady—she could not see any boys in custody—the boy was in custody outside with the detective—she only saw the children at the bar—her words were, "There they are, there they are, "and she pointed to some of the boys and girls that were coming in—there were two or three boys in the bar, and some grown-up persons as well—she would not take anything to drink—my door opens with a swing—the door was so closed that she could not see the boy in custody.

COURT. Q. When the child came into your house, was her mouth bleeding or hurt in any way? A. She appeared as if she had had a punch on the mouth—it was bleeding a little.

The prisoners received excellent characters.

GUILTY.— Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of their previous good characters.—Judgment Respited.

OLD COURT.—Wednesday and Thursday, June 14th and 15th, 1865.

Before Mr. Baron Martin.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-626
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

626. JOHN GEORGE BARRY (37), ALFRED BARRY (36), JAMES ARNETT(39), CHARLES THORNE (49), and WILLIAM SEDGWICK (49), were indicted for unlawfully conspiring to cheat and defraud divers insurance companies.

MR. BOVILL, Q. C. with MR. GIFFARD, Q. C., MR. POLAND, and MR. H. GIFFARD conducted the Prosecution.

MR. COLBRIDGE, Q. C. with MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE, MR. METCALFE, and HON. A. H. THESIGER appeared for Messrs. Barry; MR. SERJEANT TINDAL ATKINSON, MR. PHILBRICK, and MR. H. T. ATKINSON for Thome; and MR. PRICE, with MR. F. H. LEWIS, for Arnett and Sedgwick.

The indictment containing a variety of Counts charging a conspiracy with reference to two fires, one in June and one in November, MR. BARON MARTIN, after hearing MR. BOVILL and MR. GIFFARD, ruled that the prosecution must elect upon which conspiracy they would proceed, as he would not receive evidence having reference to more than one. The Prosecution, therefore, elected to proceed upon those counts relating to the fire in November.

FRANCIS PERRY . I am a broker and commission-agent, carrying on business at 17, Gracechurch-street—I was formerly in partnership with MR. ALFRED VARGAN—some bales of jute were imported by a ship called the Mary warehouse—I did not deposit them with the Messrs. Barry—I do not know the original amount of the cargo—we were the buyers of the parcel; we bought it to arrive.

THOMAS ALEXANDER ROBERTS . I am an auctioneer and valuer, and assessor of fire losses—I carry on business at 22, Throgmorton-street, under the firm of Brown and Roberts—I am aware of the fire taking place at Meriton's Wharf, on 25th November last year, at the premises of Messrs. Barry Brothers—I was employed to make inquiries on behalf of a number of insurance offices, for the North British and Mercantile, the Liverpool and London, the Manchester, and the Queen—on 30th November, I received this list, with the letter attached to it, dated 30th November, in Thome's handwriting—(read:"Meriton's Wharf, and bonded warehouse. Barry Brothers, 30th November, 1864. Messrs. Brown and Roberts: Gentlemen, herewith we send you the rough list of seed, wheat, jute, saltpetre, rice, and sundries, destroyed at our fire on 25th instant Yours truly, J. Thome, for Messrs. Barry Brothers. Small cockles of sweepings and empty bags will follow afterwards. "Then follows a list of goods purporting, to be destroyed—it is printed in black ink—it is not all printed, part of it is written—the jute is printed—(The list being read, contained, jute ex-Mary Stenhouse, and other vessels)—in this black list 313 of those bales are represented to be destroyed, Nos. 521 to 833, marked A. S. and Co. K—by the Avoca, 1.555 quarters 6 bushels of rape seed is represented to be destroyed—the word "warrants," is written against that—that means that warrants have been delivered out to the owners—by the City of Sidney, 846 bales of jute are represented to be destroyed, consisting of 50 marked S and C C in a diamond, No. 3; Nos. 31 to 80, of the same mark, No. 4, 796 bales; Nos. 81 to 410, and 531 to 996, inclusive—by the Onward 800 bales, viz. 1 to 170, and 371 to 1000—by the Jane Porter, 270 bales, fifteen marked S and C C x 4, Nos. 446 to 460 inclusive; ditto 4's, 220 bales, Nos. 46 to 75, and 246 to 435; 3's, 35 bales, 1 to 35 inclusive—by the City of Canton 280, marked S and C C, 3's and 4's, 1 to 18, 29 to 48, 259 to 500, inclusive; A. S. and Co. D, 197 bales, 1 to 197; A. S. and Co. K, 300 bales, 201 to 500—by the City of Cashmere, S and C C, 3, 70 bales, Nos. 1 to 70; S and C C 4, 677 bales, 71 to 670, 771 to 847; S and C C x 4, 7 bales, 848 to 847, S and C C x 4, 146 bales, 855 to 1,000, inclusive—on 5th December, I received this revised list in red ink, with a letter attached to it purporting to be written by Thome; I believe it to be in his writing—(read: "5th December, 1864. We beg to hand you revised list, portion printed red destroyed by our late fire. Barry Brothers, per Charles Thome. "In that list the number of bales by the Mary Stenhouse, is the same as in the former one, and the same as regards the City of Sidney, the Onward, the Jane Porter, the City of Canton, the City of Cashmere, and the Avoca—there is an alteration in a number in one of them, but they are substantially the same—on 7th December, I saw Alfred Barry—I mentioned to him that in parts of the lists there was a great discrepancy; more jute being

represented to be burned in the first list than was represented in the second—I referred particularly to the City of Dublin, for in the first list 1,760 bales were represented to be destroyed, and in the second list only 50—I also referred to a similar discrepancy in the lists about the Naturalist—I suggested that we should compare the lists with the books—he said he was quite willing that that should be done—I asked for a list of the goods not destroyed, and he promised that that should be ready when I called again—after that interview I asked Mr. Radmall to examine the books—subsequently, on the 13th December, Mr. Alfred Barry called at my office, and I asked him who had taken the list of the goods saved—my clerk had previously obtained such a list—Mr. Barry said it was made out by Arnett, and checked by Thome—on the 15th December I received a claim from Rose, Graham, and Wilson, the seed brokers—that was a claim regarding the Avoca—I reported upon it to the insurance-offices, and it has been paid—I produce a claim marked L, from Perry and Vargan—that has not been paid—on the 5th or 6th January I saw a person named Fage, who gave me certain information—on the 11th January Mr. Whiting, Fage, and I went to Meriton's-wharf, and saw Alfred Barry in his counting-house—it was stated to Mr. Barry, either by Mr. Whiting or myself, that information had been given us by Fage, a workman lately in their employ, that tallies had been taken off jute by the ship Onward, that other tallies had been substituted, that more jute was saved of the Onward's cargo than had been represented, and that we wished to have the foreman present, in order that he might be charged with having done so—Mr. Barry had the foreman Arnett called, and he came in immediately—I questioned Arnett—up to this time Fage was not present—I said, "Arnett, you are charged with taking tallies off the jute by the Onward, and putting on fresh tallies, did you do so?"—he said, "Yes, I did"—he said that in delivering goods they sometimes took those which were nearest to their hand, without reference to the ship's mark—this was in explanation, and at that time my clerk and Fage entered the counting-house—Fage then again spoke about the Onward—Fage stated that he had received instructions to take tallies off bales by the Onward, that bales by that ship had been stowed in the new warehouse, being what he termed" overs, "that 200 of her bales of jute, said to have been saved, had been delivered after the fire, and that the remainder of her jute had been stowed in the new warehouse, that 200 bales would be found on the ground floor labelled City of Dublin, and that 350 bales more would be found upstairs—he also said the tallies were taken off and collected to be destroyed—Mr. Whiting said to Mr. Barry, "How is this?"—Mr. Barry appealed to Arnett and asked, "Is this true?"—Arnett replied, "It is true"—Mr. Barry said, "Then we have no check; "to which Fage replied, "Yes, you have a check; that was the check you received for selling some wheat; call things by their right names; Arnett is not to blame"—Fage then said that in the N warehouse there were some other bales by other ships, which would be "overs, "meaning overs for the firm—he also said that after the June fire 100 bags of rice were moved from one warehouse to another which were not included in the list of goods saved; he said that they were moved by a man named Buckett—he also said that 164 bales of jute by the Sebastian Cabot, and some by the William Cole, the Almeida, and the Raleigh, were put into a barge called the Cat after the June fire; that they were knocking about in the dock two months, and that they were afterwards burnt in the November fire—he challenged Arnett to deny it—Arnett did deny it, but afterwards admitted it was true, when Fage said if be had the books he could prove it—I asked

why the destruction of the jute by the Sebastian Cabot was not charged for; to which no reply was made—it had been set down as burnt in the June fire—Mr. Whiting said to Mr. Barry, "Why, you admit all this man says; it is not a very creditable proceeding; you must think the insurance-offices have a great deal of money"—it was then suggested that we should walk across the road and see the jute by the Onward in the warehouse—Fage said he had helped to load vans which carried wheat, for which the Messrs. Barry received payment—we all went across to the ground floor of N warehouse, and there Fage pointed out a stack of jute which contained 210 bales by the Onward, and said that if the stack were broken down the centre bales would be found without tallies, and that the front bales would be found with tallies of the City of Dublin upon them. I asked Arnett if this were true, and he said it was—it was then proposed that we should take an account of the goods on the premises, and that Mr. Stanninought, one of Messrs. Barry's clerks, should be present—this was agreed upon, and we proceeded with the stock-taking the same day—I did not myself assist at it, but I afterwards received a report from Mr. Radmall—I saw Mr. John Barry at Meriton's-wharf, in his counting-house on the 13th January—he expressed regret that there should be such inaccuracies in their statements—I asked him how he accounted for the change of tallies on goods received by the Onward, and he said, "I have not heard of that"—I said, "Did not your brother tell you of it?"—he said, "No"—I proposed to go across to the warehouse and point out the goods—we went downstairs for that purpose, and met Arnett at the door—I said, "Arnett, is it true that the tallies were changed by the Onward?"—he said, "Yes"—we did not then go to the warehouse—I suggested to Mr. John Barry that the seed by the Avoca should be measured, and he said it should be done next morning—I directed my clerk to attend to the measuring—I mentioned that I had to report to a meeting of the fire-offices the following morning the result of the stocktaking—Mr. Barry inquired at what time—I said if he were in the city at the time it might be well for him to call—he said in all probability be should call, and the next morning he came to the office.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. You gave evidence at the Mansion-house about this, I suppose? A. I did; the companies I was acting for were the North British and Mercantile, the Liverpool and London, the Manchester, and the Queen—I was at the premises the day following the fire—a large range of buildings was burnt down—the place was in such confusion as is ordinary after a fire—there is no confusion in the premises that are burnt down; there is an end of them—fires do occasion confusion in the premises where they occur, but not in the premises where the lire is not—they are very large premises—I can't answer whether they were very full—I have not been over every floor—the floors I have seen were full; I can't say whether they were inconveniently full; I am pot a wharfinger—when I first saw Mr. Barry, he said there would not be the smallest objection to my going through all the books, and seeing them—I did go and see all the books; any book we asked for was shown us, and every facility was given me—I had only known the Messrs. Barry before, in connexion with the June fire—I have heard recently, since the November fire, that besides being large wharfingers they had an establishment where they prepared sheep-wash—I did not know that they were also large seed assayers—I have heard that they are seed assayers; I don't know the extent of their business, I have no means of knowing—the totals of the goods represented to be saved, added to the goods represented to be burnt, make up the goods that

by their books they ought to have on their premises, as far as we were able to check it—they do make it up to the best of my belief—we have looked as far as the cargoes that are destroyed, and it is the fact that the contents of the two lists added together represent the actual stock on their premises by the books—the totals of the two lists agree with the books; that is taking Messrs. Barry's statement in each case.

Q. Did Mr. Barry, when you saw him on the first occasion, say that the great object of furnishing the burnt list to the offices was that the offices might take them and come and check them for themselves? A. No—to the best of my belief nothing of the kind was said—I have no recollection of anything of the sort—I believe he did not say so—I can't go further than that—I asked for the saved list; he at once offered to let me have it—it is the duty of the insurance offices to satisfy themselves as to the claims, before they pay them—it is not the custom to take the burnt list and check the goods by it, and it would not, in a case like this, enable them to do it; where the tallies have been changed you could not make a correct list—I did not know that the tallies had been changed when I went—we had no instructions to go; it is not usual to go—if we were to go and see the exact quantity of goods they had, we should have to take stock of all their other premises which were not burnt—there is no doubt that taking the burnt list and comparing it with the goods remaining on the premises would enable us to check claims and ascertain their correctness or incorrectness—I did not do it because it is not customary to do it—it is customary to take the wharfinger's certificate for things burnt; no questions are asked—we are paid for ascertaining the correctness of claims—we are not paid a per centage; we charge a fee according to the matter of business—our mode of ascertaining the correctness of a claim is not to take a list and pay upon it; we pay on the certificate of the wharfinger; he signs a printed certificate that the goods are destroyed, and he writes across the warrant "destroyed by fire, "and on that we arrange with the merchant the price of the goods, and the amount is paid—we are paid to see that the merchant returns the proper quantity of goods at risk, because his goods are covered by floating policies, which cover goods elsewhere—the wharfinger's certificate represents on the face of it the quantity burnt, and on that we pay the merchant—we see that the price is right—that is what we are paid for—we do not pay without the wharfinger's certificate; one office did, but not an office for which I was concerned; it was a new office—when Mr. Alfred Barry called on me on 13th December, I asked him how the list of the goods not destroyed had been made out—he told me that Arnett had made out the list from the stock in the warehouses, and that Thorne had checked it—it was on Wednesday, 11th January, I went there with Fage—I do not recollect Mr. Alfred Barry saying to me at that time that he could not account for the mistake that had been made by Arnett and Thorne—he asked Arnett the question that Mr. Whiting put to him—he did not say to me, "I cannot account in the least for this mistake that Arnett has made"—he did not follow it up by asking me what I thought had better be done in the matter; I will swear that—I did not suggest that he had better put the matter in the hands of some independent accountant; nothing of the kind—on the 11th, Mr. Whiting, Mr. Radmall, Fage, Arnett, and I were present—I suggested that we should at once take the stock, and that was arranged to be done—that was not in consequence of Mr. Barry saying, "I cannot conceive how this has all happened; what had best be done?"—he never said so—I suggested taking the stock, because I thought

it was requisite to do so, if there were these errors—I can't say what was the last thing that occurred immediately before I suggested taking stock—I had previously arranged with Mr. Whiting that if these charges were admitted we should at once take stock Mr. Barry was at once willing that I should do so—my clerks commenced taking stock on Wednesday, and it was finished on friday night, expect measuring a parcel of seed by the Avoca I do not remember on that or any other occasion Mr. Barry saying they could see no objection to our going through the books, and ascertaining that everything was correct, for he thought the offices, where so large amounts were so large amounts were concerned, ought to have some check of their own; nothing of the kind; I have no recollection of it; most certainly nothing of the kind was said on the Wednesday, nor on the Friday; I have no recollection of it—I did not say to him, while taking stock, that he seemed to have no idea to what extent the inaccuracies in his lists had gone—I did not see him during the taking the stock—I saw Mr. John Barry on the Friday evening, that was all—I should say I did not say that to him—he knew it to the same extent as we did; his clerk was there—I have no recollection of saying so, I did not know the extent myself—he said he was very much surprised, that that was the first time he had heard of the movement of the tallies; that was on the Friday evening—when I met Arnett at the door I asked him the question about the tallies, and he admitted it—that was at the door just by the street, and we turned back to the counting-house at once—I have no recollection of Mr. Barry saying, "Well, Arnett, what did you do that for?"—I will not swear it; I did not hear it—Arnett did not say in answer, "I am very sorry, sir, that I did it, but when I broke down the stack I found I was so many bales in excess that I fancied I must have made some mistake in a former delivery of the same mark"—nothing of the sort was said in my hearing—I did not hear Mr. Barry at the same time, with an air of vexation, say "I should like to know how many other shipments you have been serving in the same way"—I never heard anything of the sort; I swear that; we returned immediately—Mr. Barry told me that was the first he had heard of it, and on Arnett saying it was true, my purpose was answered, and I returned at once—Mr. Barry did not remain behind; he went back with me to his counting-house—next day, or Monday, Mr. Godden, from Messrs. Tilleard's, called upon me; he showed me a letter that he was about to write to us, and he proposed to fill in the names of Messrs. Honey and Humphrys, I said they were very respectable persons, and I had done business with them satisfactorily—(The letter in question was as follows: "34, Old Jewry, London, E. C. Jan 16th, 1865. Messrs. Brown and Roberts, Throgmorton-street. Gentlemen—Messrs. Barry Brothers find with great surprise that serious inaccuracies have in fact occurred in their returns of goods, as destroyed at the fire on their premises on the 25th of November last. These returns were made out from the lists of stock prepared and checked by their servants in the usual way, and Messrs. Barry were at first incredulous that there could be any extensive errors, notwithstanding the great confusion and pressure which exist after fire; but they are now satisfied that it is so, and they have suspended the foreman, who is principally responsible to them, from any further interference with the goods; and they have, for their own satisfaction, also determined to call in Messrs. Honey, Humphrys, and Honey, of Ironmonger-lane, to take entire charge of their stock, and to investigate the discrepancies which have occurred, with a view to their readjustment, and to preclude the questions in the settlement of the remaining claims. We

shall be obliged if you will communicate this determination at once to the various offices interested for which you are concerned.—We are, gentlemen, yours, &c. Tilleard, Son, Godden, and Holme.")—I cannot tell you whether Mr. Radmall's list is correct—I have had no means of testing its accuracy—I do not assume that it is possible to take an exactly accurate list—I have certainly assumed the substantial accuracy of it—he was not there for the express purpose of checking the list that was found to be inaccurate—he was there on the Wednesday to take a list of what remained; it was not checking the list at all—at that time the list of the goods saved had been ascertained to be incorrect—he was there for the purpose of taking a more correct list—it may be that his list is inaccurate to the extent of 300 bales, it would not surprise me.

Q. Were you the person who authorized the taking into custody first of all of the servants and afterwards of the principals? A. Certainly not; it was done by the Committee of the Fire Offices.

Q. Cannot you give me anybody who was responsible for it? A. I am not a lawyer—I cannot give you the name of any person who authorised it as a matter of fact; I must refer you to Mr. Humphreys—I don't know the exact time they were in prison—I can't say whether it was about five weeks; I don't know the time at all without referring to memoranda—I can't say whether they were in prison from 25th January to 4th March—I have no means of speaking as to dates—I was at the Mansion-honse a great many times—I should think those times ranged over a period between 25th January and 4th March, and later than that—I don't know whether they were in custody in Newgate the whole of that time—I can't say how long it was—Fage came to me—he has been paid by me ever since, the same wages he received at Meriton's Wharf, 18s. per week; no perquisites; I am not aware of any hopes or prospects; no retiring pension, no lodging or board—I do not know of the taking away of all Messrs. Barry's books and papers; I know some have been taken, I don't know what; I was not present—I don't know that all their books and papers were taken, and their drawers broken open—the first depositions were taken before the Lord Mayor, and the others before Alderman Stone—the Lord Mayor is a director of one of the offices concerned now—I have not read over Fage's deposition before the Lord Mayor; I heard part of it; most of it.

Cross-examined by MR. PRICE. Q. As I understand you, when you first spoke to Arnett, Fage was not present? A. No—I had all the information from Fage, as to the tallies being token off, that I ever obtained—when I said to Arnett, "You are charged with doing this, "his excuse was, that sometimes the goods nearest at hand were taken without regard to the name—he did not at any time say that it had arisen from the necessity of breaking up the shipments in consequence of the crowded state of the warehouse—I am sure he did not—when I spoke about it to Fage afterwards, ho said something about his receiving instructions—he said that Callahan and another man had worked at taking off the tallies—that was the time when Mr. Barr y expressed his surprise—I forget whether Fage named any one else—when I met him and said "Is it true the tallies have been changed?" I knew it before—I asked him that because Mr. John Barry was with me, and he said he had never heard of it.

MR. GIFFARD. Q. The first occasion when they were before the Lord Mayor had reference to the fire in November, I believe? A. It had, as far as I am aware—I am not aware that the Lord Mayor was interested in any office connected with that fire—the Lord Mayor only sat once, that was on

the first occasion—it is not the custom to make any investigation when we have the wharfinger's certificate—we take his certificate if there is no doubt of his respectability—we received certificates in the ordinary course in this ease, purporting to be from Messrs. Barry, relating to their November fire, and on those certificates the offices paid—if I had gone to the warehouses I should have had no means of checking the lists, the lifts not furnishing me with any information as to what particular warehouses the goods were in.

JOSIAH FAGS . I was until lately in the employ of Messrs. Barry at Meriton's-wharf. I was with them about a year and nine months. Both the Messrs. Baity were very frequently at the wharf—they would merely just go through the place sometimes—they did not go much into the working of the business—they merely used to walk through—Thorne was superintendent of the wharf, and Arnett was labour superintendent, and Sedgwick was a foreman, he attended principally to jute—my duty was to take the weights of the bales landed, and also to tally them—I took the weights of the jute lauded from the Onward, and entered the weights in the landing-book—the marks were S. C. C. 4—tallies were placed upon the bales with that mark upon them—the tallies consisted of pieces of calico stiffly stitched, fastened by a piece of wire through an eyelet hole to the bale—each bale weighed between 2 cwt and. 3 cwt.—the greater part of those bales were stowed in the yard—there were 1,000 bales received by the Onward, and they remained in the place where they were deposited until after the tire—I delivered 200 of them by order of Sedgwick after the fire—that stack was not in any way injured by the fire, it was too far away, a labourer named Burgess was present when Sedgwick gave me the order—Burgess asked Sedgwick if he wanted any particular weights, he said, "No"—he went into the office, came back, and said "Take those 200 and that will finish the ship, the rest are for us"—after I had delivered the 200 bales, about 300 remained, marked Onward—a few days afterwards I heard Arnett say to Sedgwick, "Mr. John is in a very bad way about the stack by the Onward being over, and if it was found out, what a row, or bother, there would be I"—the man Callaghan is still in the employment of the Messrs. Barry—sedgwick gave Callaghan and myself orders to take off the tarpaulin from the Onward stuck, and to take off the tallies, and he brought a bag and told us to put the tallies carefully into it, and then he added, "When they are all collected we will burn them"—accordingly Callaghan and I tore off 350 of the tallies and put them into the bag, which, I believe, was taken away by Sedgwick—about fifteen hands were then employed in removing the bales into the N warehouse—it took them all day—I do not know whether they are still in the employment—while we were taking off the tallies Sedgwick name there two or three times—I saw Mr. Alfred Barry and Arnett together, and later in the day I saw Mr. John Barry, within two or three yards off whore we were at work—we-were then up-ending the bales, a part of the stack having fallen down—when the bales were removed to the N warehouse they were without any tallies, but a man of the name of Backett, in the employ of the Messrs. Hurry, was put to work to put fresh tallies on them containing the words City of Dublin—I left the service on the Saturday after Christmas—I went to the top of the N warehouse the Friday after Christmas, and there I saw the remainder of the bales by the Onward, about 140 in number—they had no tallies on them, they had been removed up there two or three days after I had torn off the tallies—I had gone up for some papers I had left there, and on coming down Sedgwick was going away, and Burgess said to me, "What have you been upstairs for?"—I said, "Why?"—he said

"Sedgwick told roe to ask"—Sedgwick was not then within hearing, he was on the wharf—we were turning from the new warehouse on to the wharf, and I asked Sedgwick what he meant by telling Burgess to speak to me about going up-stairs—he said "I merely said, 'What is Fage going up-stairs for?'"—before 8th December I had assisted in stowing on the top floor fifteen bales of jute from a ship called the Botanist, marked S and CC3 in a diamond, and about thirty by the Mary Stenhouse—I know it was some days after the 25th November when the fire occurred, and before the 8th December; it was after the stock-taking, also about twenty by the Jane porter, about thirty by the Art Union, about fifty by the Clyde, I think marked S and CC x 4—I had orders from Sedgwick to stow the tallies of those bales in, so that they should go against the wall—we did so—it was a fortnight after Christmas that I went to Messrs. Brown and Roberts—I don't know the date exactly—I made a communication to them, and on 11th January I went with Mr. Roberts to Meriton's-wharf, and saw Mr. Alfred Barry in his room, and Mr. Whiting and Mr. Radmall and Arnett—Mr. Whiting said, "You have something to tell us about some goods being kept back from the fire offices that have been reported to be burnt, which are not"—I said, "Yes, sir, I have;" and I asked for a piece of paper, which, I believe, Mr. Radmall banded to me, and I read out the items from it—I told them that they had about 100 bags of rice in No. 11, and that they had only given an account of 7 to the fire offices as being on hand; that in the fire before, they had charged 440 bales of jute of the Almeida parcel as being burnt when there was only 413 burnt—I told them that I had delivered three loads of grain on 19th August, for which they got the money, and I said that was the check—I may say by way of explanation that Mr. Alfred Barry said, "Why, Arnett, we have got no check, "and I said, "You should call things by there right names, don't put the blame on Mr. Arnett; three loads I delivered on 9th August, for which you have got the money, that is the check"—I meant that he might have got a check for 30l. or 40l. or whatever it might have come to—I said they had kept a lot of bales of jute back from the June fire, and put them into a barge called the Cat, and they were burnt in the November fire—that was about 300 bales; and I mentioned the ships names, the Sebastian Cabot 164 bales, the William Cole 75, the Almeida 10, and the quantity by the Rollo I forgot, but it was 300 bales altogether—I said the Cat had been knocking about the dock for two or three months, and the goods were then landed in Grove's-buildings or the new buildings known as Nos. 40 to 5 0, and destroyed by the November fire—on my saying that, Mr. Whiting said, "Why, Mr. Barry, this is not a very respectable transaction, you must think the fire offices have a great deal of money to spare"—I don't think that he made any answer—Arnett at first said it was not true, or something to that effect—I said "I will give you, Mr. Arnett, a fair chance: if you deny this, I challenge you to bring up the foreman's day books, and I will prove it"—Arnett then said it was true—Mr. Roberts said, "If these 164 bales by the Sebastian Cabot are burnt as you admit, why not charge us with them?"—I did not hear any answer was made to that—I told Arnett that I had heard him say that Mr. John was in a bad way about the stack by the Onward being over, and if it was found out what a row there would be—upon which Arnett said, "I don't recollect using those words exactly, but I may have said something to that effect"—after this conversation Mr. Radmall, Mr. Gatehouse, Mr. Stanninought, and Mr. Field and I began taking the stock directly—Mr. Stanninought, Mr. Barry's clerk, was present nearly the whole

time—he had a gang of men to take the tarpaulins off the stack in the yard—I counted the bales, and Mr. Field and Mr. Gatehouse checked me—we were engaged in taking stock part of three days—I remember the stock being taken after the November fire by Arnett and Sedgwick first, and after that by Thorne and Arnett—when Arnett and Sedgwick were together, Arnett had the papers, and Sedgwick was calling out the stock—when Thorne and Arnett were together, Thorne had the papers, and Arnett was calling out the stock.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. The bales are all stacked in large quantities, are they not? A. Yes; we counted the grounders first, and then got on the top of the stack—they were pretty high up to the ceiling, but I and Mr. Field crawled on the top; he and I called out the quantities—Mr. Field counted every tier, as well as I did—went to the insurance-offices because I was not treated very gentlemanly by Mr. John Barry—he said he would push me down the steps, if I did not go—I wanted to prevent them from reaping the benefit of what they had got in their place that did not belong to them—that was because Mr. Barry said, "Push him down" without hearing me—I was working at the place from the time of the Jane fire until the time of the November fire—I was aware of some things irregular, not of everything—I was there from half-past 7 in the morning till 6 at night—the men knock off work then, except they are required to work overtime—Arnett recommended me to the service—before that I was a foreman in the St. Katherine-docks; before that a labourer there, and before that a weaver—it was while I was in St. Katherine-dockts that there was a little affair about 40l.; it was something to do with a benefit society—I was entrusted with 40l. and had the misfortune to lose it—I did not have the good fortune to be able to pay 4l. about that time which I owed; I swear that—I borrowed 2l. of a person named Lennox when I was in the docks, and I owe him 4s. at present—I did not pay him 2l. about the time I lost the 40l.—I paid him 2l. when I worked in the docks, two or three years ago—that was long before I lost the 40l.—after losing that money, I did not go to the docks again till after Christmas—the men thought I had not lost it, and sent a policeman after me, and I did not want to be in limbo on Christmas-day, but before boxing-day I went to two police-stations, before they would lock me up; I asked them to do so; at last they told me to stop there—I said I had lost the money, and the magistrate believed me; I could have gone back to the docks again, the secretary sent for me to say, if I made my case clear at the police-court, I could go back and be reinstated: I knocked about for a month, and then went to look for another situation—I am keeping my family now by work—of course I am at work—my orders are to go down to the office every morning—if it is not work it answers all the purpose—I go to Mr. Roberts' office for anything they require me for—I am in the employment of the fire-offices, and I go there to answer any questions; I don't know what as—I am kept there to answer questions during this prosecution—I go down there to see if I am wanted; if not I come away—if there is any explanation required I have to give it—if they want to know anything, and it is in my power to tell them, I do so—I don't know how long this employment is to continue—I get 18s. a week—I am to get nothing afterwards—I have not the promise of one single farthing after this prosecution—I don't know when I am to get the promise—as to expecting, that is another thing.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT TINDAL ATKINSON. Q. You say that Thorne was manager of the wharf? A. Superintendent; he used to keep

the documents, and I suppose everything used to go through his hands—he was a book-keeper employed in the office—the principal part of his duty was to be in the office, superintending the books and documents—he was not engaged in the labour—Mr. Arnett was the superintendent of the labour.

GEORGE HENRY WHITING . I am agent to the North-British and Mercantile Insurance Company, No. 61, Threadneedle-street, City—on 11th January last, I went to Messrs. Barry's premises with Mr. Roberts, and there met Mr. Radmall, Fage, and Arnett, and Mr. Alfred Barry—I asked Fage, in his presence, to make a statement that he had made to me and Mr. Huberts, respecting circumstances relating to the fire—he commenced by stating that he had been engaged with others to remove tallies off certain bales of jute; I think he said somewhere about 250, and after they had done so to destroy the tallies—he went on to state that there had been other goods, saved in the June fire, put into a vessel called the Cat, which was knocking about the wharf for two or three months, and afterwards brought into the warehouse, and were burnt in the November fire—he said we should find those bales from which they removed the tallies that were substituted for the City of Dublin, in the N warehouse; and behind this stack, the front of which bore the City of Dublin mark, we should find a great number of bales which bore no mark whatever—some more remarks took place and I then turned to Arnett and said, "You have heard this man's statement, are these facts true?" Arnett immediately said that it was true—I then turned to Mr. Alfred Barry and said, "How can you account for these circumstances, it seems a very extraordinary statement, I shall be glad of an explanation"—he then said to Arnett, "How is it, how does it occur? we seem to have no check"—Arnett made no remark, nor did anybody else—I think Fage gave the number of bales in the new building, but I cannot charge my memory with it.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. Do you recollect Mr. Alfred Barry saying that he was very much surprised at what be then heard for the first time, and he should be glad if you would suggest what should be done? A. No, nothing of the sort was said, to my recollection—this letter was addressed to me, by Mr. John Barry, on 11th January—(Read;—"Meriton's Wharf, S. E., Jan. 11, 1865.—Dear Sir—I regret that I was absent when you called here this morning. My brother has told me the cause of your visit, and although I shall be annoyed to learn that there are any inaccuracies in our wharf returns referring to goods burnt, I shall be glad for Mr. Roberts and yourself to check the returns in any way that may suggest itself. I am afraid, however, that as our remaining stock of goods in hand is still nearly 4,000 tons, we cannot arrive with absolute certainty at the correctness of the returns until such goods are actually delivered out of warehouse. We shall, therefore, of course, watch the future delivery of our remaining stock, and should we hereafter discover any discrepancies Mr. Roberts shall be apprised of it. In the meanwhile I think the plan you have suggested, of counting the several stacks of jute, will tend to confirm the correctness of the quantity of bales remaining in warehouse.—Yours truly,—J. G. Barry.—Whiting, Esq., North British Mercantile Fire Insurance Company.—P. S. I may as well add for your guidance that the man 'Fage' is, I think, out of his mind. The act for which I summarily dismissed him was the act of a madman, and my belief is that he is the writer of three anonymous letters written to ourselves, our solicitors, and the police, insinuating that the fire was done intentionally by one of our foremen, and evidently written simply in bad feeling and without one little of

evidence. My own conviction is, after most careful consideration of all the acts, that it originated in an accident"—Mr. John Berry called upon me the day after I received that letter—I may mention that after we came away from the wharf, I thought it my duty to call at several of the fire-offices concerned in the loss, and to write to others to state to them what we had heard at the wharf, and next day we bad a meeting at my office, and at that meeting Mr. John Barry was present—I do not recollect his saying that when he had written that note of 11 Jan. he was not at all aware that there was a particular parcel of jute that turned out to be so very largely in excess as he had since found there was—I don't recollect anything of the sort passing—I said nothing to him about the jute—he came and sat in my room while we were in the board-room consulting about the matter—I did not say I could not help strongly suspecting the honesty of some of his men; I never made any such remark, nor can I recollect his answering, that he believed his servants to be most perfectly honest, and that from what he knew of them he thought it was mere carelessness and the result of the immense confusion into which they had been thrown by the fire—I will undertake to say that nothing of the sort passed, as far as my memory goes; I do not remember any such conversation at all—I don't remember that he had any conversation with me before to came to the meeting; I avoided any conversation on the subject—I should say he was there two hours, but not with me more than five minutes; I said nothing to him during that time; I avoided saying anything—he said he had come there for the purpose of meeting the managers; he might have made some remarks, but not those certainly, nor anything to that effect—he sat down, and I gave him the paper to read; I asked him to wait while the insurance, people had their meeting—I think he did say that he was perfectly willing to come and meet them, and offer any explanation in his power, and that is all I recollect his saying—when I returned to him, I told him that I was sorry he had been kept there so long, but the committee had not thought it desirable to see him, because the matter was under investigation, and the committee would meet again—I think he wrote to me to the effect that in consequence of the detection of these errors, he and his brother had given orders that there should be no further shipments made at the wharf, in order that all that was on the wharf should be kept by itself and carefully examined—I do not know as a fact that no further shipments were made—I think Mr. John Barry took took an active part in endeavouring to get the premises on fire insurances reduced; he wrote pamphlets about it, and took a very active part; that must be two or three years ago; he has busied himself a good deal about it—I know the defendants were arrested; I suppose they were kept in gaol somewhere about five weeks, I don't know the exact time; the Barrys were three weeks, I think—I don't know anything about their books and things being seized—I don't know that their drawers were broken open and all their books of every kind taken; I never heard it before this—I was served with a writ in an action to recover them—I did hear of their books being taken, but not of locks being broken—I knew that their books were taken away; I don't know about all of them; a great number, every book we wanted; that was in the hands of the solicitors—I do not recollect a gentleman coming up to me at the Mansion-house and asking me about the charge against the servants of the Barrys—I might have had some conversation with a gentlemen; I have had conversations with a great many gentleman—I never heard of a Mr. Delmar; I do not recollect his asking me what the charge was against the servants,

and saying it was a great shame to keep them in prison; nor do I recollect saying that what we wanted was to get out of them something implicating their masters—I might,"in the course of conversation, have made some remark of that sort; that was not the object of imprisoning them for five weeks; we wanted to get at the truth of the matter—I did not imprison them; I don't know that my employers did, it was merely a matter advised that it should be so—I had only a single voice in the matter.

MR. GIFFARD. Q. They were originally taken on a warrant by the Lord Mayor, I believe? A. Yes, upon a sworn information—I was engaged in investigating the claims after the November fire.

EDWARD RADMALL . I am clerk to Messrs. Brown and Roberts—the red list, marked B, was banded to me after the November fire—I afterwards received a list of goods saved from the office of Messrs. Barry—having received the lists I went to the wharf to check them—I saw Arnett, and examined Messrs. Barry's books—the two lists, the goods destroyed and the goods saved, together represented substantially the quantity of goods entered in the books—I was present at the interview with Fage and Messrs. Barry at the wharf—after that interview I, with Field, a clerk of Messrs. Roberts, Gatehouse, a fireman, and Fage, took stock of the goods in the warehouse—we were three days taking stock—I had the saved list with me—I compared the list of goods received with the list of goods I found—I found 2,325 bales of jute in excess of the number represented in the saved list received from Messrs. Barry—the value of a bale of jute averages 2l. 10s.—the excess of seed was 153 qrs. as regarded one shipment, the Avoca—the average value of a quarter of rapeseed is about 55s.—I also found an excess in rice to the extent of about 80 bags—there was an excess in poppy seed to the extent of about 100 bags—as regarded the shipment of jute ex Mary Sten-house, 313 bales were said to have been destroyed, and 100 saved—we, however, found there were 262 bales saved from that shipment, instead 100—of the shipment ex Avoca, 1,565 qrs. of rapeseed were alleged to have been burnt, and 300 qrs. represented to be saved; and I found 453 qrs.—846 bales ex City of Sydney were alleged to have been burnt and 140 saved; I found 291 bales in excess of the return made to the offices—of the shipment by the Onward 800 bales were said to have been destroyed and 200 saved, and I found 578—I found them on different floors—210 marked City of Dublin and 168 City of Bombay, were pointed out to me as a portion of the Onward cargo—we examined the cargoes by those two vessels, and I found they were accounted for without including the 210 and 168 bales—of the Jane Potter's cargo, 270 bales were represented to have been destroyed and 220 saved. I found 255 bales on the premises, and 220 had been delivered previous to my visit and after the fire. Of the cargo ex City of Canton there were 480 bales said to have been burned and 210 saved; I found on the wharf 283, leaving an excess of 73 bales. 900 bales per the City of Cashmere were said to have been burnt and 100 saved, and I found 209 bales of that shipment on the premises. In all these shipments the two lists of "saved "and "destroyed "accounted for the whole cargo.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. You have given us all the excesses as against the Messrs. Barry—I believe you found as to saltpetre they had understated, had they not? A. Yes, I believe so, to the extent of about 300 bags—I am not very familiar with the large wharfs and warehouses in London, this was almost the first I have been over—they are very extensive indeed—I don't know that they cover an acre and a half of ground—they wore not all old and inconvenient, what I saw were mostly new; the seed

warehouse appeared to be old—I think there were gangways left in all the warehouses—they were mostly piled up to the roof, but nearly all had gangways—I am not aware of any that had not—there wag plenty of room to pass—in some cases, from being piled against the windows, the place was dark—I am scarcely prepared to say, whether it would have taken a good deal of time and experience to have gone into anything like an accurate estimate of what was left—I believe there were not over 20,000 bales left; about 10,000—I could not say from the books whether we were dealing with the remains of a stock of 50,000 bales—I am aware that there are errors in my own, list—I was aware the black and red lists were erroneous, but I did not go for the purpose of correcting them—I went, because those lists had been found to be erroneous—I had every facility afforded me for taking the stock—I superintended the counting—they were counted lengthways and broadways, and we assumed the inside was the same—it is usual to pack jute in a certain way—I am not aware that my own list shows shipments to the extent of 50,000 bales—I did not find 210 City of Dublin tallies; I took that from the statement made to me—I counted them round, to see, and I found them correct—I tallied the whole stack; it was stated that the outside were tallied and the inside not—I did not ascertain that at all—I can't say anything about the qualities of jute—I should not think there was much difference to the eye between one bale of jute and another—I believe they are much about the same size, and made up in the same way; except for the tally, one bale of jute might do very good duty for another, to me, it would not to another man—this (produced) is a correct model of a bale, of jute—they all look just like that—there is first, second and third quality I believe—Mr. Stanninought was there, at the time I was—I am not aware that be complained that I was going too fast to do it accurately—I think he said, on out occasion, the quantity was not correct, and he gut up and counted it himself, and found it was correct—between the fire and our going over the stock about 1,700 bales had been delivered—I was told that no goods had been landed since the fire; I have not looked at the books to see—I should Bay 1,700 bales of jute would make a considerable difference, as to the crowded nature of the warehouse.

MR. GIFFARD. Q. Is the jute put in bales like that model? A. Yes; without any covering, tied round and reduced to a uniform shape by hydraulic pressure—there is a means of distinguishing between one bale of jute and another by a brand-mark on the side, showing the quality—this produced is a very correct model of one—as to the 1,700 bales of jute that were landed after the fire, I have considered those in the account I have taken; I have given credit for them—I was present when Arnett was asked if it was true, that the insides of the stack were without tallies, and he said it was true, and upon that the stack was not broken down.

THEODORE BAXTER . I am a broker, carrying on business at Great St. Helen's—at the time of the fire at Meriton's-wharf, I had 986 bales of jute by the City of Sydney marked S and CC in a diamond—I was not insured—shortly after the fire I went to Meriton's-wharf to make inquiries about my jute—I shortly afterwards received, from some one, at the wharf, what bus been called the "black list"—I subsequently saw Sedgwick, about ten days or a fortnight after the fire—I desired to see my jute which had been saved, which I had been told was 140 bales—he took me to the top floor of the warehouse A, where there was a stack of jute marked City of Sydney—Sedgwick pointed to it, and told me that was the 140 bales saved—I had

no suspicion then of anything wrong—T went downstairs and met Mr. Alfred Barry on the wharf—after some conversation, he suggested that I should write to the insurance-offices to claim a pro rata share on the salvage, and also to write to them (Messrs. Barry) requesting them to set aside any portion of jute which might be identified as mine, and not let it form part of the salvage—I wrote those two letters—(these were dated December, 1864)—I think Sedgwick was standing by during the conversation I had with Mr. Barry—I saw Alfred Barry several times after that, and asked him if any jute of mine had been recovered from the ruins—I also sent several times—I asked Sedgwick on one occasion to point out to me the warehouse it had been stacked in, and he pointed out a warehouse to me in the midst of the burning ruins, and said there was no chance of any more being recovered—my attention was first called again to the matter by seeing the proceedings against Sedgwick, Arnett, and Thorne, at the Mansion-house—I then had an interview with Mr. Roberts, and afterwards went to the wharf—I saw Mr. John Barry, and drew his attention to the fact of his men being at the Mansion-house, and that there were 2,000 more bales found than were represented to have been saved—he said Mr. Roberts must have made a great miscalculation, and that in two or three instances he bad made mistakes to the extent of 20 to 25 per cent.—he had also said that stock was being taken, and in a few days he would be able to tell what was on the wharf—on that I left with my principal, who was with me—on the following morning I saw Mr. Roberts, and in consequence of what he said I immediately went to the wharf—I saw Mr. J. G. Barry again, and asked him if he had finished stock-taking, and he replied no, it would still take some time—I desired to see the 140 bales which were said to have been saved; Mr. Barry objected to my going into the warehouse, as it might interfere with the stock-taking—I told Mr. Barry I did not wish to interfere with the business, bat merely to see the goods; Mr. Barry said he would see what he could do, and went upstairs—after being absent some time he returned, and said we could go up—Mr. Barry went with us, and a porter preceded us, opening the doors as he went—I found the pile of jute as I had seen it before, and I counted it and found 280 bales—I asked Mr. Barry how he accounted for he large a number there, and he said he did not know bow it was, but he was very glad for my sake—I asked Mr. Barry if that was all he had by the City of Sydney? and he replied he believed it was—I then asked to go in warehouse N—we went, and on proceeding upstairs up a ladder to the top loft we found in one corner 35 bales bearing the name of the City of Sydney—no one was taking stock there, nor in the other warehouse—I expressed surprise, and Mr. Barry said it was a mistake; but no further explanation was given—the pile of jute did not appear to be in the same condition as when it was shown to me by Sedgwick in December.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. I believe Mr. Barry himself was the person who drew attention as he was walking along with you, by saying, "Here is some more of the City of Sydney?" A. You are alluding to the pile of thirty-five—yes, he was—I saw the tallies upon all that could be seen—I could not say whether there were only three that could be seen; but all that could be seen bore the name of the City of Sydney—I have not ascertained since that thirty-two of those bales belonged to the Jane Porter—I never heard it till this moment—this parcel of jute was not insured—I had not asked Mr. Barry to put some of my amount on his policy if he had one; certainly not—I made a casual remark to him, "I suppose you can't help us in this strait"—I really had no meaning in it.

Q. Were not these your words in effect, "You hare a quantity of jute on the premises ex City of Sydney which belongs to me; I am uninsured, per-haps you may help me if you have a floating policy? "A. Are those the words of my deposition?—I do not recollect—I admit that I may have said that—I think his answer was he was afraid he could not, as they were not at all covered themselves—I did not ask Messrs. Skellepy to do the same thing; I did go to them—I know Mr. Floress.

Q. Did you ask Mr. Floress to do the same thing? A. You put it in a wrong light, I think; that was the substance of it.

COURT. Q. Was this the meaning of it: "You have got a floating policy get it for me if you can?" A. Yes.


Thursday, June 15th.

WILLIAM FIELD . I am a clerk to Messrs. Brown and Roberts—after the November fire I assisted Mr. Radmall in taking a list of the goods that were on the premises, on 11th, 12th, and 13th January—Gatehouse, Fage, and Stanninought assisted me—we found no difficulty in making out a list of the goods that were on the premises.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. Did you go over them all three together? A. We did; we had not got any books, we merely counted them—we counted the width, breadth, and height generally—we did not take Page's word for it—I satisfied myself that he was right.

MR. COLERIDGE to MR. RADMALL. Q. Did you ascertain whether there was any book kept at the wharf or in the office which showed any internal changes: supposing for instance there was a necessity of shifting fifty bales from one warehouse to another, was there any book which kept a record of that? A. Yes; I saw the landing accounts—when there was a re-stowage it was mentioned there—if bales were moved from one place to another it was noted in the landing account—I have not got it here, it belongs to Messrs. Barry; it is one of their books—there in a landing account for every cargo—there was also I believe a warehouse report book, which I have since seen—that shows what they call "internal operations "daily—I believe that book shows where the goods of different persons are. (The policies were taken as proved.)

SAMUEL LOWELL PRIOR . I am a partner in the firm of Price, Holyland, and Waterhouse, accountants, of Gresham-street—after the fire I was placed in possession of such of the books as could be found—they were all the books, as far as I know, with the exception of one, the private ledger—I have recently applied for that—(It was here called for and produced)—there is a book showing the internal operations, that is, the transfer of goods from one portion of the warehouse to another; it is here—there are also several cargo ledgers—the one containing the entries by the City of Dublin is cargo ledger F; I have it here—(MR. COLERIDGE submitted that in point of fairness, as well at in point of law, if the books were to be made use of the person who kept them, a Mr. Still, clerk to the Messrs. Barry, whose name was on the back of the bill, ought to be called. MR. BOVILL contended that the books were admissable without the evidence of the clerk, whom he did not intend to call. MR. BARON MARTIN considered them receivable, as being kept under the control of the defendants.)—I saw that book in the early part of April—the account of the cargo of the City of Dublin in it is not in the same state now as it was then; there are several erasures—when I saw it in April it was in the Messrs. Barry's custody at the wharf; it has been in their custody all along—this is an account of a cargo of jute under the date of November 25th; and in April bales 91 to 120 were marked off as having been destroyed by

fire—the date is now December 7th, 1864, and those bales are described as having been delivered to the Mary Stuart; and bales 111 to 120 as having been delivered on Dec. 21st to Gray's craft—bales 141 to 210 were originally marked Nov. 25th, destroyed by fire—they are now marked Dec. 23d, 1864, as delivered to Howey's van; and bales 151 to 171 on December 7th to the Mary Stuart—that ends the erasures there—I see I am in error as to the bales 171 to 210; they still remain marked destroyed by fire—those alterations are very carefully made; I do not think a person merely looking at this page would discover them—I don't think it is difficult to see that it is written on an erasure, to a careful person accustomed to look—I find other entries that have been altered: bales 231 in the City of lublin to 340 were originally marked as having been destroyed by fire on 25th November; bales 231 to 300 now have the date of December 7th, and as having been delivered to the Mary Stuart, and bales 301 to 340 as having been delivered to a barge called the Spring—bales 361 to 490 were then marked 25th November, destroyed by fire, the date is now February 22d, and marked as delivered to the Spring—bales 501 to 900 were marked as having been destroyed in the November fire—as to bales 501 to 600, the date is now April 4th, 1865, as having been delivered to Muller's van, and bales 601 to 900 as delivered to that van on 12th April, 1865—I think it is only right to say that no part of those goods that I have now called over were included in the revised list of goods claimed by Messrs. Barry.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. Have you communicated that to Messrs. Humphreys? A. Yes—I have seen the black list—the original entries in the ledger do not altogether correspond with that black list, nor do they substantially—I am not able to say, but I believe substantially they do—the corrections upon the erasure in that book substantially correspond with the revised or red list—the lists were not in my possession before I took my first note of that book; I had them very shortly before—indeed, some of these alterations were made in April—the list could not have been made out from this book—amongst the other books that are submitted to me, there was a delivery receipt-book—I do not know whether the entries on the erasures were copied from this book (looking at it)—the date here seems to be an erasure—the next entry is the 21st of December—that appears in this book—the entry on the erasure would seem to be a copy from this delivery receipt-book—I have not traced all the entries—I assume the cargo-ledger to be correct—I have never seen these books before; they were there—I never asked how it was done—I have not asked a single question while I have been there—there is an entry of ten bales on 23d December by the City of Dublin to Howey's van—I should not be able to identify these bales, because they are not numbered—Howey's van is named, and the number of bales agree—the entry on the 7th of December is on an erasure—there are no other erasures; the entries go on one after the other—at page 40 of this cargo-book there appears to be an account of the Naturalist, Captain Hyde, from Calcutta, reported 15th May, Chalizzi and Co.—this is corrected in the same way—that is also in the red list—these books were under my custody at the time they were at Messrs. Barry's wharf—they have had the constant use of them—it was agreed between all parries that I should be the custodian of them—I have had access to them from the 27th of March to the present time—I was called in by the prosecution as an independent person—the books that I asked for were produced to me, except the private ledger—I had the means of going through all the books—I have had several clerks engaged upon it for

Upwards of two months—I was precluded from asking questions, or allowing them to do so; therefore a great deal of time was occupied which might perhaps have been saved—these erasures first came to my knowledge about the beginning of May—my attention was called to them by my clerk, who had more particularly to do with this ledger—I bad seen the ledger before, but had not noticed the erasures—I believe Still was the clerk who kept the book—I was at the Mansion House when he was examined, but I did not pay much attention to what he said—I am not sure about his being examined as to these erasures—on reflection, I do not think I heard him say anything about it—the examination of the books had reference principally to the cargoes, but generally with reference to Messrs. Barry's accounts—this is the private ledger—it is the first time I have seen it—it begins at 1851.

MR. BOVILL. Q. Did the black list which was originally made out on the 30th November correspond with the book as it stood originally? A. Yes, I believe it did—as regards the City of Dublin, it did not correspond with either list—the red list agrees substantially with the black as it is now altered, but it did not agree with it at the time—my attention has not been called to these other books with reference to this matter—if I had gone through all the books I should not have been here for twelve months—my attention has not been drawn to the other books until to-day—my attention having not been drawn to them makes the matter all the less explicable to me, because there is a variance between the entry and one of these books, the warehouse-book and the ledger of the same date; the two books are inconsistent—although the book now agrees with the red list, it did not on 15th December, when it was made out.

MR. COLERIDGE, Q. In that very page you have been referring to, do the words "On hand" appear in pencil? A. They do now; they did not when my attention was first drawn to the erasure, at least I believe not—I have no doubt it was not there then, but the writing is very faint.

CHARLES WHITE . I am an auctioneer and surveyor to the County Fire Office—I conducted the working of the salvage of the fire which took place at Meriton's-wharf on 25th November last—none of the salvage from the warehouses that were destroyed by fire was removed into the uninjured warehouses—there was not any confusion, that I observed, in the uninjured warehouses—while I was there Sedgwick was referred to repeatedly in my presence to know where jute had been stored—he told me he knew where every bale was on the premises—I asked him myself and he appeared to know directly.

Cross-examined by MR. PRICE. Q. Did he say he was speaking from memory or from some book? A. He had not any book in his hand at the time, he spoke from memory—he said he was so well acquainted with the warehouse that he knew where every bale of jute was.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. Did you go over the internal part? A. I went daily through the warehouses C and N, no others.

MR. GIFFARD. Q. Could you judge whether the business of the wharf was going on in the ordinary way? A. It was, and perfectly there; there seemed not much doing there—there would not have been the slightest difficulty in taking a correct list—I was there all the time for six weeks, from the time of the commencement of the fire to the end of the sale.

JAMES BRETT . I am a sergeant in the City police—on 25th January I took Arnett into custody at his own house—I read the warrant to him, and

told him he must go with me to Bow-lane police-station—he said, "Can't I be taken to-morrow, I wish to see some gentlemen at the wharf?"—I said, no, he must go with me—I took him to the police-station and searched him, and found on him a number of keys, which he said belonged to Meriton's-wharf——I was present with Haydon the same day when Thorne was taken into custody—I came up just after Haydon had read the warrant to him—he said, "Am I selected as one of the principals? "Haydon replied, "Yes"—he said, "Then I have nothing to say at present"—he was taken into custody—I took Sedgwick into custody the same day, at his house—I read the warrant to him—he said, "Then I suppose I had better go with you, gentlemen."

Cross-examined by MR. PRICE. Q. You took Arnett away with you that night? A. Yes—when I got him to the station I searched him—I did not expect to find any bales of jute upon him—he was locked up in a cell that night—I took his money from him—I don't recollect how much he had, something like 3s. 6d.—I handed it over to the inspector on duty, as in the usual course.

COURT. Q. I suppose you did as is usual? A. Yes, what is usual.

MR. PRICE. Q. Did you know at that time what wages Arnett was receiving? A. No—I think it must have been about 9 in the evening when he was taken to the station—he was kept there till the next day, and was taken before the Lord Mayor about 12—he was remanded and taken to Newgate, I believe, where he remained about six weeks, till he was bailed.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. Were you present when the officers went down to take the books and papers of the Messrs. Barry? A. Yes—there was only one lock forced, or rather the brown paper at the bottom of the drawer was broken, because we could not pick the lock—we took a locksmith with us, who picked two locks and attempted to pick a third—there was nothing in either of those drawers but dirty bits of paper—we got the books and papers from about the office, and an iron safe, of which I had the key—I took it from Mr. Barry when he was taken—we were ordered by the solicitors for the prosecution—I can't say how long the Messrs. Barry were in prison, several weeks—I was present at every examination at the Mansion-house—I don't remember bail to the amount of 50,000l. being offered and refused—I remember something being said that bail could be found for 50,000l.—bail was refused on more than one occasion, I think.

MR. BOVILL. Q. As regards searching, and taking what money the man had, was there anything more than usual in the case 1 A. No—as to the bail, the magistrate exercised his judgment upon that.

This being the case for the Prosecution, MR. SERJEANT ATKINSON submitted there was no case against Thorne, MR. PRICE also contended there was no case as to Arnett or Sedgwick; MR. BARON MARTIN was at a loss to see a case against any of the defendants, and after hearing MR. BOVILL and MR. GIFFARD on the subject, directed a verdict of


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-627
VerdictsNot Guilty > directed; Not Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

627. JOHN GEORGE BARRY, ALFRED BARRY, JAMES ARNETT, CHARLES THORNE , and WILLIAM SEDGWICK , were again indicted for obtaining and causing by false pretences a security for 1,313l. 5s. 4d. and 410l. in money to be paid to Theodore Baxter, with intent to defraud.

THEODORE BAXTER . I am a broker—in June last I had at Meriton's Wharf a quantity of jute from a vessel called the Sebastian Cabot—I saw it—I bought it at the wharf—these (produced) are the warrants that refer

to it, it was insured in the London and Lancashire Insurance Office—this is the policy (produced)—it is dated 24th December, 1863, on 394 bales of jute on commission at Meriton Wharf—it bears date 24th December, but the insurance runs from 19th Dec. 1863, to 19th March, 1864, when it is renewable, and it was renewed—I made the payment in renewing it for mother three months—there was a fire at Meriton's Wharf on, I believe, 7th June, shortly after which I went there to inquire with reference to my jute—only two warehouses were burnt; those marked blue in the plan—it is marked as two warehouses, but I believe it is only one and an extension of it—I did not see either of the defendants—I saw two clerks, and in consequence of information I received, I made this claim (produced) against the office—it is for 390 bales of jute, and there are 394 in the warrant—I understood at the wharf that 390 had been destroyed, and I received four in October as the remnant—I never heard till the following January that any of my jute was on the wharf untouched by the fire—I was not doing business with the Messrs. Barry personally between June last and February, but I may have had deliveries of jute from the wharf—I saw Mr. Alfred Barry on the works between November and February—I did not Bee Mr. John George Barry till the November fire—Mr. Alfred Barry did mention to me before that time that some of the Sebastian Cabot jute had been saved from the fire; nothing passed about the Sebastian Cabot—I received this cheque (produced) as a settlement of my claim on the policy—my writing is across it—(This was for 1,313l. 5s., 4d. to J. Baxter, Esg. or order; drawn by the London and Lancashire Fire Office, August 10th, 1864)—that was for 390 bales, not 394—this is my receipt.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. Did you apply at Messrs. Barry's offices for a certificate? A. No, I got no certificate from them—I claimed on 394, but it subsequently turned out that only 390 were destroyed, and the four were delivered to me some time afterwards—I never had any conversation with either of the Barrys about the Sebastian Cabot—I got the information by applying at the wharf.

WALTER ALFRED GREEN . I am a clerk at Messrs. Drummond's Bank—the Messrs. Barry kept an account there—this list (marked V) is in the writing of one of the firm, I cannot say which—I am in the habit of honouring cheques to this writing.

HENRY FINLASON . I am accountant at another bank—Mr. J. G. Barry kept an account there—this is not his writing—I never saw this signature before—I do not know that I have ever seen J. J. Barry's writing.

MR. COLERIDGE to W. A. GREEN. Q. Have you ever seen either of these gentlemen write? A. No, but I know both their signatures—one is large writing, and the other is not—it is Mr. Alfred Barry who keeps an account with us, but it is a very small affair—I do not see his signature once a year, or very rarely—I am sure he has a separate account—Barry Brothers also keep an account there, and I am in the habit of honouring cheques to that signature—I believe it to be Mr. Alfred Barry's signature, the other is larger—they both sign Barry Brothers on the firm account—it is not the case to my knowledge that other persons have a right to draw cheques in Barry Brothers' name—this is Mr. Alfred Barry's signature to the best of my belief—(Read: "Meriton's Wharf, list of goods destroyed by fire, 7th June, 1864: ship Sebastian Cabot, mark 4 lots 11 to 46, Nos. 101 to 450, 350 bales of jute. By the same ship 4 † lots 53 to 61, to 500; 40 bales of jute. London, 23d June, 1864. Barry Brothers, E. and O. E.")

THOMAS ALEXANDER ROBERTS . I received this list (V) in June or July—I was at that time acting as agent for the insurance office—I have seen Alfred Barry in connexion with the fire, but not in connexion with the Sebastian Cabot—I received this letter (produced)—I believe it to be in Thorne's writing.

MR. SERJEANT ATKINSON, Q. How did you obtain a knowledge of his writing? A. I have had letters signed, "For Barry Brothers, Charles Thorne," and the signature was always the same—(This requested the witness to send his list of goods destroyed).

MR. GIFFARD. Q. On 11th January did you go to Mr. Alfred Barry? A. Yes, I saw him in the presence of Fage, Whiting, Radmall, and Mr. Arnett—Fage said that after the June fire, 164 bales from the Sebastian Cabot were put into a barge called the Cat, which was knocking about the dock for two or three months, and the jute was afterwards landed in one of the warehouses burnt down in the November fire—Arnett contradicted that statement, and Fage said that if he had the books he could prove it—Arnett afterwards said that it was true—I said, "If this jute by the Sebastian Cabot was destroyed in the June fire, how is it that it did not appear in the burnt list in November?" No reply was made to that.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. Had the Barry's a policy? A. Yes, but the jute was not theirs—I never heard of any claim being made for the jute—it is not in either of the November lists, but it is in the June list.

MR. GIFFARD. Q. You kept the June list by you, I suppose? A. Of course—it is the practice to keep the lists.

JOSIAH FAGE . I was in the service of Messrs. Barry Brothers at the time of the Jane fire—after that I saw 164 bales of jute from the Sebastian Cabot put into a barge—I had the breaking them down from No. 1 floor in A warehouse—that is a warehouse which was not touched by the fire—I do not remember the date—I broke down 164 bales, and chalked the figures up behind the door—they were then put into a barge—I also broke down at the same time eight bales by the Almeida, and forty-eight by the Raleigh—they were all from the same floor, and I chalked them all on the door—I know Mr. Arnett was present—Mr. Buckett, Junr. was the foreman, and Sedgwick might have gone in some times: yes, he was there, I recollect now; he invariably came and looked at the work as we went on with it, it did not matter what part of the place it was going on at—I do not know what they termed him, but I used to call him the jute foreman, and he used to work at jute—all these goods were put into a barge called the Cat—the warehouse report-book ought to contain an account of the internal operations—Buckett used to put down in his day-book the goods placed on the barge, but the foreman's report was kept by Arnett—the barge was knocking about the dock two or three mouths, I believe—I believe there were no other goods in it, it was jute, a barge load—I do not think that is a usual thing—the goods were afterwards re-landed in Grove-buildings, which, I think, is mentioned in the place as warehouse H, and was afterwards burnt—I gave some information to the insurance offices after the November fire, and on 11th January, I went and saw Alfred Barry at the counting-house—I said, "I charge you with keeping back some bales of jute from the June fire—they were put into the barge Cat, in Grove-buildings—164 bales by the Sebastian Cabot, 74 by the William Cole, 10 by the Almeida, and the quantity by the Raleigh I forget—Arnett said it was not true—I said, "I will give you a fair chance, Mr. Arnett; if you deny this, I challenge you to bring up the foremen's day-books"—they

were not produced in my presence—this is Mr. Arnett's book (produced)—I did not see him write it, but I believe it is in his writing—it is called Meriton's Wharf Warehouse Report-book—here is an entry in it, "Wednesday, 7th August, 1864, internal operations, S. C. C. 64 bales of jute from the ship Sebastian Cabot, removed from No. 1, into the barge Susan"—in the next line is, "48 bales of jute, ship Raleigh, removed from No. 1, into barge Susan"—next is "D R, 74 bales, from the ship William Cole"—the word Buckett is written against them—he is the foreman—I was a labourer with him—this is Buckett's book—there is a book called the extra foremen's book—it' belongs to the firm—if I deliver twenty bags of sugar, I am bound to put it in that book; if I did not, Mr. Arnett would call me to account—all persons are bound to enter their work in that book—it is supplied by the firm to the servants to enter their work—I should think I should be locked up if I was to steal it—at the time I put the figures on the door I did not copy the name, but I know there was a barge knocking about the dock for a long time, and both the Susan and the Cat were used for the firm—after inquiring at the place, I met Michael Haydon and Superintendent Branford at the wharf, and pointed out to them the chalk marks on the back of the door—I then found that the name of the barge and the dates were not there—a little while after the November fire, I had a conversation with Sedgwick about the goods being burnt.

Cross-examined by MR. PRICE. Q. You say that Sedgwick used to be all over the place, was he invariably there? A.. Yes—there may have been plenty of people there; labourers—the entry in this book also, Buckett's name opposite to it, shows that Buckett was the person superintending that operation—he is responsible for the truth of this entry—he would have to stand by its correctness—the next entry is on the same date, and opposite it is Sedgwick's name to a totally different matter—they show that Sedgwick was employed on a totally different matter on that day, but what I say is true nevertheless, that Sedgwick used to go about and take stock, and see how things were going on.

WILLIAM DANIEL HARDING . I act as agent to some of the insurance offices—I received this paper, marked W. from Meriton's Wharf—I saw Alfred and John Barry on that occasion—I requested to be furnished with a list of all the goods described in the fire—they promised to have it sent on to my office—I asked Mr. Alfred Barry on one occasion, Mr. Thorne on another occasion, and I think I once saw Arnett, and requested him to send it, but my principal interviews were with Alfred Barry and Thorne—I afterwards found that list left at my office in an envelope—I did not see any of the parties about it; I had no occasion—I believe it to be in Thorne's writing, but cannot swear to it; there is no signature to it—I believe I received it a week or ten days after the fire—I represent several offices; the Royal Exchange and others, but not the London and Lancashire.

Cross-examined by MR. COLERIDGE. Q. You settled the Barry's claim under this policy? A.. Yes; they made no claim for any jute—they had a policy in the Northern.

COLECHESTER. I am an agent of the London and Lancashire Insurance Office—I handed Mr. Baxter a receipt for the amount he claimed as having been burnt at Meriton's Wharf.

SAMUEL PRIM ROSE COLMAN . I am sub-manager at the London and Lancashire office—about the end of September, 1864, after the claim for the jute by the Sebastian Cabot had been paid, Mr. Alfred Barry called upon me—I cannot give you the date—he stated that we had not entered the usual wharfinger's certificate in respect of Messrs. Baxter's claim—that is a

certificate that the goods were there at the time of the fire—I said that we had not, but we had satisfied ourselves from inquiry at the wharf that the goods were there at the time of the fire—he said that it was usual to obtain the certificate, because in the event of the person whose goods they were being a dishonest man, he could get his money without paying their wharf charge—the ordinary course is that the wharfinger gets his charge paid before he gives a certificate to the insurance office.

JAMES BRETT (City police-sergeant). I found this paper (produced) at Messrs. Barry's office, in the box with the letters.

WALTER GREEN . On this paper here is "Theodore Baxter" in red ink, and some pencil underneath—the pencil looks like Mr. A. Barry's writing—I cannot swear to it; I think so; it is very indistinct—I do not know whose writing the red ink is.

COURT. Q. Do you believe it to be his writing? A. I should say I do not think it is; it is similar to some writing I have seen, but it is not like the ordinary writing; I cannot identify it.

MR. BOVILL. Q. Do you or do you not believe it is his? A. I think it is Mr. Barry's writing—I believe it is his (Read: "390 bales of jute, Sebastian Cabot, 16l. 4s. 1d.")

THEODORE BAXTER (re-examined.) I believe this 16l. 4s. 1d. to mean the amount of rent to be paid to the Barry's after the fire—I do not know the date of it—I paid up to the date of the fire—I do not think I paid it, I wrote a cheque for the amount.

MR. BARON MARTIN considered that there was no case to go to the Jury, and directed a verdict of


The defendants were further charged upon three other indictments for conspiracy, and two for obtaining valuable securities by false pretences, upon which no evidence was offered.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-628
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

628. ALFRED WEEDON (15) , Feloniously and carnally knowing and abusing Amelia Durham, aged 9 years.

MR. WARTON conducted the Prosecution, and MR. GOUGH the Defence.

GUILTY of the attempt .— Confined Nine Months .

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-629
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

629. JOHN STONE (14), was indicted for a like offence upon the same child on the same day.

MR. WARTON conducted the Prosecution.

GUILTY of the attempt .— Confined Nine Months .

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-630
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

630. DANIEL FINN (40) , Feloniously killing and slaying Dennis Driscoll.

JEREMIAH DRISCOLL . I live at 7, Plough-alley, Wapping, and am a coal porter—on Saturday night, 6th May, about half-past 11 o'clock, I was on a barge off Dublin Wharf—the prisoner came to work drunk—he was half an hour back of his time—one of his mates put him in the bottom of the barge for fear he should fall overboard—he went to work there, filling coals—he first quarrelled with Timothy Donovan, who then left the barge, and forfeited his night's work; after that he quarrelled with Jerry Sullivan, and then Dennis Driscoll came down off the ship's deck, and said, "Finn, you will not work, and you will not let anybody else work"—they both met amidships in the barge and had some words, laid hold of one another, and had a tussle or two—some man came up and stopped them, and they shook hands with one another, but five or ten minutes afterwards they went along the coals from the midships of the barge to the stern sheets, and we did not expect they would fight or quarrel any more, but they had a fall or two there, and before we were able to get to them the two went overboard

together, and Driscoll was drowned—Finn got up between the steamboat and the barge.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. Was not Finn hanging with the deceased's coat, who pulled him in? A. I do not know—Finn was drunk, and Driscoll might have had a pint of beer, but no one could say that he was a drunken man—he was able to do his work.

JEREMIAH SULLIVAN . I live at 6, Plough-alley, Wapping—I was on board the barge on this night—the prisoner was intoxicated—he quarrelled with some of the men, and Driscoll said, "You are quarrelling with the men; you will not work yourself, and will not let them work; if you want boxing I will box you"—Finn Raid, You are not man enough for that"—they laid hold of one another and had a fall or two in the bottom of the barge on the coals, and then they went on top of the coals, and had a fall or two more—they then went to the head-sheets of the barge and grappled, and I saw them go overboard, and saw the prisoner come up swimming from underneath the ship—Driscoll was drowned—I saw his corpse.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you see any blows? A. No—I had one foot on the coals to go to them when they went over.

PATRICK CASEY . I live at 8, Plough-alley—on the night of 11th May, the prisoner and deceased had a quarrel, but no striked—the deceased said, "I will box you," and they had another struggle, but no strikes—they got on the head-sheets, where the coals were loading—I stepped into the bottom of the barge, and saw no more of it.

TIMOTHY DONOVAN . The prisoner and deceased were quarrelling when they went over—I was not in the barge—I went away because they were drunk—to the best of my belief Finn went over first.

The Prisoners statement before the Magistrate:—He offered to fight me; I went into the sheets with him, and he collared me by the tie and by the seat of my trousers, and kicked me in the gunwale of the barge. I asked him not to chuck me overboard for God's sake; I said, "We are gossips; he said, "I wish we were not, "and the second shove he gave me I went outright, and he had no hold to pull himself back. I had never had a word with him in my life; we had been working sixteen years together.


NEW COURT,—Thursday, June 15th, 1865.

Before Mr. Recorder,

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-631
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

631. JAMES WHALLEY CATHRILL (64), and EDWIN DRESCH (46) , Feloniously forging and uttering a will, purporting to be the will of Eleanor Saunders.

MR. SOLICITOR-GENERAL, and MESSRS. HARMAN and COLLIER conducted the Prosecution, and MR. BESLEY the Defence.

JOHN SMITH . I am one of the record keepers of the Court of Probate—I produce the record of Cathrill v. Jeffrey and another—I also produce the scripts which were exhibited in the course of the case—it is the practice to give office copies of wills, which are deposited in the Registry-office, after they are proved—my assistant gives out office copies of proved wills—this will of 14th March (produced) was proved in February, 1863—I also produce a will of 23d March, which was impounded in the suit of Cathrill v. Jeffrey, with an affidavit annexed to it—it is impossible for me to tell the name of the clerk who gave out the office copy of the will; there are two or three; it might have been handed by one or the other—I have several other

documents which were impounded in the course of the case; affidavits, advertisements, the case, the minutes of the Court, and the letter from Australia.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you examined those papers? A. Yes—the Judge of the Probate Court confirmed the probate already granted, and condemned the parties in the costs, but I was not there the whole time—the record contains the whole case made up—here is the postea—here are letters as well—there were several former wills—the will of 14th March was proved in February, 1863—I cannot say whether Mr. Charnock acted as Cathrill's solicitor—I recollect hearing the name, find I know he acted in the course of the suit, because I have the Court minutes here; in one of which Mr. harnock appears as solicitor for Cathrill—the date is 27th November, 1863—Mr. Charnock, appearing in these minutes, he would be a person admitted to the Probate Court to practise—I cannot tell you whether he is dead or whether his name is on the rolls now—I have not made inquiry—I am not acquainted with him, and have never seen him to my knowledge.

HENRY JERRANS . I am a shorthand writer, living at 7, Cambridgeterrace, Pimlico—I was present at the trial of the case of Cathrill v. Jeffrey and Kiddle at the Probate Court on 25th February—I took shorthand notes of the evidence—these are them (produced), and this is a transcript of them—the witnesses were duly sworn—(The evidence of Edwin Dresch, and James Whalley Cathrill was here read).

Cross-examined. Q. Are these the notes you have been comparing while the examination has been read)? A. Yes—I took notes during the whole time—the witnesses examined at the trial, on the 24th February, were. Edwin Dresch, Frederick George Netherclift, and James W. Cathrill, and on the 25th February, Francis Blakeley Cathrill, E. M. Cathrill, James W. Cathrill was recalled, Frederick Saunders, Henry Saunders, Mrs. Eliza Cathrill, wife of the son, and Mrs. Jabez Smith—those were the witnesses for the plaintiff—Mr. Netherclift was called for the other side—then on 1st March, Mr. James Hooker, Mrs. Mary Ann Arme, Mr. T. Newton, Jabez Jeffrey, and Samuel Kiddle—then the case was stopped; the jury said they did not want any more evidence—Francis Blakeley Cathrill was the other attesting witness to the will of 24th March—Mr. Netherclift is, a gentleman who is acquainted with handwriting.

THOMAS HOOKER . I was solicitor to the defendants in the suit of Cathrill v. Jeffrey and another—my father was a solicitor, and was employed by the late Mrs. Saunders—he prepared several wills for her—I was then articled to him, and knew what was done in his office—I found amongst the papers in the office the "scripts" which have been exhibited in the suit—I found the exhibit K; it is a letter requesting the preparation of a will, dated 26th October, 1854—script L contains instructions for the will of 1854, and is in Mrs. Saunders' writing—it is of the same date—the executors appointed are John Jeffrey and Samuel Kiddle—the residuary estate is left to Samuel Kiddle and his wife, Mary Kiddle—there is a legacy left to the prisoner Cathrill of 50l.—a will was prepared in accordance with those instructions—I do not find it among the deceased's papers—Script "P" contains instructions in Mrs. Saunders' writing for a will dated 9th November, 1855—the same executors are appointed—the residue is left in the same manner, and there is the same legacy to the prisoner Cathrill—Script "Q" relates to the same document—Script "S" is dated 31st July, 1856; it contains instructions in Mrs. Saunders' writing—the same executors are appointed—the residue is left in the same manner—Cathrill's name is omitted from that will—Scrip "U"

contains instructions for the will of 14th March, 1859, which was afterwards proved as the last will and testament of the deceased—it is a paper in her own writing—the will was prepared in my father's office in pursuance of those instructions—I attested its execution—from the business in my father's office I was particularly acquainted with Mrs. Saunders' writing—the signature of the will propounded by Cathrill, I believe, is not that of Mrs. Saunders—the "scripts" produced from the Probate Court are all of the testamentary papers I could obtain from my clients and find in my office, or that I know of.

Cross-examined. Q. Did not the deceased at one time leave the residue of her fortune to Emma Coe? A. My recollection is that she did—that appears by one of the early exhibits—in exhibit "J" the residue was left to Kiddle and his wife, and then "my niece, Emma Coe," is written over—that is the will of October, 1854—in the will of June, 1854, it was originnally left, to Emma Coe, and then altered to "Kiddle and his wife"—exhibit "H" is not the will actually executed; it is a paper of instructions in Mrs. Saunders' writing, which were carried out by a will being prepared and properly executed-exhibit "J" is not that will, but is the draft of it as altered—the alterations are in my father's writing; copied from some other document, I presume—he is not living—"J" is really the copy of a will afterwards executed upon the instructions of "H"—there are a great many alterations, in it—J. W. Hurst and Mr. Eales are appointed executors, then they are struck out, and "Samuel Kiddle" put in—that is in the will of October—Mr. Jeffrey's name is left—he has a legacy of 100l. under the will of June, 1854—in the will of October, 1854, he was to have in addition twelve shares in the London and Westminster Bank—I do not know what they were worth then—they are now worth from 1,200l. to 1,500l—Exhibit "G" is a list of the legatees and their addresses—that is not instructions for the will of 23d May, 1854—Cathrill's name does not appear there for eighty-four shares in the London and Westminster Bank, and eight Great Western Railway shares—the sums and shares are not there mentioned, nor have I any former document in which they are—I do not know anything of the history of that document—I think it very likely that the will of June, 1854, would carry that document into effect—I have not compared it to see—that will is the first one in which the residue is left to Kiddle and his wife—Scrip "E" is a draft of the will of 13th August, 1850, and serving by alteration for draft of the will of 30th October, 1851—the red ink I resume to be the alterations—in neither of those wills is Kiddle an executor—in both of them Jeffrey has 200l. left, and in the latter of them there is an addition of 50l. to him and Joseph Hurst as executors—Mrs. Kiddle takes a larger interest under the first than the second—it was 200l. and then reduced to 100l.—I do not see Mr. Kiddle's name there at all—there is no date on the earliest exhibit—I cannot tell you for what will it was the instructions; it was a very early will; I know by the address on it—Mrs. Saunders changed her residence very frequently—she was then living at East-place, Lambeth—the first will we made was in 1850—those instructions must have been for a will subsequent to that one—Mrs. Saunders was living at St. Paul's-place then—I have produced all the wills in the office—I have referred to the books, and that is the first occasion we had a will-transaction—her husband had only died the year before—he died in 1849—in the scrip Jeffrey's name is struck out in red ink and Mr. and Mrs. Kiddle are put in—I find a residuary bequest, but there is no name, and there is a note in my father's handwriting, "to whom? in pencil—in that will, Jeffrey and Joseph Hurst are executors—it is then altered, and Jeffrey gets nothing,

though he is left executor—it is evidently incomplete—Scrip "B" contains instructions for a will—I cannot be sure that those are the instructions for either of the wills I produce—she was still described as of East-place, widow—by that will there was a legacy to James Whalley, Christopher Whalley, and Eleanor Whalley; and Jeffrey and Mr. Jan-ell are residuary legatees and joint executors—there is no date to that scrip—I cannot find any document that I can identify as the will made from those instructions but the will where the like legacies are left—I think I have known Mrs. Saunders personally from the date of the first will—there are several documents among the "scripts" in her writing, but none on the earliest—I see by a note in my father's writing that I attested the will of June, 1854—the draft of it is in my writing—my father took the instructions from the old lady for the will of 1850—I only visited her with my father as her professional adviser—I cannot give the number of times when I have been there for the purpose of taking instructions.

Q. How recently did you go before her death? A. I can only say I went to her when in Albion-place, and she died there—I believe she lived there two years—I do not think that was about taking instructions for the will of March 14th—it was to take a letter, stating that we had removed—I cannot recollect that I saw her—I have heard she died in Feb. 1863—I cannot tell whether I went there after the will of 14th March, 1859—I should say we did some little business—I can't say whether I went to the house—I do not state that from recollection, but from looking at the books—I did not go to the house after her death, nor when the will was read—I acted for Jeffrey and Kiddle in the Probate Court—I was consulted on the will of 23d of March being propounded—all the scripts did not come from my office—some came from the executors—I cannot tell which—the majority came from us—there is only one original will among them—the signature is cut off for cancellation—I do not know what has become of the wills, of which I produce the drafts—at the time of her death Mrs. Saunders lived in apartments—I know nothing of her papers—I have seen her write on the occasions on which she signed her will—I do not know of any other—I did not correspond with her—if I had not referred to the other documents, "I could from my recollection have stated that the signature to the will of 23d March was not Mrs. Saunders' writing—I should have formed an opinion upon the propounded will of 23d March, because it is unlike the general character of her writing—I do not think she always signed in any particular way, but she always signed very boldly, so far as I recollect—she usually wrote with a quill pen—I cannot say I ever saw her write with any other—her usual practice was to sign wills with "Eleanor" in full, but instructions and so on, she signed, "E. Saunders" only—I never saw her sign, "Elnr. Saunders," because I never saw her sign anything but wills—it is quite likely she may have done so—there were peculiarities in her letters—I cannot mention them with out the papers before me—the "n" in Eleanor was peculiar, perfectly formed, but in a peculiar way—to the best of my belief the will of 23d March is not her writing—I do not reject the possibility of being mistaken—I am not an expert, and have not studied handwriting.

MR. HANNEN. Q. From your experience, is that or is it not her writing? A. Certainly not—it is the practice of the Probate Court that all documents, whether drafts of wills, letters, or relating to wills, are brought into Court verified by oath—I cannot say whether wills were actually drawn from all the papers that are instructions, I saw one which has the date filled in, nor can I say whether those instructions were modified—thejdocuments of 15th June, 1854, and October, 1854, are only drafts—there is no proof of

a will being made from scrip A but the memorandum on it of my father's—"B" is a paper of the same nature, but with no date—"E", is a draft, and is dated 13th August, and afterwards altered, and dated 30th October, 1851—"H" is a paper in Mrs. Saunders' writing, and contains instructions—there is a pencil memorandum in my father's writing, "June, 1854"—"J" is a draft, and is of the same date—"K" serves for several drafts of 9th November, 1855; 30th July, 1856; and I think also for one in 1857, with various alterations—I cannot find in any of the papers that Cathrill has a legacy of more than 50l.—he is omitted altogether after November, 1855—Jeffrey appears as executor throughout the whole series of documents—there is always more than one executor—sometimes the residue is left to Kiddle and wife, and sometimes Jeffrey is associated with them—the scripts produced were all delivered to the Court of Probate—when the citation was made to bring in the probate to be revoked the plaintiff filed a single script; we filed all we could find.

JOHN JEFFREY . I was a surgeon practising in Lambeth—I now reside at Clapham-park—I knew Mrs. Saunders, the testatrix, intimately for about seventeen years—I had attended her closely as her medical man—I was also personally intimate with her—she became a widow two years after I first attended her—I knew her husband—he died in 1849—she lived in Lambeth the whole time I knew her—I did not know my co-executor, Kiddle, until my knowledge as executor—that was when Mrs. Saunders lived in China-place—I would not attempt to fix the time, but somewhere about 1854 or 1855—I knew him by name, but did not see him—he was on intimate terms and had married some relation of Mrs. Saunders—she requested me to be her executor—that was about the period I mentioned—she said she wished to associate me with Mr. Kiddle, of Salisbury, on account of the high opinion she entertained of him, if so doing would be agreeable to me, and she would make an appointment for him to come to town and take luncheon with me, so that we might be introduced, and it was her wish I should keep the address, so that we might obtain him whenever we required him—I was aware when she made the will of 14th March, 1859, that she was about making a will—she referred to her will on many occasions, and on one occasion particularly, when she was ill, she gave me custody of the will—I do not remember when that was, but it was about eighteen months before she died—at any rate, it was considerably after 1859—she died on 2nd February, 1863—she was then very ill, and took her will out of the bureau—it was unsealed, and I declined to receive it unless sealed; she then sealed it and handed it to me—I had it for about a month, when she requested it should be returned, and it was returned—it was then sealed—I have since Been it in the bureau where she kept her money—that was up to the time she became incapable—that was a few weeks before she died—I am not able to say whether that was the will—I did not read it until her death—it was sealed when I received and when I returned it—it was in an envelope—I never saw the will itself, but she pointed it out as being her will—after her death I looked in the bureau—I found the will produced there—I communicated with Mr. Kiddle before her death, at her request—he and I attended the funeral—the persons named in the will were all there—after all came from the funeral they partook of refreshment, and then without moving the will was produced and read—Cathrill was present—before the will was read, a question was put to the company generally, asking if they knew of the existence of any other will—I believe Kiddle put that question, but I am not certain whether he did, or I did myself—I am perfectly certain one of us did, and that Cathrill was present—they all remained

silent—Cathrill did not say anything about another will; I put the question individually to him myself—I said to him, "Do you know of the existence of any other will?" he said, "No"—the will was then read—Cathrill made this remark, "Then she has forgotten her poor old cousin"—when the company had nearly gone, Cathrill came to me in the passage, as I was letting out Mr. Whalley, since decaesed, and he requested me to intercede with Mr. Kiddle to make him up a sum of money, as he was terribly badly off—Kiddle was coming down stairs, and I put the question to him in Cathrill's presence, and he refused to do so—nothing more was said on that occasion—some time after Cathrill called at my house—he appealed to me as a brother "mason," requesting me to intercede with Mr. Kiddle to make him up a sum of money—I told him it was perfectly useless, as he bad already decidedly refused—he then got very excited and said, "1 will upset the will, one way or another, and you will find the Ecclesiastical Court a very expensive place"—that was about three months after Mrs. Saunders' death—I could not fix the time—no further communication took place between us—I only knew Cat brill by name—I know he visited Mrs. Saunders from time to time—I know on one occasion, she received a good deal of annoyance, from his thrusting himself into her presence—this was when she lived in Walnut-tree-walk—I cannot say whether it was before or after the 23d March, 1859—the only other time I heard her speak of him, was on the occasion that her husband had a joint speculation with him, and it turned out unfortunate—she spoke bitterly about him—it was a speculation in a ship, and she came to the conclusion, that he had misled them, and sold them his own property—at the time she appointed me executor, she spoke of Kiddle as a highly honourable man, and wished him to be associated with me—she always spoke of him in. the same terms—she always spoke of him as her executor, up to the time of her becoming incapable—she wished him to be telegraphed for from Salisbury—I felt she was getting incapable, and it was necessary she should see him.

Cross-examined. Q. How old was she when she died? A. In her 84th year—her faculties were unimpaired at 80—she was a sharp and clear woman of business—she went out with me in June, 1862, the year before she died, and received her dividends—that was the last time she went out—she then walked out of the carriage into the Rotunda, and she walked into the different banks and received her dividends—I went with her—she did not require assistance into the carriage—her general health was good—she required glasses—she kept her faculties surprisingly, until within three of four months of her death—she did not keep a banking account, nor draw cheques—she did not correspond with me—there was no occasion—I saw her every day except Sunday—she freely corresponded with other people—I have seen her writing repeatedly—I do not know that she kept any accounts—of the money she drew out, she invested some, and some she brought borne.

MR. SOLICITOR-GENERAL. Q. Look at that will? A. I do not believe the signature to be her writing—I consider it a great deal too young.

MR. BESLEY. Q. I understand you superintended her investments? A. I would go with her—sometimes I attested her signature and sometimes not—if she signed at home I should do so; if it was at the broker's, he would do so—I have not looked up any of the documents made "scripts" of, nor made inquiries—I left it to Mr. Hooker—whatever was required, he obtained—she first spoke to me about being executor when she lived in China-place—I did not know anything of her affairs before that—I did not when she was living in East-place—I know the fact that I was to be executor

with Mr. Hurst—that was in East-place—she did dot tell me of the various alterations she made in her wills—she was exceedingly secret—she did not tell me anything about her will until three months before her death, except the fact of my being executor—I did not know how she was varying the gifts of her property—when I had the document sealed and pat into my hands was before she went to the Rotunda—it was before the attack of influenza—she recovered from that—it was about twelve months before we went to the bank—she said it was her will—I did not know what document It was—I do not know whether Mr. Kiddle visited her frequently; I think not—I had only seen Kiddle twice—Mrs. Kiddle came more frequently than her husband—I have also seen Mrs. Coe there, and Miss coe and her brother—there was a relative of hers called Mr. Whalley, who is dead—I did not know until three months of her death, what interest I took under any of the documents—it was then her particular wish that I should fetch Mr. Hooker, as she wanted to make another will in my favour—to such I offered every reasonable opposition—she then said, "Do not be disappointed and I will tell you what I have done"—she then told me, she had left Kiddle the bulk of her fortune, and left me some London and Westminster Bank shares—that was the will which has been proved—I had assisted her with advice, but she was quite capable of managing her own affairs—I knew of what her property consisted—she never made an investment without consulting me—I did not see anybody else interfere in her affairs but Mr. Hooker, I saw him there—she left me at I expected the fourteen. London and Westminster Bank shares, which realised over 84l. each, or over 1000l.—when the will was read, there were present Mr. Saunders and his son; Mr. and Mrs. Coe, and Mr. Coe, senr., and Miss Coe; John Henry Saunders and his son; Mr. Stacey; Mr. Whalley; Mr. Cathrill (the prisoner); and Mr. Kiddle; Mrs. Kiddle had been taken ill during lunch, and was not in the room; that is as near as my memory will serve me—I do not recollect where the others were sitting—Cathrill was sitting opposite the door—the will was read in the same room in which we took lunch—I was toward the door when the will was produced—Kiddle was at the other end, I believe—the question was asked as to any other will before the will was read—I say I also made a special request of the prisoner—I should think there would be conversation going—I do not recollect whether there was or not—it would not be noisy, because every one was anxious to hear the will—I am speaking generally, and I would not commit myself to that—Kiddle spoke quite loud enough for any one to hear, and the question was asked more than once—I knew of Mrs. Sounders being sometimes on bad terms with people about her—she would complain of Andrews; but she would say it was only to keep her in orders—she was excessively angry with the girl—it is impossible for me to say in what month Cathrill wanted me to appeal to Mr. Kiddle the second time—I saw him in my house at Davage-terrace—no one was present—the doors were open, but no one but ourselves could hear what passed—I had just sat down to dinner, and I left my dinner to go to him—my wife was sitting in the other room with the door open—she is not here—I have not got any of it in writing; it never occurred to me that it would be necessary—I mentioned the conversation to my solicitor—that was when the litigation commenced in the Probate Court—I mentioned it also to Kiddle when he came up to town; he is in Court—those were the only two interviews I had with Cathrill—Mrs. Saunders spoke bitterly about Cathrill being the cause of the bad result of the speculation—I do not know anything of prisoner's father, nor anything of the father of Eleanor saunders; nor that she was particularly

partial to him—I knew nothing of her family relations at all—the speculation was before her husband's death; she spoke of it after his death—it was in Walnut-tree-walk she mentioned it; it was not at the Rotunda of the Bank of England; she was too much engaged—she remained in Walnut-tree walk over twelve months, until 1860, I suppose—no one was present—she never allowed any one to be in her room when I was there—I have seen her write letters frequently, and I have seen her write her name to transfers and receipts for dividends—I was not required to attest her signature at the bank—I frequently had to do so at home to railway cheques which required signature—a railway cheque requires an attesting witness—I have not got any of those cheques; they go to the company—I cannot say I have witnessed anything else—I have seen her write so often I am pretty intimately acquainted with her signature—when I attested she always signed very carefully, and always in full, "Eleanor Saunders"—she always signed with a quill—she invariably had a broad made pen—she would never write with anything but a broad nibbed pen—I cannot say whether I have seen her sign any other than important documents—I never attested a will.

MR. SOLICITOR-GENERAL. Q. Did you ever know her write with a steel pe? A. Never would—she had one in her writing case; it was rusty, and it was the subject of remark that she never would write with one—she was very particular that the pen had a broad nib—under the will proved I take the bank shares of 100l.—under Cathrill's will I should have the shares and 200l.—my interest is therefore in favour of Cathrill's will—although Mrs. Saunders quarrelled with Eliza Andrews, she continued to live there up to her death—I believe Mrs. Saunders was firmly attached to her as a servant.

SAMUEL KIDDLE . I was formerly a supervisor of Excise, and have retired upon my superannuation allowance—I reside at Wilton-road, Salisbury, and have no occupation—I married a cousin of Mrs. Saunders in September, 1642—I did not know Mrs. Saunders before that—I was well acquainted with her after—from 1843 I visited Mr. and Mrs. Saunders in East-place—it was not very frequently—it might be when I was up in London, perhaps once or twice a year—I left London as supervisor in 1846, and have not resided in town since that—after I left London, Mrs. Saundew corresponded with my wife—she received many letters—they have not all been preserved—I have since collected all the letters I could find, and handed them to the solicitor—I think there are about 120 letters—I am well acquainted with Mrs. Saunders' writing by reading hers so frequently—T was in the habit of coming occasionally to visit her after I had left London, sometimes with Mrs. Kiddle and sometimes she came by herself—Mrs. Kiddle would write and say I should be in London at such a time, and would do myself the pleasure of calling—I was on friendly terms with her, and that friendship was never interrupted—in 1854, she wrote Mrs. Kiddle a letter which I believe is among those produced—I was aware from that that she had made a will—I knew it was in my favour—she said in her letter she hoped I would not be offended at her having made me her executor—I replied to it—I was not aware of the will proved until after her death—I continued to visit her as before until about a week of her death—her manner had not changed towards me—early in January I came up in consequence of a communication from Mr. Jeffrey—I received a letter from her on 23d of March, I believe dated the 22nd—it is among the other letters—(read)—I never heard her mention Cathrill's name—I was present after the funeral—I heard Mr. Jeffrey ask the company if they knew of any other will or disposition of the property of the deceased—there were two or four answered "No"—

some one asked the date—I said the 14th March—I waited to ascertain if there was any reply, but no one spoke—in the evening I saw Cathrill and Mr. Jeffrey in the passage—the latter said Cathrill had been wishing him to intercede with me to make him up a sum of money—I refused to do so—I did not hear Cathrill say anything afterwards—I had no conversation with him—I believe the signature to the alleged will of 23rd March is not Mrs. Saunders'.

Cross-examined. Q. Were you living at Salisbury in 1842? A. No; I was then living in Hackney-road, London—I visited Mr. and Mrs. Saunders perhaps. twice or four times a year-after I went to Salisbury in 1846,1 did not come up above once or twice—I should think I saw Mrs. Saunders twenty times after her husband's death—in January, 1855,1 did not want to stop with her, nor did my wife—my wife did not propose that I should stop in her apartments—I know the letter of the 22d January, 1850: "I am sorry I have no convenience for Kiddle"—I did not want to go and stay there when in London—Mrs. Kiddle would write and say I was coming, and she might write to Mrs. Kiddle and say it was not convenient—I do not remember ever having proposed to stay at her apartments and been denied—I do not know what the letter of the 17th November, 1858, is in reply to—I do not believe I ever suggested that I should stay there—I think it probable Mrs. Kiddle might be writing that I was coming up, and she might reply, "I have no accommodation"—I had not constantly invited Mrs. Saunders down to me, but only on one occasion—I believe in reply, she said it was very kind of us—it was of the 20th May, No. 41—I cannot remember the whole of the letter—I have no doubt Mrs. kiddle and myself were in London in 1860—I do not remember. calling on Mrs. Saunders on 12th of'March, 1860, and not seeing her—I remember going to find her, but could not do so—(A Letter was here read)—I do not now recollect calling and being denied her—I never heard of the expression in the letter of her regret at not being able to see me—it might be Mrs. Kiddle; I am not saying it was—I do not think she ever declined any presents from us in the latter part of her life—(A letter of 18th June, 1860, No. 111, was here read)—in 1850, Mrs. Saunders commenced to send us parcels of grocery and so on, and we sent her parcels of poultry and butter from the country—the correspondence with my wife was generally once a month, but sometimes a letter would intervene both ways—I do not know that in 1861 there was a proposal that I should sleep at her house—(A Letter of 27th June, 1861, read)—I did not know that my wife had written—that letter refers to my wife going out with me in the country for a ride ten or twelve miles from home—A letter No. 125, of August 9, 1861, read)—I cannot say what date, but I tried to find the new residence she had taken—I searched in the Lower-lane, Kennington, instead of Upper, for St. Alban's-place—(Letter No; 148, December 15, 1862, read)—I presume that letter was in consequence of ill health—I read the will when it was read—that was at 3, St. Alban's-place, Upper Kennington-lane, where Mrs. Saunders died—there were J. Saunders and John Henry Saunders, father and son—I did not notice Cathrill speaking to them—it was in the passage of the same house that I saw him, the same evening—there were about a dozen present at the reading of the will—there was no talking while the will was being read—my knowledge of Mrs. Saunders writing is derived from the letters; that is all I know of it—I do not remember any of the letters in which the signature is like that to the will of the 14th March—I believe that is a genuine signature—I believe the

other will is not—I think all the signatures to these letters resemble that to the genuine will more or less.

MR. HANNEN. Q. How shortly before her death did you see Mrs. Saunders? A. On 24th or 25th of January, 1863—I saw her previously from the 3rd to the 5th of the same mouth—it might be a month or two since I had seen her before—I came up in the beginning of January in consequence of the communication from Mr. Jeffrey—when I last saw her, she was ill in bed—she was failing—I saw her on Saturday, the 3rd; she asked when I was going to return—I told her on the Monday, and I should call upon her again; I did so; she was still in bed—I stayed two hours or more, until ten minutes past 5, and thinking I should never see her again, I bid her good bye and kissed her hand—she immediately held my hand down, and I stayed a considerable time until I was getting late for the train; I should think seven or eight minutes.

EMMA COE . I am single—I live at Elstree, Herts—I was a friend of the late Eleanor Saunders—I had known her about 30 years—I was present at her funeral when her will was read—Mr. Jeffrey, Mr. Kiddle, the two Mr. Saunders, my father, my brother, Mr. Whalley, the prisoner Cathrill, Charles Searle, and the servant were present—they had lunch—Cathrill Bat next me on my right—previously to the will being read, Mr. Jeffrey or Mr. Kiddle asked if anyone knew of any other will—I heard several say "No"—the prisoner Cathrill did not make any reply—I did not see him again until I went to his house in Cromer-street, in consequence of a letter my father had received from him—my father and I were there—he asked us if we bad heard from his solicitor with regard to another will—that was two days after the letter was dated—we said we had not, and he said his solicitor was a great rogue, and that' he had now employed another—the letter produced, dated 21st March, 1864, is a letter he sent my father—he took out a copy of the will—he said be could not go on with the suit for want of money, and wanted some one to lend him 20l.—we asked how he had discovered another will—he said he had found it in an old chest of drawers given to him by Mrs. Saunders—he did not say accidentally, but I understood him to mean it—I read a copy of the will—my name was down for more than what it was in the original—he did not actually ask my father to lend money, but said he could give security, which implied he wished to borrow money—I know Mrs. Saunders' writing perfectly well—I hare seen her write—I do not believe the signature produced to be hers.

Cross-examined. Q. Look at the will of 14th March? A. That is her writing—I have seen her write a great many times, and have received some hundreds of letters—I could only find two or three, which I gave to the solicitor—I should think they are in Court—the signature to the will of 14th March resembles that to the letters—she sometimes signed "E. Saunders," and sometimes "Elnr. Saunders"—Mr. Kennedy had the letters first, and then I understood that Mr. Hooker had them—Mr. Kennedy was solicitor for the prisoner Cathrill—I was present at the trial, but was not called—I am not positive that one of the letters was signed "Elnr. Saunders."

WILLIAM COE . I was present at the reading of the will, and heard Jeffrey or Kiddle inquire generally if any one knew of any other will—the prisoner Cathrill was there, and did not say anything—he said nothing whatever about another will—previously to the will being read, people were moderately silent, and rather anxious to hear what the will was—they were listening—if anybody had said there was another will I must have heard it—I received

the letter of 21st March, in consequence of which I went to see Cathrill—he asked whether I had received a letter from his solicitor—I told him "No," and he complained in rather coarse terms, and said, "I have found another will in an old chest of drawers which Mrs. Saunders had given me"—he said he thought there was one, and had written to his son in Australia about it, and had had a good search and found the will; that he was short of money, and could not proceed with the case, as he wanted 20l. and he would give me security for it if I would let him have it—I told him as a joke that if he put another "0," making 500l. instead of 50l. I might have done it—I understood I was to have 50l. by the will, or about 50l. by the time I had paid the legacy duty—I do not recollect anything more that passed, and I never met with him again.

MARY ANN ORMES . I am a widow—in 1859 my husband was lessee of 49, Wych-street—I have brought my rent book with me—-at that time the shop and parlour were occupied by Newton, and the other part let out to under-tenants—some of the rent book is in my writing—I have entries of the name of Breach there on February 6th, 1860, as the first entry of rent paid by him—the previous entries are as to Newton and Mr. Ormes—my husband received all the rent due from Newton on 25th July, 1859.

Cross-examined. Q. Does not this book begin March 8th, 1858? A. Yes—Mr. William Greenwood was there—that is the first entry, and he was the first tenant of the shop and parlour—he must have left in 1859, for Mr. Newton took them after Mr. Greenwood—I have not got a book with entries made of Mr. Greenwood's rent—it must have been November 25th, 1859, when Greenwood left, because Mr. Newton's rent commences 25th March, 1859—no doubt Greenwood left in March, 1859—Mr. Ormes let it to Drench, as a carver and gilder—I was not present, but I know when he took it, I cannot give you the date—there is the word "commenced" in my writing, and then the words "November 28th"—the first rent I got from Dresch was 6th February—I have made a memorandum that he commenced November 28th—the house was let out to six different occupiers—I cannot tell who there were in 1858—Mrs. Moore rented a room for a Iaundress, and Mrs. Stone rented another—they brought me my rent to my counter—I kept a general shop next door but one to 49—I did not keep a collector to get in the rents—In 1858 I do not think I was in the house three times.

MR. SOLICITOR-GENERAL. Q. Do you recollect quite well Mr. Newton occupying the premises? A. Yes—he occupied the premises that Dresch subsequently occupied—I am quite clear that Dresch came after Newton, and Greenwood was before him—I mean the shop and parlour which Dresch occupied as carver and gilder—between Greenwood and Newton there might have been a few weeks; I cannot say how long—I do not recollect how long Newton occupied—I am quite certain "Dresch was never in the house until after Newton had left.

NEWTON. I am a rag merchant, of 2, Holles-street, Clare-market—in 1859 I occupied the shop and parlour at 49, Wych-street, Strand—this (produced) was the rent book in my keeping—when I paid the rent he put it down, and I took it back—the first entry made is 7 Jan. 1859, and the last 17th October—from January, 1859, to October no person named Dresch lived in the house—I had a child born on 6th May, 1859—I recollect it because a few friends gave me a benefit the day before—this memorandum (produced) is in my own writing, "Ellen Newton, 6th May, 1859"—that was while I was living in that house.

Cross-examined. Q. How many tenants were there? A. I should think about six, but I had not much communication with the upstairs people—I was occupying the ground floor, and did not interfere—I knew the people by sight, but not to know their names—I am quite sure that that child was born in Wych-street—I knew nothing about Dresch at all.

MR. SOLICITOR-GENERAL. Q. Was Dresch one of the tenants when you were there? A. No.

ELIZA CARRON . My maiden name was Eliza Andrews—I was in Mrs. Saunders's service—I lived with her ten years, up to the time of her death—I knew that she made wills from time to time—I knew Mr. Hooker and his son coming—I was in constant attendance upon Mrs. Saunders—there was another servant who stayed a short time with her while I was there—that was in Walnut-tree-walk, but not at No. 3—she had a house on the opposite side which was No. 2, I think—then she came to No. 3, and that is where she made the will—she had no other servant there—I was always at home—when I went for a few minutes, I asked the lady of the house, Mrs. McArdell, if she would see to Mrs. Saunders—I know Cathrill—he used to come to see Mrs. Saunders about once a month—sometimes she was very agreeable and pleasant—I believe she was so always, but I do not know what passed between them, as I could not see—I did not hear what took place—my mistress has told me that she should not leave him anything—that was at the time we were living at Mrs. Brown's—it was after March, 1859, that she told me she should not leave him anything—she gave no reason at all—he was not admitted to her always—I have denied him several times, because Mrs. Saunders did not wish to be troubled; she was too ill—I had orders not to admit him—Cathrill asked me once about the will, and whether she had left him anything—I should think that would be about a month or six weeks before Mrs. Saunders's death—I said, "No, she has not"—he said, "Blast her," and stamped his foot—I knew of her making her will two or three times, from Mr. Hooker coming—I have never seen Dresch—I never knew Cathrill to come with any one during the time I was living there, except that his wife came once—I am certain that he could not have brought two men and occupied ten minutes with them without my knowing it—when she made the other wills Mr. Hooker and his son were always there—I know Mr. Jeffrey; he was constantly there—I know also Mr. and Mrs. Kiddle—they all came from time to time, and were on very agreeable terms—I was at the funeral, and heard the will read; everybody could hear it—I heard Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Kiddle ask if they knew of any other will—the answer was there was no other will but that one—I could not say who said that—Cathrill was there—I did not hear him say anything—I have heard Mrs. Saunders speak of her will—I cannot say I heard her speak of Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Kiddle as executors after she had made it—I know my mistress's handwriting quite well—I have heard her say Mr. Jeffrey was to have the entire management of the funeral and of everything—she very often spoke of Mr. Kiddle as her executor; I am quite sure of that—she said everything was to be settled by Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Kiddle—I should not think the signature to this will is my mistress's—I never saw her write like it—it is a different hand.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you ever see her sign any will? A. No; I have never seen her sign cheques or any documents Mr. Jeffrey had attested—I have seen her write letters several times—that is what I meant by knowing her writing—I never looked over her when she was writing, nor did I receive any letters—the letters I posted—it was from the writing outside

that I came to the knowledge of her writing, and I have seen her writing—I did not read the letters before they were despatched—I saw her in the act of writing—until this litigation I never thought of saving any of her letters—all I heard her say of Mr. Jeffrey and Kiddle was that they would settle everything—I cannot say how many wills she had been making—I took a great many to Mr. Hooker—I never saw any papers belonging to her after her death—I think there were some papers, but what they contained I do not know—I cannot give the date when the expression was used, "Blast her"—it may have been six weeks or a month before her death—Cathrill came to inquire after Mrs. Saunders' health—I am certain he did not ask if she had made another will—no one was present at the conversation—I used to go out to market—she did not come from the bed-room and sit in the parlour then; she generally had rooms going out of one room to another with folding doors on the first floor—she also had a kitchen and another bed-room—I used always to sleep with her—the kitchen was downstairs—we had nothing to do with that unless we required the use of it—I did not leave Mrs. Saunders very often or go down in the kitchen to have a little conversation—I am quite sure Cathrill was not admitted by other people.

MR. SOLICITOR GENERAL . Q. Do you recollect when you got the order not to admit him? A. It was some time before Mrs. Saunders' death; she could not be troubled as her health was not good—she told me to tell Cathrill he need not trouble himself, when she was dead he would see it in the paper—I recollect she did use the word "executors" in reference to Jeffrey and Kiddle—when she was going to make a will she would send for Mr. Hooker.

ELIZABETH MCARDELL . I am the wife of Valentine McArdell, 3, Walnuttree-walk, Lambeth—we have resided there ten years—Mrs. Saunders lodged with us for some time—she came in the beginning of 1858, and left at Midsummer, 1859—there was one other lodger, who had one apartment—Mrs. Saunders occupied five rooms, three on the drawing-room floor, and two overhead—she had only one servant, Eliza Andrews, the last witness—when she went out for half an hour, I would go and see if anything was wanted—she scarcely ever went out for a holiday—three persons could never have come to the house in her absence without my knowing it—three persons never came there—there never was more than one gentleman except the lawyers, and they were two together, Mr. Hooker and his son—I recollect Cathrill calling several times—no one ever came with him—he never walked up-stairs without being announced, to my knowledge.

Cross-examined. Q. Are you a married lady? A. Yes—I live with my husband—I have two daughters and two sons living at home—in March, 1859, 1 had the same number of children—they were then young, and at school—the youngest at that time I think was about five years—the eldest was married at the time Mrs. Saunders lived with me—I saw her I dare say every week after she was married—the other lodger was a single lady, Miss Derby, and she was about fifty years old—I never left the house without leaving Eliza Andrews there, and if Eliza was going out for half an hour, I always remained and waited on the old lady—I occupied the parlours, the upper part, and the bottom of the house—if any one came, I would go up and tell her—I used seldom to go out of an evening when they were gone to bed—they went to bed about 7 o'clock—I very seldom went out in the morning, but if I did, the servant was with her—I cannot say I never went out in the morning—

I may have been out about an hour—that may have happened more than once—I would go out, perhaps, for the ordinary things of house.

CHARLES CHABOT . I am an engraver and printer, and have paid a great deal of attention to handwriting, in examining it—I have seen the signature to the undisputed will—I have also made myself acquainted with about 150 other signatures—in my opinion the signature to this disputed will is not in the handwriting of Mrs. Saunders—I am clearly of that opinion because there are at least ten characteristics or conditions which will always be found in a genuine signature of Eleanor Saunders, and not one of them will be found in this disputed document—the signature to the genuine document appears to be freely and boldly written—there is not the slightest hesitation about it, except at the beginning of the "E"—there is a little hesitation as often happens from the condition of the ink in the pen, by reason of the ink not flowing at once—the signature to the other one is full of hesitation, and broken up, and the pen has been lifted in places where the testatrix never lifts her pen, and letters are joined where she does not join them—some of the lines have been gone over once or twice in parts, and this magnifying glass makes it more clear—if you look at the top of the "1," there is something of the nature of a break—I made these diagrams for the purpose of illustrating my evidence upon it—the "1" in Eleanor when magnified appears to have had the pen lifted off, and not put down very accurately—it is very difficult to do it—it may be done so as to deceive the eye, but under the magnifier you can see it—this diagram was copied by my own hand—the signature which I believe not to be genuine, I think has been done piecemeal; for instance, the letter "a" considerably changes in directions, terminating at every point—another part of the "a," instead of being a smooth loop, is chopped up—it is done in several pieces, as though copying or drawing from something, and nothing of the kind can be found in Mrs. Saunders's writing—you can trace it distinctly with the glass, and you can see every stoppage of the pen—the letter "a" appears to be made in two halves, which the magnifier discloses—it is not a natural way in open writing—that indicates to my own mind that it has been copying—then another thing is, that between the "a" and the "n" there is a little junction, showing that it has not been written off like Mrs. Saunders's was, and though the "e" is always below the "a," and if it does join it will be joined near the bottom of the "a," I do not find one instance where she has joined the "e;" but if it has been done it must be at the bottom of the "a"—in the forgery, it is joined quite high up—I would also add that there aie certain points existing in the forgery which never can be found in Mrs. Saunders' writing—in the letter "n," where it joins the "o," it is finished so low, that if it did join the "o," it would be at the bottom of the "o;" but in the forger, it is a little way up—one of the most important differences is in the "r"—in the forgery you will find there is an up-stroke line, but in Mrs. Saunders' signature there is not an upstroke to the "r"—that is in the word "Eleanor" more particularly—I am not speaking of the "r" in the word "Saunders"—there is a different characteristic there—then both the "n" in "Eleanor" and "Saunders" finish with an upstroke, while it is very rare indeed that an upstroke can be found in Mrs. Saunders' writing, or it is exceedingly short—in the word "Saunders," in the letter "a," there is a large space between the to and the l, in all Mrs. Saunders' writing it is quite close, and there is no room for any space—in that respect the forgery is more free than in Mrs. Saunders'—in my opinion this will is a very clumsy forgery, and one easily detected—I believe the signature which purports to

be 'Eleanor Saunders' is the same writing as the body of the will, and written with the same pen and the same ink—the difference in the signature I attribute to the attempt to copy.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you go so far as to say they were written at the same time? A. I believe so—I lay stress upon the up-stroke in the "r" in "Eleanor," so far as I have seen—I have examined 150 genuine signatures of "Eleanors"—I was occupied some hours on several occasions; I cannot tell how many—I think I was first engaged at the latter end of last year by Mr. Hooker, the solicitor for the defendants in the probate suit—he wished me at first to go to Doctors' Commons, and asked my opinion as to the signature to a will—I was entrusted with the documents, and I took away the letters home—I think I must have known then that Mr. Hooker was solicitor for the defendants—I cannot tell how long I was engaged upon the signatures; perhaps sometimes from 10 to 12 at night, as I could spare the time—that did not include the time for making the diagrams—I was in attendance at the Probate Court, and the diagrams were ready—they were prepared for the purpose of clearly explaining my views to the Jury—(a letter was produced, in the body of which "Eleanor" occurred)—as to the up-stroke in the "r," I was speaking of a "signature"—I do not see one there—there is the word "Eleanor," but there is no up-stroke—there is a blurring over the paper there, and it is an accidental up-stroke—I do mean seriously to tell the Jury that she would write her name differently in the body of a letter to the mode of signing at the bottom—I invariably do it myself—when a person is signing his name he has a particular way of dashing it off—I think that from the constant habit of writing a signature persons would write it alike—Eleanor Saunders's signatures are remarkably alike—there will be some little difference between the name in the body and the signature at the bottom of a letter, but not in the characteristics generally—it affects the size a little, and the shape of the letters—this letter (produced) I should say, is a genuine letter of Mrs. Saunders—the "n" in Walnut joins—I say the "n" does not join the "o"—I was engaged in the case of Nuttal's wills—I was on the last trial, but not on the others.

MR. SOLICITOR-GENERAL. Q. Looking at the signature, and looking at the one in dispute, is there any essential difference between them? A. Very great indeed—I never knew a more clear case of forgery to come under my view—in the letter produced the "n" joins the "u," but it does not join when followed by an "o"—my remark was as to when it joined a round letter—it is very common for persons purposely to sign their names differently to what they write—some persons write hieroglyphics which nobody can read.

Witness for the Defence.,

FREDERICK GEORGE NETHERCLIFT . I am a lithographer and facsimilist—I have heard the evidence of Mr. Chabot, and do not agree with him—my opinion is the signature is a genuine one—I think one ought to be very careful in coming to the conclusion whether a signature is genuine or not—the absence of little turns is not sufficient—I look at the signature generally—I think it is just the character of handwriting of a woman of her age writing with a steel pen on greasy paper, and writing with difficulty—I compared and looked at other signatures to find a signature like this, and I did so—I found the letters, and especially the "n," joined—generally I see they are not attached—there is a deviation in the "n," but I looked at it and found at the same time that it did so.

COURT. Q. The "n" was joined to an "e," but not to a round letter; I

think that was the distinction Mr. Chabot drew? A. I think I found" one in the word "Eleanor," but I am not quite sure—(the book of letters handed)—if I had looked into it before, I would have found it, but I should be taking up the time of the Court—I hare not seen these letters—I asked for them when I first came in—my decided opinion is, that this is a genuine signature—I have no hesitation.

Cross-examined. Q. Were you examined at the last trial? A. I was—I gave an opinion that it was a genuine signature—I was not there when the Jury gave their verdict—the moment my evidence was taken I went—of course they must have differed from my opinion or the documents would not have been impounded—on looking at the two wills there is a difference—in the genuine one the signature is not written freely and almost entirely without hesitation—the "e" has been written over again, and the "I" has also been patched—I do not call it a free signature by any means—of the two signatures, one is very much more free than the other—in the impeached signature there are double strokes in almost every letter, but I said the reason why, because I think she was writing on greasy, hard paper—I really forget whether I attempted to explain it in the Probate Court, by stating that she was not well—I may have done so—it is probable I did so, but I do not remember that I did—I was never in formed of any illness of the old lady, between the 14th and 23d of March.

MR. BESLEY. Q. When you spoke of illness, did you mean a sort of illness that would affect a feeble signature? A. The feebleness of an old lady, an old woman of eighty, who changes from day to day—greasy paper would cause a scratchiness—it appears to me as though it had been begun with bad nibs to the pen, or with a want of ink.

CATHRILL.— GUILTY .— Fifteen Years' Penal Servitude.

DRESCH.— GUILTY .— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, June 15th, 1865.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-632
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

632. JOHN PRIOR (20), DAVID OXLEY (22), and DANIEL GOLLIGHER (23) , Robbery together, on John Shea, and stealing 1 hat and 10s., his property.

MR. LILLEY conducted the Prosecution, and MR. WILLIAMS defended Oxley.

JOHN SHEA . I am a labourer, and live at 8, Baxendale-street, Bethnalgreen—on the morning of Sunday, 28th May, about 1 o'clock, I was in Commercial-street; I had been out with my friends—I don't think I had more than three pints of beer from the time I left off work at 1 o'clock—I had about three pints and a half, my own share—I was coming along Commercial-street alone, smoking my pipe, with my left hand in my pocket, where my money was, and these three men came up to me—the two biggest came in front of me and held ray arms up, and the little fellow came behind me and put both his hands into my pocket, and then the middle one (Oxley) pulled my hat off my head and gave me a slap in the face—my hat was a new hilly-cock—I halloaed out, and away they walked—I followed them a little way up the street, and met two other men, and we went after them—I followed them up close, and had a full view of them—they were taken a few minutes afterwards—I never saw them before that—I could swear to them amongst a thousand.

Prior. Q. Are you sure I was one of them? A. Yes, full sure—you are the man who put your hands in my pocket.

MR. LILLEY. Q. What had you in your pocket? A. In my left pocket I had two half-crowns, a two-shilling piece, a smiling, and a sixpence, and 2 3/4 d., and I had some shillings in my other pocket, I don't know how much—after they left me none of it remained.

Cross-examined, Q. What time did you receive your wages? A. About a quarter-past 1 on the Saturday—I received 1l. 8 1/2 d., and I had 8s. 6d. left in my pocket—I laid it out in every way that I wanted it—I had been to three public-houses—I stated at one time that I could not remember how many public-houses I had been into, but I asked one of my friends—the policeman told me to go to sleep, in the station-house—I next saw Oxley at the station, in the box there—I saw him coming in at the door first with a policeman—there were a good many other people inside the station—I was asked by the inspector whether that was the man, and I said, "Yes"—I said, all I knew was that one had a Mailer's cut-down on.

MR. LILLEY. Q. Did you say that was the only thing you knew him by? A. No, I gave a whole description of him besides—I had not expended much of my wages in marketing—I owed some money and I paid some off, and paid ray lodgings and for a pair of hoots.

SAMUEL COHEN , I am a dealer, and live at 125, Middlesex-street, Whitechapel—on the morning of 28th May, soon after I, I was in commercial-street, standing at the door of No. 2, kept by Mr. Angell—I saw the last witness coming from Whitechapel, and saw the three prisoners come in front of him—one caught him by one hand and another by the other, and the little one picked his pocket—he began to struggle, and that middle one gave him a good slap in the face, took his hat off, and they all walked away—I spoke to Mr. Angell, and he pointed out the, prisoners to a policeman about ten minutes afterwards—I saw the men as they passed me very close; the prisoners are the three men who attacked the prosecutor.

Cross-examined. Q. What were you doing at that time in the morning? A. I had been from 10 o'clock at Mr. Angell's house—I do business with him—I am a general dealer—I did not attempt to go after these men—I had never seen Oxley before that night—I next saw him when he was brought to the station by the policeman—it might be half an hour after.

COURT. Q. Was Angell standing at the door with you? A. Yes, we saw the man assaulted and the three men going away, and we did nothing; we allowed them to walk away—a constable came past about ten minutes afterwards, and we spoke to him.

ISAAC ANGELL . I am a glass merchant, at 2, Commercial-street—on the morning of 28th May, I was at my door with the last witness—I saw the prosecutor coming from Whitechapel, and saw three men assault him—the two biggest caught hold of his arms while the third rifled his pockets—they then crossed over to Fashion-street, which is about two doors from my place, and I could see them plainly—they went through a court leading to Flower and Dean-street—a few minutes afterwards I gave information to a policeman, and went down with him and apprehended the prisoners separately—Oxley ran away, and was caught at the top of Flower and Dean-street, in Brick-lane—the prisoners are the men I saw attack and rob the prosecutor.

JURY. Q. Had you known them before? A. No; Prior and Golligher 1 night have seen pass my place—we apprehended Golligher about an hour afterwards, coming out of a lodging-house.

Cross-examined. Q. Were you standing at your door ten minutes before you saw a policeman? A. It was a few minutes afterwards, about five or ten minutes.

Golligher. At the time this was done, I was helping to take a man to the London Hospital.

JOHN OLIVER (Police man, H 218). On Sunday morning, 28th May, I was on duty in Commercial-street, and received some information from Cohen, Angell, and the prosecutor—Angell and I went into Flower and Dean-street—we went through Fashion-street, and through a court—I saw Prior and several others in Flower and Dean-street—Angell pointed him out and I took him to the station—I found on him two half-crowns, a two-shilling-piece, a sixpence, and 2 3/4 d., no shilling—we then went hack again to Flower and Dean-street, and Angell pointed out Oxley to me—he started away running—when he found I was following him, he slackened his pace—I took him to the station, and told him the charge—he said he knew nothing of it—he was identified by the witnesses—I found 4s. 6d. on him and some coppers—we then went back again, and I saw Golligher in Flower and Dean-street with a woman—he was pointed out to me by Angel, and I took him to the station—he was also identified.

COURT. Q. Was the prosecutor drunk? A. He was not very drunk—he had been drinking—he was in such a state that he could identify people, he could walk straight enough; he had his senses about him.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you tell him to go to sleep? A. I did not; perhaps somebody else might in the station—I did not hear anybody cry out—I took Prior about 150 yards from Mr. Angell's house, and then I came back and took Oxley—he said he came from Kingsland at half-past 12—he gave me his right name and address, and I find that he has been at work for Mr. Gooch of Kingsland—I did not find the prosecutor's hat.

Prisoner's Defence. I am innocent of what I am accused of.

Golligher's Defence. I was at work on the day this happened, and I got my money on Saturday, at 1 o'clock, 1l. 2s. 2d., and the money found on me was part of that, the rest I spent and laid out.

Oxley received a good character.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-633
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

633. WALTER HASTINGS (26), Stealing 2,000 cigars and 71bs. of tobacco, of Joseph Lewey.

MR. HORRY conducted the Prosecution, and MR. SHARPE the Defence.

EDWIN MARTIN . I am thirteen years old, and on 13th May was employed by Messrs. Joseph and Philip Lewey, of 7, Devonshire-street, Bishopsgate-street—on that day, about twenty-five minutes past 2, I was in London Wall—I had with me two parcels, containing 1,000 cigars each, and 7 lbs. of tobacco, which I was taking from Mr. Wills, of Long Acre, to my master's—as I went along I met the prisoner, who said, "My boy, what is the time?" I told him twenty-five minutes past 2—he said, "Don't you work in Fore-street?"—I said, "No, I work at Mr. Lewey's, 7, Devonshire-street"—he said, "I have just come from there, I have taken the same as those goods before, and 1 have to come all the way back to bring these things back again that you have got, because I took them before, when you were gone"—he also said, "I am Mr. Henry Wills; give me those things, and tell Mr. Lewey to send the last two invoices he had, because I can't make up my books without them"—he said, "Run quick, how long will you be?"—I said, "About twenty minutes," and I left—I gave him the cigars and the tobacco because he said he was Mr. Henry Wills—I believed that—he went up London Wall and I went down—I saw him again on the Tuesday after at Bow-street station, in the dock—I am quite sure he was the same man.

Cross-examined. Q. You had three different kinds of cigars, had you not? A. Two; they were vevey fins and vevey sans—they are a very common sort of cigar, sold at every tobacconists in London—these cigars had belonged to Mr. Wills—I was taking them from him to my mater's—T had never seen the prisoner before, and I never saw him again till I saw him at the police-court—I saw one little boy examined before me—I was asked whether the prisoner was the man who got the cigars from me on the 13th—I looked at him for two or three minutes before I answered—I first of all said I was doubtful about him—the clerk asked me why I doubted, and after looking at him again, I said he was the man—I am blind of one eye, my sight is not very good with the other.

COURT. Q. Are you shortsighted? A. No; I see very well with the other eye.

MR. SHARPE. Q. Did you see a witness examined before the Magistrate on the part of the prisoner? A. Yes; there was a, lady examined named Davis—I did not hear what she said.

MR. HORRY. Q. When you had looked at the prisoner well, were you sure that he was the man? Q. Yes—he had dark brown trousers and a lightish coloured waistcoat on when I met him, the same kind of coat he has on now.

COURT. Q. Did you stand quite close together? A. Yes—he wore a hat—he had a black moustache such as he has now—I was told to come to the police-court—they told me they thought they had caught the man that had cheated me.

JOSEPH SMITH (Policeman, A 327). About half-past 4 on Saturday, 13th, I was in the Strand—the prisoner was pointed out to me by a boy named Stubbings—the prisoner was in a shop with another man—I took him into custody and told him he was charged with stealing a suit of clothes from the boy—he said, "I don't know anything about the boy or the clothes"—I searched him at the station and found on him a portion of a bundle of vevey fins cigars, and a pocket-book.

Cross-examined. Q. Were you at the Police-court? A. Yes, after Stubbings was examined—the Magistrate was about dismissing the case—there was an alibi—it was proved he was down at Portsmouth at the time—there was a bill produced with the name of "Walter Hastings" upon it—I have not got it—it was after the first case that Martin was pointed out the prisoner—previous to that there were several boys came up to identify him, who said he was very much like the person, but they could not identify him—he represented himself as a theatrical person—he said he had been employed at the "Mogul" and at Knightsbridge—there was a witness to his character examined—I have not seen him here.

MR. HORRY. Q. How many of those boys said he was very like the man? A. Two—there were about four there altogether.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-634
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

634. WALTER HASTINGS was again indicted for Stealing 1 coat, 1 vest, and 1 pair of trousers, the property of Samuel Fouracre.

MR. HORRY conducted the Prosecution, and MR. LILLEY the Defence.

WALTER STUBBINGS . On 28th April, I was an errand boy in the service of Mr. Samuel Fouracre, a tailor, of 22, Cranbourne-street—on the afternoon of that day, I was taking a coat, vest, and trousers home to Bullock's auction-rooms in High Holborn for Mr. Sullivan—I was ringing at the street-door bell, and the prisoner came up to me; he asked me if I was waiting to get in, and I said I was—he asked me where I came from—I told

him "Fouracre's, 22, Cranbourne-street"—he asked me who I wanted—I said, "Mr. Sullivan"—he said, "I am Mr. Sullivan, the clothes belong to me; I have been down to your place, and they told me you had been gone three or four minutes, and I had to run to catch you up; it is lucky I have caught you," or something to that effect—he said, "I will come back to the shop with you"—he came back as far as Broad-street, Bloomsbury, and then he said, "Oh, it is no consequence, you can give me the clothes and tell them to send the invoice before 10 o'clock to-morrow morning, as I shall be off by the train at 10 from Euston-square Station"—I then gave him the clothes—I did so because I thought he was Mr. Sullivan, and believed what he said—I next saw him on Saturday, 13th May, in the Strand, walking along with another man—I saw a policeman and gave him into custody.

Cross-examined. Q. What time was it when you were knocking at this door? A. About 7 in the evening—I bad never seen the man before—what took place occupied about a minute or two—I walked by the side of him into Broad-street—I was examined before the Magistrate—a female was called for the prisoner—I did not notice whether the evidence was taken down in writing—the Magistrate was just going to dismiss the case when Edwin Martin came up.

JOSEPH SMITH , (Policeman, A 327), This witness repeated his former evidence.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you know that the prisoner is a singer by profession? A. He said he was—the female who was examined also said she was a singer—I have been to the "Mogul" in Drury-lane and to Knightsbridge, where he said he was going to sing that night—I have not been able to find out what he is.

GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months upon each Indictment.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-635
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

635. JOHN ANGLIS (26) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of John Miller, and stealing 1 coat and other articles, his property.

MR. WEIGHTMAN conducted the Prosecution, and MR. LILLEY the Defence,

JOHN MILLER . I live at 3, Canterbury-place, Millwall, and am an engineer—on the night of 16th May, I went to bed at 11 o'clock—to the best of my belief the house was then safely closed—I was awakened and heard a noise; I got out of bed, and then I heard steps run through the passage and out at the back—my bedroom is on the ground floor—I then went into the kitchen and found the window right up at the top, and the door wide open—I went out and got a policeman—he found a cap—I missed a coat, a pair of trousers, and two vests, worth about 5i.—I had seen them safe on 16th in the drawers in the front parlour.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you seen them since? A. No,

JOHN BURGESS (Policeman, K 256). On the morning of 17th May, at half-past 12, I saw the last witness and went to his house—we went into the back yard, where I saw this cap (produced)—it was near the back door—I know the prisoner—I saw him about 11 in the evening, he was then wearing this cap—after searching over several yards I found him in a shed in rear of his father's house—he was lying down and he had no cap on—I asked him where his cap was, he said he did not know—I told him I should take him into custody for breaking into the house, No. 3—J then took him to 3, Canterbury-place, where I had left the cap—I showed it to him and he said, "That is my cap, how did you come by it?"—I told him it was found close to the back door where the robbery was committed—I have not discovered the clothes that were lost.

Cross-examined. Q. How long after the prosecutor had called for your assistance did you find the prisoner? A. It might be about three quarters of an hour—he was lying on a bit of a mattress where I found him—I don't know which way he gets there—there is a wicket gate for him to go through, of which he carries the key—I have seen him go through that gate—I found a key on him—I have not tried it.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-636
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

636. JOHN CLIFFORD (48) and JOHN PHILLIMORE (24) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Samuel Mitchell, and stealing 2 planes and other articles; to which

PHILLIMORE PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.

MR. DALEY, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence against Clifford.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-637
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

637. WILLIAM BADGER (22) Unlawfully assaulting Amelia Brown with intent, &c.

MR. MONTAGUE WILLIAMS , for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.


FOURTH COURT.—Thursday, June 15th, 1865.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-638
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

638. JOHN HARRINGTON (35), was indicted for Feloniously killing and slaying John Godding.

MESSRS. HARRIS and COOPER conducted the Prosecution, and MR. SHARPS the Defence.

WILLIAM RALPH . I live at 173, North-street, Limehouse—I am a, chair caner—I knew John Godding—he died about the 16th July, 1863—on Sunday night, 12th July, 1863, at twenty minutes past 11 o'clock, I saw the prisoner in London-street—I was about thirty yards from him—Godding was standing in the middle of the road in Queen-street—I saw the prisoner walk up to him; he struck him or shoved him—it was twilight—I saw Godding fall on the road—Mr. Hall came and picked him up, and removed him to the corner of the street—I did not see Godding after that.

Cross-examined by MR. SHARPE. Q. Did you know the prisoner? A. I did; I lived in the same street as he did—Godding was making a noise and gesticulating; but I do not know that he did so to the prisoner—there were about a dozen persons there at the time.

MR. COOPER. Q. How far was the prisoner from Godding at the time he struck him? A. Not more than two feet—he fell directly.

JOHN HALL . I kept the Marquis of Granby, in Pump-yard, at the time this occurred—I saw Godding lying on the ground, and I picked him up—the prisoner was standing close by—I stood the deceased against a house—he never spoke.

HENRY KEMPSTER . I am a labourer—on Sunday night, 12th July, 1863, I was passing the Marquis of Granby, with my wife, at a few minutes past 11—I saw a man's arm strike out, and I saw the deceased fall immediately—I was about forty yards off—the deceased was a little the worse for liquor.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you know who it was struck at the deceased? A. I do not—I knew Godding very well—I used to work with him—there were about a dozen persons present—the deceased's head did not fall on the

kerbstone—it fell in the middle of the street—I could not see what part of his head struck the ground.

ROBERT JONES McANDREWS . I am a surgeon at Limehouse—On 13th July I examined the deceased at his lodgings—he was suffering from compression of the brain, and was in a state of insensibility—he was breathing loudly—I observed a mark on the table, but there was no severance of the skin; it was a bruise—I saw him each day until he died—I made a post mortem examination, and found a fracture of the skull, extending from the bruise on the temple almost round the whole vault of the skull, and an artery was ruptured, and a pint or more of blood was on the brain—that was the cause of death—a fall would be more likely to cause such a fracture than a blow—I do not think a blow alone would cause it—if the fall was caused by a blow the momentum would be much greater—a fall without a blow would be likely to cause such a fracture.

Cross-examined. Q. Was there any external injury except the bruise? A. No—until I had made the post mortem examination I was not aware that the skull was fractured—the rupture of the artery was caused by the fracture.

ROBERT THIMBLEBY (Policeman K 119). I apprehended the prisoner at Liverpool on 9th May, on board a ship bound for New York—he is a stevedore and coal whipper—I charged him with causing the death of John Godding, on 12th July, 1863, at the top of London-street, Queen-street—he said, "I did it; I own I struck the blow."

ELIZABETH BRYAN . On 12th July, 1863, John Godding was my lodger—he had lodged with me for nine months—he was brought home by a policeman on Sunday night, 12th July, 1863, about twelve o'clock—he did not speak—he died on the following Thursday morning, about half-past 8.

PATRICK REDMAN . I am a lighterman, and live at 33, London-street, Ratcliff—on Sunday night, 12th July, 1863, I was at the bottom of London-street—I saw Godding there—he said, "I have heard two sermons to-day, and can preach as good a one myself"—the prisoner came up and said, "I will stop your preaching," and hit him, and Godding fell down—I do not know where he was struck.

Cross-examined. Q. Were you before the Magistrate? A. No; but I was before the coroner.

CHARLES JACKSON . I am a gas fitter, and reside at the Three Tuns, Charles-street, Ratcliff—I assist there occasionally—I knew Godding—he came to the Three Tuns on Sunday night, 12th July, 1863; it was about 8 o'clock—he was a little the worse for liquor—he only had one pint there—he remained there from 8 till 11—he went to sleep in the taproom—he was soberer when he left than when he came.

Cross-examined. Q. What were you doing at this public-house? A. I was assisting my mother-in-law—I served him with the pint, and that is all he had—he wanted another pint on trust, but I would not let him have it.

MARY ANN DEERHAM . I live at 41, Alton-road, Islington—on 12th July, 1863, I was living at Mr. Abrahams, 24, Queen-street, Ratcliff, and I was standing at the door—I heard a man fall, and a man was standing by—I cannot say if it was the prisoner—he does not seem so tall as the man was.

MARY KEMPSTER . I am the wife of Henry Kempster—on Sunday night, 12th July, I was going home with my husband—when passing the Marquis of Granby I saw a man's arm strike out, and the deceased fell to the ground—I think the prisoner is the man that struck the deceased.

Cross-examined. Q. Could you swear to him? Q. No.

GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-639
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

639. ARTHUR WARREN (27) , Unlawfully assaulting Amelia Warren, and occasioning her actual bodily harm.

MR. DALY conducted the Prosecution, and MR. MONTAGUE WILLIAMS the Defence.

MARGARET BISHOP . I live at 21, Denton-street, King's-cross—on 4th April, prisoner and deceased came to lodge with me—on Friday morning, 5th May, I was with the deceased—between 9 and 10 o'clock the prisoner came in and threw something at deceased—he took hold of her by her throat and hair, and pushed his knee into her stomach, called her a d——bitch, and said he would murder her—she cried "murder," and I did so too, and called my husband—after I had left the room I heard the deceased cry, "Oh, pray don't; pray don't"—my husband went up and tried to get into the room, but the prisoner would not let him—he told him not to kill his wife, and prisoner said he should do what he liked, it was no odds to him, it was only a family quarrel—when the policeman came the deceased would not give the prisoner in charge, she said she only wanted protection—prisoner went out, and I went into deceased's room, her hair was hanging over her shoulders, and she was crying very much—she had been ill before from his ill-usage—there was some hair lying about the room, and a broken comb.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you been examined before the Magistrate? Q. Yes—I do not exactly know what day of the month it was, but think it was the 25th of May—the deceased did not appear ill when she came to lodge at my house, but she said she had been ill—she told me she had been under the doctor's hands in the country—I remember the prisoner coming home the night before this took place and finding his room-door locked—this was about 12 o'clock, and he broke it open—his wife stayed with me all night—she was afraid of the prisoner, and she shook like a leaf—the prisoner heard us together talking in the morning.

CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER BISHOP . I am the husband of last witness—on the 5th of May, I heard screams in my house—I went to the prisoner's door and opened it—he had got his wife by her hair—I said, "You brute! what are you doing 1"—he flew at me and shut the door—he said, "You have no business here"—I then went for a policeman.

MARY ANN SCANNELL . I live at 20, Denton-street, next door to where the deceased lodged—on the 5th of May I heard great confusion and screaming and groaning, and afterwards I heard a cry of "Murder!"—I could not tell who it was screaming—it was a female's voice—I went into the house where deceased lodged, and went to her room—the door was fastened—the prisoner opened it—I said, "What do you call this? do you mean to murder your wife?"—he said, "I have a right to chastise my wife when she is gossiping"—her hair was all down, and on the floor was a piece of comb with hair on it—she was crying.

DANIEL CONNOR (Policeman). On Friday, the 5th of May, I was sent for to 21, Denton-street—I knocked at the prisoner's door, and he opened it—his wife was sitting in the further corner of the room crying and appearing very much distressed—her hair and dress were in great disorder—she said, "My husband and me have been quarrelling"—she hugged me for support, and asked me to retain her husband—the prisoner said, "It is merely a family jar, and you have no right here at all—she

repeatedly begged of me to retain him; but I could not, as I did not witness the assault.

Witnesses for the Defence.

WILLIAM HENRY SHEAY . I am a surgeon—I knew the deceased—she had been suffering from dropey—her heart was very feeble, and she hardly seemed to have any blood in her body.

HENRY JOHN BROWN . I am a surgeon—on the 15th of May, I was called to see the deceased—I found her very pallid and bloodless; in a state of great mental excitement—I made a post-mortem examination—I found no external marks of violence—the body was very much, decomposed, and the cause of death was nervous exhaustion.

GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-640
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentencesNo Punishment > sentence respited; No Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

640. WILLIAM THOMPSON (34) , Unlawfully obtaining by false pretences from Charles Hutton and others divers goods; and ARTHUR GLEED (42) , unlawfully receiving the same.


MR. PATER conducted the Prosecution, and MR. HARRIS the Defence.

GEORGE BROOKS . I am manager of the upholstery department of Messrs. Charles Hut ton's establishment, in Newgate-street—they are Berlin wool merchants—on the 4th of April Thompson brought an order purporting to be signed by Messrs. Atkinson and Co. of Westminster Bridge-road, for some goods—he selected some, and took them away—they were customers of ours—he represented himself as coming from them, and mentioned people whom I knew—it was on the faith of that representation that I let him have the goods—he had a quantity of lace, worth about 12l.—on the 10th of May he called again, and obtained six gross more, with a similar order—on the 18th of May I went to the Woolpack public-house in Monkwell-street—Gleed was standing at the bar—I sent a man named Metcalfe in first, and he introduced me to Gleed—he said "Here is a gentleman, R. M." (meaning ready money) "who can buy that lot of stuff"—Metcalfe and Gleed went into the yard, and after they had had some conversation they beckoned me to follow, which I did—Gleed pulled these patterns (produced) of curtain lace out of his hat—I recognised them as being the property of Messrs. Walters—they had their mark upon them—I said, "What quantity of this have you for sale?"—and he said, "There is about 1,300 yards"—I asked him the I rice, and he said 5d. a yard—I asked him if he had any other class of goods like these, as I was open to buy anything of the upholstery description—he said, "Oh, yes, I have several other lots"—I wanted to find out if he had any of our property, and asked him whether he had any "Paris bindings"—he said, "Yes, I have a lot, six gross, and also seven pieces of damask, but we will finish this transaction first"—I then went in front of the bar, and called for something to drink, and while there I told him I was a buyer of this description of stuff, and had a market for it, as I travelled round the country—he said, "I suppose you are all square, as these lots are crooked; there are only two manufacturers of them, and this lot has the initials on, which you can cut off as well as me"—I then showed him my purse, that I had the money, and asked him when he could produce the bulk—he said, "Any time to-morrow, if you can name a place"—I named the Portland Arms, in Long-lane, at a quarter to 1 o'clock the following day—I went there, and the prisoner brought a parcel of lace—I asked him upstairs, and upon opening the parcel I found 812 yards instead of 1,307, so I asked him where the remaining quantity was; he said he could

not produce it then, and then I told him I was employed to detect this matter, and said, "You must consider yourself detained—he gave me this invoice (produced)—I then asked him if he would render me assistance in finding out the actual thieves concerned, and he said he would—I communicated with Messrs. Walters, and they came and identified their goods—afterwards I went with Gleed to the Waterloo road, and then he said, "I will take you to the place where Morgan (meaning Thompson) resides"—we went into a coffee-house, and I got him to write a letter to Morgan, and make an appointment at the York Hotel, Waterloo-road—we then went to Kennington-lane, at the end of which Gleed pointed out a low beer-house as the residence of Thompson—we returned to the city, and Messrs. Walters gave Gleed into custody-dooming over the bridge I asked him what had become of the lace—"Well," he said, "I have sold 9 grots to Nicholson's in Shoreditch, and there is another lot 'fast,' and some other which Thompson knows about"—I afterwards met Thompson in Stamford-street, according to arrangement, and gave him into custody. (Some goods were heft produced which were identified by the witness.)

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. Q. What are your means of identifying that stuff? A. A peculiarly raised mark—there is one maker that makes for us alone—I have sold various quantities of this stuff to other people, but never such a large quantity.

WILLIAM JOHN CASH . I am assistant to Messrs. D. Walters and Sons, silk manufacturers, 44, Newgate-street—on 15th April, the prisoner Thompson called—he said he came from Atkinson's firm, and produced a strip of paper with the name of our firm on it, and said he wanted some silk bordering—he selected 812 yards—Messrs. Atkinson, of Lambeth, are our customers, and it was on the faith of his representations that I let him have the goods—he took the paper with our name on away with him—I identify these goods as the silk borderings that were ordered on the 15th April—the value is 23l. 8s. 6d.—I should think there were about 812 yards in this quantity.

Cross-examined. Q. How do you know that there is that quantity there? A. The quantity is marked on the paper at the end of each bundle—customers do sometimes take the orders they bring away with them.

MR. PATER. Q. Did you believe that to be a genuine order? A. I did.

JOHN FITCHER MORLET . I am manager to Messrs. Atkinson's, upholsterers, Lambeth—Thompson was not authorized by the firm to call upon Messrs. Hutton or Messrs. Walters for goods—no such order was given.

GUILTY.*— Judgment Respited.

MR. BROOKS stated that Gleed had given him assistance in tracing the property.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-641
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

641. WILLIAM THOMPSON (), also PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining 6 table-covers, and other goods, by false pretences.

Judgment Respited.


Before Mr. Common Serjeant

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-642
VerdictGuilty > pleaded part guilty

Related Material

642. WILLIAM VICTOR CHILD (17) , Robbery, with violence, on Leonard Pettit Carter, and stealing from his person 1 bag and 2l. 15s. 5 1/2 d. in money, his property.

PLEADED GUILTY to the stealing only.

Confined Six Months.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-643
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

643. MARTHA FARROWS (24) , Unlawfully obtaining 2 shawls by false pretences.

MR. PATER conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN EDWARD STRICKLAND . I am shopman at Gregory and Co. 's, drapers, of 11 and 12, London-street, Greenwich—on Friday, 24th March, the prisoner came in, and asked to see some prints—I showed her some—she then wanted some silk dresses to be sent to Miss Hart, of Vanbrough Castle, May's Hill—she said that she was parlour-maid there—there is such a place, and Miss Hart has been a customer occasionally—the dresses were to be sent at 7 o'clock—she then wished to look at some black shawls for one of the servants, and wished to take two with her, one of which would be selected and paid for when I went up with the dresses—I let her have them, believing her statement to be true—they were worth 31s. 6d.—in the evening I went up to Miss Hart's with the dresses, and found they were not required—I gave notice to the police.

Cross-examined. Q. In consequence of what did you let her have the shawls? A. Of her saying that she was parlour-maid at Miss Hart's—I did not see her again that day—I saw her three or four days afterwards—that was before she appeared before the Magistrate—I had not seen her in the interim.

MR. PATER. Q. When you saw her four or five days afterwards, had you any doubt that she was the person? A. Not the slightest, but I did not give her in custody because I acted under the officer's instructions.

ROBERT CRUTCHLEY . I live at Vanbrough Castle, May's-hill—Miss Hart who lives there is my aunt—I have lived there off and on for the last twenty years—I never saw the prisoner till I saw her at the police-court—she has never been in Miss Hart's service—no person was sent out to the draper's that day—I spoke to Mr. Strickland when he called.

MR. WEIGHTMAN to J. E. STRICKLAND. Q. How came you to go to the Police-station three or four days afterwards? A. I did not—I gave information the same evening—I saw the prisoner three or four days afterwards at her own house—I went there by the advice of the officers—she was alone—she was given into custody on the 26th, about a month afterwards.


Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-644
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

644. MARTHA FARROWS (24), was again indicted for unlawfully obtaining 2 pairs of boots from William Harrison, by false pretences.

MR. PATER conducted the Prosecution, and MR. WEIGHTMAN the Defence.

WILLIAM HARRISON . I am shopman to Mr. Triggs, of High-street, Deptford, boot and shoe maker—on the evening of 26th April, the prisoner came and asked to be fitted with a pair of boots—I took down a pair which I thought would fit her, and while I was lacing them she said, would I send some boots up to Mrs. Price's at half-past 10 on the following morning?—she then said her foot was so ugly she would prefer being measured—I said, "I have some that will fit you"—I put on another pair which fitted her, but she said she would give me an answer when I sent up to Mrs. Price's—I asked her what price they were to be, she said about 12s. 6d. or 13s. 6d.—I had served a cook at Dr. Price's before, and I allowed the prisoner to take two pairs away, worth 13s. the two—she said she was housemaid at

Dr. Price's, and the boots were for the cook—I stood at the door and watched her—I saw her go in at Dr. Price's garden gate—there is a long garden leading up to the house—I then saw her leave the gate and go to the railway station, into—the waiting-room—I went up there after her, and asked her what she was doing there—she said, "Looking for the cook"—I then said, "Will you come with me to Dr. Price's," and she said, "Oh no, here, take the boots"—she gave me the boots, and 1 gave her into custody—these are toy boots (produced).

Cross-examined. Q. Did she pass down the garden towards the house? A. I presume she did—I can't say whether she went into the house—she came out at the gate again in about five or six minutes, it might be ten—she did not say, "I have just got the situation as housemaid at Dr. Price's."

ELIZA SIMMONDS . I am single—I am cook to Dr. Price—I know Mr. Triggs, the bootmaker—I don't know the prisoner—she was neither cook nor housemaid at Dr. Price's—I was at home on the evening of 26th April—the prisoner did not call at any time that evening—no one ever came even to the door—I did not send the prisoner to Mr. Triggs' for boots—no boots were brought for me that evening.

JAMES BERREL (Policeman, R 224). I received charge of the prisoner on the 26th April, at Mr. Triggs' shop—I asked her if she was housemaid at Dr. Price's—she said, "No"—I said, "Do you know Dr. Price's cook? she said, "No."

Cross-examined. Q. Are you a married man? A. Yes—I have observed that the prisoner is in the family way.

GUILTY.— Recommended to mercy by the Jury. Judgment Respited.


Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-645
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

645. JOHN DAY, Feloniously uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. O'CONNELL and GOUGH conducted the Prosecution.

GEORGE TATE . I am barman at the Crown, High-street, Southwark—on the 9th or 10th of May, between 4 and 5 o'clock, the prisoner came for a pint of half-and-half, and offered a bad half-crown to my fellow-barman, who brought it to me—I asked the prisoner where he got it—he said, from his employer—it was broken and given back to him, and he paid with a good one—on 10th May he came again for a pint of half-and-half, and tendered a bad half-crown—I broke it in several pieces—I told him I should take him up—he said, "l am drunk, and do not know what I am about, whether it is good or not"—he appeared to have been having something to drink, but he knew what he was about—he tried to leave the house, but I gave him in charge with the half-crown.

Prisoner. I was in Wandsworth prison both on the 9th and 10th of may.

CHARLES TAYLOR (Policeman, M 166). I took the prisoner, and received this half-crown (produced)—he said that he did not know how he came by it—I found on him half a crown, a florin, three sixpences, and a halfpenny—he was a little the worse for liquor, but knew what he was about—I asked his address, he said he had no regular place, but slept anywhere.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . This is a bad half crown.

Prisoner's Defence. I was in prison when the first half-crown was passed,

and must have got the second in change for a half-sovereign; the officer from Wandsworth prison is here.

GUILTY . He was further charged with having been before convicted of a like offence, when he was sentenced totwo years' imprisonment; to this he

PLEADED GUILTY.*— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-646
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

646. MARY COMPTON (26), PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child.

Confined One Month.

Before Mr. Recorder.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-647
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

647. GEORGE SMITH (28) , Feloniously killing and slaying Sarah Hosier; he was also charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with the like offence.

MR. HOUSTON conducted the Prosecution,

JANE MAY . I am a widow, and live at 10, Salamanca-court—I knew the deceased by sight, but never spoke to her—she lived at 1, Salamanca-street—on Wednesday, between 10 and 11 o'clock, I saw the deceased and the prisoner close against the side gate of the mother's house quarrelling—the deceased went up to the prisoner and put her fist in his face, but whether she hit him or not I cannot say—he then hit her with his fist in front of her forehead—she staggered and fell on her back on the ground—I picked her up, took her down the gate-way, and supported her back against the wall—she was sensible—I gave her a little water, but she would not drink—I saw no more of her till the evening, when I was fetched into her room, and found her dying—the prisoner walked away after striking her—he saw that she fell—when she put her fist in his face, she said, "You vagabond, how dare you call me such a name"—they both lived in the same street.

JULIA BARKY . I live at 1, Princess-street—I knew the deceased—I saw her and the prisoner rowing—he was calling her very bad names—his wife came down the street, and he said, "Here is this woman; give her a good hiding"—the wife went up and tore Mrs. Hosier's bonnet; who said, "You vagabond, how dare you strike me, and call me such names"—the prisoner then struck her a severe blow on the forehead and walked away.

GEORGE COXHEAD (Policeman, L 14). On 7th June, I was in Kennington-lane, and saw the prisoner—I said, "Smith, I charge you on suspicion of being the death of Mrs. Hosier yesterday"—he said, "Oh, indeed; I went down to my mother's house and there I saw Mrs. Hosier; we had a quarrel, and she called me a b—rotten sod; I up with my hand and pushed her away, and she fell down"—I took him in custody.

ROBERT BRAITHWAITE . I am a surgeon, of 59, Vauxhall-walk—on 7th June, at a quarter to 6 in the evening, I was called to see the deceased—she died half an hour after I saw her, from the rupture of a vessel at the base of the brain—there were no external marks of violence, but on removing the scalp there was a mark as if from a blow or from contact with a stone.

Prisoner's Defence. She spat in my face, and hit me five or six times in the face.

Witnesses for the Defence.,

MARY ANN ELIZABETH PRITCHARD . I live in the same house as the deceased—I did not see the blow given, but between 5 and 6 in the morning I heard the prisoner come into the back-room—I do not know what for—he said, "Mother, do you allow your place to be made a boarding-house of?"—I saw Mrs. Hosier spit in his face—that was between 8 o'clock and half-past—I do not see him before 10 or 11.

CAROLINE BAKER , I was looking out at the window, and flaw the woman spit in the prisoner's face, and then she pushed her hair back and went, and hit him—he gave her a punch in the face, and she fell.

JULIA THOMAS . I live at 7, Salamanca-street—I was looking out of the window, and saw the prisoner and his mother having high words—the deceased came up and interfered—the prisoner's wife then came up—blows were struck, but the prisoner did not interfere—he went and stood by the wall, and the deceased went and spit in his face, and called him names which are disgraceful to utter—she then brushed up her hair, and went up with her double fist to fight him—he gave her one blow, and she fell backwards—I did not hear him call her any names—he was aggravated to do it—if she had her will she would have killed him—he has three little children—the oldest not four years old—he is an affectionate father.

GUILTY Under provocation .— Confined Three Months .

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-648
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

648. FREDERICK JACOB PILLOTT (40) , Feloniously sending to Rachael Chappuis a letter demanding money, with menaces, &c.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE and MR. WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution, and MR. ORRIDGE the Defence.

PAUL EMILE CHAPPUIS . I live at Geneva Villa, Tulse-hill, and am a photographer—I have known the defendant about three years; he was introduced to me by a most respectable gentleman, who I have known for seven years, and who held a responsible situation—the defendant was in the habit of visiting at my house, and I was in the habit of visiting him at his house—he is a married man—there was some disagreement between us with regard to a bill that I sent him in for some photographs—I brought an action against him in the Lord Mayor's Court, and obtained a verdict—the amount I recovered must have been between 30l. and 40l.—I have seen the defendant write—this letter (produced) marked A is in his writing—it is slightly disguised—this letter marked B is in his usual writing—the letter marked C, directed to me, is in his writing, and likewise the writing on the photograph, which is disguised—on all the envelopes there is an S in the corner and a dash at the side—the postmarks are also alike—after my wife had received letter B, she made a communication to me, and it was while I was considering what steps to take that I received letter C—there is a picture on the back of the paper, of my wife in the garden—I remember taking that picture—I only printed one of that particular view—this would be the one—shortly after receiving this photograph, I applied for a warrant against the defendant, and about three weeks afterwards he was taken into custody—I did not receive any letter from the defendant, except this with the photograph, from the time of the action in the Mayor's Court up to the time the defendant was given into custody—(Letter A, read) "Mrs. Chappuis, Geneva Villa, Tulse-hill, 7/2/65. Call for letter. S. E. Brixton; call at your peril, no quarter is given to you if no answer is returned by Friday next"—(letter B: "E. S. Mr. Drayton, Post-office, Brixton-hill. I have but a few words to say I know now what you are, through your speaking, I was mistaken, but I shall now allow you to triumph over me. The law affair has cost me 35l. 15s., and if the same is paid to Mr. Codner, 105, London Wall, City, by Friday next, all I have in hand of yours will be returned, ring, coin, garter, etc., if not I shall give instructions to my lawyer to demand it of you, and although I cannot recover, you being a married woman, I will and shall show all and everything. End of the month I leave England. As soon as the money is paid

to Mr. Codner, who knows nothing about it, your things will be returned to you by Brixton. I wish to spare you all unpleasantness and trouble, but if you compel me to act I will do, and let it take its course before a jury," letter C: "To my beloved Emile, C. W. Palace, Geneva Villa, lobster-shop, railway carriage, Dulwich-wood, and Penton-place. Shall hear more in a day or two. E. S. Brixton. 1st April."

Cross-examined. Q. Are you an Englishman? A. No, the prisoner is not a fellow-countryman of mine, I am happy to say—we were on very intimate terms with him for some time—the dispute arose about some photographs after I had shut my door on him; I made a demand of money on him, and he refused to pay it, and I brought an action against him—the dispute commenced when I demanded the money—I found out things about the defendant which showed me that it was better that I should dispense with his acquaintance—the photographs were of his sister and his nieces on horseback—they were not taken at my house—they were taken in the open air, some near his house, and some in another place—he has his niece taken on horseback, it was his suggestion—the defendant paid 4l. into court, and said he was not indebted for the remainder—I succeeded in recovering the balance—counsel appeared for both sides—I might have taken six or seven dozen photographs for him—this is the bill (produced)—the first date here is July 3d, 1863—I took some before that, which were paid for—I delivered the order on 16th May, 1864, with this bill—I was not taking photographs for him all that time—there was only a trifle in July, 1863—I did not send the bill in—the last were taken in April, 1864, and I sent them in in May with the bill—I have seen him write three or four times—I saw him write in his house and in my house—I know his writing as well as I know my own—I believe I saw him write an address in Fleet-street, where I was to write to him in the country—I could not tell you what he wrote in my house—I have received letters from him repeatedly—I saw him after the action was settled—I consulted Mr. Beard, my solicitor, about preferring this charge, and I spoke to Mr. Montague Williams about it, and he told me to wait—I afterwards went to a solicitor—Mr. Beard has not been employed by me before—I knew him by reputation.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. You say you have received a great number of letters from the prisoner? A. Yes, during the whole progress of our acquaintance—from those letters and from seeing him write, I obtained a knowledge of his writing—some of the letters connected with the action are here—after receiving letters from him, I have spoken to him about their contents—I have learnt the character of his writing—I have not the slightest doubt on the subject.

RACHEL CHAPPUIS . I am the wife of Mons. Chappuis—this is a photograph of myself—it is the only one that was taken of me in that position—I showed it to the prisoner and he kept it—I am sure that is the only one that was taken—I believe these letters to be in the prisoner's writing.

Cross-examined. Q. Were you very friendly with the prisoner for some time? A. We were very intimate with the family—the prisoner met me at different times after the dispute about the photographs and the action—he used frequently to be walking about Norwood, and he met me several times—that was without the knowledge of my husband—the prisoner never acknowledged that he felt aggrieved about the claim for the photographs—he never complained to me of the demand—I asked him at one time if he thought it was not a fair claim, and he never said he did not—I said, "Why do not you settle it?" I never saw him after the 35l. was recovered, never

after the action—I saw him while it was pending—he never said then that it was not a fair charge, or anything—I asked him to settle the matter, as it was very unpleasant—I have never received any money from him at any time, neither in the shape of a loan, nor in any way whatever—I could not tell you the date that this photograph was taken from me—I think it was in June, last year—I was either in Norwood, or in Coxhead-lane, at the back of our house—I had several photographs in my purse, unmounted, and the prisoner selected this one and another from amongst them—it was the end of May, or June—I think it was after the action was brought—after my husband had forbidden him the house—I do not think the reason my husband forbade him the house was because he fancied we were too good friends—he said there were many things he had seen which he did not like—my husband never had a suspicion of me, nor has he since—he said there were certain conversations he had had with the prisoner that he did not like, and that he did not think he was a fit man to come to our house—I saw him very many times after that, because he was constantly about there—I did not complain to my husband of his having walked with me.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. You did not mention the fact to your husband at all? A. I did not, until after I received that letter—no act of impropriety of any kind ever took place between me and the prisoner.

COURT. Q. There is a picture on the back of that paper, round which the writing is, is that a photograph of you? A. It looks very like one—I don't know how he came by that—he was very intimate, coming to the house—he may have other photographs of me now—my husband very frequently took photographs of me as trials, or for amusement.

CHARLES REVELL (Policeman, R 175). I received a warrant from the Lambeth police-court, on 8th April, to take the prisoner—I went to his house, and found him ill in bed, and in consequence of what the doctors said, I could not execute the warrant till about three weeks afterwards—on 28th, the day before I executed the warrant, I received a letter—he surrendered on 5th May—I saw him at his house on 1st May and arranged with him to surrender on 5th—I told him he was charged with writing a letter to Mr. Chappuis, containing a photograph of his wife—he said, "I did write a letter to Mr. Chappuis, but I know nothing of any portrait"

COURT Q. Did you have any communication with the prisoner respecting the letter you received? A. I did not


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-649
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

649. FREDERICK JACOB PILLOTT was again indicted for unlawfully publishing a certain libel upon Rachel Chappuis, with intent to extort money; to which he

PLEADED GUILTY .— Confined Eighteen Months.

12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-650
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

650. WILLIAM DAY (21) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Joseph Parkes, and stealing therein a scarf and a waistcoat, his property.

MR. HARRIS conducted the Prosecution.

JOSEPH PARKES . I live at 4, Willow-court, Union-street, Southwark—I know the prisoner well—on the night of 8th May, about 10 o'clock, I fastened up my premises safe before going to bed—at a quarter-past 1, I was awoke by the noise of a little dog barking—I came down stairs and found the middle door and the front door open—I had a lamp in my hand—I saw the prisoner running away—I found a small hole over my wash-house where he had broken through—he got in at a little window, and then broke a portion of the flooring away and got into my wash-house—I missed my scarf and waistcoat, nothing else then—they were hanging behind the door when I

went to bed—I went to bed again afterwards—about 6 o'clock I went to the police-station, and at a quarter before 9 I gave the prisoner in custody for robbing me.

COURT. Q. Had the prisoner been in your employment? A. Yes, he has worked for me—the last time was about a twelvemonth ago—I have been in the habit of seeing him since—he came to me about a quarter or twenty minutes to 9, and then I charged him—he said he would throw a brick through my spring van—he came and complained of my charging him.

HENRY PARKES . I am the son of the last witness, and live with him—I know the prisoner—on the morning of 9th May, about 1 o'clock or a quarter-past, the prisoner came to my bed and pulled a coat off, which awoke me—he went to the door and then came back and went to the mantelpiece and struck a light—he then went to the door again and took a waistcoat and scarf—he then went outside and talked to somebody—I saw him quite clearly—I am quite sure he is the man—I saw him by the moonlight before he struck the light and afterwards—no other boy was sleeping with me that night.

HENRY GREEN (Policeman, M 114). The prisoner was given into my custody for stealing a waistcoat and scarf from the prosecutor's house—he denied taking them.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate;—"I was not there at all. As I heard the prosecutor accused me of the robbery, I went to him of my own accord."

Prisoner's Defence. I am sure I am not guilty.


12th June 1865
Reference Numbert18650612-651
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

651. JOHN REGAN (17), PLEADED GUILTY to a robbery on Mary Winter, and stealing 1 purse and 1l. 5s., the property of Robert Winter.

Confined Eight Months.


View as XML