Old Bailey Proceedings.
9th July 1866
Reference Number: t18660709

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
9th July 1866
Reference Numberf18660709

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, July 9th, 1866, and following days,

BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. BENJAMIN SAMUEL PHILLIPS, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Right Hon. Sir JAMES ALEXANDER COCKBURN, Knt., Lord Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench; DAVID SALOMONS, Esq., M.P.; WILLIAM ANDERSON ROSE, Esq., and WARREN STORMES HALE, Esq., M.P., Aldermen of the said City; the Right Hon. RUSSELL GURNEY, Esq., Q.C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; JOHN JOSEPH MECHI, Esq, and ROBERT BESLEY, Esq., Aldermen, &c.; THOMAS CHAMBERS, Esq., Q.C., M.P., 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.









A star (*) denotes that the 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, July 9th, 1866.

Before Mr. Recorder.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-587
VerdictsNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

587. CHARLES ISAAC FOWLER (24) was indicted for embezzling 1l. 7s. 7d., 2l. 1s. 3d., 2l. 1s. 3d., and also three other sums, received on acount of Richard Laming, his master; also for embezzling three other sums.

MR. METCALFE, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.


9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-588
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

588. RICHARD POWELL (46) , Stealing 27 1/2; yards of cloth of Adolphus Hertzberg and another.

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

ADOLPHUS HERTZBERG . I am a warehouseman, of 95, Wood Street—I have one partner—the prisoner was in our employ as a jobbing porter—this cloth is my property, it is worth 6l.—the prisoner had no authority to remove it—he had just been paid.

Cross-examined. Q. How long have you employed him? A. About three years, but I have many times missed things from the warehouse—the cloth was lying on the top of a pile of goods near the door leading out of the warehouse—there are many persons about the warehouse.

WILLIAM JOHN JONES . I am in the prosecutor's employ—about half-past two on the afternoon of 21st June I was in the office on the second floor—I saw the prisoner take a piece of cloth out of the warehouse—I followed him out, and found him on the landing outside; he had the cloth under his arm—I took it from him and called out, and he was given into custody—I saw him take the cloth off a pile near the door.

Cross-examined. Q. It was close to the door, was it not? A. Yes, I was a few yards from him—he could not see me, because there was a partition dividing the office from the warehouse—there was no one else in

the warehouse at the time—this cloth was just inside the door—when you get just outside the door you come on to the landing, and there are the steps—when I called out, he did not say, "What are you calling out about?" I told him he had taken a piece of cloth—he did not say,"I have taken no cloth, there is the cloth," or anything like that—I did not see him stoop down before he took it.

MR. COOPER. Q. How high was that pile off which he took it? A. About five feet six inches—I called out "Mr. Hart"—he is one of the partners.

SAMUEL KNIGHT (159, City Police). I took the prisoner into custody—I told him the charge, he denied it—he was in the warehouse when I took him.

JURY to W. J. JONES. Q. Was the door from the warehouse into the landing, open? A. He was shutting it—he had to open it to go out, and he was shutting it when I stopped him; he was then outside on the landing—he took the cloth, opened the door, went out, and closed it—I followed him.

ADOLPHUS HERTZBERG (Re-examined). Goods when sent out are packed up in a wrapper—we never send out a piece of goods without a piece of wrapper, or a basket, or something—this is a latch-door; it opens into the warehouse.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate:—I did not go outside the door with it.

GUILTY .*— Confined 12 months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-589
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

589. JOHN HOUGHTON (19) , Stealing a coat, the property of William Bellaby.

WILLIAM BANFORD . I live at 1, Emmett's Terrace, Ratcliff—on Thursday, 21st June, I saw the prisoner against the side of the Tower—I saw a youth cross the road and hand the prisoner a coat—I went across the road to them—he turned his head, and, seeing me, he took to his heels, and dropped the coat—I ran after them, crying, "Stop thief"—a police constable joined in the chase, and brought the prisoner back—the one who brought the coat out got away—I did not see where it was brought from.

Prisoner. Q. Did I receive the coat? A. Yes. You held out your hand for it, and the other one gave it you.

WILLIAM BELLABY . I am a labourer, living at 1, Gloucester Place—I was at work on Tower Hill on 21st June—I left my coat on the top of the pit, the sewer where I was at work—I next saw the coat in the constable's hand—it had been safe about five minutes before—this is the coat (produced).

JOHN STEVENS (137 H). I was on duty in the neighbourhood of Tower Hill on 21st June—I heard a cry of "Stop thief!" and saw the prisoner running—I ran after him and stopped him, and picked up this coat.

WILLIAM BANFORD (Re-examined). I know the pit where this coat was placed—the prisoner was about five or six yards from there when he received the coat.

GUILTY .**— Confined 18 months .

The following prisoners PLEADED GUILTY:—

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-590
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

590. HENRY BURGESS (60) , to feloniously uttering counterfeit coin, after previous convictions.— Five Years' Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-591
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

591. WILLIAM MORRIS (27) , to a like offence.— Eighteen Months . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-592
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

592. THOMAS WILLIAMS (60) , to a like offence.— Twelve Months . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-593
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

593. JOHN WALKER (15) , to stealing a handkerchief from the person of Matthew Drew, after a previous conviction.— Eighteen Months . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-594
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

594. GEORGE FARDELL (35) , to stealing, whilst employed in the Post Office, three post letters of her Majesty's Postmaster-General.— Five Year' Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And,

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-595
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

595. CHARLES RICHARD HANSON (19) , to a like offence.— Five Years' Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

NEW COURT.—Monday, July 9th, 1866.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-596
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

596. JOHN KNIGHT** (36), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a coat, the property of James Hall, after a previous conviction.— Ten Tears' Penal Servitude .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-597
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

597. JOHN WARD (24) , to embezzling the sums of 2l. 9s. 2d. and 1l. 13s. 6d. of John Reynolds, his master, who recommended him to mercy.— Confined Four Months . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-598
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

598. THOMAS THORNE (46) , to embezzling 1l. 6s. 6d. of Henry Harris, his master, who recommended him to mercy.— Four Months . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-599
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

599. PAUL WANGLER** (20) , to stealing three coats and other articles, the property of John Stamford Burrows, after a previous conviction.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And,

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-600
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

600. ANTONY MANCHIN (17) , to stealing a watch and other articles, the property of Celestin Grosrey, his master; also to embezzling the sum of 6l. 4s. of his said master; also to unlawfully obtaining 6l. 4s. of George Dean by false pretences. Recommended to mercy by the prosecutor.— Confined Twelve Months . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-601
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

601. CHARLES THOMAS (22) Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Nathaniel Jacobson, and stealing therein two candle-sticks and one pair of boots, his property.

MR. LANGFORD conducted the Prosecution.

NATHANIEL JACOBSON . I live at 51, St. Paul's Road, Canonbury—on 5th July I went to bed, having looked round and seen the house safe—my daughter disturbed me at about two o'clock, and I sprang a rattle—a neighbour came—I went round the house, and found the side door belonging to the garden had been opened, and a zinc plate which had formed a ventilation, to the pantry had been cut out—it had been fixed in the brickwork like a window—I cannot say whether a man could get through the hole, but a large boy could—I found a pair of boots outside—a constable came—I looked over the house, and in about an hour some candlesticks were brought, which I had left in a cheffonier which was unlocked.

WILLIAM PATIS (107 N). On the morning of 5th July I was on duty in St. Paul's Road, Canonbury—soon after two o'clock I heard a rattle, and went to Mr. Jacobson's house—he gave me some information, and about an hour afterwards I saw the prisoner, and two others not in custody, coming from Canonbury Park Square, about 200 yards from the prosecutor's house—when they saw me coming they turned and went away—I ran after them, and saw the prisoner throw a bundle over some railings into a garden—I went after him—he ran into another garden—I went after him, and he threw a stone at me—he afterwards ran into a garden where I had seen him before, and I saw him get out of an empty waterbutt—I was with 34 N—we went into a house where there was some glass broken, and found the prisoner up a chimney—we were obliged to light some paper in the chimney before we could get him down—I left him in the sergeant's charge, went to the garden

where I saw him throw something, and found this bundle, containing two candlesticks.

Prisoner. I deny throwing a stone at him—he hit his head against the railings. Witness. You did, and you hit my head with it—there was nobody else to do it—you were not going towards the house, but from it.

JOHN STALLAN (Police Sergeant 34 N). I was with Patis—I heard a rattle spring, and found the prisoner about six feet up the kitchen chimney of a house—it was very thick with soot, not having been swept for twenty years—I told him that if he did not come down I should light a fire—I lit some paper and he came down—I saw the hole which had been covered up with perforated zinc—it was quite large enough for him to get through—the other men got away.

Prisoner's Defence. I was coming from Holloway, and saw two bundles in a garden—I picked them up and put them under my coat—I saw the policeman coming, and threw them into the garden—I never threw a stone at the policeman.

GUILTY .— Confined Nine Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-602
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

602. EDWARD BAMFIELD (25) , Unlawfully attempting to obtain 108 yards of ribbon by false pretences.

MR. M. WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution, and MR. COLLINS the Defence.

PHILIP ALPETER . I am a foreign importer, carrying on business with my partner at 4, Milk Street—I knew the prisoner—he was in the employ of Peter Jackson, belt and brace manufacturer, of Aldermanbury—on the afternoon of 28th June he came to me and said, "Have you got any of the ribbon in stock the same as the pattern I had a fortnight ago?"—I said, "Yes"—he said, "I shall not want much to-day; I will only take three pieces"—(I knew that he was in Peter Jackson's employ when he came for the pattern)—I made out an invoice for the three pieces, and said, "Is it Peter Jackson or Peter Jackson & Co.?"—he said, "Peter Jackson"—three pieces are 108 yards, and the value is 1l. 16s.—I handed him the signature book—he signed this entry (produced)—I gave him the parcel and he left; but before he was out of the house I went after him and said, "I will come with you to Mr. Jackson, and see if this is correct, because I have heard you have left there"—he owned at once that it was not for Mr. Jackson, and I said that I would give him in charge—he begged me not to do so, and said that he would pay me for the goods—I told him I must give him in charge for the sake of the trade—I thought I was parting with the goods to Peter Jackson—I do not think I should have credited the goods to the prisoner if I had known that they were for his private use.

EDWARD TOMLIN . I am in the employ of Peter Jackson, of Alderman-bury—the prisoner was their warehouseman, and was discharged on 26th May—he was not in their employ in June—if we required those goods it would be necessary for him to have an order from me—I gave him no such order.

Cross-examined. Q. Then I may take it he was not in the employ a fortnight before 28th June? A. He was not.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I cannot have been in my right mind at the time." NOT GUILTY .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-603
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

603. JAMES WALMISLEY (29) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Frederick Watkins, and stealing 14 tame fowls, his property.

FREDERICK WATKINS . I live at 3, Munster Street, Regent's Park, and am an oilman—on Saturday morning, 9th June, I heard my fowls making a great noise in the back yard, at about half-past three o'clock—I went to sleep again—I got up about half-past seven or twenty minutes to eight, and found the front kitchen, door broken open—that is an outer door—it leads from the yard into the kitchen—the padlock of the fowl house was broken, and I missed 14 fowls, which I had seen safe at half-past one in the night—I saw them at the police-station dead, and knew them directly—the kitchen door leads into the dwelling-house;—a person would be obliged to go that way to steal the fowls—I had barricaded one way—I did not know the prisoner before—two inner doors were broken besides the outer one, which would enable him to get at the fowls.

WALTER GRIGSBY (Policeman). On 9th June I was on duty in Fitzroy Square about four in the morning, and saw the prisoner carrying a bag—I asked him what he had got—he said, "Look for yourself," and threw it off his shoulder—I found 14 fowls in it, which had been recently killed—they were hot—I took him to the station, and said, "Where did you get them?"—he made no answer.

Prisoner's Defence. A man offered me 1s. to carry the bag to Leadenhall Market—I did not know what it contained. GUILTY . He was further charged with having been before convicted.

CHARLES TURNER (338 S). I find a certificate (read) Marylebone Police Court. James Walmisley, convicted, on his own confession, July, 1865, of stealing fowls. Confined Six Months. I was present—the prisoner is the person.

GUILTY. Confined 18 Months.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, July 10th, 1866.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-604
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

604. HENRY BURNS (14) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously forging and uttering an order for the payment of 6l., also an order for 4l., with intent to defraud.— Confined Nine Months and Four years in a reformatory .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-605
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

605. HENRY FERRIS (28) , to unlawfully obtaining 3l. 3s. 6d., 1l. 17s. 9d., and 2l. 11s. 7d. by false pretences, with intent to defraud.— Confined One Month . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-606
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

606. JOHN COX**(23) , to stealing a purse and 2l. 10s. of Elizabeth Gallagher from her person, having been before convicted.— Seven Years in Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-607
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

607. HENRY HAZELL (32) , to stealing six shirts of Edward Baker , also to seven other indictments for stealing shirts from divers persons. He received a good character.— Confined Twelve Months . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-608
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

608. JEREMIAH CRONAN *†(20) and JAMES COLEMAN** (20) , to a robbery on William Brown, and stealing from his person one watch and part of a chain, his property,— Five Years each in Penal Servitude . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And,

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-609
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

609. ROBERT WOODWARD (30) , to two indictments for embezzling 24l., 25l. 5s., 14l. 13s., and other sums, of Charles William Cook worthy Hutton and another, his masters. Strongly recommended to mercy by the prosecutors, on account of his family and his bad health.— To enter into his own recognisances to appear and receive judgment when called upon . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-610
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

610. JAMES ALLEN (34) and THOMAS DWYER (19) , Stealing one gelding and one rug, the property of James Meacock.

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

JAMES MEACOCK . I am a gasfitter, of 40, West Smithfield, and have

stables in Sharpe's Alley—on 21st June I received a horse from the Smithfield station-house—it was mine, and had been standing at the factory in Sharpe's Alley the night before—Taylor gave me a horserug of mine at his place—it was on the horse's back when he was taken away.

Cross-examined. Q. Was it a very old horse? A. No; he was not blind or a roarer—I gave 30 guineas for him.

ANN WORMENTER . I am servant to Mrs. Harvey, of Sharpe's Alley, West Smithfield—Mr. Meacock's stables are there—on Wednesday night, 20th June, about ten minutes to ten, I saw a short man take the horse out of the stable and lead it into West Street—I saw Dwyer in Sharpe's Alley that night about nine o'clock dressed as he is now—he passed me, and I had a good sight of him—I am sure of him—I had never seen him before.

JAMES BRENT . I am an errand boy, and live at 1, Faulkner's Court, Cow Cross—on 20th June, a little before twelve at night, I was playing in the road in West Street and saw the prisoner Allen riding a horse which I have since seen in the stable and recognised as Mr. Meacock's.

SAMUEL DOBELL (147 X). On 21st June, about half-past ten in the morning, I went with another policeman to a stable in Carlisle Mews, Edgware Road, and saw Allen there—I told him I had come to take him in custody for being concerned, with other men not in custody, in stealing a horse belonging to Mr. Meacock—he said, "I had nothing to do with stealing the horse, two men brought it to my master's stables last night, it remained there about two hours, and then I took it round to Mr. Taylor's and sold it for 3l., Dwyer and two other men went to Mr. Taylor's and knocked him up, he looked out at his window, and they asked him if he would buy the horse, he said, 'Yes,' they asked 6l. first, he said that he would not give more than 3l., a cabman named Couzens went up for the money, he gave it to them, and they went to a public-house and had some drink"—he said that he did not know the other men, or why they brought the horse to his master's—I found on Allen one shilling and a halfpenny.

Cross-examined. Q. Did he not say, "The horse was brought to our mews last night about half-past ten for my master to buy?" A. I believe he did.

ARTHUR WOODMAN (83 X). I was with Dobell when he took Allen—I took Dwyer at 8, Duke Street, Marylebone—I said, "I shall take you in custody; you are charged with stealing a horse of Mr. Meacock's, from West Street, Smithfield"—he said, "I know nothing about it, I had nothing to do with it, the horse was brought last night about half-past ten to Carlisle Mews, I went with Allen and two other men to Mr. Taylor's, and sold the horse for 3l., I said to Allen at the time I thought that the horse was stolen"—I took Dwyer to the station, searched him, and found fourpence and a common key on him.

GEORGE MORLEY . I live at 18, Greville Street, Leather Lane, and am ostler to Mr. Meacock, whose stables are in Sharpe's Alley—about a quarter-past seven o'clock on the night of 20th June I left Mr. Meacock's horse in the stable—that was the only horse there—the stable door was fastened with a button, and the yard-gate with a padlock—I buttoned the door, locked the gate, and took the key with me—about a quarter-past six next morning the padlock was gone, and the horse also, with the head-stall and cloth—I have seen the horse since—it is the same.

Cross-examined. Q. What coloured horse was it? A. A dark bay, not a chestnut.

RICHARD TAYLOR . I am a Cowkeeper, of 6, Grove Mews, Lisson

Grove—on the night of 20th June four men came to my place with a horse—the prisoners are two of them—I had had a drop of drink, and was in bed—I was called by Couzens—one of the men said that they had got an old horse to sell—I put my head out at the window and could just see the horse—that was all—they asked 4l. for it, and then 3l. 10s.—I bought it for 3l.—Couzens was standing with them—he said that it was a "ball," and a. broken-kneed one—a "ball" is a roarer—the horse-cloth was left with the horse—I gave it to Mr. Meacock the next morning, and he and I took the horse to the station.

Cross-examined. Q. Did Couzens call you up and describe the animal? A. Yes.

JOSEPH COUZENS . I live at 5, Grove Mews—on 20th June at midnight I came in with my cab—the prisoner and two other men were at Taylor's door—I asked them what they were doing—they said that they were knocking Mr. Taylor up, as they had a horse to sell—I said, "I will knock him up"—I did so, and went about my business—Taylor afterwards sent to say he wanted to speak to me—I eventually got two sovereigns and two half-sovereigns from Mr. Taylor to pay the men—I put the horse in Taylor's stable.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you pay the money to the prisoners? A. No—they gave me nothing for my trouble, but we all went and had something to drink—I gave the money to one of the other two men—he had a moustache.


9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-611
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

611. JOHN PEARCE (23) and JAMES KELLY (18) , Robbery on Robert Thurlow, and stealing from his person 17s. 8d., his money.

MR. COOPER Prosecuted.

ROBERT THURLOW (City Police Sergeant 58). On Wednesday night, 4th July, about ten minutes to twelve o'clock, I was in plain clothes near the Tower ditch, and met five men—I swear positively to Pearce, and have no doubt Kelly is another—I stood one side, to allow them to pass me, on some blue clay near some sewage works—Pearce struck me, and I fell—he then got on me, tore my watchguard from my pocket, and attempted to take my watch—Kelly was at my trousers pocket, and attempted to take my money—my pocket was completely torn away—about 17s. 8d. was stolen from me—I called out "Police!" and Pearce took up some blue moist clay and plastered it in my mouth—I struggled hard with them, and eventually they got away—I was in the act of getting up when I was kicked on the kneecap by one of them—I saved my watch—I pursued them, but I was not able to run, and they got away.

Pearce. Q. Look at me, and see if I am the man. A. I am positive of you—I know you by your moustache and general appearance—there were lights at the top of the sewage works not six yards off.

JOSEPH NEWMAN (146 H). On 5th July, about half-past one in the morning, the prisoners and some others were pointed out to me—they ran down a court—I secured Kelly, and Fox took Pearce—I told Kelly I wanted him—he said that he knew nothing about what it was for—I took him to the prosecutor, who said, "That is the man"—I then told him the charge.

Pearce's Defence. I was pretty well tipsy when I met this sailor chap, and as I spoke to him several persons jumped upon him, and I was taken to the station-house—I was not with them—a ship's steward who was with

me, and who can be found, can prove that I am innocent, and if he cannot be found there is another man, but I do not know his name.

JOHN FOX (Policeman). I took prisoner on the morning of the 5th, about half-past one o'clock, on a charge of robbing Mullens, a sailor—he said that he had struck him, but had not robbed him—I knew of the robbery on Thurlow, but said nothing about it, as I took him on a different charge—his dress was pulled about, but it was not covered with mud.


9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-612
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

612. JOHN PEARCE and JAMES KELLY were again indicted for a robbery on Hugh Mullens, and stealing from his person four pieces of paper and 18s. in money, his property.

MR. COOPER conducted the Prosecution.

HUGH MULLENS . I am a seaman, and live at 11, Upper East Smithfield—on 4th July, about one o'clock in the morning, I was passing Rosemary Lane, on my way home, and met Pearce—he walked by my side, and in about five minutes Kelly and four men came up—Pearce then struck me a hard blow on my nose and on my mouth, which made me bleed—Kelly seized me by the throat and robbed me of 18s. and these four discharge certificates (produced)—I informed the police, who afterwards brought the prisoners to me—I am sure they are the men.

Pearce. I struck you, but that is not robbing you. Was I by myself? A. Yes, at first.

JOSEPH NEWMAN (146 H). On 4th July, about half-past one in the morning, I received information from Mullens, who pointed out Pearce, and I saw four persons—Kelly was among them—I pursued Kelly, and took him back to Mullens, who identified him directly—I searched him at the station, and found 7d. on him.

JOHN FOX (144 H). I took Pearce in Royal Mint Street at half-past one in the morning of 6th July, and found on him these four discharges—Mullens identified him as soon as he saw him.

Pearce's Defence. I own I struck him—one of the men asked me if I should know the prosecutor again—I said "Yes," and he gave me these discharges to give to him if I saw him.


Five Year each in Penal Servitude .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-613
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

613. STEPHEN WILLIAMS (35) , Feloniously forging and uttering an acceptance for 7l. 12s. with intent to defraud.


WILLIAM PRESTON . I am clerk to Williams, Allanson, and Co., brewers, of North Shields—on 15th June I enclosed a Post Office order for 7l. 12s. to Mr. B. S. Williams, Victoria Nursery, Holloway, London—I also enclosed his account, which had to be returned receipted—I fastened my letter, and gave it to another clerk to post.

JOHN HARDY . I am in the employ of Messrs. Allanson—on 15th June I procured a Post Office order for 7l. 12s. at the North Shields office, which I took to my employers—I afterwards received a letter from Mr. Preston, addressed to Mr. Williams, and posted it in the same condition as I received it, between four and five o'clock, at the Bell Inn receiving house, North Shields.

WILLIAM MILNER . I am a clerk in the North Shields post office—on 15th June I issued this order for 7l. 12s. on the Upper Holloway office, for

Messrs. Allanson—I forwarded a letter of advice by the same night's post—a letter posted at the Bell Inn shortly after four o'clock would leave Shields at forty-five minutes past nine, and would be delivered in London next morning by the second delivery—I made up the bag.

GEORGE MENDON . I am sorter at the Northern District Office, London—I remember the northern mail bag arriving at twenty minutes past ten on 16th June from North Shields—it was safely tied and sealed—I opened it and took out the letters—a letter for Mr. B.S. Williams, of Holloway, would be forwarded at half-past twelve o'clock to the Upper Holloway office.

HENRY BOURNE . I am a sorter in the northern office—I made up the mail bag on 16th June for the Upper Holloway office—a letter for Mr. B.S. Williams, of Holloway, would be forwarded in that bag.

LEWIN HATBUNN . I am head letter carrier at the Upper Holloway sorting office—the prisoner was a letter carrier employed there—I received the northern mail bag on 16th June shortly after one o'clock—the prisoner was then on duty—I assist in sorting letters that come in the bag—he should have sorted any letters for Mr. Williams, of the Victoria Nursery, to me—I delivered all letters that came into my hands for Mr. Williams that day.

WILLIAM HAWKINS . I am cashier to Mr. Benjamin Williams, of Victoria Nursery—Allanson and Co. are his customers—I received no letter from them containing an order on 16th June—I am authorised to give receipts for orders—I know nothing of the prisoner—I never authorised him to sign this order.

JOSIAH BARRETT . I am assistant to Mrs. Rait, who keeps the receiving house in Manor Place, Upper Holloway—I received this letter of advice, and afterwards, about three o'clock, the prisoner came in plain clothes and presented this order—I said I had not sufficient cash, as I had been paying a large amount away, and asked him to call about five o'clock—he called at five, and waited ten minutes, and then gave me the order not signed—I gave it him back again to sign, and he at once signed it "B.S. Williams," which was the name in my letter of advice—I asked him who it came from—he said Mr. H. Allanson, of North Shields—that corresponded with my letter of advice—I asked him his name—he said, "B.S. Williams," and I at once paid him—he did not count the money, but swept it off the counter and dropped some of it on the floor—that excited my suspicion—he seemed to be in a great hurry—I got out and gave instruction to another assistant, Mr. Paddy, to watch him—I afterwards picked the prisoner out at the Holloway sorting office.

WILLIAM HENRY PADDY . I am assistant to Mrs. Rait—on 16th June, about three o'clock, the prisoner came to the office—I saw him again about five—he then received some money—he swept it off the counter, and put it into his pocket—he dropped a sovereign—he left, and I followed him to the Cock Tavern, at the corner of Grove Road—he went up Grove Road—I followed him—he turned down Devonshire Road, where I lost sight of him, and went back to the office—he did not go in the direction of the nursery—on 2nd July I saw him delivering letters—I have no doubt he is the same person.

Prisoner. Q. You said before the magistrate that you saw me with a woman? A. Yes—it was four or five minutes' walk to the public-house.

COURT. Q. Where was the woman? A. At the corner of the Cock Tavern—after speaking to her he went on—he had dark clothes on and a black hatband.

HENRY BINGHAM . I am an officer attached to the Post Office—I took the prisoner on 3rd July—I went to his house, 47, Devonshire Road, and found a suit of mourning and a hat with a band on it—he lives four doors down from where Paddy lost sight of him, so that he would be inside his house before Paddy got to the corner.

Prisoner's Defence. I never was in company with a woman in the Holloway Road—I had the black clothes ever since the death of my last child, six weeks ago—my wife is dangerously ill at home.

COURT to WILLIAM PRESTON. Q. Did the letter in which you enclosed the order contain the name of the person to whom it was payable? A. Yes; and the name of Mr. Allanson, and all the particulars.

GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-614
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

614. WILLIAM MITCHELL (30) and MONTAGUE AMBROSE (25) , Unlawfully obtaining a Post Office order for 9l. and a promissory note for 150l. by false pretences.

MR. SERJEANT PARRY and MR. POLAND prosecuted, and MR. RIBTON defended Ambrose.

MARIA DORLING . I am the wife of George Dorling, of 422, Euston Road—my husband has lived there for sixteen years and I thirteen years—we keep an oyster shop—early in November last the prisoner Mitchell called, and asked if I would be kind enough to oblige him by taking in a few letters for his father-in-law, Mr. Crofts, who had come up from the country—I said, "Yes"—he said he would pay me half-a-crown a week for my trouble—after that some letters came addressed, "T. W. Crofts, 422, Euston Road"—next day Ambrose came and asked for letters for Mr. Crofts—I gave them to him—letters arrived nearly every day for three weeks or a month, sometimes two a day, and sometimes three—Ambrose generally came for them—I knew him by the name of Lisson—Mitchell used to be with him, but waited outside—Mitchell never came alone to fetch letters—my husband gave the letters sometimes—Ambrose used to wear a moustache—we keep the whole of the premises—they are very small—there is no London Imperial Advance Company carrying on business there, or any office, or anything of the kind—I never heard of such A company.

Mitchell. Q. I believe you saw Mr. Crofts and made arrangements with him? A. No; but you brought him with you, and said he was your father-in-law—I never saw his two sons—they did not call.

Cross-examined. Q. You say Mitchell came first? A. Yes; and the next time he brought Crofts—the first time that the letters came Mitchell came and brought Ambrose, and asked me to be kind enough and give them to Ambrose—I had seen Mitchell before—he may have come into my shop before for years on and off as a customer—I have seen Mitchell outside on several occasions when Ambrose has called for letters, but have not seen Ambrose deliver them to Mitchell—Ambrose did not open them inside—he went out as if to deliver them to Mitchell—he used to come every morning—I referred him to my husband when the arrangement was made, but he did not see my husband till after the letters came.

MR. POLAND. Q. Did Ambrose pay you the half-crown for taking in the letters? A. Yes—Mitchell never came alone—I only saw Crofts twice—I don't know where he is—I think newspapers came and about a dozen letters altogether—sometimes two and sometimes more—it was going on for three weeks or a month.

GEORGE DORLING . I am the husband of the last witness—I know the prisoners—I saw them both about November and December, and my wife told me of the arrangement she had made—Mitchell or Ambrose came next morning for letters addressed, "T. W. Crofts"—he called for about a month or three weeks almost every morning—Mitchell did not come with him except once, when he said I was to give the letters to Dick, that they were for his father-in-law, and that it was all right—Dick paid me 2s. 6d. a week for taking in the letters—I know him by no other name—I do not know Mr. Crofts—after I had been taking in these letters for some time I received a communication from the police, in consequence of which I spoke to Dick, and said that a policeman named Mason from Albany Street had been there, and that I should not receive any more letters—Ambrose said, "It is all right; I will fetch Mr. Crofts"—he said it was merely an advertisement—he also said, "Will you allow me to continue a little longer, as we cannot alter our advertisement for a few days?"—I agreed to take the letters in for a few days longer—I saw Ambrose after that, and said, "The police have come, and your game is up"—he said, "Oh! no; it is quite right; I will go and fetch Mr. Crofts"—that was the last time I saw him—there is no "London Imperial Loan, Credit, and Advance Company" carried on at my house.

Cross-examined. Q. You are not a director of any company? A. No—when he said he would fetch Mr. Crofts he did not say he would fetch Mitchell also—I have known Mitchell six or seven years—the first time I saw Ambrose was when he was introduced by Mitchell.

JOHN WOOD . I am a batcher, living at Halifax, Yorkshire—in November last I saw this advertisement in a newspaper (This was headed "Money, money, money," and offered loans "at a low rate of interest," and requested borrowers to send a reference and a stamped envelope to T.W. Crofts, 422, Euston Road, London)—Being in want of money, I wrote an answer to that advertisement at the latter end of November (W. T. Kirby here deposed to serving a notice to produce this letter on both the prisoner and on Ambrose's solicitor)—I wrote, "Sir,—I want you to be so good as to send me word how much interest you require me to pay, and let me know what you mean by a reference"—I addressed it, "T. W. Crofts, 422, Euston Road, London," and received this answer, "December 7, 1865. Yours is to hand, with enclosure, and immediately I hear from your reference the same shall have attention and the matter as speedily arranged as possible. T. W. Crofts."—after that I received this letter (This was dated December 9, 1865, 422, Euston Road, from T. W. Crofts to W. T. Kirby, informing him that a loan of £150 was granted to him for 12 years, at 6 per cent., to be repaid by instalments during the last six years, and that on receipt of £9 for the first year' interest by Post Office order, made payable to T. W. Crofts, at the Charing Cross post office, the amount would be sent either in two large bank notes or in tens and twenties if preferred, and enclosing the form for a promissory note for 150l.)—I signed the promissory note, and enclosed it with this Post Office order (produced) in a letter which I posted myself—I believed the letters to be genuine business letters, or I should not have parted with my money—I notice here, "Registered 3714," and "Bill book, 84"—I never received the money—I sent a letter three or four days afterwards, and received it back from London opened and marked, "Not to be found"—in one of the letters they stated that they could not correspond with me without my paying half-a-crown, so I enclosed half-a-crown's worth of postage stamps.

ALFRED MATTHEW . I am a clerk in the office of the Halifax Guardian—on the 24th November I received this letter of the 23rd, enclosing 5s. worth of stamps, and an advertisement, which was printed in our paper of 25th November (This was a request to insert the advertisement, signed "T. W. Crofts").

WALTER JOHN RUDDALL . I am a clerk in the General Post Office—all Post office orders that are cashed are forwarded to my office—this order was forwarded to me from the Charing Cross district—it bears their mark of December 13th, which indicates that it has been paid—it is dated the 12th, and signed, "T. W. Crofts."

ROBERT HUTCHINSON . I am assistant to my father, a publican, of the Royal Exchange Tavern, Hartland Road, Camden Town—I have known the prisoner for eight or nine months—the top part of this letter is in Lissen's writing—that is Ambrose—he told me his name was Montague Ambrose Lissen.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you mean to say that the rest of it is not his? A. I cannot say, but the top part is—I have not examined the other part—it was shown to me before I went to the police-court—I looked at it all, and I said that I could only identify the top part—I have examined the other part, and am able to say whose it is.

Court. Q. Why did you say that you had not? A. I had not just now.

MR. RIBTON. Q. On your oath, have you a belief about the first part, and no belief about the rest? A. Yes—I say that it is Ambrose's writing—it seems like his hand—I have had letters from him, and Mr. Smith, the detective, has got one—the flourishing of this "Euston Road" is Ambrose's, and so is this "Advances granted"—he does not always write in this rounded hand—the officer showed me this letter before my evidence at the police-court, and I identified the first part as Lissen's writing.

MR. SERJEANT PARRY. Q. Do you say that you have often seen Ambrose write? A. Yes—I once saw him write a different hand-writing.

THOMAS ECOTT . I live at 40, Holland Road, Kentish Town, and know the prisoners—Mitchell came to lodge with me on 19th August, and Ambrose about 30th September—Mitchell had one room on the first floor, and on 30th September Ambrose took the back room—they continued there until the case happened—I have seen them go out with letters in their hands—I have seen Ambrose take eight or ten letters to the post—they had no office then—they said that they were writing letters for the newspapers—Ambrose left, I believe, the day before Mitchell was taken in custody—he gave me no notice—he did not tell me where he went to—Ambrose used to wear a moustache.

Mitchell's Defence. I was engaged by Croft to get him a place to have his letters directed to—I can neither read nor write, and did not know the nature of the business.

GUILTY .— Five Years each in Penal Servitude .

There were other indictments against the prisoners.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, July 10th, 1866.

Before Mr. Recorder.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-615
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

615. RICHARD ORMEROD POTTS (47) was indicted for unlawfully causing William Gower Break spear to accept a bill of exchange for 200l., with intent to defraud; 19 other counts, varying the manner of stating the charge.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE, with MR. SLEIGH, conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MONTAGUE CHAMBERS, Q. C., M. P., with MR. METCALFE, the Defence.

WILLIAM GOWER BREAK SPEAR . I am at present a lieutenant in the 31st Foot—in November last year I was with my regiment quartered at Aldershot—about the 5th or 6th November last I received this letter—I had subsequent correspondence with the defendant on the subject of it, and about six weeks afterwards I saw him at his house, 57, Cumberland Street, the address on the letter—I replied to that letter, directed to Cumberland Street—I received another letter—that is lost—I destroyed a great many on leaving Aldershot—I have searched for it—this bill was enclosed in the letter—I accepted it and sent it back, addressed to Mr. Ormerod, 57, Cumberland Street—when I saw him I asked where was the bill for 200l., as he had not let me have any money upon it—he said he had it; it was perfectly safe in his hands—it was in consequence of some statements in the letter that I parted with the bill.

WALTER EVELYN GOATLEY . I know the prisoner's handwriting—I believe this letter to be his writing.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you seen him write? A. Yes, frequently—I have seen him write letters in my presence, and I have received letters from him—I am a solicitor—I acted as his solicitor in 1862.

Letter read. "6th November, 1865. To William Gower Break spear, Esq. Sir,—As a retired officer of the army, and therefore aware of the occasional requirements of gentlemen in the service, I take the liberty of acquainting you that I am in a position to make immediate cash advances upon personal security alone, and should you feel at any time disposed to entrust me with your confidence you may rely upon the most entire secrecy being observed towards any transaction. I am, your obedient servant, J. ORMEROD."

MR. BREAKSPEAR (continued). That is the letter I refer to—I sent a reply to that (called for and produced)—this is it (read). "November 7th. My dear Sir,—I can assure you I am very thankful to you for answering my letter so quickly. I have enclosed the bill, signed. I hope you will let me have the money by return of post, if possible"—I have never received one farthing on that 200l. bill—I am at this moment being sued upon that bill.

Cross-examined. Q. You are still in the same regiment, the 31st? A. I am—I have been in the army since 1861—in 1861 I was in the 32nd at Malta, and at home with the depot—I afterwards exchanged into the 31st—I have been with the 31st since 1864—I have lately raised a good deal of money upon bills of exchange, to the amount of about 1800l. or 2000l., I think not more—I have raised it through agents and principals—I raised some money through one agent—the only one I can for certain say was an agent was a man of the name of Pugh—I think he lived in Great Vine Street—I heard from him by his writing to me—I afterwards went to see him—I signed a bill to him for 150l.—that was about November; about the same time I was endeavouring to get money on these acceptances—I had not signed it before I sent up the 200l. acceptance—I think it was afterwards—I can't be certain—I believe it was after I had entered into communication with the prisoner—I can't say to a few days, about a fortnight, I suppose—I think I got 100l. on the 150l. bill—I got it the same day I

saw Pugh—I went with him to get it discounted—Pugh did not put his name on it—it was discounted by a man named Morris, of Regent Street—I don't know what Morris is—it was not Mr. Morris the attorney—I also raised money through a Mr. Hyman Davis, of Bruton Street, Bond Street—I raised 400l. or 500l. through him, upon three or four acceptances, at several times—that was at the end of 1864 and the beginning of 1865—September or October, 1865, I think was the last—there were three or four bills—I don't know exactly the number—the amount was 400l. or 500l.—I had 300l. or 400l. from Davis—I don't know where he got them discounted—I believe he was the principal, he always gave me the money, I am not sure, but I believe he was—he charged me 20 per cent. for three months, not 50—I have also employed Baxter & Co.—they carry on business in a turning out of Regent Street (I forget the name), St. James's Street, I think—I began to have transactions with them, I think, in January or February this year—they did not get me any money—I was only negotiating with them—I asked them to get me 400l.—they told me they were agents, they would try and get me the money—I don't know how long they were trying to get the money—they had the bills some time in their hands—there were two bills, I think two 200l. bills—I have not tried any other persons since—I tried another person before, Percy, of Craig's Court, in the beginning of 1865—I gave him an acceptance—I think the first was 100l.—he discounted it himself—I think he calls it a loan agency—he discounted two or three bills—those bills were running when I applied to the prisoner; I think between 400l. and 500l.—I had no transaction with a person named Thornton—I raised money on one bill from a man named Gorrar—when I applied to the prisoner in November I had not 2000l. worth of acceptances out; I had about 1500l. or 1600l.—I got them discounted—they have been paid since—they are all paid—they were paid this year—not after I had instituted this prosecution—arrangements were made to pay them before—I believe I am right in saying that some of them were paid before—they were all to be paid before, and all have been paid—it was not a part of the arrangement that my acceptances and liabilities should be taken up if I persisted in this prosecution—there is no reason for-saying that—I did not see the prisoner until about six weeks after I had written to him—I believe the 200l. bill was dated the same day as the letter, 7th November—I believe the date is the prisoner's writing—I think it was sent to me ready drawn, but I won't be sure—I suppose it arrived on the 7th—I cannot recollect the day—there are two or three deliveries a day at Aldershot—I cannot recollect at what time in the day I sent the letter off—he answered my first letter—I must have sent him a letter before this one—I cannot find his answer—I have tried to do so when I was sued for the 200l. bill—I do not remember his saying in that letter, "I can get you a bill discounted for 200l. if you will send your acceptance"—he did not say so; as far as I remember, he said he enclosed the bill for 200l., and if I accepted it he would give or send me the money for it; I believe those were the words—if he had sent me the money short of discount it was no business of mine where he got it—I should have written to acknowledge it—I should have said nothing more—I think I had a reply to this letter of 7th November a few days after—I can't say for certain how many days; I think two or three days—I have not got any letter except the first and second—I can't be certain whether I got one or two letters before 15th November—I can't say how many letters I received from him, three or four I think about November—I have

the last letter I received from him—that was after I had found out he had negotiated the bill—that was in February, I think—when I wrote in November, asking for the money by return of post, he answered in a few days that he could not advance me money upon so large an acceptance—it was not that he could not get me the money—on 15th November I received a letter from him stating that I had doubtless been daily expecting to hear from him with reference to my 200l. acceptance—he did not say, "Much greater difficulty exists than I anticipated when I first addressed you. You are, I have ascertained, involved with Mr. C., and Thornton and Co. refuse to touch your paper upon any terms. There is, however, a channel in the City, and I am now waiting the result of their inquiries of your agents, Messrs. Bryce and Bowstead. If their reply is favourable I believe the bill will be done. I hope to be able to write more satisfactorily in a few days."—I got no letter to that effect about 15th November—I have not the least idea who the Mr. C. is that you allude to—I have heard of Mr. Calisher—I never had any transaction with him—I do not know Thornton and Co.—Bryce and Bowstead are army agents—I had not referred the prisoner to them in any way—he could ascertain that they were my agents by looking at the Army List—I did not on 20th November receive a letter to this effect: "No direct information can, it appears, be obtained from Messrs. Bryce and Co., but an offer is made to the following effect: namely, if you are disposed to allow your acceptance for 200l. to remain as a collateral security, the party I alluded to in my letter of the 15th will discount two bills for you of 100l. each."—I believe I sent him a bill for 100l. about 22nd November—I don't know the exact date—that was in consequence of a letter I got from him—this is it (read): "November 22nd. Dear Sir,—I beg to enclose you the bill signed. If you can let me have the other money I shall feel obliged for it. Will you kindly send the money for the enclosed bill to-morrow morning to Norfolk Square Hotel, Paddington, as I shall be passing through London that evening or next morning, and will call for it? Put on, 'To be called for,' and the other money, if you can get it, please send to Aldershot."—I believe this (produced) was the bill I enclosed him on 22nd November—there were two 100l. bills—I cannot tell which was the one I enclosed in that letter—this is dated 21st November—I think I was at the Norfolk Square Hotel, Paddington, about that time—I don't think I found a letter for me there, because I sent a messenger to his house—I did not get a letter containing a cheque of a Mr. Lyon for 50l.—I believe not—I never remember receiving a cheque (looking at a cheque)—I never remember having this—I never remember seeing that cheque—I sent a porter with a letter to the prisoner, asking if he could let me have the money he had promised—I won't be certain whether 50l. in bank notes was sent back by the porter or by post—I received 50l. from him in bank notes—that was after I had sent him this bill on the 22nd—he had then two 100l. bills of mine—I do not remember the day I sent him the first 100l. bill—I don't remember how long it was before this one—I know he had two 100l. bills of mine in his possession—this one was paid by my agents—I have not stated that the 100l. bills were in substitution for the 200l. bill—it is not so—I sent him two 100l. bills, as he asked me, and he asked me at the same time to allow him to keep the 200l. bill as a collateral security—he asked me that by letter, a few days before 22nd November, when he told me he could not cash the large amount—I think it was after I sent him the two bills for 100l.—this is the letter I sent before getting the 50l. (read): "23rd November. Dear Sir,—I have just

received your letter. Will you kindly send part of the money, or a note, tomorrow night, to the same address as the note?"—I had previously received a letter from him—I have lost it—I have lost all the letters—that letter did not refer to Lyon's cheque—I never heard of Lyon, I said just now—I heard of Lyon's cheque at the police-court, and I said I had not received it—I did get the 50l.—I believe I never received the cheque (Mr. Chambers read the following letter:—"November 25th. Dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge your letter. Am I to understand that 50l. is all the value I am to receive out of the first bill, signed for 100l., or do you mean you can let me have the remainder of the first 100l. to-day? I shall be happy to allow my first bill to remain in your hands. When can you let me have the money for the enclosed bill for 100l.? If you can manage the whole to-day I should be very much obliged.")—I sent him this bill, dated 24th November—I don't remember on what day—he told me he could not advance me any more money until I had seen him—I did see him—I don't remember the day—I saw him at his own house in Cumberland Street in December, or the beginning of January—he then told me that he found I had a good many bills out—I sent him this letter of 12th December (read): "I have just got your letter, and the first I have received on the matter. Can you name a day to see me at the Queen's Hotel, North Camp? Say Thursday next, and name hour if you can. Please send or bring the rest of the money."—I never saw him at Aldershot—when I saw him at his own house he said he could not let me have the money, because I had so many bills out—when these bills became due I did not find out that they were in the hands of Mr. Lyon—I don't know that he took up one—he presented one at Cox's—that is the only one I know about—I don't know whether this bill of 21st November was taken up at Cox's or not—one 100l. bill was paid at Cox's, and only one—I asked him at his house what he was going to do—he did not tell me the bill was coming due, and I should have to pay it or he must take it up—we arranged to renew—he had given me 50l., and we arranged to renew a bill for 60l., 10l. being the interest on the 50l. for another three months—he did not arrange that I should give two fresh acceptances—I signed an acceptance, which I thought was for 60l., but it turns out that he afterwards filled it in for 100l.—I did not give him two other bills for 100l. each, not renewals—they were for other money—I did give him two 100l. bills at the Great Western Hotel, Paddington—that was about February, I think—when I signed those other two I renewed one bill for the money I had had—I had had 50l.—I asked him to renew that 100l. bill upon which I had got the 50l.—he was to have a fresh bill for 60l.—I gave him one for 60l., a renewal, and two for 100l.—he was to get one cashed by a man named Gorrar if he could, and the other was to be kept as a collateral security, but which he negotiated, and I got sued for—I gave him three acceptances—one was to be for 60l., but it turned out not to be 60l.—I believe there are three 100l. bills now due—I have not seen the 60l. bill since I gave the acceptance—I gave him 18l. for renewing the bill upon which I had got the 50l.—I gave him a cheque on Cox's—he did not say that he would have to contribute 10l. if the 100l. bill upon which I had got the 50l. was renewed—I renewed it, as I thought, for 60l.—he said he would cancel the 100l. bill if I would give him a bill for 601. for the 50l. I had had—I gave him the 10l. for the next three months' interest—he did not bring me 50l.—he had sent me 50l. three months before—the 100l. bill produced just now was not taken up by him—I believe that to be the bill which he cancelled upon my renewing one, as I

thought, and giving him a bill for 60l.—he said it would be cancelled—I gave a new bill for it—I gave the 10l. for renewing the 50l. that I had had—when I was Sued for the 200l. bill I put the matter into the hands of a solicitor—I asked Mr. Morris to write a letter—I did not afterwards go to Mr. Lyon with Mr. Morris—I went by myself—he lives in the Poultry, I think—I went to ask him if he was the Mr. Lyon whose name was on the back of the 200l. bill—I did not know that he had got the bill; I was not certain of it; I asked him—he said he would make inquiries (I was sued by a man of the name of Solomon, of Bristol, about this bill)—that was all the conversation—he must have parted with it, for Solomon, of Bristol, had got it—he did not say at that time that Mr. Potts had given him into custody for not giving him up the bill—he was not given into custody for six weeks afterwards—I only saw him once—I have never sworn that I heard him say he had been given into custody—I said before the magistrate that I heard he had been given into custody—before and since these proceedings every bill of mine has been paid, with the exception of those bills which the defendant has, the 200l. bill and the other bills—it was long before I was sued on the 200l. bill that I called on Mr. Potts—I never saw Mr. Lyon till after I was sued on the 200l. bill—that was about February or March, I think—it was a three months' bill—Mr. Potts did not tell me that he had arranged with Mr. Lyon to get back the two original bills, to renew one and keep back the other—I never heard of Lyon till I was sued on the 200l. bill—I employed Mr. Morris to write one letter to Mr. Potts; afterwards it came into the hands of my father's solicitor, and I believe he wrote to him about it—the case was never in Mr. Morris's hands, I simply asked him to write a letter to ask him the meaning of my being sued on these bills—I believe Mr. Morris is a solicitor in the Strand—he showed my solicitor a letter that he got in reply, which I saw—I don't know who has got it—I believe I heard from Mr. Potts my-self—I believe that letter is in the hands of my solicitor—I suppose Mr. Morris has the reply that was sent to him—this (produced) is the letter that was sent to me (this was not read)—Mr. Potts was not to get me the money from Gorrar on the 60l. bill—it was on a bill of 100l.—he told me when I signed the two 100l. bills that he would get the money, that he could not give it me himself, he would get it from a man in the city—that was Gorrar.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. With regard to the bills of Pugh, Davis, and Percy, you received consideration for them, according to the agreement made? A. Yes—they openly charged me with the interest, and I paid it—I quite understood that they charged me the interest—every one of those bills has been paid—with regard to Baxter and Company they retained the bills for a time, and then, finding they could not negotiate them, returned them—the bills arising out of these transactions with the prisoner amount to 700l., of which a bill of 100l. was paid by Cox's, my agents—the bill of Gorrar has been paid by me—all I have received upon all the transactions was 50l. originally, and another 50l. from Gorrar—then I paid back 10l., leaving 90l.—I am being sued on the other bills at the present time—I never heard of Lyon until after I had been sued on the 200l. bill—I mentioned to my solicitor that I had lost the letters sent to me at Aldershot—I first mentioned it publicly before the magistrate, I believe on the first occasion—I was not cross-examined as to some supposed letters until the subsequent examination—I had then stated that I had lost them.

RICHARD HUMPHREYS . I am one of the officers of the Insolvent Debtors Court—I produce the proceedings in the insolvency of Richard Ormerod Potts for the years 1850, 1852, and 1857—the petition in the first was filed on 18th December, 1850; in the second, 20th August, 1852; and in the third, 17th December, 1857—as to the first, the date of his final examination and being heard for discharge was 27th June, 1851—his debts were returned as 2257l., and credits 233l. 9s.—some of the credits are returned as good, some doubtful, and some bad—in 1852 the debts were returned as 109l. odd, and the credits nil—in 1857 the debts were returned as 449l., and credits nil—the endorsement on the proceedings is, "Insolvent does not appear, if he applies under 28th section, see the commissioner's note to-day." (In the proceedings the insolvent described himself as having served in the army in India and various places, and as subsequently passing by different names at a variety of residences. On the second insolvency he appeared to have been discharged by the detaining creditor.)

HENRY LANDON BUCK . I was managing clerk to the firm of Baxter, Rose, and Norton—in 1863 I obtained an order from the Divorce Court for the payment of 487l., the costs of the corespondent, Lord Bateman—I have not got them—I gave instructions for demand to be made upon the prisoner, but he could never be found—he was living in such a state that it seemed very improbable he would be likely to pay that sum—his address at that time was somewhere in York Road, Lambeth—when the case was called on for trial no appearance was made—the taxed costs against the prisoner was 400l., of which I have not got a farthing—I did not know till recently of his living in Cumberland Terrace—I have not got any costs now.

W. E. GOATLEY (Re-examined). I was solicitor for the prisoner in his divorce suit against Lord Bateman—the balance of my costs was about 70l.—he owes me that still—I did not know that he was living in Cumberland Street—I did not know him by the name of McClellan.

Cross-examined. Q. When was this divorce affair? A. In 1861, I think—I was acting as his solicitor for about a twelvemonth—there was a commission applied for to examine witnesses in Switzerland, and Mr. Potts could not bear the expense, and the matter was abandoned wholly in consequence of that—I do not know that his wife's name was McClellan.

MARY BATES . I am a widow, and live in York Road, Lambeth—I deal in milk—I knew Captain Potts for a good many years—he lived in York Road at the time he dealt with me—he left in my debt 2l. 12s. 8d.—I did not know where he went to for some time, not until these proceedings—he has paid me the bill since—it was owing to me since 1861, when he left the York Road—I don't think I have seen him since—I saw an account in the paper of these proceedings—I called at his house, and he very kindly paid me.

Cross-examined. Q. How long did he deal with you? A. Nine or ten years—this bill was running for about a year or two—he had no family at that time, only himself.

CAROLINE FARRETT . I reside in Palace Road, Lambeth, and am a stationer and newsvendor—Captain Potts was a customer of mine—when he left he owed me 1l. 3s. 10d. for 1861—I applied for it many times, as long as I could find him—he could not pay me—he put me off, and then we could not find him—I was summoned to the police-court and saw him there, and got a pound.

Cross-examined. Q. Had you often supplied him before? A. Yes, for

two or three years—he would sometimes pay me a little on account—he never paid up—the last payment was in 1861.

LOUISA LAGASSE . I am the wife of Thomas Lagasse—Captain Potts resided at my mother's house in the York Road for four or five years—his rent was 18s. or 1l. a week—he owes my mother about 40l.—she is a widow—she let part of the house in lodgings at that time—I applied to Captain Potts for payment while he was lodging with my mother—he said he had it not in his power then, but if he ever had he should pay it—I have not applied to him since he left—I did not know where he went to—I did not know of his being in Cumberland Street—the money has never been paid—my mother is too ill to attend.

Cross-examined. Q. He left in 1861? A. I think about three years ago.

SARAH BERGNER . I am a widow—the prisoner has been for two years residing at 57, Cumberland Street, a house let by me—he occupies it still—he has gone by the name of Charles McClellan there—I never knew him as Mr. Ormerod or Captain Potts.

Cross-examined. Q. What rent does he pay? A. 55l. a year—the rent is regularly paid—I did not know his wife before she came there—I did not know her as Mrs. McClellan—I don't know what name she went by—I don't know anything about his dealings with the neighbouring tradesmen—I live two or three doors off—all I know is he used to pay the rent and taxes regularly—I have an agreement signed "McClellan"—he is still there under that name.

CHARLES SMITH . I am a cheesemonger in the Westminster Road—I have served the prisoner for some time—he owed me 1l. 13s. 8d. in 1859—I got a judgment in the county court, but never obtained the money.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you come all the way from the Westminster Road to tell us this? A. I have come because I was subpoenaed, not to please myself.

ALFRED PARKER . I am a dressing-case maker—I know the prisoner—he owes me 8l. 5s., and has done since 1860—I have tried to find him since, while he was in the York Road I frequently applied to him for payment, I also put it into the hands of one or two persons to get it for me, but I never got it—I only knew lately of his living in Cumberland Street, through seeing his name in the police reports—I called there yesterday—I also asked him at the police-court, and he promised to pay me in a fortnight's time—the debt was for a dispatch box and other goods.

MR. CHAMBERS submitted that the letter of the defendant did not bear the construction attempted to be put upon it in any of the counts of the indictment (twenty in number); that the fair inference from it was, not that the defendant himself was in a position to make an immediate cash advance, but that he would obtain it; and if so, that would not be an offence within the statute.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE, upon being appealed to by the Recorder, intimated that he would rely upon the last four counts, which omitted the innuendoes contained in the previous counts, and upon those four counts MR. CHAMBERS went to the jury.

MR. CHAMBERS then called the following witnesses for the defence:—JAMES WALTER LYON. My firm is Lyon, McKenzie, and Co., of No. 18, Poultry—we call ourselves bankers and bill brokers—I have known Mr. Potts for some time—he has brought bills to me to be discounted on several occasions—he had an account at our bank—he lodged bills, and we gave him cash—that has not been for some years, of very little importance

till this transaction took place—occasionally I had bills of him before, but of very small amounts prior to this transaction—there have been a great many since this transaction, I think to the amount of 2000l.—during the currency of these transactions he brought me this bill (produced) for 200l., accepted by Mr. Break spear—it is dated 7th November—I don't remember exactly when he brought it to me—I have my books, but they are in the hands of the assignees—I think it was about the 12th or 14th—I have not got my books—I have not had timely notice—I did not get the notice of this Court till Saturday night, and the case was for Monday morning—I have all the documents that are necessary—I had a subpoena on Saturday afternoon about six or seven o'clock down at Maida Hill, but it was impossible to get the books up on Monday morning—it did not occur to me, as you did not refer to them before the magistrate; you refused to look at them, and I had so much trouble to get them from the assignees then—I have not produced them—I dare say I could get them by applying to the assignees for them—it is a troublesome thing to get books from the assignees.

COURT. Q. When was the bill brought to you? A. Between the 12th and the 14th November, certainly.

MR. METCALFE. Q. Was it brought to you then by Mr. Potts? A. By Mr. Potts—I at first declined to discount it—I declined it in toto—I did not direct him to bring other bills, I simply declined it—after that he brought me other bills—on 24th November he brought back this bill of 200l., and one for 100l.—that was the earliest in date, one dated 21st November—I gave him 100l., less the discount—I gave him 80l.—that was in two cheques, one of 50l. and the other of 30l.—he brought the next day another 100l. bill dated 24th, and I gave him a further advance of 100l., less the discount, 80l. again—I gave him 80l. and 5l. for commission—I should say the bill was brought on the 25th, the next day—that 5l. was commission for him as an agent, because the 200l. bill was not drawn, and he produced a letter from Mr. Break spear—the 200l. bill was not signed—it was accepted, but not signed.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. You mean it had not the drawer's name? A. The drawer's name.

MR. METCALFE. Q. The first bill became due on 10th February, I think? A. The first bill became due on 10th February, the 200l. bill, and not paid—when the 200l. bill became due he brought me two bills of 100l.—he paid me on that occasion 100l. in cash and two bills for 100l. each, drawn in the same way, accepted by Mr. Breakspear—this signature is mine (looking at a paper)—I adopt it—I did not give him that at the time he gave me these two bills, and you know it; I did shortly afterwards—I was deceived into it—this is what I gave him when I received the 200l. bill (read: "21st February, 1866, received of Captain R. O. Potts 100l., and two bills accepted by Captain Breakspear for 100l. each, to retire the undermentioned bills on Breakspear, one due 21st February for 200l., one of the same date for 100l., and one of 24th February for 100l.")—at that time I had not the 200l. bill—I cannot tell whether I had both the 100l. bills or not—I know one I had already discounted—one he had paid me 100l. for, and I had handed it over to him—this is the bill—I had not got the one of 24th November at the time I gave this receipt—I had rediscounted the 200l. with Mr. Solomon—he is a bill discounter—I had discounted the 100l. bill dated 24th November, I think with a Mr. Flight—I have since discounted the other two bills for

100l. each—the one dated 24th November was paid in the regular course, through Messrs. Cox, the army agents—I have told you the whole of the money which I gave to the prisoner for Mr. Breakspear—not 80l., 165l.—I afterwards received from the prisoner 100l., and also received from him a cheque for 20l., which he got back again; at least, the money, 17l. 10s. of it, he got back again—he has drawn upon it—he had it added to his account—he did give me a cheque for 20l., but he had it back again—160l. was not all he had upon these bills we are speaking of, and he should not have had that had I known he had no right to these bills—15l. was the discount charge on the 200l. bill—I had 185l., and I gave 165l.—I gave him two 80l. and 5l.—that was not on the 100l. bills—that is just how they are confused—here are his documents to prove that I advanced him 100l., less discount, on the four bills, and instead of his handing the money to Mr. Breakspear he keeps the money—he kept me in the dark—I am dealing with facts—it is your interest to confuse them. Q. You paid him 200l., less the discount, which which means 165l.? A. On the three bills amounting to 400l.—100l. I got from him three months afterwards—on the other bill through Cox's I received 100l.; at least, the holder did, which is the same thing; on the 200l. bill, 185l., and I got 90l. each on the two 100l. bills that I received afterwards—that is 180l. on the two new bills—that is, 365l. I got. Q. And you have paid this man 165l., making 400l. clear? A. Very well, but you see these bills would have been retired but for this man's conduct—if you mix them all together it is so—he demanded these bills from me about a fortnight or a month after they became due, after the first bill of 200l. became due—he gave me into custody for stealing the bill of 200l., for which he got 165l.—there is his receipt—the prosecutor also, Mr. Breakspear, came down and demanded the bills from me, and I promised to return them to him, and should have done so—it was not possible for me to have returned them—everybody knows the state of matters on 22nd February, I had 4100l. in bills, and could not get a shilling on them—I had arrangements made for returning them—they would have been returned but for Potts's conduct—he has ruined me, unquestionably—he gave me into custody for a bill which he got the value for—Mr. Morris, the attorney for Mr. Breakspear, also demanded the bills from me, and I don't know that I had any right to give them up—even now there is 600l. of Potts's bills not paid.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. How long have you known Mr. Potts? A. I should think about twelve months before this transaction—I always knew him as Potts; no other name—I had transactions with him before I came into the Poultry—I did not make any inquiries about him then, because he was known to me—I had discounted one or two bills previously, before I came into the Poultry, to the amount of about 200l. altogether—before I went into the Poultry I was in Bond Court House, Poultry—we were then bill brokers—we must have known where Mr. Potts lived—we had got his address then—I cannot tell from memory where he lived; it is impossible—I declare upon my oath at this moment I could not tell where he was living—I dare say I should know if you told me—I do not think it was Cumberland Street, not in the first transaction—I knew of him in Cumberland Street when he opened his account in the Poultry with me as a banker—we had been in the Poultry since August as bankers—we had current accounts—persons had accounts with us, and Mr. Potts had—he opened an account—I should think he opened it by the discount of a bill—we had a regular banker's book—they

have it here—we knew where he resided then—I never went to his residence—I thought his name was Potts—I never heard of his going by the name of McClellan—I never heard of it at all—I got 565l. out of this matter—I do not mean to keep it, certainly not—I am going to retire these bills with it, as a matter of course—there is the account (referring to a paper)—I shall have to retire 400l.—that is through Potts. Q. So that, in point of fact, you have rather done Potts? A. Quite the contrary—I have at this moment 600l. worth of bills that I have discounted for him returned, and I don't know that I should be justified in returning him a shilling—he owes my estate at this moment 600l.—he was not an utter pauper at the time this matter occurred—these are bills that I discounted for him returned dishonoured—I gave notice of their dishonor, and if I had been continuing in business at this moment I should not have returned the bills till I saw the result of it—I did not make any inquiries about Mr. Break-spear, from his position in the army—I found that out by the Army List—Potts brought me this bill of Mr. Breakspear's—I did not know how Mr. Breakspear became a client of his—I know now of his writing to Mr. Breakspear; I saw his letter, not before he wrote it—I saw Mr. Break-spear's letter to him, with the 200l. bill—I did not see Potts's letter—he brought Mr. Breakspear's answer to me on the 25th November, when I discounted the second bill—I had refused to discount it before the 24th—up to the 24th I had not promised to discount it—the 200l. bill was left as a collateral security—I had refused the 200l. bill—that was all I saw—I never offered to take it as a collateral security, that I swear—some conversation as to taking it as a collateral security took place between us subsequently, after he brought the other bill, on the 24th—then I simply lent him 100l.—nothing was decided then—I did not take it as a collateral security on the 24th—I never did—I took it as a principal bill originally—I cashed it on the 25th—I never said I would take it as a collateral security; I took the other two bills as collateral security—I did not take them as security, I made an advance upon the whole bills—I did not take them as a collateral security—I did not understand your question.

COURT. Q. It was not in answer to a question, it was your own volunteering—when you were asked if you took the 200l. bill as a collateral security you said, "I did not take that, I took the two 100l. bills?" A., I certainly took none as a collateral security, I got bamboozled by the counsel—here are the facts: I advanced 200l. on three bills amounting to 400l.—that was the transaction, and there is his acknowledgment that he received that money, that advance, which he ought to have remitted, and he never did, and that was his position—it depends upon circumstances whether we make inquiries about persons whose acceptances are brought to us—their position is sometimes such that there is no occasion—a young officer in the army, if he has purchased his steps, is good for 500l.—that is the way we calculate—I have nothing to do with his relations.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Was not the real history of this, that you and Potts shared this person between you? A. Not at all—it was decidedly not a joint transaction between me and Potts—there was nothing in the transaction to justify you in making that remark—it is totally untrue that he and I were to share, and that I have kept it all.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. You have used the expression "collateral security?" A. It came from your side—I never made use of it—you will find in my bill book when I first got possession of the 200l. bill—I can send for it to the assignees and get it—I don't believe it was spoken of before it was

brought to me—nothing was said about my getting it discounted, or discounting it—I believe he brought the bill itself—I looked at the date of the bill—it was dated the 7th of November—I think it was brought to me on the 12th or 14th—I think a conversation occurred about it on the 12th—I don't know whether it ended in his taking it away—I see by my letter book I wrote to him to say that I declined the bill—I don't know whether he took it away or left it with me—he did not bring me both the 100l. bills at one and the same time—on the 24th November he brought me the 100l. bill again, with the 200l. bill, and asked for an advance of 100l.—he must have got the 200l. bill away—I cannot tell when or how—he was coming in and out almost every day, not inquiring whether I would discount it, I had refused it—he did not ask me about this bill before he brought me the first 100l. bill—not at all—he brought me the 100l. bills, and asked me to lend him 100l. on the two bills.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Q. Are these receipts in the prisoner's handwriting? A. Yes.

WILLIAM FRANCIS MORRIS . I am an attorney, of Leicester Square now, late of Beaufort Buildings—I was of Beaufort Buildings at the time this matter occurred—I was instructed by Mr. Breakspear to inquire into this matter at the beginning of April—I made an application to Mr. Potts by letter, I think—I received the answer that has been read—he called on me and said, "I have come in reply to your letter. Messrs. Lyon & Co. have the bills. I have one. I will go and see them, and make it all right. As regards Messrs. Lyon & Co., they have received 100l. from Messrs. Cox, and of course they must give it back; and as regards any money that is owing on the transaction, I will see it paid"—he showed me the bill he had—I think it was a 100l. bill—I went to Mr. Lyon a great number of times—Mr. Breakspear did not go with me—I did not see Lyon at any time with Mr. Breakspear—I saw Mr. Lyon by himself—I was directed by Mr. Breakspear's solicitor to demand the bills—I have the demand in my pocket—I did demand them of Mr. Lyon—I did not get them—I had a great deal of trouble about it, and did not get them—at last Mr. Lyon promised to give them up—I gave him till the following Monday to do so—I heard of his being taken into custody.

GEORGE LEGG . I am a detective officer—I took Mr. Lyon into custody on 22nd May—he attempted to cut his throat, attempted to commit suicide—I told him the charge I took him on—he asked me for a minute to speak to his solicitor, and momentarily he took a penknife from his sleeve and commenced cutting his throat—with great difficulty I prevented him, and saved his life—he was afterwards taken to the station—here is a copy of the charge—he was charged with stealing the 200l. bill—that was the first charge.

Cross-examined. Q. Who gave him in charge for stealing the bill? A. Mr. Potts—I believe Mr. Potts appeared before the magistrate—he did not give evidence, and, there being no evidence against Mr. Lyon, he was discharged—the solicitors on both sides said there was no evidence, they should not offer any evidence, and the consequence was he was discharged by the Lord Mayor, the two solicitors agreeing together—the second charge was never gone into.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Was he well at that time? Had he recovered from his wound? A. I sent for a surgeon and his wound was dressed where I apprehended him, in the Temple—he was perfectly well at the time the charge was not gone on with, that was the next day, the 21st.

JULIUS CALISHER . I am a bill discounter—I know Mr. Potts—he was in the habit of discounting bills with me for the last year, and up to the time he was taken into custody—I should say he has discounted bills with me to the amount of some 2000l. or 3000l.—I knew that he was a money agent.

Cross-examined. Q. At what interest? A. From 40 to 60 per cent., not more—I do not think I discounted any bills for him before 6th November—the first was, I should say, some two years ago—up to the 6th November, I should say, he had brought 3000l. or 4000l. worth to me to discount—from the first of my discounting with him, some two or three years altogether, I say it was some 3000l. or 4000l.

COURT. Q. Then up to the 6th November he had been in the habit of discounting bills to the amount of more than 2000l.? A. Yes—there has been very little since—that extended over a time recently before the 6th November—I could not say whether it was three months before.

The following papers were put in and read:—"24th November, 1865—Received from Messrs. Lyon, Mackenzie, & Co., 100l., less the discount, and changes as an advance on bill, Lyon on Breakspear, dated 7th November, 1865, for 200l.; and bill, Potts on Breakspear, dated 21st November, 1865, for 100l., signed by Potts.—25th November—Received from Messrs. Lyon, Mackenzie, & Co. a further sum of 100l., less the discount and charges as in advance on the following bills, namely—Lyon on Breakspear, 7th November, at three months, for 200l.; Potts on Breakspear, 21st November, at three months, for 100l.; and Potts on Breakspear, 24th November, at three months, for 100l."—(Letter read) "24th November. Enclosed is a cheque for 50l., of Lyon, Mackenzie, & Co., bankers, in the City. If you are in want of the money, as the cheque is crossed, you can return it, and I will send you bank notes instead."

GUILTY .— Confined Eighteen Months .

OLD COURT.—Wednesday, July 11th, 1866.

Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-616
VerdictGuilty > manslaughter

Related Material

616. PATRICK HARRINGTON (77) was indicted for the wilful murder of Peter Mann. He was also charged, on the Coroner's inquisition, with the manslaughter of the said Peter Mann.

MR. SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution, and MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS the Defence.

CORNELIUS LEARY . I live at 41, Royal Mint Street, Whitechapel, and am a tailor—I know the prisoner—I did not know him before 24th June, to my knowledge—about twelve o'clock that night I was at the door of my house in the street—I heard a female voice crying out and making a noise in Bakers' Arms Alley, close by—I could not see up the alley from where I stood—I saw the deceased and his wife come out of the alley—the woman had a long-handled broom in her hand—I did not know them before—they came into the street, the wife defending herself—the husband hit her a blow in the face—she lifted the broom again—he stopped the broom, and hit her a second blow in the face—she did not strike him, because he defended himself, and she said, "You call me a wh—, and I am none"—they both fell on the ground—she fell from the blow he hit her, and he fell a-top of her—she dropped the broom and got up and hit him two blows with the right hand on the right cheek; then the prisoner came out of the

alley, stood between me and the deceased, lifted his hand, and hit the deceased a blow—I can't say where he hit her—directly the blow was given the deceased turned round and said, "Old man, you have stabbed me"—I stood where I was till some woman turned the deceased over, and said, "The man is bleeding"—I then went over, and said, "Good God! the old man has killed him"—I saw that he was bleeding—the prisoner walked away—I saw him in custody about ten minutes afterwards—I did not hear a word said by either party at the time the blow was struck—I believe they were all the worse for liquor.

Cross-examined. Q. What distance were you from the place where the man fell? A. About two and a half yards—the female was crying "Murder!" in Bakers' Arms Alley—I did not see her then—the deceased did not strike her any violent blows—the third blow he hit her knocked her down—the prisoner only struck the deceased one blow.

DANIEL LEARY . The last witness is my father—I was in Royal Mint Street on this night, and saw a man and woman quarrelling—I heard a cry of "Murder!" in Bakers' Arms Alley—I ran downstairs and saw the woman strike the deceased twice in the face—they were then in the middle of Royal Mint Street—I did not see the man do anything to the woman—I was not down at the time—I saw the prisoner come from the court and strike the man in the breast, and he turned round, and said, "Old man, you have stabbed me"—the prisoner after he struck the blow walked over to the court—the deceased fell down and there he laid—the woman turned him over, and I saw that he was bleeding—I saw a constable take the prisoner—he was then about four yards from where the deceased fell—he said to him, "Old man, you are accused of doing this murder"—he said, "I do not know; I do not know nothing, and I was not there at all"—I had never seen the prisoner before or the deceased—they were all strangers to me—the prisoner was tipsy, and so was the deceased.

Cross-examined. Q. Was not what the prisoner said this? "What is this for? I know nothing about it." A. Yes.

COURT. Q. Could the prisoner see deceased strike his daughter? A. No, he could not until he came to the corner of the court—I think there was sufficient time to allow of his seeing the blow struck.

HELENA KEEFE . I live in Royal Mint Street, and am married—I was at this place when this disturbance happened—I saw the deceased and his wife running out of Bakers' Arms Alley—I was standing at my father's door, where I live—the woman had a long-handled broom in her hand—the husband hit the wife in the face with his shut fist, and she hit him back again with her fist—she never used the broom then—both of them came together and fell—the husband got up and hit the wife while she was still on the ground, and I went and stood between them and saved her from the blow—she then hit her husband twice in the face—he was drawing his hands back again to hit his wife, and the prisoner just at that moment came out of the alley and gave the blow—the deceased staggered, went about four or five yards, and fell—the prisoner went away and left him there—they were all strangers to me.

Cross-examined. Q. Were they all the worse for liquor apparently? A. Yes, they were—I heard the woman hallooing out in the court—I do not know what she was hallooing.

WILLIAM SHIELDS . I live at 38, Royal Mint Street—I was indoors on this night—I heard some screams of murder, went out, and saw the deceased being taken away—I saw a man pick up the knife, and chuck

it away—this is it (produced)—it was some man who was standing round when the murder happened—I do not know him—he kicked it in the road—I picked it up and gave it to the constable—the blade was all over blood—it was shut when I picked it up—I saw the other man pick it up close against the building where the man was lying—it was closed then.

JOHN GREATHEAD (31 H). In consequence of information, I went to Royal Mint Street—I saw the deceased lying on the ground—he was dead—I caused him to be removed—I took the prisoner into custody about five minutes afterwards at the corner of Bakers' Arms Alley—I told him it was for causing the death of his son-in-law—he said, "I know nothing about it whatever"—he had been drinking.

Cross-examined. Q. How far from Bakers' Arms Alley is it to 41, Royal Mint Street? A. About eleven or twelve yards—it is the opposite side.

JOSEPH DENDY (Police Inspector). I booked the charge against the prisoner at the station—I told him he was charged with causing the death of his son-in-law, who was lying dead at his feet then—he said, "I did not do it; I do not know anything about it; I was not there at all"—he was the worse for liquor.

Cross-examined. Q. That is to say he was drunk? A. Yes.

JOHN LOAME . I am a licentiate of the College of Physicians and a surgeon—I made a post mortem examination of the body of the deceased, in conjunction with Mr. Phillips, on the Tuesday morning, the next day but one after the 24th—there were two wounds on the breast, one on each side—the one on the left side had stopped short of the lower rib—it was stopped by the rib—the one on the right side had penetrated the cavity of the chest—it had first of all entered between the second and third ribs, had stopped short of the intercostal muscle, passing over the third rib, and had penetrated the cavity of the chest just below the third rib—it had wounded the right lung and punctured the ascending aorta just above the heart—the cause of death was the failure of the heart's action, due to the excessive hemorrhage caused by the wound—this knife might possibly have caused the wounds, but it is not such an instrument as I should have expected to have produced them.

Cross-examined. Q. I believe it was utterly impossible that both wounds could have been caused by the same blow? A. They could not have been.

MICHAEL MANN . The deceased, Peter Mann, was my brother—I know this knife—it is the same size, appearance, and colour, and has the same sort of string to it that the prisoner used to use—I have had it in my possession several times in the last few years—I have seen him use it over a hundred times—he sells laces in the streets, and he uses that for the purpose of cutting the laces when the people buy of him—I had seen it in his possession on the Sunday previous to this.

Cross-examined. Q. Has the prisoner lent it to you? A. Yes, to cut tobacco with—he always keeps it round his neck—if he wanted to lend it he would take it off his neck—I cannot say really this is the knife, but it is the same sort of knife—I was in Bakers' Arms Alley from first to last when this occurred—the deceased and his wife had been drinking all the night—I was in the alley when they were fighting, and I separated them—she struck him twice over the face, and called him everything alive—I heard him call her a wh—.

The prisoner's statement read. "I have nothing to say, but I had not a knife in my hand, or anything like it—if I did not strike him with my

nails I had nothing else—his wife told me he tried to cut his throat with a razor."

The Lord Chief Justice (upon being appealed to by Mr. Williams as to whether there was any case to go to the jury upon the charge of murder) stated that the only ground upon which the offence could be reduced to manslaughter, would be that the fatal blow was struck under the impulse of strong resentment caused by seeing his daughter assailed by her husband, although not in a manner calculated to endanger her life. This was a some-what novel point, and if it became necessary it should be reserved.

GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER. Recommended to mercy by the jury on account of his age, his being in liquor at the time, and under the belief that he struck the fatal blow for the protection of his daughter. Confined Twelve Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-617
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

617. CHARLES TEMPLE (39) was indicted for and charged on the coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of Fanny Temple.

MR. SLEIGH prosecuted.

JOHN ALLEN . I am proprietor of the house, 5, High Street, Chelsea—I live in the house and let part of it—on 5th May the prisoner hired two rooms in the upper part at 2s. 3d. a week—about nine or ten o'clock that night I opened the door to him—he had a bundle in his arm, from which proceeded a moaning noise—I said to him, "For God's sake, is that a child you have there, or an animal?"—he said, "Yes, it is a young b—, four years and a half old. It is a great trouble to me and my missus. I wish the young b—was dead"—nothing further passed—he went upstairs with the bundle—he had a woman, whom he was living with, and three or four children—he remained in the apartments until he was apprehended, about three weeks—the deceased child was removed to the workhouse about a fortnight after he came there—during that time I know that all the children wanted food—I have heard them crying for food during the prisoner's absence, and I have supplied them—I did not go into the room until after the deceased child was taken away—the prisoner was never in the house after nine in the morning, except on Sunday—he used to come home at eleven, twelve, one, and two in the morning, and the woman generally came home after him—the children were generally left from nine in the morning till that time, except on Sunday—the woman went out too, I don't know where to—the eldest child was about eleven or twelve—all the furniture in the rooms was two half mattresses, a chair without a bottom, a broken table, a French bedstead, and a half butter firkin, used as a urinal and watercloset—that furniture belonged to the prisoner, what he brought to occupy the rooms with—there were no blankets, sheets, or anything of that kind—all the children were most filthily dirty—there were no bed-clothes—after the deceased child was removed to the workhouse I went into the rooms—they were filthy and dirty, and a strong smell throughout—the butter firkin was used for the purposes of nature—there was plenty of convenience of the kind attached to the house.

Prisoner. Q. When did I take the rooms of you? A. A day or two previous to your coming in—I saw you many times—you and the woman came together to take the rooms.

CAROLINE ELLIS . I am the wife of Frederick Ellis, a marine store dealer, and live at No. 5, High Street, Battersea, at Mr. Allen's—on 5th May, between 11 and 12 of night, the prisoner came there with a woman and his children—he had the baby in his arms; at least, I suppose

he had by the sound of it—Mr. Allen said to him, "For God's sake, what have you got there? an infant?"—he said, "No, it is four and a half years old, the young b—. I wish it was dead. It is more trouble to me and my mistress than enough"—they then went upstairs—some 8 or 9 days afterwards I went into their room—I saw the child that is now dead on a bundle, I could not say whether it was rags or flock—it was very filthy and dirty—I have often heard it cry, particularly when the prisoner has been the worse for drink—it has cried for bread, and for water—it has been left without its father or the woman from nine in the morning till eleven, twelve, and perhaps one o'clock—I could not say that the children were left without food all that time, but they have been left by themselves, and have cried for food during the day, and we have relieved them in the house—I knew the prisoner three years ago, and he was a bad man to his wife then—she has been dead about three years.

MARY SUTTON . I am matron at Chelsea Workhouse—the deceased child was brought there on 23rd May by a person named Fleming—it was very much emaciated, very much bruised, and very dirty, and covered with vermin; it had scarcely any clothes on, except mere rags; it was very hungry—I ordered some arrowroot, with a little brandy as a stimulant—she gradually sank, and died on 28th—I saw the prisoner once, on the night he was given into custody—he did not see the child after the time it was ill, nor after its death.

Prisoner. Q. Did not I come that night to demand the child? A. No—I had nothing to do with giving you in charge—I believe you came there the night the child was brought in, but I did not see you—you never came near her afterwards.

FREDERICK CHINNERY (282 T). I took the prisoner into custody for wilful neglect on the 23rd—he said he could not help it—he afterwards said if he was locked up he should lose his place of work, where he was earning 30s. a week.

GRACE FLEMING . I am a widow—in the forenoon of 23rd May I took the child to the workhouse, and left it there—it was fearfully bruised on the face, and right down the side—it bones were nearly through the skin.

Prisoner. Q. Who did you take it from? A. From its mother—she was quite drunk at the time—she was sitting on the church steps.

WILLIAM HENRY KEMPSTER . I am a surgeon at Battersea—on 30th April the deceased child was brought to my surgery for medical advice by some relation, I believe by the woman with whom the prisoner lived—it was a very small stunted child, unusually small for its age—it had disease of the lungs, tubercular deposition in the lungs, and disease of the mesenteric glands—I saw it several times between that period and 23rd May, when it was brought to me by the grandmother—the second time it was brought to me by a woman named Sweeney, with whom the prisoner lived—on 23rd May it was very much worse indeed; in fact, it had sunk rapidly from the time I saw it before—that was the last time I saw it—deprivation of food, and want of clothing and other comforts, would have a great deal to do with accelerating its death—I must say in fairness that the child undoubtedly would have died at some period, and at no distant period, from the disease under which it laboured, consumption both of the lungs and the mesenteric glands, but the absence of food and clothing would accelerate its death; in fact, the child was in a starving condition on the last occasion when I saw it.

THOMAS DICKENSON . I am a surgeon attached to the workhouse—on

23rd May I was called to see this child—it was very much emaciated, very dirty, bruised, and suffering from diarrhoea—I attended it until its death, which occurred on 28th—I made a post mortem examination—externally the child was in the condition I have described—the left lung was consumptive to a considerable extent, and there was extensive disease of the mesenteric glands—the disease was the cause of death, both the lung and the mesenteric—they are the same disease, only in different parts of the body—it was scrofulous disease—the deprivation of food and the want of proper care, cleanliness, and attention would accelerate the death—in my judgment the child would not have died so soon as it did if it had had proper food, care, and clothing.

Prisoner. Q. How long was the child out of your care before you had it again? A. Perhaps a month—I had it under my charge several times in the sick ward—emaciation would be the result of the disease, or of starvation—it had frequently been in the infirmary of the workhouse.

The prisoner in his defence stated that the child had been ailing from its birth, and that he had done for it all that laid in his power.


NEW COURT.—Wednesday, July 11th, 1866.

Before Mr Recorder.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-618
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

618. MARGARET MURPHY (23) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously throwing oil of vitriol on Maurice Murphy, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.— Confined Eighteen Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-619
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

619. AMBROSE MARTIN (67) , Breaking and entering the ware-house of John Smith, and stealing therein 672 yards of muslin, his property. Second Count, Feloniously receiving the same.

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

JOHN SMITH . I am a merchant and agent, of 139, Cheapside—I am agent to James Arden and Co., of Glasgow, and other firms, manufacturers of muslins—on 15th May I left my place safe at a few minutes past five—I went at half-past nine next morning, and found the place broken open, and a policeman in charge—I missed twenty-six pieces of black soft muslin, two pieces of other muslin, and other property which I have not found—I was out with Gayler, the officer, met the prisoner, and gave him in custody—I asked him if his name was Martin; he said, "Yes", and took this invoice (produced) out of his pocket, to show that he had bought the goods—here are some cords mentioned on it which I missed from my office, and have not found.

Cross-examined. Q. Are there muslins on that invoice? A. I under-stand it to be so, but it is in French—(this, being translated, was for 736 yards of muslin, sold to A. Martin for 184 francs, and six pieces of fancy cord in pledge at Lisle and Morris's, Clerkenwell, dated 17th May, 1866, 7l. 18s. 9d., but not receipted)—the goods are worth considerably more—the black soft goods are worth 10s. 6d. a piece at least, wholesale price.

COURT. Q. What is the value of the goods included in the invoice? A. About 14l.

CHARLES THOMAS GAYLER (City Policeman 47). On 16th May I went to Mr. Smith's premises, and found they had been broken open—on 2nd

June, about half-past ten o'clock, I was with Police-constable Crisp, and met Emery going with a bundle—I stopped him, and detained some muslin I found in the bundle—it has been identified—Emery told me something, and I went to Mr. Cutler's, who gave me a description of the man he bought it of—we afterwards met Martin in Basinghall Street—Mr. Smith spoke to him, and gave him into my charge—I told him we had found some muslins at Mr. Cutler's, which had been identified by Mr. Smith, and asked him how he became possessed of them—he pulled out this invoice, and said he bought them of a tall Englishman and a short French-man, whom he did not know, and that the cord had gone to Paris.

Cross-examined. Q. Did he give you his direction? A. Yes, at the station, 26, Caledonian Road—I found it correct—I called his attention to the date being the 17th, and the duplicate shows that the things were not pledged till the 18th, but all I could get out of him was that he bought it of a tall Englishman and a short Frenchman—he pretended that he could not speak English.

WILLIAM CUTLER . I am a wholesale draper, of 47, London Wall—on 18th May the prisoner was introduced to me by Mr. Barr, whom I had some little knowledge of—he brought 27 pieces of muslin, of 24 or 25 yards each, and asked me to lend him some money on them, but I bought them for 4l. 10s.—my young man gave Emery a piece of them as a sample—after Martin delivered me the goods, he brought me an order to deliver them to some other person—I have lost it—it was merely to deliver them at such an address—I refused to give them up unless I was paid.

Cross-examined. Q. Who is Mr. Barr? A. A bankrupt, and I took his offices—I have no doubt these goods cost 8s. a piece to manufacture, but there is no sale for them now—I would not give 2 1/2d. a yard for them.

JAMES EMERY . I am an agent, of 8, New Street, and have known Martin some months—on 17th May I met him in Basinghall Street—he said that he had some muslins for sale—I told him I could sell them, and he promised to bring me a sample next morning—I met him the same day; he brought a box, with 27 or 28 pieces of muslin, and we went to Mr. Gregory's in the Minories, who refused to buy them—we then took them to Mr. Myers's, but he offered too small a price—Martin said that there were so many hundred yards, but he did not say how many pieces there were—Myers said that he would buy some, and I was taking some to him when I was taken in custody—I had sold them previously, by Martin's order, but they would not give them up.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you get into trouble through it? A. Yes; he did not restrict me where I was to go to sell them—I offered them in Falcon Square, which is close to Cheapside.

JOHN GURR . I am assistant to Lisle and Morris, pawnbrokers, I produce six pieces of fancy cord pledged on 18th May by two foreigners, and redeemed next day by the prisoner.

HENRY TIBBETTS . I am Mr. Smith's housekeeper—on 15th May the place was broken open—I had seen the prisoner in the gateway of the side entrance on two or three occasions, and within a week of the 15th—you have to come down a passage about 60 feet to get there.

Cross-examined. Q. Is it a pretty crowded place, where merchants congregate? A. Yes—I have not spoken to him or seen him talking to people. The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "I bought these goods conscientiously and honestly."

Witnesses for the Defence.

ELIZABETH BAKER . I keep a lodging-house at 34, Henry Street, Hampstead Road—In May last I let the back bedroom to two French-man—one was named John Aldous—he took it, I believe, on the Derby day, 16th or 17th May, and occupied it for four weeks—he paid three weeks' rent in advance, and left without notice on Monday, owing me nothing—they were there a fortnight and four days—it may have been 3rd June that they left—I thought they were commercial travellers—they had a package or two done up in their room, and I saw the prisoner take two or three parcels away—I was asked for a receipt stamp on that day, I had not got one, and the youngest of my lodgers, the young Frenchman, said "I will go and get one," which he did—I have seen the prisoner at my house, but not more than three times.

Cross-examined by MR. DALY. Q. How many days was it after these French people came to your house that they asked for a stamp? A. It may be two or three—it was nothing like a week—it was two or three days before they left—it was on the Wednesday or Thursday, and they left on the following Monday—they were there a fortnight altogether—I never saw the prisoner till he took away the parcels—they paid me 5s. a week in advance for the apartments.

MR. COOPER. Q. Did they come on the Derby day, or the day before, or the day afterwards? A. I believe it was on the Derby day—I did not go to the Derby—it was on Wednesday they came, and the Derby was on Wednesday—they came to me on the Derby day, and they did not come before, on my oath—a man, and his wife, and two children, had that room before they came—they left a fortnight before the gentlemen took possession—I know the day the prisoner came and took the parcels away from my lodgers, because it was a race week—it was a very exciting week for a great many—I cannot tell you the day, but it was that week.

COURT. Q. You are sure it was either Wednesday or Thursday before they left that you were asked for a stamp? A. It was the week before—it was during that week—it was the fore part of the week.

AUGUSTE ARMAND . I am a commission agent, of Frith Street, Soho—I know M. Aldous—I met him on 17th May on a penny boat—he told me that he had known me some time, and offered to do business with me—he said that he had 30 or 35 pieces of muslin to sell, and gave me his address, 34, Henry Street, Hampstead Road—I called on him next morning, and saw the muslin, but did not buy any—while I was there the prisoner came in—he examined the muslins and bought some—I cannot say whether he bought the whole—I think a duplicate was handed to him—Aldous signed a receipt, and I saw him fetch a cab, but did not see him take the goods away—it was about eleven o'clock in the morning.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you see the receipt signed? A. I saw him sign it, but I did not have it in my hand—it was on the 17th I met him, and the 18th that the receipt was signed.

MR. COOPER to ELIZABETH BAKER. Q. Did you see this gentleman at your house? A. I believe I saw him once—it was about the latter end of the time that those gentlemen were lodging there. I cannot say the day—it was about the same day that the receipt was signed—it was, I believe, the last Wednesday or Thursday before they left.

GUILTY on the Second Count. He was further charged with having been before convicted at this Court, in April, 1863, when he was sentenced to three

years penal servitude—to this he PLEADED GUILTY.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-620
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

620. JOHN WYCH SMITH (27) and ADOLPHE WATTEZ ( ), Unlawfully conspiring to defraud Lucy Bassett, and other persons of divers sums of money, to which WATTEZ PLEADED GUILTY . Confined Six Months .

MESSRS. BESLEY and MOIR conducted the Prosecution, and MR. PATER defended Smith.

ADELAIDE SHEARING . I live at 9, Mortimer Street, Herne Bay—on Easter Monday the prisoners came to my father's shop, walked upstairs, and had some refreshment—they then went into the shop, and Smith asked my father if he could tell him of some nice walk—my father told him to go to the Reculvers—Smith then said, "I see you sell Baker's tea"—my father said, "Yes"—Smith asked if he would mind sending some up to London—my father said, "Yes, if you send the money, but you can get it in London"—he said that he preferred having it from the sea-side, as it would be much superior—they went out, and returned to tea at about five o'clock, and as they left they said, "We will send you down an order for some tea"—some time after that a letter came, and after that we received 50 or 60 letters, addressed, "Mrs. Ablett, under care of Mr. Shearing, 9, Mortimer Street, Herne Bay"—my father took them down to the General Post-office—one of them was addressed to my father—we have lived at Herne Bay two years—I know no one named George Ablett there—nobody of that name has been to our house that I know of.

Cross-examined. Q. Was Easter Monday the first time you saw the prisoners? A. Yes—I am certain they are the men—they had no conversation with my father at which I was not present—we take lodgers in the summer time.

JAMES SHEARING . I am a baker, and keep a refreshment-room at 9, Mortimer Street, Herne Bay—on Easter Monday, about one o'clock, the prisoners came and had dinner—Smith afterwards said, "You sell Baker and Baker's tea, do you not?" I said, "Yes." He said, "I suppose if I was to send you down an order you would have no objection, if I sent the cash, to execute the order?" I said, "It is not worth your while to send down to me, I have the tea from London." He said, "Being at the seaside, it may be a superior article." I said, "Probably it may be"—they went for a walk and came back to tea—I thought I was going to get a very large order, but I only received 2s. worth of postage stamps in a letter for half a pound of the celebrated tea—letters afterwards came addressed to Mrs. Ablett—I have lived at Herne Bay some time, but never heard of anybody of that name there.

Cross-examined. Q. Have letters never been left at your house before? A. Not one—I left the letter with the postmaster.

MARY VAN-DE-VELDE . I am single, and live at Chelsea at present—I saw an advertisement in the Times and Telegraph in April, in consequence of which I wrote to the Cavendish Institution, and received a prospectus in reply—I went there on 9th April—it was at 9, Mortimer Street, Regent Street—I saw both the prisoners there, and asked for the address of the companionship advertised in the Times—Wattez, I think, wrote it and gave it to me, saying that I ought to write soon—Smith said I was to pay 5s. before I received the address, which I paid, and got a receipt—this is the address: "Mrs. Duperny, 40, Rue St. Omer, Pas de Calais"—I wrote

there, but received no answer, and my letter was returned about three weeks afterwards through the dead letter office—after that I went to the institution again, and saw both the prisoners—I complained about the letter being returned, and they said that the lady had returned a week since to London, and they would give me the address when they got it—I think it was Wattez said that—I went again in about a fortnight, and saw, I think, Wattez alone—he gave me the address, "Mrs. Ablett, Mr. Shearing, 9, Mortimer Street, Herne Bay"—I wrote to that lady, but had no reply, nor did I have the letter back—I received this letter between the first and the last addresses—it is in Wattez's writing—I have seen him write—he wrote me the address. (This was dated March 20th, and stated that there were no situations on the books likely to suit the witness at present, but that the first that came would be sent to her, in the meantime giving her the address, "Mr. Donovan, 30, King's Road, Ball's Pond," who required a young lady to instruct his daughter in music.) I do not remember whether I received that in March or April, but it was after I received the first address—I have not noticed that it is dated 20th March, and not April—I went to the institution again, and saw Smith—I told him there was no such name as Mrs. Ablett at Mr. Shearing's—he said that it was all a mistake what I had seen in the newspapers—I had referred to that—I told him that he might either return the money or I should expose him—he said that it was not customary to return money when once received—this letter marked B is in Wattez's writing (read): "Mr. Ablett, care of Mr. Henniford, 20, Old Street, St. Luke's. Sir,—I will thank you to send me half a pound of your celebrated tea as a trial, together with any letters that may have come for myself or wife, and oblige yours, respectfully, George Alford. "

Cross-examined. Q. Did you know when you paid the 5s. that no situation was guaranteed? A. Yes; that was put in the paper—I paid the 5s. as a registration fee.

MARY HANCOCK . I live at Ealing—early in April I saw an advertisement in the Telegraph, and received a paper like this (produced) from the Cavendish Institution—I wrote to the institution, sent the money, and got this receipt and this application, which I filled up and returned, with 5s. in stamps—this is the reply I received. (This was stated by Miss Van-de-Velde to be in Wattez's writing. It acknowledged the receipt of the 5s., and enclosed the name of a lady wanting a companion, Mrs. Ablett, Mr. Shearing, 9, Mortimer Street, Herne Bay. Signed, J. Smith.) My letter came back to me through the dead letter office—I did not go to the institution again—I received other addresses, but returned them—I went to the institution before that and saw Smith—I had written previously stating that I had not heard from the lady, and therefore nothing passed about the address—I merely said that he had my name on his books, had he anything likely to suit me—he sent me to a gentleman at King's Road, Ball's Pond, Islington, who he said required a housekeeper, and that no music was required—when I got there I found that music was required, so I went back and told him I was very much vexed at being sent that distance, because they wanted music, and I did not know music, but he did not take the slightest notice—I did not go back again—it was after that that the letter I addressed to Mrs. Ablett came back—I got no situation.

Cross-examined. Q. Did Smith tell you he did not guarantee to get you a situation? A. No, but it was on the prospectus—I knew that the money I was paying was a registration fee.

EMMA MARTIN . I am single, and live with my brother-in-law in Norfolk

—I saw an advertisement in the Standard, and wrote to the Cavendish Institution—I received in reply this paper, which has written on it, "On receipt of registration fee we will at once send you the vacancy"—I sent 5s. in stamps and received this letter. (This was proved by Miss Van-de-Velde to be in Wattez's writing. It was signed "J. Smith," acknowledging the receipt of the registration fee, and giving the name of a lady requiring a companion, Mrs. Ablett, Mr. Shearing, 9, Mortimer Street, Herne Bay.) I wrote to Mrs. Ablett, but received no answer—my letter came back through the dead letter office—I never went to the institution and never got a situation.

JOSEPH WARNER . I live at 15, South Street, Brighton, and keep the Crystal Palace Dining-rooms there—on Easter Sunday, about one o'clock, the defendants dined there—they said they had had a good dinner and asked me if I could take in their circulars, as they kept a school, and would come with the teachers one day in the centre of the week to partake of tea—they wished to know what I should charge—I said that I was very moderate—they said they did not know whether they should remain in Brighton that night or not, but if any letters came for them addressed "Fosdyke, Esq.," would I send them to the address they wished me to take down—Smith said, "You write it down"—I said, "No, I am busy cutting up dinners; you write it"—I received letters next morning addressed to Fosdyke, Esq., and took them to the dead letter office—three letters came to be left at my house addressed for different people—I took them to the post office—the prisoners said on the paper they left me that the letters that came to my house were to be sent to Fosdyke, Esq., in London—I took no care of the paper—I threw it on the floor and left it there—I have never seen it since—it had on it, "Fosdyke, Esq.," at a school in London, at some place which I forget—no one has ever been to my place in that name—I know nothing of the name except what I heard from the prisoners.

Cross-examined. Q. Were the persons you saw strangers to you? A. Yes—I saw them again at Marlborough Street on 14th June—I was subpoenaed there and said that I believed them to be the men—I may have said, "I do not recognise the prisoners; I will not swear to them"—I said that I could not recognise them as they stood there, because they were in a different situation to what I saw them in—it was after I left the court that I became certain they were the men—I was thinking the matter over all night—when I saw them I said that I believed they were the men, but so many weeks had passed that I could not swear to them—they were then remanded for a week.

MR. BESLEY. Q. Did you see Wattez afterwards? A. Yes, just after they left the court-house—he had his hat on then, and I heard him speak—I became positive directly I saw him with his hat on—that was the first time I went before the magistrate—Smith is the man who wrote down "Fosdyke, Esq."

ISABELLA GILPIN . I am single, and lived at this time at Francis Terrace, Victoria Park—I saw an advertisement in the Clerkenwell News, and on 4th April I went to the institution and saw Wattez—I asked him whether a young lady was wanted for a confectioner's shop—he said, "Yes"—I said that I wanted the address—he referred me to the rules in a frame, and I said, "Do I understand rightly that by paying 5s. you obtain me a situation?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "I have not sufficient cash with me to do that, but I will call to-morrow"—I called next day

and paid him 5s.—he wrote down the address, C. "Fosdyke, Esq., 15, South Street, Brighton," but I destroyed it—I wrote to that address, but received no answer—my letter was returned through the dead letter office—I then wrote to the prisoner Smith, and afterwards called at the institution and saw them both—I asked Wattez the reason I had my letter returned—he had written to say that perhaps I did not stamp my letter, so I took him the envelope to convince him that I did—he at the same time enclosed me another address of a Mrs. Clark, in Kent—I wrote there, and received my letter back through the dead letter office—I afterwards received this letter: "Cavendish Institution, 14, Mortimer Street. Madam,—We cannot understand the reason your letter was returned from Mrs. Clark. Immediately on receiving fresh addresses we will forward them. Yours respectfully, J. SMITH." After some little time I went to the institution again, and saw Smith and a Miss Hawkins—I believe I said that it was very strange I could not obtain a situation, and if I did not get one I should have to ask him to return my money, or make it payable some-where else—he told me to do my best and worst—I said that I should endeavour to do so.

MARY ANN STUDWELL . I live at 7, Bedford Row, Clapham Rise—about the end of March I was living at Stamford, in Lincolnshire—I saw an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph, came to London, and went to the Cavendish Institution, 14, Mortimer Street, Regent Street, a week after Easter—there were placards in the window referring to various situations—I saw both the defendants—I told Smith I had called respecting an advertisement I had seen in the Telegraph—he said that he could refer me to a situation, provided I paid 5s.—I paid Smith 5s., and Wattez wrote me this receipt produced (produced)—he was behind the desk—he then gave me the address of Mrs. Davis, Wigmore Street—I went there, and then went back and told Smith that it was a general servant that was required, and that Mrs. Davis was very annoyed that there were so many always calling—(I had asked them for a situation as assistant in a fancy general business)—he said that Mrs. Davis had misrepresented the place—he then gave me the address of Mrs. Menere—I asked him particularly what situation it was—he said it was to stand behind the counter at a fancy baby linen shop—I went there, and it was a wardrobe shop, a dealer in second-hand clothes—I went back again, and saw Smith—I told him it was a very different situation from what I wanted, and that the vacancy had been filled up six weeks ago—he said it was very strange—some days afterwards I went again, and saw Smith—I got the address from him of Mrs. Bouverie, a fancy establishment, Edgware Road—I went there, and it was a dyeing establishment—I went back, and told Smith that they did not require any one—he said that he had nothing more on hand that day—I went again two or three times, and saw Miss Hawkins, but got no situation.

MR. PATER here stated that he could not resist the case, and had advised Smith to leave himself in the hands of the Court.

SMITH GUILTY .— Confined Two Years .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-621
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

621. ELLEN ALLEN (33) was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MESSRS. POLAND, LEWIS, and WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution, and MR. METCALFE the Defence.

FRANCIS LEVERETT (Police Sergeant 7 S). I produce a charge-sheet

signed by the prisoner—she came to the station a moment or two before Mr. Moseley, and I saw her sign it—(This was the charge-sheet of Albany Street Police-station. The charge was made by Ellen Allen, of Warwick Street, Pimlico, against Alexander Moseley, of 16, Sunderland Terrace, Bayswater, for an assault, in a railway carriage, on the said Ellen Allen, with an intent to commit a rape. Charged before J. S. Mansfield, Esq., and discharged)—she told me she lived at 112, Warwick Street, and I wrote it down in a scrap-book—the charge-sheet is the prisoner's writing—on her making the charge against Mr. Moseley he said, "Good God! what won't the woman say?"—she had a large bouquet in her hand, which was not in the least disarranged, nor her bonnet, dress, or hair—his dress was not disarranged in any way.

Cross-examined. Q. Where is the police-station? A. In Little Albany Street, near the Regent's Park—they came from Euston Square Station—Eppin, a railway-constable, and Matthews, the platform-inspector, came with Mrs. Allen.

CHARLES STANLEY . I am chief usher at Marylebone Police-court—I was present on 13th May, when the prisoner was examined—I administered the oath to her before she was examined.

ANTHONY SHELDON . I am a reporter attached to Marylebone Police-court—I was present on 13th May, when the prisoner preferred a charge against Mr. Moseley, and took a short-hand note of her evidence—this (produced) is a transcript of it. (In this the prisoner stated that she lived at 112, Warwick Street, Pimlico, and was the wife of a military outfitter; that on the previous day she travelled from Watford to London with Mr. Moseley, who locked the carriage door, and violently dragged her from one side of the carriage to the other, threw her clothes over her head, and otherwise assaulted and ill-used her, and that he was smoking during the whole journey.)

ALEXANDER MOSELEY , M. R. C. S. I live at 16, Sunderland Terrace, Paddington, and practise as a surgeon-dentist, in partnership with my father—I am 29 years old, and am married, and have two children—on 29th May I was living at home with my wife and children—I went to Watford that day on business, and returned to the station to meet the six o'clock train—I saw the prisoner on the platform, she asked me if the train which was approaching was the train for London—I said, "Yes"—she asked me if I was going to London—I said, "Yes"—the train drew up at the station—I walked to the first empty second-class compartment and entered it—the prisoner followed me into the carriage—it was the compartment nearest the engine—she was carrying a large bouquet—she began talking about the aspect of the country, and said that she was very fatigued; she had been to Watford to see her children, who were at school there, and had been rambling in the fields—after a short time she alluded to her children again, and said that the youngest was a very fine little fellow, something like she was—I had asked her if she had any objection to smoking before we got to Pinner, and she led me to infer that she rather liked it than not—I then lit a pipe, it was almost immediately we started—I then took a book from my bag, not wishing for conversation of that description, and commenced reading—on the train arriving at Pinner there were a great many people on the platform, and I observed to her, "You have no objection to smoking. As there seem a great many people here, somebody may get in who has, and if you have no objection I will lock the door of the carriage"—I locked the door with a key which I had in my pocket—

the train stopped at Harrow, Sudbury, and Camden Town, where the tickets were collected, and I unlocked the door either just before or after we got there—we both gave up our tickets, and the train arrived at Euston Square—from Camden Town to Euston Station it takes six minutes—the train was due at London at a quarter to seven, leaving Watford at five minutes to six—I cannot say whether it was late or not—I took up my bag and got out of the carriage first, and was proceeding along the platform, when a railway inspector came up to me and said that a lady desired to speak to me—I went back to where the prisoner was; she accused me of having grossly insulted her and asked me for my card, I refused to give it to her and denied the charge—she said that she must have my card, or she would give me in charge for haying insulted her—I was asked my name, and I gave the name of Jackson—I then asked to be taken to the police-station and to have the case thoroughly investigated before a magistrate—several railway officers accompanied me to the station with the prisoner—I gave my correct name and address at the station—the charge was entered against me, and I was locked up that night and taken before a magistrate next morning—I took no indecent liberty with the prisoner during that railway journey, nor did I attempt to throw her on her back on the seat of the carriage—I did not pull her about, or throw her clothes over her head, or touch her, or commit any act; nor did I expose myself in any way, or use any indecent language—she had her bouquet on the platform, and at the station too; it was not injured in the least, nor were her clothes or her bonnet in any way rumpled or injured—her hair was not disturbed that I observed—my dress was in the ordinary way—she was a perfect stranger to me—the matter was investigated next day, Wednesday, at the police-court, and I was discharged—on the following day I applied for a summons, and she was arrested on a warrant.

Cross-examined. Q. You describe yourself as a surgeon? A. Yes. I am a M. R C. S.—I practise, in partnership with my father and brother, at 19, Grosvenor Street, Grosvenor Square, also at Watford, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, and all through the counties—we have certain days of attendance—we advertise—I have never given the name of Jackson before—I did so on the spur of the moment to the railway porters and Mrs. Allen—they were all standing together—I do not know whether the prisoner was told that she had better give me in charge, but I insisted upon being taken.

Q. Were you the first person to say, "We must go to the station?" A. I believe the policemen advised her to go to the station—she wanted my card, I refused to give it, and insisted on going to the station—it was not till I got to the station that I gave my name—the flowers were not pieces of may plucked in the fields, they were roses and other things—it was a bunch of flowers cut at random, not a nosegay made up—our conversation was merely as to the aspect of the country, and I asked her if I might smoke and lock the door—she asked me at Camden Town if the tickets were collected there, and I said, "Yes"—I said nothing about my wife being about to be confined—she has not been confined recently, it is 12 or 13 months back—I did not show the book or the railway key to anybody—I do not know who gave up the railway tickets—she was sitting immediately opposite me by the door, so I imagine she gave her own ticket—I seated myself at the opposite extremity, and when she got into the carriage she seated herself immediately opposite me—the conversation was not so disagreeable as to make me wish to remove—when I moved to lock the door,

I moved back again, because the platform where we got in is not on the same line as where we got out—but they had the other stations to stop at on the side on which I was sitting—nobody came into the train—I was still smoking at Camden Town—I fancy I finished my pipe there, and unlocked the door—it was just before or just after—I make an invariable rule to get into an empty carriage, for the purpose of smoking—I noticed that the first compartment was empty, and walked in without taking notice of the others—I got out before the train stopped, and had got some distance on the platform before I was stopped—I think I was very near the engine—I had walked some yards, certainly—I was walking fast.

MR. POLAND. Q. How long have you had a key? A. Four or five years at least, and I have invariably locked the doors—it is the practice with many dentists to go to different towns to see patients on different days—from the Euston Station to get to my house I have to go to the Gower Street Station.

NIGEL COPPING . I am a sergeant of the detective department of the London and North-Western Railway—I was called to the place where Mr. Moseley was standing near the prisoner—she said that after the train left Bushey Station he had grossly and most indecently insulted her—he said that it was all false—after some further conversation, I said, "We had better go to the police-station"—we had some further conversation, and I said that the case had better be investigated before a magistrate—I particularly noticed her bonnet and dress; they were not the least disarranged or injured, and it was a frail, delicate bonnet—it had long white strings—they were not crumpled—her hair was not in the least disarranged—she had a bouquet in her hand, which presented no appearance of injury—Mr. Moseley's dress was not disarranged—the prisoner was excited, but her clothes did not present the appearance of having been in a struggle in the slightest degree.

Cross-examined. Q. I understand you were the first to propose going to the station? A. Yes; I felt it my duty to take them there, whether they liked it or not—she went on to state that after the tickets were collected at the Camden Station Mr. Moseley got hold of her legs, threw her from one side of the carriage to the other, exposed his person, and did everything he could to effect his purpose—he said that it was absolutely false.

HENRY MATTHEW . I am a foreman at the Euston Station—I was on duty there, and the prisoner complained to me of Mr. Moseley having grossly insulted her—he was walking up the platform with a black bag in his hand—I went and told him a lady wanted to speak to him on the platform—he came back—I noticed the prisoner's dress; it was not in the least disordered, nor did I see anything to indicate that her bonnet was disarranged—she had some flowers in her hand—they were not in the least disturbed.

Cross-examined. Q. How far had Mr. Moseley got when you spoke to him? A. About 20 yards—he was not walking very fast—he had got half-way between where the passengers alight and the gate.

WILLIAM BUTLER . I am a guard in the service of the London and North-Western Railway—on Tuesday, 29th May, I was in charge of the train due at Watford at five minutes past six—the train was punctual—it stopped at Pinner, Harrow, Sudbury, and Camden Town, and was one minute late when it arrived at Euston Square—it was due at Watford at 6.5, and arrived at Euston Square at 6.46—we arrived at Camden Town

at 6.40—the tickets had to be collected, and then it was four minutes on—during the journey no complaint was made to me by any person—I heard no disturbance or anything to call it to my attention—there was no smoking carriage in the train—it is contrary to the rules to smoke in the carriages—the train did not stop at Bushey—there is one tunnel at Kensal Green, one at Primrose Hill, and a long bridge at Camden Town, equal to a tunnel, as it is dark.

MR. POLAND. Where is Kensal Green Tunnel? A. Between Sudbury and Camden Town—Primrose Hill Tunnel is just before you get to Camden Town—between Camden Town and Euston Square there are two long bridges.

JOSIAH HENEAGE . I am a ticket-collector in the employ of the London and North-Western railway—I collected the tickets of the train by which Mr. Moseley and the prisoner travelled—the prisoner made no complaint to me—I heard of no complaint in collecting the tickets.

COURT. Q. Did you observe these persons? A. I did not—I only took the front portion of the train—the first second-class carriage was included in my part.

ELIZABETH PEARSON . I am a widow, of 112, Warwick Street, Pimlico—I have lived there three or four years on and off—the prisoner has never lived there—On Tuesday evening, 29th May, the prisoner called there and I saw her—she asked if there were any letters come there in the name of Allen, which was her right name, and not Villers, would Mrs. Hardy take them in?—she is the landlady—I told her Mrs. Hardy would not allow anything of the kind—she gave me a rose, and said that she had been in the country, and that if anybody called I was to say that she lived there—I told her I should not.

Cross-examined. Q. Were yon absent this morning when the case was called on? A. Yes, and my mistress also—we had a cab, but we could not get on any quicker—I was not up late last night—there was not a little disturbance—I was at home with my mistress—single lodgers do not live in the house—there is a lady and gentleman and a little child—single ladies have not lodged in the house since I have been there—I have been there two months this time.

MR. POLAND. Q. Were you here all day yesterday and Monday? A. Yes.

ELIZABETH HARDY . I am a widow, and have lived at 112, Warwick Street, Pimlico, five years—the prisoner has never lived there since I have occupied the house.

Cross-examined. Q. The prisoner gave you in custody, did she not? A. Yes—I went to her house and broke some things when I saw my name in the paper—I smashed a couple of glasses, or it might be three—I had a clergyman living at my house seven years—I had one young lady there living under the protection of a gentleman, but I was not aware of it—I had some single ladies there, but I had them taken away by two policemen—the prisoner has been there to see a lodger whom I turned away, but I did not see her—I turned the lady away last April—she had not been there long—she said that she was married, but I gave her notice to leave—the prisoner came to visit her several times.

COURT. Q. I thought you had never seen her? A. I never saw the lodger, and I never saw Mrs. Allen till two or three days before, but my housekeeper, the last witness, told me that she came.

MR. POLAND. Q. What glasses did you smash? A. Two tumblers,

at Cumberland Street—I think it was the day after this case was gone into at the police-court—I knew that she had given her address at my house—I saw it in the paper—when I was given in custody the prisoner did not appear against me.

COURT to ELIZABETH PEARSON. Q. Had you seen the prisoner at your house? A. Never before—I have not stated that she came and visited a lady in April last—I was not there in April—I had never seen her, only as I opened the door to her.

FRANCES SEAGER . I live with my husband at 20, Cumberland-street, Pimlico—we let lodgings—on 29th May and three weeks before, the prisoner lodged in our house in the name of Mrs. Villers—she gave me a respectable reference when she took the lodgings—Mr. Villers did not come with her—she told me she was a married lady and had some young children—a gentleman came the same evening or next day, but I cannot remember whether she told me Who he was—I cannot say whether they occupied the same room, as he had a lodging across the way in the name of Mr. Winnams, I heard—I saw him there every day, morning and evening—I do not know whether he slept there—I lived in the house—he used to come home at night and go out early in the morning—they only had one bedroom—the prisoner left my lodgings early one Monday morning, between five and six o'clock—I think it was a week after 29th May—it was early on the Monday morning after this matter occurred—I heard that a policeman called from the court on Saturday.

COURT. Q. Had the prisoner given you notice? A. No—on the night she came from Watford she told me she had been grossly insulted, and she was very much agitated—she said she had spent a very pleasant day with her little boy, and next day she went to the police-court.

CHARLES FOSTER . I am a commission agent, of 107, Winchester Street, Pimlico—I let my drawing-room floor to the prisoner, and she occupied it from April, 1865, to the beginning of April, 1866, in the name of Mrs. Villers—I also heard her called Mrs. Allen—she was living with a man named Frank William—I do not know Dyer.

Cross-examined. Q. Did she always behave herself? A. Yes—I never saw anything wrong—he passed under the name of Villers, and they lived as man and wife.

MONTAGUE DYER . I live at 24, Leader Street, Chelsea, and am of no occupation—I have known the prisoner two and a half or three years—I lived with her some nine months back as man and wife—I knew her by the name of Allen—we lived at 60, Cambridge Street; 22, Warwick Place; and 33, Sutherland Street, Pimlico—none of them were ready furnished lodgings—I lived in my own name, Dyer, and she went by the name of Allen.

Cross-examined. Q. Is this the first time you have been in a court? A. No—I have never been convicted—I was tried and acquitted on 21st last November—the prisoner gave evidence against me for obtaining some furniture by false pretences—only one person was charged with me, a policeman named Howard—he had six months—we were tried on the same indictment and she gave evidence—she got up the case—there was no case against me—I have been taken in custody thirty or forty times besides—whenever I left her she was always giving me in charge—I was away from her four months once—I have lived with her I would almost say for a week at a time—I have lived with her two consecutive days at houses which are too numerous to mention—60, Cambridge Street, is one—I lived with her

there for perhaps a week—I have lived there a month with her—I had not apartments in Cambridge Street besides hers—I did live at 14, Cambridge Street—that was not opposite her—it was lower down on the same side—she always took the rooms, and I found the money—I always had money of my own—I have had money in a bank, but when I lived at 60, Cambridge Street, my money was in my pocket—I always had money—I got it from my friends if I wanted any, from my mother and sister—I was not living on my mother and sister and keeping this woman—my money paid the expenses—I have been for six years on the turf—I have been 12 years on the turf—I was never turned off the turf—I know Goodwood—I was not turned off the turf there last year, nor was I dragged out of the ring—I never owed 1s. on the turf—there was a disturbance when I was in the ring; a man named Hatton, a prize-fighter, had robbed me of 12l., and I locked him up for a night, and when he met me at Goodwood he knocked me down, and I had him put out of the ring—he did not charge me with stealing some boots—I was charged by the prisoner with stealing boots—she has charged me 30 or 40 times—I cannot tell you what charges—stealing watches, and for the same thing 20 times—I have been at every police-station in London—after being given in custody I always went back and lived with her, and was given in custody again—she always came and said she would have money from me, and if she did not have money she would have my life—it was very unpleasant for me, but I had an object in it, because my mother was dying, and I did not want it published in the papers—I wished for peace and quietness—I have got no other reason—it only became public once—I was not fined on any of the occasions—I have been fined 40s. at a police-court by Mr. Arnold for being intoxicated—she got a policeman to take me, and I knocked him down—I knew Barnes's in the Haymarket some years ago—I never gave a cheque for 50l. there—one night when I was intoxicated I gave a cheque to Barnes in Panton Street, and instead of writing my own name I wrote the name of John Lawson—John Lawson did not like it and would not pay it—there was a Mrs. Lawson—I lived with her—I did not write her husband's name—she had no husband—she was not married—she never passed as the wife or widow of John Lawson whose name I wrote—I never said to Mr. Lovell, a solicitor of South Square, that I never had connection with her—I will correct myself there if you please—some one told Mr. Lovell when I was first introduced to the prisoner that I knew her, and I did not know her—I had no connection with her at that time—that was two years or two years and a half ago—it was quite true that I did not know her—I was introduced to her, and had known her some months without living with her—I did not know her at the time Mr. Lovell accused me of it, only slightly by speaking to her—I did not know her at the time I told him I did not—I have sworn the truth.

MR. POLAND. Q. How long ago did the matter occur about the cheque? A. Seven or eight years ago—when I signed John Lawson I was living with Mrs. Lawson as man and wife—I was tried at the Middlesex Sessions with another man, and the prisoner was the only witness against us—I defended myself and was acquitted—except the case when I was fined 40s. it was always by the prisoner that I was given in custody—I have been taken to the station, but the inspector would not take the charge—the inspector at Vine Street said that if she brought me there again he would take her instead—I was subpoenaed to come here.—DOBEY. I am a carpenter, of 22, Warwick Place, Pimlico—

I let part of my house—the prisoner lived there with Dyer last August—she represented him to be her husband—they came in the name of Allen—they occupied the same bedroom when he was there—he was only there a week or a fortnight.

MARY ANN WOODWARD . I am a widow, of 20, Queen Street, Brompton—I have known the prisoner for many years—I know Mr. Dyer—I was in the habit of visiting the prisoner at times—she was living with Dyer at that time—I knew her as Mrs. Allen, and him as Mr. Dyer—she used to call him Montague—I have only seen Frederick Walham once or twice—I should not know him if I saw him—the prisoner was in the sitting-room when I saw her—I met her last summer just by the Palace Hotel—I had lost sight of her some two or three years—she was living with Dyer while she at Mr. Dobey's.

Cross-examined. Q. What do you mean by living? Did Dyer come backwards and forwards? A. His home was there—I have seen him at all times—I only went there occasionally—I have only seen Mr. Wilham there two or three times—the apartments were generally taken in her name.

WILLIAM PALMER (Police Sergeant 30 A). I am a detective officer—on Tuesday, 5th June, I had a warrant to take the prisoner into custody—I went to 20, Cumberland Street, but could not find her or hear of her—I received information, and on the 7th I found her in the back parlour of the ground floor of 29, Tenison Street, Lambeth—I read the warrant to her—she said "For God's sake, do not read that, for I am not well"—I read it, and she said, "It is all true I said against Mr. Moseley, with the exception of saying that I lived at 112, Warwick Street, when I lived at 20, Cumberland Street at the time"—I took her to the station.

GUILTY. Strongly recommended to mercy by the jury, thinking perhaps that there might have been some little culpability on the prosecutor's part, and that she might have given him some little liberty/—but Cornelius Foay, inspector at the Victoria Station, stated that she had been molesting gentlemen there for eighteen months, and William Parish, policeman, of Victoria Station, stated that she was the companion of prostitutes, and used to travel backwards and forwards between there and Clapham Junction. The officer Palmer also stated that she had been a prostitute fifteen years . The RECORDER, therefore, declined to act upon the recommendation of the jury.—Five Years' Penal Servitude .

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, July 11th, 1866.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-622
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

622. WILLIAM SMITH (25) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of George Byham, and stealing six silver teaspoons and other articles, his property.

MR. RIBTON conducted the Prosecution.

SARAH STYLES .—I am housemaid to Mr. George Byham, of Uxbridge Road, Ealing—on Saturday, 2nd June, some plate was stolen from my master's house—it was on a box in the kitchen—I saw it safe at three o'clock—there were two forks, two ladles, two lids, two pair of sugar tongs, one knife, a mustard-pot lid, and a basket—these are the articles (produced)—they were about two yards from the window, which was open—there is a small garden in front—I did not miss the plate till six o'clock—I don't know

how it was taken, or by whom—it was shown to me on the following Saturday.

GEORGE BLAKE (Policeman, X 172). On 2nd June I was on duty in the Uxbridge Road, Ealing—I was riding a young horse coming from Shepherd's Bush, and noticed a cart coming along at a sharpish pace—the prisoner and two more men were in it—I knew them by sight—I had heard something of a robbery at Ealing at that time from a constable—I had not heard of the plate—I allowed the men to pass me, and then turned my horse's head again—I saw a basket in the cart, which I produce, with straw in it—I followed them toward East Acton Lane, and asked the prisoner to stop—he was driving—he put his horse into a walk—I asked him again to stop—he would not—I asked him a third time, and caught hold of the horse's head near the bit, and said, "I shall stop him"—he then struck his horse, and my horse reared, and the tire of their wheel caught my horse's hind quarters—they got away then—I came up with them again, and said I should follow them twenty miles till I stopped them—they went on, and I still followed them at a very sharp pace—I passed them then at a gallop—I got about fifty yards in front, turned my head, and saw the prisoner and the other two men jump out of the cart—I turned round and followed them across a wheat field—I went into a grass field, lost sight of the other two, and saw the prisoner—he got over a water ditch, and hid under a fence—I gave my horse into a gentleman's hand, and got over the ditch and caught him—I told him I should take him into custody on suspicion of stealing a watch—he said I had got him wrong for the watch—I took him to the station—I gave the cart in charge to a farmer—I found this plate basket and the other basket inside the cart, with the straw over it—I heard about the plate robbery about six or seven the same evening.

JAMES DODD (Policeman, X 21). The prisoner was brought to the station on this Saturday—about eleven o'clock on the Sunday he sent for me and said he should tell me about the others—I told him whatever he said I should give in as evidence against him—he said, "I was not the man that stole the watch, but it was a young man of the name of Smith; I stood at the gate with the other man and the cart"—he did not say anything about the basket or the plate.

Prisoner. Q. Did not you come to me in the cell and say, "It is a servant's watch; do you know anything of it?" A. No, I did not—you said you were employed by the other men, who escaped, at so much per day.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate:—"This day fortnight I was working in Farringdon Market—I carry over things for hawkers—two men, I do not know their names, except one is named Joe and the other Smith, asked me if I would work for them—I went to look after them—they said they would give me a shilling and grub for half the day."

Prisoner's Defence. I have nothing to say—I should like the owner of the cart called.

ROBERT ARCHER . I am a boot and shoe maker, of 6, Anchor Street, Shoreditch—I was called before the magistrate for the prosecution—my man let this horse and cart before I was up—I just happened to come round and see it going away—it was let to a man named John Bell—I have not been in the habit of letting that cart out—that horse was never out of my stable before only for my own driving—the cart is outside now in charge of the police—I never set eyes on the prisoner before.

GUILTY .—He PLEADED GUILTY to a former conviction in October, 1861, at

Clerkenwell.—Sentence, Four Years' Penal Servitude. **— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. There was another indictment against the prisoner for stealing a watch. The COURT ordered that Blake should receive a reward of 3l.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-623
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

623. CHARLOTTE GRIFFITHS (25) , Feloniously and by fraud taking away Mary Ann Jarvis, a child of the age of two years, with intent to deprive Richard Jarvis, the father, of the possession of the child.

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

RICHARD JARVIS . I am a bricklayer, and live at 131, Pownall Road, Dalston—the prisoner is a cousin of my wife's—I had a daughter, Mary Ann—she was about two years and three or four weeks old—on 30th May I saw the child in the morning, and saw her again at dinner time—when I came back in the evening the child was missing, and, from some information, I went to the prisoner's lodgings, No. 3, Baldwin Court—I went down the court with the prisoner—the child was then in the front room on the bed, and was given to her out of the window by some one—she was in the court along with me and the policeman—it was a small four-roomed house—I took the child from the prisoner and said, "That is my child." She said, "No, it is not, it is mine"—I then gave her in charge to the police—before I gave her in charge she said, "That is my nephew." I said, "It is not your nephew; you know very well it is not a boy at all"—when I found the child she was dressed in a little red flannel frock, she had no stays on, and white socks and low shoes.

Cross-examined. Q. These shoes that the child had on were good shoes, were they not? A. I don't know the value of children's shoes; they were good as far as I know—I should say the prisoner's house is a mile from mine, as near as I can guess—my wife had not seen her for three years, and I never saw her myself till I took her in charge—I believe my wife and the prisoner were on good terms when they saw each other—I believe she was sober at the time I took her.

MARY ANN JARVIS . I am the wife of the last witness—I was at home all day on Wednesday, 30th May—the prisoner came to my house—she is my cousin—I had not seen her since I had been married, which is just turned three years—she came about four o'clock in the afternoon—my little girl was at home playing at ball with me—she took the little child up, scarcely spoke to me, and kissed it, and that is all—she afterwards said she wanted to go as far as the Triangle, at Hackney, to see her husband's sister, might she take the baby with her for half an hour?—I said "Yes," and I dressed it and let it go—it had a black velvet hat and scarlet feather, a white cape, a little pink cotton dress, white socks, and strap shoes, black; it had stays on—this is the frock and socks (produced), and these are the things found on the child when it was found and brought back—they were different from what she was dressed in before—they are not mine—there is a little red flannel frock—it had no drawers on when it went away, and it had drawers on when it came back; it had no stays on, and some shoes which were inferior to those that she had on—the shoes and socks are very different from what I sent her out in, but the little frock there is no difference in—take the whole things together, I think they are about the same in value—she came home in the same hat that she went away in, and the same cape—I saw the child again on the Saturday—I had given information in the meantime.

Cross-examined. Q. Those shoes are nearly new, are they not? A.

They are, I believe, quite new—the shoes the child had on when she went away were not new, but they were a better article—I don't know whether this red frock is new—the prisoner was on very friendly terms with me, and I was very pleased to see her—I would not have let the child go away with her for two or three days, because I had not seen her for such a time—I did not kiss her when she went away—she told me to kiss my baby—I did not invite her to come again—I thought she was going to bring my baby back.

MR. PLATT. Q. You were two days without your baby? A. From the Wednesday to the Saturday—I did not know anything of the prisoner, or where she lived.

RICHARD HANSON (193 N). I was on duty at the Kingsland Road police-station on 2nd June—the prosecutor came in and gave in a description of a child of his that he said had been stolen—I had the prisoner in custody the same morning for breaking some windows—she had a baby in her arms at that time which answered the description given by the prosecutor—the prisoner was asked by the sergeant the same evening whose child this was, and she said it was hers, and it sucked at the breast—in consequence of the description, I was sent with the prosecutor in search of the prisoner and the child—I went to a place called the "London Apprentice" public-house, in Old Street Road—I found the prisoner there and asked her where the child was—she said, "I am going to fetch the child"—I got into a cab with her, and told the cabman to drive to No. 3, Baldwin Court, Baldwin Street, St. Luke's—I saw the child there, it was apparently on a bed—it was put through the window—the prosecutor said, "This is my child"—the prisoner said, "This is my child"—he then gave her into custody for stealing the child—we got into the cab—the prisoner said to the prosecutor, "Give me the child"—he immediately gave her the child, and she carried it on her knee to the station—it might be a mile or rather better from the prosecutor's house to where we found the child.

Cross-examined. Q. You said something about the woman being in custody for breaking some windows: where were the windows? A. In the Kingsland Road—that was the same day she was charged with stealing the child—she was a little the worse for drink I believe in the morning—I heard she had been unfortunate with regard to a man—I can't say whether he was there at the time she broke the windows.

JANE BREWER . I live at 3, Baldwin Court, City Road—on Saturday morning, 2nd June, between nine and ten o'clock, the prisoner brought a baby there—she said it was her child about a fortnight before she told—me she had had a child, but it was dead, and she said she was going to the races, and she met a woman who told her that her child was alive—that was on another occasion—she did not tell me where the child was, or who the woman was.

Cross-examined. Q. She told you her child was dead? A. Yes; that was about a fortnight before she brought the child.

BRIDGET REED . I am the wife of George Reed—I have known the prisoner going on for fourteen years—on Saturday evening, 2nd June, I went to see her in the street where she lived at first, Noble Street, Brick Lane—she told me she met a woman as she came from the races, and she told her her baby was alive—I went upstairs with her and asked her to let me see the baby, and she said her uncle was taking care of it—she did not tell me who her uncle was—she gave me this pink frock, and afterwards a pair of stays.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you know anything about her living with a man? A. Yes, he was my first cousin—they parted because, I believe, he was living with another woman.

GUILTY. Strongly recommended to mercy by the jury. She pleaded guilty to a former conviction of felony in November, 1863.— Confined Six Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-624
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

624. CATHERINE DUNN (27) , Stealing a bag and 1l. 7s. 9d. from the person of Thomas Alexander Morris.

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

THOMAS ALEXANDER MORRIS . I am a nurseryman, in Bow Road, Middlesex—about a quarter-past twelve, on the night of the 12th June, I was standing in the Royal Exchange—the prisoner came up and spoke to me, and placed her hand in my left hand trousers pocket—I had in that pocket a bag containing two half-sovereigns, two shillings, eleven sixpences, and a threepenny-piece—I ran after her and saw her stopped by a policeman—the bag was in her hand, I believe—it contained my money—this is the bag (produced).

Cross-examined. Q. Do you say that the bag was found upon her and the money too? A. Yes—I had not been drinking—I had had a little, like other men, but I was not drunk—I might have had two or three glasses of bitter ale in the course of the day—I did not speak to the prisoner first—I did not put my arm round her neck—I did not ask her to go and have something to drink—I was waiting for an omnibus—I did not tell her I had buried my wife, nothing of the kind—I lost my wife about six months ago—I don't recollect mentioning anything of the kind—I did not say that if she went home with me I would give her a sovereign—I am quite sure of that—she did not say I must give her the sovereign first—I did not take the bag out of my pocket and say, "There are a few sixpences in it; you may as well put it in your pocket"—I did not see a cab—the prisoner did not give me the bag, the policeman seized it—the prisoner said I had given it her—she had gone about half-way down Bartholomew Lane when the policeman took her—I ran after her—she put her hand quite openly into my pocket.

ENOCH EMERY (City Police 656). I saw the prisoner turning from the direction of the statue at the Exchange, and I saw the prosecutor at the end of Bartholomew Lane in pursuit of her—I stopped the prisoner, and took this bag from her hand, which the prosecutor identified—it contained two half-sovereigns and 7s. 9d. in silver—on the way to the station the prisoner said, "You must go the station with me; you gave it me"—she said she had no fixed residence.

GUILTY . She also PLEADED GUILTY to a former conviction of felony, in October, 1863, in the name of Ellen Dobbins. **— Seven Years' Penal Servitude .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-625
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

625. JANE JEFFREYS (27) was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. RIBTON conducted the Prosecution, and MR. DALY the Defence.

ARTHUR HERBERT STAFFORD . I am now chief clerk at Southwark Police-court—at the time of this matter I was second clerk at Worship Street—I produce the information laid by the prisoner, Jane Jeffreys, against Jonas Vass Martin—there are three information's by the same against the same—Jane Jeffreys here represents herself as a single woman

—the summons on the information is not here—I know Mr. Ellison's handwriting—these are the office copies of the summons that issue from the Court—the information and complaint now here is signed by Mr. Elli-son, the Magistrate, and fixes the date on which the summons would be heard,—the defendant Martin appeared on 15th November, 1865—the prisoner Jeffreys was examined as a witness—I did not administer the oath to her—I am certain it was administered, from the practice of the court—I took down her evidence.

WOOD. I am the usher at Worship Street Police-court—I recollect this woman appearing, and Martin appearing as the defendant—I administered the oath.

Cross-examined. Q. How many oaths do you administer during the day generally? A. Sometimes as many as a hundred, I should think—I don't make any record as to the persons who are sworn—probably it was a month or two after I had administered the oath to this woman that I was spoken to about it—I remember it because it was a case that lasted all the afternoon—it was a very lengthy case, and I remember the complainant especially—I remember the case perfectly well, and the persons who were sworn—I know they were sworn—I perfectly remember swearing the woman herself.

A.H. STAFFORD (continued). The prisoner said, "I am single"—she says she is a milliner and dressmaker—she does not say anything else about being single—in the cross-examination she says, "From the first time the defendant had connection with me to the birth of the last child no one else has had connection with me—I did not introduce Hodges to the defendant—I had known him since I was a child"—"Hodges was represented as my husband at Homewood's—I never occupied the same bed with Hodges at Homewood's in 1862, in March, 1862—Hodges was represented as my husband, in consequence of the defendant's mother—I never stopped with Hodge's at Perrin's—I used to wash for him—he never stopped there—he used to take his washing and go away"—at the end she says, "There is no pretence for saying that Hodges had any intercourse with me—Hodges never occupied for one night the same bedroom with me."

Cross-examined. Q. That was taken on the 15th of last November? A. Yes; notes of the evidence—there are no depositions, only in case of trial—these notes were made by me—this is the only record kept—the evidence was extremely long in this case.

WILLIAM CLELY . I am clerk and sexton of St. James's, Clerkenwell—I have the original marriage registry here—this (produced) is a correct copy of an entry in that registry. (This, being read, stated that a marriage was solemnized at St. Jame's Church, on 15 th July, 1862, between Richard Hodges, bachelor, and Jane Jeffreys, spinster.)

JANE TOWELL . I know the prisoner—I saw her married in July, 1862, at St. James's church, Clerkenwell, to a man of the name of Hodges—I was present at the marriage—I knew them years previously to that—I had lived with them—she and Hodges had been living together nearly two years before they were married—Mr. Buckley kept the house—the prisoner and Hodges slept in the same room before and after marriage—they did not live there when they were married—I have seen them in the room—I have seen them in bed—the next time I lived with them after they were married was in York Street, Kingsland Road—that was about eighteen months or two years after—I don't know where they went to live immediately after

the marriage—I don't know the number in York Street where they lived—they occupied the same room there—they slept together as man and wife—Hodges was a butcher—he came home every night about seven or eight, and stayed until ten, and then went out again—he used to come home about once a week to sleep, Saturday night, and sometimes Sunday nights—they occupied the same room, as man and wife—I have seen him give her money—he used to allow her generally about 1l. a week, and he used to bring home joints of meat.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you known the prisoner for any length of time? A. Thirteen or fourteen years—I am single—I live at 3, Charlotte Street, Clapham Road—I have one sister—I heard of the affiliation summom—I think there was one child born before the marriage, the eldest one, I think—Yes, because when I lived with her the first two years she had a little boy—I forget the name of the gentleman whose house they lived in after marriage—he had a wife—Mrs. Harris was her name—his name was Harris—I should say it was twelve months after the marriage that I went to live there—they had two rooms on the first floor—I knew at the time of the affiliation summons that I had seen her married—I gave evidence before the magistrate—I know she was affiliating a child on another man—I did not come forward, because she asked me not to come—my mother and sister persuaded me to come now—I have not had any disagreement with the prisoner—she summoned me to the County Court about two years ago, I think—I owed her some money for a dress she sold me, and a box—I was not in a position to pay her—I appeared to the summons, and she was gone, and I never heard any more of it—my things were not seized—I was not annoyed with her for that—I never had any bad feeling towards her—I have had three illegitimate children myself—I have never lived with a man of the name of Nathan—he visited me, but I never lived with him—he visited me in Jane Jeffrey's house—he is not a married man—I have never seen the proof—I have heard he is a married man—no one told his wife that we had had any connection that I know of—his wife found it out—she never saw us together—somebody must have told her—I don't know that Jeffreys told her—I did not threaten that I would pay her out—I know Mary Ann Southam—she was at my house in February last—I did not ask her how Jane was getting on, or anything like that—she did not ask me—she did not reply, "Middling"—I did not say, "Jonas was at my sister's yesterday, and offered me 15l. if I would go and swear that I saw Jane married to Hodges"—nothing of the kind—the prosecutor has never been at my lodgings—he never offered me any money—she did not say anything about 15l., or about the prosecutor offering me anything—my mother pressed me to go on the last occasion—I did not say anything about Nathan—I know Isabella Winter—I lodged with her—I never told her I was a married woman—I occupied a room at her house about nine or ten months—Nathan visited me there—I had no children born there—I never said, "I will do Jane all the injury I can with her children and her father, as I believe she has done me an injury"—I did not say that in the presence of Jane Cocks—I told the magistrate I saw them married—I did not tell it to any one before—it might be three or four months after the affiliation order was made that I came forward in this prosecution—I did not know Martin was paying 7s. 6d. a week, not for some time afterwards—I knew it, it might have been a month or two before—I knew he had to pay the money for the children, and my mother said I had done a very wrong thing.

MR. RIBTON. Q. Have you any doubt that you saw her married in the

church? A. Oh! no, and they were living together as man and wife—I think there were two children born after marriage.

COURT. Q. How came you to be at the wedding? A. I heard the young man that I kept company with previously was going to be married there, and I went to see him—I never told any one that I was going, but he Was not married, and I saw Jane Jeffreys married—I thought she was married two years previously, and I went home and told my mother and sister that I had seen Jane Hodges married.

MATILDA MARIA HOMEWOOD . I live at 8, Chart Street, Pitfield Street, Hoxton—the prisoner lived with me in March, 1862—she had a sister living with her—I know a man of the name of Hodges, her husband, I. believe—they lived in my house as man and wife—they occupied one room only—a child was born there on 20th March, 1862, a boy—the prisoner passed as Mrs. Hodges—I believed her to be a married woman, she passed as such—she lived with me six or seven months—she went somewhere in the Kingsland Road afterwards—I don't know whether Hodges went with her—I saw nothing more of her—I got this paper from the general register office—I compared it with the entry in the book—it is a correct copy. (This was a registry of the birth of Richard Stephen Hodges on 23rd March, 1862: father's name, Richard Hodges; mother's name, Jane Hodges, formerly Jeffreys.) I know the child's name was Richard Stephen—she told me so afterwards.

Cross-examined. Q. You say you compared this document with the original? A. Yes—Mrs. Simmons can prove I got it—I can't say whether the prisoner and Hodges slept together; I don't know who made their beds—there were no servants in the house—his wife made the bed, I suppose—I never went into the room while they occupied it—I believe they slept there; if he slept in the house, he slept in that room—I was examined before the magistrates on the affiliation summons—I did not say, "Hodges used not to sleep there;" that is a mistake—I say he slept there, to the best of my knowledge—I did not take notice of his going upstairs—Martin called upon me about the affiliation case, and I said, "I never knew anything of her, except that she was a respectable married woman"—he paid my expenses; they were very trifling—I was subpoenaed here to-day from the police-court—my husband keeps me—he is an upholsterer properly, and I am an upholsters when I am at work—I can't say whether the prisoner and Hodges breakfasted together—he used to bring a joint of meat, and take it to the bakehouse on Sunday, and he used to take the eldest child out to get beer.

MR. RIBTON. Q. You did not go into the room while they were in bed? A. No—they occupied that room as man and wife—I did not trouble myself about what time they came in and out—he was always at home on Sundays—I knew he was a butcher—I knew the shop where he worked—he might sometimes be out at night at his work.

SARAH DOUGLASS . I am married, and live at 22, Westmoreland Street—I know Mrs. Jeffreys—she lived with me in January, 1864—she had the last child born there—Hodges was her name there—Hodges was living with her as her husband—they were with me about nine or ten months—he was out at his business a few hours in the day—they occupied the same room—the child was born somewhere in March, 1864—its name was Alice, I believe—it passed as the child of this woman and Hodges.

Cross-examined. Q. What child are you talking about? A. The last child, or as I suppose the last child—I was examined on the affiliation

summons—I was examined before the magistrate in the case of Hodges, not in Jeffrey's case—I had a paper to come up to-day—I am bound over by the magistrate at Worship Street—I know nothing about this certificate (produced)—the child was christened Alice—Alice Hodges, I suppose, I could not swear; it left soon after it was born—I don't know whether it was christened Alice Vaez Martin—I don't know that it had two names—on the affiliation case I said, "She occupied the first-floor room upstairs"—I used the name of Hodges—I said Mrs. Hodges—I said he stayed till one in the morning—he stayed all night; he was there all day and night, except his business hours—his occupation called him out at that hour—I moved to the other side of the water when I left that house—I live in the same house now.

MR. RIBTON. Q. Is that the man who lived with her? (Hodges was placed at the bar.) A. Yes—one of her children, named Rosins, attended her in her confinement—the prisoner called at my house afterwards, and told me to be kind enough to say that she did not live there in the name of Hodges, but in the name of Jane Jeffreys.

JANE TOWELL (Re-examined). That is the man who was married to the prisoner, and who lived with her (Hodges)—they had been living with me previous to the marriage, and after—I think they lived in Paul Street after they were married—I don't know.

GUILTY .— To enter into recognisances to appear for judgment when called upon.

The following prisoners PLEADED GUILTY:

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-626
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

626. HENRY SMITH (30) , to stealing one watch and one chain of John George.— To enter into his own recognisances to appear to receive judgment when called upon . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-627
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

627. WILLIAM JOHNSON (17) , to stealing one basket and 17 tame fowls of Frank Houghton, after a former conviction in November, 1864.—* Confined Fifteen Months . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-628
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

628. JOHN MARS (23) and RICHARD PURVEY (16) , to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Augustus Frederick Fitzgerald, and stealing ten table-cloths, value 20l., and other goods, value 22l. 8s. 6d. Mars also PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction of felony in November, 1864, in the name of John Dayle. MARS.— Eighteen Months . PURVEY..— Fifteen Months [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-629
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

629. FRANCIS WILLIAM CHARLES STATHAM (20) , to stealing six operaglasses, the property of John Reynolds, his master. The prisoner received a good character. Recommended to mercy by the prosecutor. Confined Four Months . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-630
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

630. ALFRED BROOKS (20), JOSEPH SMITH (20), and WILLIAM HADLAM (18) were indicted for a robbery together on Thomas Howard, and stealing from him a watch.

MR. STRAIGHT, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence against the prisoners.


9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-631
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

631. JOHN GARDINER (40) , Stealing six metal pipes of the Surrey Gas Consumers' Gas Company.

MR. PATER, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.


OLD COURT.—Thursday, July 12th.

Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-632
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

632. HENRY CLARK (25) and JAMES COBB (34) were indicted for , and charged on the coroner's inquisition with, feloniously killing and slaying Joseph Friend.

MR. DALY conducted the Prosecution, MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS defended Clark, and MR. METCALFE Cobb.

JOSEPH LAMB . I am quarter-master of the 17 th Regiment of Bengal Infantry, and live at 179, Globe Road—on the afternoon of 21st May, about five o'clock, I was in the Grove Road Archway, Bethnal Green, near Victoria Park—I saw two vans coming along the road, each drawn by two horses—they were racing and galloping—they were coming in the same direction—Cobb was driving the advance van—I saw the little boy who was afterwards killed cross the road with his sister—when I first saw him he was on the side of the road where there were some stalls—the little girl had hold of his hand—she let go his hand and ran across the road—the boy was about following when the near horse or the near wheel of the van driven by Cobb struck the child, and it stumbled and fell forwards, and both the wheels of the other van driven by Clark went over it—the drivers galloped on through the archway up the hill forty good yards before I could get them to stop—when they stopped Clark's van was close to the kerb, and the other one was jammed close to it—they could not pass one another—the constable came up—I explained to him what had happened—I then went back and saw the child being taken to the doctor's, and I saw it die about five minutes afterwards.

Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. Q. Were you in the road or on the pavement? A. On the pavement, by the stalls—there was no fair going on there—the people were going to the park—there were three stalls there—there were a number of people in the road—I was standing at a nut stall—the boy's sister did not let go of his hand in front of the van, she did just before—they had just left the pavement when she let go—I stated before that the van was stopped fifteen or twenty yards from the place where the boy was run over, but the distance has been measured since—the vans were not abreast when they were galloping down the road, they were near together; one was following the other, very near abreast—I know Edward Triplett—I dare say Clark's van was a good six feet behind Cobb's—it might have been a few yards difference—it was done momentarily—I do not know James Hayes, or William Holroyd, or Catling—I did not see them there.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Q. Were the stalls on the footpath from which the children came? A. Yes—directly they got into the road the girl let go his hand and ran across, leaving him standing in the road—he was about six years old—that appeared to me to be the cause of the accident—if she had kept hold of his hand and made him go across with her I dare say they would have got across all safe, I have not the least doubt of it—I am not accustomed to horses—I know what galloping means—I should say I know the difference between galloping and trotting—they were galloping, all the four horses—both vans were doing their best—to the best of my belief, they were going about ten miles an hour—it is all down hill.

EDWARD TRIPLETT . I live at 36, London Street, Stepney—I am guard to a van—I saw the two prisoners driving two vans in the Grove Road—I was on the pavement, the same side as the nut stalls—both vans were going one way—I have been used to horses about sixteen months—they were galloping—the last time I was up at the Court I said they were going at thirteen miles an hour—I saw the little boy who was run over, with his sister—they were on the pavement walking along when I first saw them, going to run across the road—the little girl ran across, and just as she got off the kerb she let go of the little boy's hand, and Cobb's near horse knocked the child down—both near wheels of Clark's van ran over him—I picked him up and took him to the doctor's.

ELIZABETH FRIEND . I am the daughter of Stephen Friend, of 39, Wilson Street—I was with my little brother Joseph in the Grove Road on 21st May—we were returning from a path on the right-hand side of where the stalls are—I crossed the road before my little brother, and left him to come behind me—I got safe across—before he could cross the horses in the first van knocked him down, and the second van ran over him, and the vans galloped on.

Cross-examined by MR. WILLIAMS. Q. Was there not a fair going on close by? A. No, not there—there were a number of people in the road, and a good deal of noise—it was not in the middle of the road that my brother was knocked down—I could hardly say how far it was from the footpath—he was more towards the nut stall side.

EDWARD MIHILL DAVEY . I am a surgeon, of Florence Villa, Old Ford Road, Bow—on Whit Monday, about 5 o'clock I was called to my surgery when the child was brought there—it afterwards died—I made a post mortem examination—the injuries that he received were the cause of death—there were a fractured skull, rupture of the liver, fracture of the rib, rupture of the bladder, rupture of the testicle, and fracture of the pelvis, these were injuries consistent with its having been run over.

Witnesses for the Defence,

JAMES HATES . I am a labourer, and live in New Street, Lime-house—I was in the Grove Road on the afternoon of this accident—there were a great many persons in the road—there were a number of stalls, some underneath the railway arch, and some on each side of it—I saw two vans coming in the direction of Victoria Park, on the near side, they were going at the regular pace, between five and six miles an hour I reckon, trotting—I saw the little girl crossing the road with the child—I saw Cobb try to pull up his van, which was first, when the people hallooed for him—I can't say exactly how far he was then from the child, because they ran across the road—the little girl had hold of the little boy by the hand, and if she had kept hold of his hand she might have saved him—she saved herself, but she let go, and the near horse kicked the child, and knocked it down—I picked it up—in my opinion the driver could not have pulled up in time to prevent the accident—it was not possible for the vans to be galloping, from the thronged state of the road—if they had been galloping they must have done more injury than they did.

Cross-examined. Q. Were you examined at the police-court? A. No—I knew the prisoners were charged, but I did not know I should be required—Cobb came to me while he was out on bail, and asked if I knew anything about it, and I told him what I knew—I don't know much about

driving—the child might have been three or four yards from the van when I first saw it—I don't know whether the prisoners could see the child as well as me—they were looking in front—it was going askew across the road—I heard the people call out to Cobb to stop, before the accident, when he was three or four yards from the child.

MR. METCALFE. Q. When the child was almost under the van wheels? A. Yes; there was not time for him to pull up—I am quite certain the horses were trotting—I did not know the prisoners before this—I went to Worship Street, but was not called.

COURT. Q. How far from where the boy was knocked down were the vans stopped? A. I reckon about 25 or 30 yards—the people were calling out to the drivers to stop.

JAMES CATLING . I reside in Warwick Street, Stepney—I was in this road when the accident took place—I saw the vans—they were going between five and six miles an hour I should think, trotting—I did not see the accident—I saw the child just after he was picked up—the road was thronged with people—there were stalls on one side.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you see the child before it was knocked down? A. No, but I observed the vans, for the man sang out to me to get out of the road—I was walking in the road; that was about 400 yards before the accident happened—I was 400 yards behind the van when the child was knocked down—I saw a mob collect round the vans, and ran up.

COURT. Q. How far from where the boy was knocked down were the vans stopped? A. I should think it might be 100 yards.

JOHN ABBOTT . I am a coal merchant, carrying on business in a large way—these vans belong to the firm in which I am a partner—the prisoners have been in my employment for some time, Cobb nearly all his life, sixteen or seventeen years, and Clark six or seven months—they are very careful drivers—they had been out delivering coke that day—they are heavy vans—Cobb's was a particularly heavy van, and the horses were such as are usually seen in coal vans, fat and in good condition—I should think eight miles an hour would be the maximum pace that they could possibly be goaded to—I never saw them gallop—I think it would be very difficult to get them all four to gallop.

Cross-examined. Q. They were not screws? A. No, Cobb's were particularly heavy horses, heavier than the others—they were not like dray horses, such horses as you see in ordinary vans.


9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-633
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

633. JOSEPH BEECH (40) was indicted for a rape upon Eliza Armstrong.

MR. ARMSTRONG conducted the Prosecution, and MR. NICHOLSON the Defence.


NEW COURT.—Thursday, July 12th, 1866.

Before Mr. Recorder.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-634
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

634. JOHN SUTTON (31), and CROWTHER SMITH, alias JOHN POTTER SERJEANT (52) , Unlawfully conspiring together, and by means of a false declaration procuring the said Crowther Smith to be represented as a duly qualified medical practitioner.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE, MR. OPPENHEIM, and MR. STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; DR. KENEALEY appeared for Sutton, and MR. BUSH COOPER for Smith.

EDWARD TRIMMER . I am secretary to the Royal College of Surgeons of England—I produce the schedule of certificates sent in by candidates who come up for examination—here is a certificate that Mr. J. P. Serjeant was articled to Mr. Paget, of Leicester, from 1st January, 1830, to 1st January, 1835, dated May 18th, 1835—I also produce a certificate of the birth of John Potter, son of John and Catherine Serjeant, of Leicester, on August 8th, 1812; also a certificate from the Leicester Hospital of his attendance there—the diploma of the College of Surgeons was then granted to John Potter Serjeant—I have not searched the register of the college for the last thirty-five years, but Mr. Stone has.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. Who is the prosecutor in this case? A. I do not know of my own knowledge; I have heard—Mr. Clark the attorney told me—he may be also the attorney of a person named Impos—Mr. Clark has frequently called on us about this prosecution, and Mr. Imhof also—I did not send for them, they came voluntarily.

MR. OPPENHEIM. Q. Is Mr. Clark a member of the firm of Chapman and Clark, of Lincoln's Inn Fields? A. I believe so—I went to the police-court and came here voluntarily.

JAMES GRACE CROUCH . I am a writ server—I served notices to produce on the prisoners yesterday—these are copies of them (produced).

THOMAS STONE . I am a clerk to the Royal College of Surgeons of England—I have searched the register of the college back to the year 1825—with the exception of a diploma, granted in May, 1836, to John Potter Serjeant, no diploma has been granted to anybody of that name—John Potter Serjeant, who received his diploma in 1836, was known to me—he is not at the bar—after he received his diploma I knew him as a grinder, that is a medical gentleman who prepares students for examination.

Cross-examined by MR. B. COOPER. Q. What did you search? A. The list of members—I have also searched the volume which contains the certificates on which diplomas are granted—I looked though every page of this volume, and with that view, about a fortnight ago, not bodily from beginning to end, we search by the index.

MR. OPPENHEIM. Q. Would that volume contain the register of the diploma? A. No; it would show that he had passed—I have searched the register from 1825.

DR. WILLIAM PERRIN BRODRIP . I am secretary to the Society of Apothecaries of London—I produced the register of the society from 1836—on 20th October here is the name of John Potter Serjeant, written by himself—that means that he declares his intention of presenting himself on a certain day for examination—he appeared in October, 1836, and was examined, and a diploma was granted to him on that day—there is no other name here of John Potter Serjeant.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you search before 1836? A. No—for aught I know there may have been a John Potter Serjeant before 1836.

MR. OPPENHEIM. Q. On 20th October, 1836, was there more than one diploma granted to a person bearing the name of John Potter Serjeant? A. No.

JOHN ROUTH . I have been clerk to the Medical Council since it was

established in 1858—I produce the registers—the printed copies for the year 1859 are left in the hands of the solicitors—I also produce these papers, the first application on which registers are made—this one, marked E, was brought to the Council by the prisoner Smith: it is dated July 6th, 1862—he asked to be again registered under the Medical Act, and said, "I suppose that my name was removed from the medical register in consequence of my unfortunate connection with the Sutton gang"—I made no particular remark—a boy was in attendance on him, and he said, in the boy's presence, that his diplomas were there in a tin case. (This was a request to be again registered as a medical practitioner under the following qualifications:—M.R.C.S. and L.S.A., to which was added, "I hereby affirm that I am lawfully possessed of the qualifications described. John Potter Serjeant, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury. July, 1862.")

ROBERT BELL . I am clerk to the Medical Council of England, and have been so since January, 1859—I was present on July 6th, 1862, when Mr. Routh had the conversation with the prisoner Smith—Smith presented this printed document to Mr. Routh—I have heard his account—it is perfectly correct.

FRANCIS HENRY MITCHELL . I am a clerk in the Court of Exchequer—I produce this affidavit from the files of the court.

FREDERICK SHAW . I am a clerk in the Crown office—I produce an affidavit.

GEORGE LEWIS . I am a member of the firm of Lewis and Lewis, of Ely Place—I know the prisoner Sutton, and know his writing—the signature John Sutton to the affidavit in the Exchequer is his writing, and the jurat also—as to the affidavit from the Crown office, the words "Judges' Chambers, Rolls Garden, Chancery Lane," and the figure "2d," are in Sutton's writing, but not the words "Sworn at"—I will not be certain whether I have seen the prisoner Serjeant write—I fancied I had at the police-court, but I have received a letter from Sutton to say that I am mistaken—my belief is not shaken, but I should not like to say so, as he adheres to it—I produce a document signed by both prisoners—I cannot say that I saw either of them sign it, but I identify Sutton's writing. Q. Look at that document and refer to those letters: in your opinion whose writing are they in? A. I cannot say; there are portions which resemble Sutton's writing—for instance, the words "gentlemen," and "yours faithfully;" but, looking at them as a whole, I am inclined to say that they are not his writting.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. How are they marked? A. B, C, and D—there are portions which resemble his writing, but, looking at them as a whole, I believe that not any of those three letters are written by Sutton—I saw in a newspaper the action brought against Imhof, and I gave evidence on the trial—I did not see the papers in it, and never heard of them until you made an attack upon me—they were not laid before me—I know nothing about them—I tendered myself for examination in the case of Sutton v. Imhof after you had made some remarks—I was perfectly satisfied with what the judge said to you and to me—I did not know that the case was coming on till I saw in the newspapers the statement you made in my absence—I went down and tendered my evidence—I was not in court, and heard none of the parties examined, except a small part of the cross-examination—after I had given my evidence I left the court—I only know from the newspapers that the case lasted two days—I

did not appear as a witness on behalf of Imhof—I was tendered by the defendant, but did not appear as a witness for him—I went there unsolicited and without their knowledge—I was called by the defendant Imhof's counsel at my request—I saw Mr. Clark seated in court—I do not know that I saw him instructing counsel—he was not underneath the counsel who examined me—Serjeant Ballantine examined me.

MR. OPPENHEIM. Q. Had either you or your firm anything to do with the action upon which you gave evidence? A. No—I was not subpoenaed.

ST. JOHN WONTNER . Before answering other questions, I may state that I am here entirely on business, acting as attorney for Sutton, and therefore, unless your Lordship rules that I am bound to give evidence, as far as I am concerned, I shall object.

MR. OPPENHEIM. Q. Refer to that document (produced), and see if that is Serjeant's signature. A. This signature, John Potter Serjeant, was signed in my presence by the prisoner, who now gives the name of Smith, the taller of the two.

Cross-examined by MR. B. COOPER. Q. Was not that signature made in your presence, you acting as attorney for Serjeant? A. Distinctly not, but to answer that question I must go into the matters of the other defendant. I refuse to answer the question.

COURT. Q. I must know on what ground. A. On the ground that I am acting professionally for Sutton, and that in answering it I may implicate Sutton.

MR. COOPER. Q. Were not Sutton and Serjeant jointly interested? A. I object to answer the question, and it would not improve you at all.

JOHN ROUTH (Re-examined). I now produce the Register of the Medical Council of England for 1859—under the letter "S" I find "John Potter Serjeant, 45, King Street, Long Acre, M. R. C. S. of 1836, and L. S. A. 1836"—this Register is an annual publication—we print the names of the practitioners with their altered addresses—it remained the same in 1860—for 1861 the following entry appears: "John Potter Serjeant, 8, Store Street, Bedford Square," with a repetition of the qualifications—we altered the address to Store Street in consequence of having received this document (produced)—the name does not appear in the Register of 1862, in consequence of a notice having been sent us under the 14th section of the Medical Act—I wrote a letter by direction of the registrar, and no answer was received—it was posted with other letters that day—it was in consequence of not receiving a reply that the name did not appear in the Register of 1862—it was on the receipt of this application (produced) that the person calling himself John Potter Serjeant was registered in 1859—this is his first application (read: "I request to be registered, &c. as before read, but giving the address King Street, Long Acre. Signed, John Potter Serjeant").

Cross-examined by MR. B. COOPER. Q. You produce the Register of 1859, and therein you find a John Potter Serjeant duly registered? A. Yes—what we call an erasure is the removal of a name—it does not appear the year following—I cannot give any evidence as to the person who appeared with this document in 1859—I cannot say how it came—I found it in the office—I cannot connect it with any individual; not the first one.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. It was on information, I think, sworn by you that Sutton was apprehended? A. I gave evidence at Marlborough Street—I swore an information against him—to the best of

my belief, I had not seen Sutton then—either Mr. Chapman or Mr. Clark drew up the information for me to swear—I did not instruct either of them to do so—they presented it to me, and I signed it—I heard that on that information Sutton was immediately apprehended—I saw him brought up the next day, or the next but one—I did not hear from Chapman and Clark that he was apprehended when he was going before the taxing-master in the action against Imhof—I heard that a taxation was going on, but I cannot say from what source.

DR. FRANCIS HAWKINS . I am a Fellow of the College of Physicians of England, and have been registrar of the Medical Council of England since the passing of the Medical Act—about 24th November, 1863, I recollect a person calling himself John Potter Serjeant calling at the registration office and presenting a document to the clerk, and he was not content with that, but desired to see me—he did see me, and I left him immediately after answering his question—I am rather shortsighted, and cannot say whether he is here—Mr. Routh was present—the person said that he applied to have his name placed on the Register, that he had been registered before, but his name had been taken off—I said that I could not do so; I was instructed by the Medical Council not to do so—he was not content with that answer, but said, "Dr. Hawkins, why will not you place me on the Register?"—I said that I could not enter into that subject with him, but must refer him to the solicitor of the Medical Council—he complained to me that he had unjust enemies, who spread calumnies against him, and that his name was removed on that account—his name has not been registered—Mr. Ouvrey knows more about it—he is the solicitor to the Medical Council—I have given directions for every facility to be given to the prosecution—I am subpoenaed, but if I had been told that my attendance was necessary for the purposes of justice I should have attended—I had intended to come—the Medical Council does not itself prosecute—I think there are ample grounds for this prosecution—it is impossible for the Council to assemble more than once a year, because they come from all three divisions of the United Kingdom.

Cross-examined by MR. B. COOPER. Q. What was the expression he used, "Registered," or "Placed on the Register? A. He wanted to have his name on the Register—I do not know what his expression was, but the impression on my mind was that it was an after-thought of his—I cannot say what he said, but I think it was to be placed on the Register.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. You have told us who is not the prosecutor: I am very anxious to know who is? A. You cannot hear it from me, for I do not know.

WILLIAM KIRKE EAMES . I have lived at Leicester 60 years—I married a cousin of John Potter Serjeant—I knew him—he was articled, I believe, to Messrs. Needham and Ash, general practitioners, I cannot speak positively—I knew him when he was at the Infirmary studying medicine—I knew his father and mother well—his father's name was John, and his mother was a Miss Potter, from Manchester—I do not know her Christian name, though I knew them personally several years—I know that John Potter Serjeant was born at Leicester—I did not see him after he left Leicester to study in one of the London hospitals—neither of the prisoners is my relative by marriage. (MR. OPPENHEIM here put in a certified copy of the register of the birth and baptism of a John Potter Serjeant in 1812 from the Church of St. Margaret, Leicester; also of the death of John Potter Serjeant,

surgeon, at 18, Beresford Terrace, Walworth). I was not present at his birth or baptism.

SARAH SMITH . I am a widow, and live at Newtonards, Leicester—I lived in Leicester some time before 1836—I have lived there ever since I was 11 years old—I then knew John Potter Serjeant—he was studying with Messrs. Needham and Paget, surgeons there, and also at the Leicester Hospital or Infirmary—I knew his father and mother, John and Catherine Serjeant, quite well—after 1836 I knew the same John Potter Serjeant when living in London, and saw two diplomas in his possession besides certificates—I was acquainted with him to the time of his death, and was present when he died—I then returned to Leicester, and then came back to London—after his death I took possession of his diplomas, and lost them—I afterwards married, and went to reside at Swindon—I still kept the diplomas in my possession in a round tin case—I lost them, as near as I can recollect, about 1858 or 1859, and have not seen them since.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. Was it a person named Lambert who first found you out to give evidence? A. I believe it was; he brought me up to London and introduced me to a man named Imhof—I met him in Lincoln's Inn Fields—that was after I left the office of Messrs. Chapman and Clark, the solicitors for the prosecution—Imhof did not ask what I could prove in the case—he said nothing to me—I have seen Lambert twice—he paid my fare up from Leicester—I saw him here this morning and at the various sittings before the police magistrate.

MR. OPPENHEIM. Q. Could you have come here unless you had been sent for? A. Certainly not.

COURT. Q. You missed them seven or eight years ago. How long before that had you seen them? A. Not a great while before.

WILLIAM GOLBOURNE . I am an undertaker, of 43, Greek Street, Soho, and am the owner of 58, King Street, Long Acre—about 1859 or 1860 the lower part of that house was occupied by the prisoner Sutton, and I saw him there several times—I do not know whether he paid me rent with his own hands, but he was my tenant—the shop was used, I think, as a chemist's—the name of Serjeant was on the facia over the door.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. Will you undertake to swear it was not in 1860? A. I cannot undertake to swear what year it was, it was about that time; it was only a small holding, and I have no record of it—Mr. Sutton paid me honourably—I knew him as Sutton—I do not know who minded the business.

Cross-examined by MR. B. COOPER. Q. You never saw Serjeant there? A. No, I do not know him—I never saw him that I am aware of.

FREDERICK OUVREY . I am a solicitor, of 66, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and a member of the firm of Ouvrey and Farrer—we are solicitors to the Medical Council—about November, 1865, a person who called himself John Potter Serjeant called on me—I believe him to be the taller prisoner—he asked me why the Council resisted placing his name on the Register—I said, "Well, the fact is, the Council have reason to suppose that you are connected with what is called the Sutton gang"—he denied that he was connected with the Sutton gang, and said that he had been the victim of Sutton—I acted as solicitor to the Council on the application for the two mandamuses at the Queen's Bench—I received these two letters (produced)—I do not exactly know whether they came on the 3rd December, 1862, and 20th June, 1863, or on the following days—I believe they were produced by my agent—these two letters, B and C, pending the application

for the mandamus, I did not receive—they do not purport to be directed to me—one is directed to my agents, and the other to Mr. Hawkins.

Cross-examined by MR. B. COOPER. Q. Are you quite sure that that is the man who called on you? A. Not quite; it is possible that I am mistaken.

FREDERICK SHAW (Re-examined). I produce the orignal books of the Crown Office, Queen's Bench—the first rule nisi was on 4th June, 1863—it was an application to call on the Medical Council, commanding them to hear and determine the application of John Potter Serjeant to be registered—the rule was made absolute on 12th June, 1863—the second rule for a mandamus was applied for on 24th November, 1863; it is calling on the Council to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to them, commanding them to insert the name of John Potter Serjeant on the Register—that was made absolute in the following Hilary Term, 25th January, 1854.

MR. OPPENHEIM proposed to put in the affidavit as evidence against Sutton, but the COURT considered that there was not sufficient evidence to connect Serjeant with it.

ALFRED JAMES HACK . I am a clerk in the office of Mr. Hands, a solicitor, of 22, Coleman Street—I was formerly in the office of Mr. Stretton, of Gray's Inn, and was engaged in two actions: Sutton v. Mrs. Andrews and Sutton v. Parker—Sutton v. Parker was pending in 1861, to the best of my recollection—at that time I knew the prisoner Crowther Smith by that name—I came to know him at the concluding part of the case of Sutton v. Andrews, and I saw. him throughout the next action—he was acting as clerk to Mr. Wood, Mr. Sutton's attorney—I have frequently seen the two prisoners together during the progress of Sutton v. Andrews—I went to 8, Store Street, Bedford Square, for the purposes of the first action—Sutton was living there, carrying on a surgeon's or a medical man's business—I saw a diploma of John Potter Serjeant exhibited in the window—this was about 1860 or 1861.

Cross-examined by MR. COOPER. Q. You did not go for the purpose of reading what was in the window? A. I went to ascertain the altered appearance of the shop, for the purposes of the action—I took particular notice of the diploma, because it was one of the principal parts of our case that he was using that shop and using the name of Sutton—I think it was a surgeon's diploma, but I am not sure.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. Are you pledging yourself to the date? A. To the best of my recollection—I have not been asked to refresh my memory since I was examined before the justice—I did not know that the date was material—to the best of my belief, it was not in 1862—I cannot swear positively, but I believe it was the latter end of 1860 or 1861—besides Smith, Mr. Wood's son acted in his office—I constantly met Smith on his matters at the Judges' Chambers—he carried Mr. Wood's papers on those occasions.

MR. OPPENHEIM. Q. Look at these letters B and C? A. This seems to be like Sutton's writing—I believe they are his writing, altered in style—I have frequently seen him write—I cannot say anything about the third letter; I do not know it.

DR. KENEALEY. Q. When did you see Sutton write? A. During 1860, 1861, and 1862, during the progress of these actions—the last time may have been in 1863, when the last action was concluded, and I got a letter from him the day before yesterday—I cannot recollect whether I got

a letter from him during the years I have mentioned, but I have seen him write during those years a couple of dozen times—we were on adverse sides, but he often wrote summonses or notices in the course of the proceedings—I will swear that I have got notices which I saw him write, and summonses filled up by him—he used to come to our office and fill up a summons, and leave it there—I have no such summons, it would belong to my late employer—it is upon those kind of things that my knowledge of his writing is founded.

GEORGE THATCHER . I am clerk to Mr. Stretton, a solicitor, of Southampton Buildings, and was so during an action brought by Sutton against Andrew Parker in 1860 and 1861—I know the taller prisoner by the name of Crowther Smith—he was acting as Mr. Wood's clerk—I was a witness in one of those actions before Mr. Baron Bramwell at chambers—it was not before Mr. Justice Byles, I wish to correct my deposition—Smith was present and acted on behalf of Sutton, whose counsel did not attend—I understood that he was acting as clerk to Mr. Wood, as attorneys' clerks do at chambers—I remember it, because he threw great discredit upon my evidence, and spoke in a way which I did not consider gentlemanly or manly—I very frequently saw him and Sutton together in reference to these actions. (The affidavit was here put in, and was signed "J. P. Serjeant.")

SAMUEL HALLE . I am in the service of Messrs. Clark and Company, of 2, Red Lion Court, hosiers—I have known the taller prisoner about six years by the name of Crowther Smith—he was a clothier in Hackney Road—my firm had business transactions with him—I produce a bill of exchange from the firm drawn by "Crowther Smith and self"—I do not know the writing.

Cross-examined by MR. B. COOPER. Q. Where did you get it from? A. Mr. Clark gave it to me last Saturday week—I know nothing about the signature.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. When did you know him? A. About 1861 as Crowther Smith—I have seen his shop—the name of Smith was written over the door.

WILLIAM MILLER . I am a draper, of the New Kent Road—I know Smith—I have seen him write, and saw him sign this bill (produced)—this affidavit is the same signature.

Cross-examined by MR. B. COOPER. Q. Where did you see him sign that bill? A. In the Queen's Bench prison—we took a 20l. note in composition, but it was never paid, and the debt is still unpaid—the body of the bill is in Mr. Parker's writing evidently, his security, who is as bad as himself—Parker was not there—Smith produced the bill—I saw him sign his name at the back, or I should not have taken it. (The joint affidavit of the prisoners, in the Exchequer, as to the delivery of briefs and payment of witnesses, dated 26th December, 1861, was here read, signed "Crowther Smith" and "John Sutton"; also a letter of 30th September, 1862, signed J. P. Serjeant, to Mr. Hawkins, stating that he should compel Mr. Hawkins, by "manamus," to place his name on the Medical Register; also a letter, dated 15th June, 1863, from J. P. Serjeant to Messrs. Pinnager and Wilkinson, stating that he was acting under legal advice, and intended to apply to the Court in November, and also to sue Mr. Hawkins for damages sustained by his name being kept off the Register.)

GEORGE SMITH GRAYSON . I am a son of Mr. Grayson, an attorney, of Great Ormond Street—I have seen Sutton write on several occasions—the

signature to these two letters, B and C, is J. P. Serjeant, but I believe it to be Sutton's writing—it is a disguised hand.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. When did you see him write? A. On several occasions when he was instructing my father to go on with the action of Serjeant v. Imhof—that action was referred to Master Gordon, in the Common Pleas—Sutton and Serjeant were both before the Master—they were arrested when they were going to give their evidence—I did not see them arrested—it was in November last—I heard of their apprehension before the Master the other day, in the action brought by Sutton against Imhof—I do not wish to mention names—I did not hear it from your junior—I am rather near-sighted—I have been in the eye-hospital, but not for any great deficiency of sight.

WILLIAM HEDGELAND . I am an organ-builder, of 117, Gower Street—I first knew the prisoners in May, 1863—they were living at 56, Gower Street, which was afterwards changed to No. 61—I undertook to improve an organ which Mr. Sutton bought—there was no name on the door till May, 1863, when there was a plate with "Dr. Serjeant" on it put on the door; but Sutton called Serjeant by the name of Smith, and he gave me the name of Smith when he called on me—when I called I saw Smith in his shirt sleeves, hanging pictures; and on one occasion I saw him greasing part of the organ, with his sleeves tucked up—I saw four or five documents in frames hanging round the room—I read several of them, and noticed the name of John Potter Serjeant in them in all cases.

Cross-examined by MR. B. COOPER. Q., Did you see anybody there calling himself John Potter Serjeant? A. No.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. Was it a self-acting organ? A. Yes—I rendered some assistance.

MR. OPPENHEIM. Q. Were you many times in Gower Street? A. Yes—I did not see Serjeant in a professional dress.

COURT. Q. I suppose you had no means of knowing whether Smith was living there? A. I heard he was not, but Sutton was—I have been there in the morning early, and have seen him partly dressed—I received orders from Sutton to deliver goods at his house.

THOMAS MOODY . I am a greengrocer, of 30, Duke Street, Bloomsbury—I know both the prisoners—I received a communication, in consequence of which I went to their house, about moving some furniture—I have frequently seen them together about the streets, and I used to send greengrocery to Dr. Sutton's house, No. 97, I think, in Great Russell Street—I have seen the prisoners at that house, but not together—one of my men moved the furniture—he is not here.

WILLIAM THOMPSON . I am a tailor, of 223, Tottenham Court Road—I lived at 9, Store Street, Bedford Square, from 1857 to 1861—I know Sutton—he lived at No. 8, Store Street—he came there in the early part of 1859, or the early part of 1860—I had some conversations with him pending some actions which he brought against Mr. Parker—he introduced a man named Gayler to settle the action, and that fell through, and then he introduced the prisoner Smith to me as Mr. Smith, the clerk managing his case against Parker, in Mr. Wood's office—on a subsequent day Sutton called on me and showed me a written paper or parchment—I glanced at it—he said that it was a diploma granted to Dr. Serjeant, and showed it to me to inform me that he was a qualified medical man, and had had a diploma granted to him—he said that he was practising with Serjeant, as I understood, and that he could make 2000l. a year.

Cross-examined by MR. B. COOPER. Q. Previous to that had he introduced the man to you as Smith? A. Yes—he did not say that he was the doctor who had the diploma—he no doubt meant some other person whom he did not indicate.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. When did he introduce Smith to you? A. A few days before the settlement of the case with Parker, in 1861—I cannot say to a week when he brought the diploma, or the time of year—the only incident I remember is that he brought these papers in a bag, and took out a ledger, which was by mistake left behind, and is at my house now—he purchased a business at 8, Store Street, from Mrs. Andrews—it might have been the very early part of 1862 that he showed me the parchment, because Mr. Parker's case was settled about November, and may have been in hand in March—I am quite clear that it was not in the middle of 1862 that he showed me the parchment—I would not go so far as March.

H—COOPER. I am a short-hand writer of Lincoln's Inn—I was present on 24th and 25th of May at an action tried before Mr. Justice Lush—the prisoner Smith gave evidence—I took notes of it—it was on the second day, May 25, he gave his name John Potter Serjeant, and was called "Dr. John Potter Serjeant"—he was asked, "Had you a good business as a medical man up to the time of your first introduction to Imhof? A. Yes, I had a very good connection. Q. You were carrying on your business in Gower Street, at Smith's house? A. Yes. Q. Is Smith a person who has considerable medical skill? A. Yes. Q. Was there an agreement between you as to the division of profits? A. Quite so."

Q. Now refer to Sutton's evidence when he spoke of carrying on business in Gower-street? A. "Q. Are you the plaintiff in this action? A. I am. Q. Did you reside in September in Gower Street? A. Yes. Q. Was a gentleman named Serjeant residing with you, and carrying on business? A. Yes. Q. Was he M. R. C. S.? A. He was M. R. C. S. MR. JUSTICE LUSH. Q. Are you a member? A. No, I am an unqualified man. Q. You being an unqualified man, was the business carried on at your place, and were you acting in connection with Sergeant?" A. Yes.

Cross-examined by DR. KENEALEY. Q. Were you present at the trial of Serjeant v. Imhof? A. Yes, and took the notes—I cannot say whether Imhof admitted that he had sent two policemen to apprehend the defendants when they were before the Master—here are the notes, it is impossible to pitch upon one particular answer—I very likely said that I would give it to Serjeant and Sutton rather hot—they treated me in anything but a gentlemanly way, in point of fact they swindled me, you have a transcript of my notes and never paid for them, and I had a quiet invitation to go to the devil when I asked for my money—I mean to say that I gave you a copy of Imhof's evidence—I asked for 10l. down, and I refused to do more until I was paid—if all the notes were written out, it would be 30 guineas—there were charges of perjury at Westminster—Sutton made a charge of perjury against Imhof, and the magistrate dismissed it—the investigation lasted four or five days—I do not know how many trials there have been between the parties—I was at one at Westminster Police-court, and at the case of Sutton and Imhof in the Bail Court and at Marlborough-street.

MR. OPPENHEIM. Q. You said something about giving it them hot; have you said anything to-day except as to your short-hand notes? A. Certainly not.

MR. B. COOPER submitted that if any offence was committed it was one of personation, and not that of unlawfully attempting to register, and that the question was one of identity. DR. KENEALEY contended that what the statute intended to meet, was a man producing false documents conferring upon him a licence which never ought to be conferred upon him, thus putting a false name upon the Register; that the name of Crowther Smith never was on the Register, that a man could not register another man's name and get registered him-self, and that there was nothing to justify the allegation that he had registered himself. MR. OPPENHEIM submitted that Sutton had filled in the "jurat," and that the affidavit contained a falsehood, and that both prisoners had signed it. The COURT considered that there was evidence against Serjeant upon the counts for personation, but not against Sutton.

GUILTY on the third and fourth counts (applying to the false statement that Smith lived at 27, Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury). Confined Twelve Months each .

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, July 12th, 1866.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-635
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

635. STEPHEN BARRY (25) and MARY LEARY (40) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Catherine Naumann.

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


9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-636
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Miscellaneous > unfit to plead
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

636. MARIA LONGMAN (26) PLEADED GUILTY to Unlawfully wounding Sarah Longman.

In this case, upon the evidence of Clarence Tussock, surgeon, and Mr. John Rowland Gibson, surgeon of Newgate, the Jury found the prisoner of unsound mind, and not fit to plead.— Ordered to be detained till her Majesty's pleasure be known .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-637
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

637. GEORGE MARTIN (27) PLEADED GUILTY to Stealing twelve casks and 4750 pounds of soda, the property of Edward Smith Mannicoe, his master.

Recommended to mercy by the prosecutor.— Confined Twelve Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-638
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

638. JOHN ISAACS (23) , Feloniously wounding Thomas Pantlin with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

MR. MACDONALD conducted the Prosecution.

THOMAS PANTLIN . I am a stevedore, and live at 3, Prince's Square, St. George's—on Friday evening, 15th June, I went into the "Swedish Flag" public-house—when I went in the prisoner and another person were quarrelling—I know the party he was quarrelling with—I did not take any share in it—I did not speak to the prisoner—I saw him take a knife out of his pocket—I said to the party he was quarrelling with, "You had better mind. He has got a knife in his hand. Perhaps he will do some mischief."—I was rather frightened and went out—as I went out I knocked against the prisoner's arm—the woman Cowling tried to shove him out, that he should not do any mischief—he then stabbed me.

COURT. Q. Did the woman push him out? A. Yes—then I laid hold of his arm, to prevent his doing any mischief—he had got one of his mates

with him, and his mate released his arm and he stabbed me—when I found I was stabbed I ran away, and he ran after me—he was swearing and calling out—I don't know what he said, but if he had got hold of me a second time I shouldn't have been here—the girl stopped him, and then I got away altogether—I was taken to the London Hospital, where I remained till the 28th.

Q. Was he sober or drunk? A. Rather drunk, but he knew what he was about—he was quite a stranger to me.

ELLEN COWLING . I live at 35, Prescott Street, St. George's—I was in the "Swedish Flag" with two or three other young women on the evening of Friday, 15th June—the prisoner came in afterwards and joined us there—he began quarrelling with another man, and I saw him take hold of the man's waistcoat and tear it down—then the man struck him—during this time the prosecutor came in—the prisoner pulled out a knife—I said, "Don't do that"—he said he would stab him—I pushed him out of doors—the prosecutor was on the steps at the time, and I pushed them both out—I saw the prosecutor go to take the knife out of his hand, and I saw the prisoner hit a blow—the prosecutor ran away, and the prisoner after him—I ran after the prisoner, and caught him, and held him—I took him to his boarding-house, and said, "Where's the knife?" and he opened his hand, and the knife was in three pieces in his hand.

WILLIAM STEBBING (111 H). I took the prisoner into custody on 16th June about six o'clock in the evening—I told him he was charged with stabbing a man—he said, "I had no knife. I know nothing about it."

WILLIAM STIRLING . I am house surgeon at the London Hospital. The prosecutor was brought there on 15th June, bleeding freely from a punctured wound in the right side. It was midway between the hip bone and the lower rib, I cannot say how deep, for I never probed it—it could not have been very deep, from the symptoms that followed—a knife would have produced the wound—he went on quite well and left on 28th—he is perfectly well now.

The prisoner in his defence stated through an interpreter that he had slept three nights with the witness Cowling, and that she had robbed him of his money and clothes, that he went into the "Swedish Flag" with a shipmate, and was struck in the face by a man, which made his mouth bleed; his coat was torn off, and he ran after a man who he thought had got it; he could not catch the man; that he then went back to his shipmate, and found he had got his jacket, and then went home to his boarding house.

ELLEN COWLING (Re-examined). I was in the public-house before the prosecutor came in—I saw some one strike him and make his mouth bleed—that was not the man—he was quarrelling with another man—I had been sleeping with him three nights before—he lost his money the night before—I told his shipmate so. GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. Recommended to mercy. Confined Two Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-639
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

639. RICHARD HODGES (36) was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury. (See the Case of Jane Jeffreys, Third Court, Wednesday, page 260).

MR. RIBTON conducted the Prosecution.

ARTHUR HERBERT SAFFORD . I am first clerk at the Southwark Police-court—at the time in question I was second clerk at Worship Street—this is the information whereby Jane Jeffreys, on 30th October, 1865, alleges that one Walsh Martin is the father of her three illegitimate children: one

born 12th January, 1860; the second 25th March, 1862; and the third, 27th March, 1864—in the ordinary course of business I have got in this book the original summons upon this information—this is a book particularly appropriated to which are called bastardy summonses—the ordinary course would be for the warrant officers to copy from this book, and serve the copies on the defendant—it is signed by the magistrate on the same date, 30th October—it directs the defendant to appear on 13 th November, 1865.

ALFRED BELL (160 N). I am summoning officer at Worship Street—I served the summons on the wife of the defendant at the address given—Mr. Martin appeared, and was represented by attorney—the case came on in the usual way—I believe the prisoner was sworn, but I cannot say positively.

BARZILLAI WOOD . I recollect the case of Jeffreys against Martin—I administered the oath to the prisoner.

MR. SAFFORD (continued). After the complainant's case had been heard the prisoner Hodges was called for the defendant. (The witness then read the prosecutor's evidence before the magistrate.)

RICHARD RING . I am an attorney, of the firm of Wood and Ring, 65, Basinghall Street, City—I appeared for Walsh Martin at the police-court—I asked the prisoner whether he had ever had intercourse with Jeffreys—he said he never had—I said, "Never married?" and he swore most distinctly "no"—we didn't know whether he was married or not, but we believed he lived with her.

JANE POWELL . I live in Clapham Road—I have known prisoner about nine years—I was present at church, and saw him married to Jane Hodges, July, 1862, at St. James's, Curtain Road, Shoreditch—they had lived together as man and wife nearly two years before they were married—I lived with them after they were married—they lived together—I have no doubt prisoner is the man, and Jeffreys the woman—his wages amounted to 1l. a week with his perquisites—I know that—when they lived together before they were married he only paid her rent; after they were married he gave her 1l. a week.

WILLIAM CLEVELAND . This purports to be a copy of the marriage between the two parties—I have compared it with the original book—it is correct—I was clerk at the time the marriage took place.

ESTHER CLEVELAND . I am wife to the last witness—I was present at the marriage in July, 1862—the prisoner is the man—this certificate gives the date, 6th July, 1862—I can swear the prisoner was the bridegroom—I cannot swear to the woman.

MATILDA MARIA HOMEWOOD . I live at 8, Great Church Street, Bell Street, Hoxton—I know the prisoner—he lived at my house seven or eight months in 1862—I can't recollect at what time in 1862, whether it was the end of one year or beginning of that—a boy was born while he was there, of his wife Mrs. Hodges, the woman who was tried here yesterday—they occupied one bedroom together—I have seen him in the room with her—they passed as man and wife—the child was called Richard—I don't know whether they were at my house in July, 1862—that is the register of the birth of the child—I have compared it with the original—I got it from the district officer—Mrs. Hodges took my apartments—I don't know anything about the prisoner giving her money—Mrs. Hodges always paid me the rent.

SARAH DOUGLASS . I have known the prisoner since 1864, when they

first came to live with me—I think it was in June, 1864—Mrs. Hodges was the woman Jeffreys—they passed as man and wife—I shouldn't have taken them in unless I thought they were—they occupied the same room—he slept there—a female child was born while he was there in March—it had no mama, it was only called "baby"—I believe it was to be called Alice—I was at its birth—it was recognised as the child of prisoner and Mrs. Hodges—I know nothing about his allowing her money, but I heard them quarrel about money—she complained he did not give her sufficient money—I never saw him give her any money—I was present at the police-court when he was examined—I heard the solicitor ask him whether he was a married man, and he said, "No."

Prisoner's Defence. I never slept with the woman in my life—I was never in the house of Mrs. Douglass.

GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-640
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

640. JULIUS CISSIG (29) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Baldwin Speech, and stealing 25l. in money, and a coat, his property.

MR. NICHOLSON conducted the Prosecution, and MR. DALY the Defence.

BALDWIN SPECHT . I keep the "Hong Kong" Tavern, St. Ann's Place, Commercial Road—On Saturday night, 16th June, I went to bed, locking up my house at about half-past twelve—to the best of my belief the whole of the house in the front was then closed—I was disturbed about three o'clock in the morning by a policeman, and came downstairs—I lit a candle and saw a policeman in possession of the shop—I examined my premises, and missed 25l. in bank notes, a coat, and other articles—I have never seen any of them since—I keep a musical instrument in my house—I had seen the prisoner about three o'clock on the afternoon of this Saturday—I had not seen him before—he came to me and asked me to go up in the concert-room and hear him play—I went up with him and left him playing there—I went down to attend to my business—I didn't see him leave the place.

Cross-examined. Q. Where was the money kept? A. In the bar parlour—it was the concert-room he was in—I have a concert three times a week—I don't knew whether prisoner is a musician—I heard him play—he was taken in my house—he has only been in once since the robbery, on the Monday he was taken—I remember now that he called on me once before the Saturday, but I cannot say when—I never had him to tune my piano—I have heard that he plays at a concert at the "King of Denmark," in High Street, Wapping—I did not engage him when he called upon me—he asked too much—I told him that I should not engage him, but I said, "I will see, if you will call again, if I cannot get another one"—he did come next week—it was not this Saturday that I said he might come—my concerts are on Monday, Tuesday, and Saturday nights—the prisoner was dressed as he is now, light trowsers—I cannot say what he had on on the Monday, but on the Saturday he had the same trowsers.

JOHN WATTON (680 A). I was on duty at three o'clock on Sunday morning, 17th June, opposite the prosecutor's beer-shop—my attention was drawn to a noise there—I crossed over the road, and saw the front door open about four or five inches—I heard a smashing of glass—I went into the road and beckoned to a man. who was there, and he fetched two constables—I planted three men at the back and two in front, one at the western door, and one at the corner of the street—I then went in at the same door I had seen open—I went downstairs and saw the back door

open into the yard—I then went to the cellar—on the way to the cellar I heard a cry outside of "Stop him! stop him!" and turned round to go up-stairs again—on going upstairs I saw prisoner rush from the other part of the house, down the stairs, and out at the same door I had entered by, slamming the door after him—I opened the door, and saw one of the policemen had fallen down in the road—I went in again, and called the landlord and land-lady—of course I lost prisoner then—I took him into custody on the following Tuesday afternoon—I went to the "Hong Kong" to make some inquiries, and there found him at the bar—I recognised him directly—there was a dozen or twenty people in front of the bar.

Cross-examined. Q. How many constables were there after this burglar altogether? A. Five—I was two or three minutes in the cellar—I went to see if anybody was concealed in the premises—finding the back door open, I went to the cellar—the cellar being very dark, I thought it the most likely place for a man to go who went into the house—I was at the bottom of the stairs—the prisoner rushed out of the passage—I got a very good glimpse of him—he turned round, with his face towards me, as he was opening the door—it was broad daylight—his back was towards me during the time he was running—he did not pass me—I was behind him when he opened the door and turned round—I can't say why he turned round—he was opening the door—the door was closed—he could not see me, but I could see him—the house is situated in a very peculiar way—there are two front doors, one east and one west—there is a long passage exactly opposite the western door, leading up to the staircase—at the bottom of that staircase, and at the end of the passage, there are half a dozen steps down to the cellar—I was at the bottom of those steps when I saw prisoner—he was about twelve feet above me—he might have seen me if he had looked for me—I don't think he knew I was there—I was in the dark more than he was—I have not been reported to the commissioners—the other constables have been reported for letting this man escape—the one who slipped down was reported—he is here—the man was dressed in dark clothes, dark trowsers—not those trowsers he has on—I didn't say the reason I took prisoner to the police-court was because he looked so hard at me—I never said anything about looking at me—I gave as a reason for recognising him, that I had seen him before—I know he is the man—I had seen him about the east end of London before—I didn't know his name, or what he was—I didn't know he was a musician—the man was described in our information—I told the inspector I knew him before, and that he wore dark trowsers.

MR. NICHOLSON. Q. Did you notice the lock of this western door? was it a draw lock, that a man must turn round to open, or was it a latch? A. There was a latch on the western door, and a draw bolt on the other door—when in the cellar I heard the call of "Stop him!"—the cry was because another was escaping at the rear of the premises.

JOHN BUSCALL (488 H). My attention was called to the prosecutor's house on 17th June, in the morning—I was put on to watch the house—I watched at the corner of Prince's Street—whilst there I heard a cry of "Stop him!"—and saw the prisoner runing across from the "Hong Kong" to Great Turner Street—to the best of my belief, he is the man—I can't swear he is the man—he had dark trowsers on.

Cross-examined. Q. What you mean is it was very like his back? A. I saw his face—he turned round as I was following him—I had not the chance of catching him, for I slipped down while I was following him—

another constable, George Mould, ran after him also—I have not been in the force many months—the man was about 25 or 30 yards off when I saw him—I hope I have good sight—it was daylight.

GEORGE MOULD (152 H). My attention was called to the "Hong Kong" public-house on the morning of 17th June, and I was put on to watch the premises—I watched inside the western door—whilst there 680 A went down the stairs—he had not been there many minutes when he called for a light, and I went to the bar to get a light—while there somebody ran out, and, hearing some one leaving the public-house, I followed him—I saw the man running across the Commercial Road—he was about 20 yards off—I don't know who it was—I believe it to be the prisoner—it was three o'clock in the morning.

JAMES WILLIAM GOODWIN . I am a cabman—on the morning of 17th June last I was about 20 yards from the "Hong Kong" public-house—while there I saw a man run out—I can't swear prisoner was the man—the man had some appearance of the prisoner—it was quite light, just about the break of day.


9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-641
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

641. RICHARD PRIOR (20) and JAMES EDWARDS (24) , Robbery with violence, on Daniel Peck, and stealing a watch and guard, his property.

MR. DALY conducted the Prosecution, and MR. GRIFFITHS defended EDWARDS.

DANIEL PECK . I am a hairdresser—on Wednesday morning, 30th May, about half-past one, I was passing through some small streets called the Vinegar Ground, leading from the City Road into Old Street—I saw three young men and a female—the prisoners are two of the young men—they came up to me, and Prior got in front of me and asked me what I had got to say about his sister—I said, "I don't know your sister"—Prior seized me by the throat—the other man who is not here kicked me under the chin—when I got the first kick I said, "I know you"—then they said, "Let's finish him"—after they kicked me they got my watch and chain—Edwards took the watch and chain—the man who got away took nothing—he has not been taken into custody—they all ran away—I got up and went the same way that they went—a policeman came up and I gave a description of them—I had not seen either of the men before—I said I knew them at the time they were seizing me—after the occurrence, between one and two in the afternoon of the same day, I saw Prior in a public-house near the spot—I had gone down to see if I could see any of them—I went in to have a glass of ale, and Prior was there, and said, "Make it a pint"—I didn't take any notice—a pint was called—I put down a two-shilling piece and Prior took up the one and sixpence and ran away with it—I said to him, "I know you"—he said, "I know you do"—he said, "I will get you your watch and chain back if you don't make a noise about it"—I gave a description to 198 S, and he was taken into custody.

Cross-examined. Q. Where did you go when you went outside just now? A. I went just over the way to a public-house—my wife was over there—I had a half-a-quartern of gin and a little drop of cold water—I have had nothing else to-day—I did not say before the magistrate that it was the man who got away who took my watch—the magistrate must have made a mistake—I said it was the dark one—the one who got away was a fair one—I told the magistrate I knew them—I can't help it if they didn't

write it down—they read over my deposition to me, and I said it was true—that is my signature—the one who kicked me didn't take it—I told the magistrate that—I can't help if it they didn't write it down—this happened at about half-past one in the morning—I don't generally drink much—I had taken something—I generally go out every Tuesday pleasuring a bit—I go all manner of roads—I didn't go out till two o'clock in the afternoon—it was not a hot day—I was not thirsty—at four o'clock in the afternoon I had a pint of 4d. ale at Somers Town—I had no more for two hours—I didn't take any spirit—I had half-a-pint of 4d. ale then—I had no more till twelve o'clock, when I had another half-a-pint of 4d. ale—I was not in company with any one—I had last seen my watch safe before I went down the turning—I can swear that I was sober—not in the least degree drunk.

SUSANNAH MOORE . I was in the Vinegar Ground, and saw the attack upon the prosecutor by two men—I don't know who the men were—I could tell the men if I saw them—neither of these men are them—I was with the prosecutor—he asked me to go through the Vinegar Ground with him.

COURT. Q. Do you know these men. A. No; I have never seen before.

JOHN WILSON (198 G). On Wednesday, 30th May, I was on duty in the City Road—the prosecutor came and told me he had been robbed—he gave me a description of the men—from the description I looked after them, and took them into custody—I took Prior first, about half-past five in afternoon of 30th May, in the Vinegar Ground—he was in company with five other men—when he saw me he walked away—I ran after him and caught him—the prosecutor then came up, identified him, and charged him—on 23rd June I took Edwards into custody at Playhouse Yard, Golden Lane—it is a very rough neighbourhood—I was alone on both occasions when I took these men—Edwards was in company with a female—I took him to the station and placed him with two others something like himself—I brought the complainant, and he identified him at once—he picked him out from the others.

Cross-examined. Q. I am told the prosecutor had seen Edwards in your charge before he was placed with the other two men? A. No—the prosecutor was not with me when I took him into custody—I don't know anything about Edwards.

MR. DALY. Q. I believe Edwards has never been convicted of any offence. A. No—Prior has.

MR. GRIFFITHS to DANIEL PECK. Q. You have been frequently robbed, haven't you? A. No—I have never charged other people with having robbed me—I never gave anybody in charge before—I never gave information to the police before—I have never been here before, and I hope I never shall be again—I am not in the habit of getting drunk.


9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-642
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown

Related Material

642. JOHN LOVETT (19) and HENRY CLARK (15) , Stealing 18 and a half cubic feet of deal, of Thomas Humphreys.

MR. STRAIGHT Prosecuted. MR. GRIFFITHS Defended Lovett, and MR. WARNER SLEIGH defended Clark.

WILLIAM HOLT . I live at 8, Bermondsey Terrace, Bermondsey, and am foreman to Mr. Humphreys, firewood merchant, Dockhead—I know Lovett—he has been six or seven years in Mr. Humphreys's employ as

boy, and going out with the cart since he has been bigger—Clark is a firewood cutter in Lower Whitecross Street—on 11th June, about half-past 8 in the morning, Lovett left Dockhead with a horse and cart, loaded with boxwood, to the order of Mr. Lynes—not wood from the box-tree, but selected deal picked out for the purpose of making boxes, sound pieces selected from the rest—there was half a fathom in the cart, 108 cubic feet—the wood was up to three feet in length—when Lovett left with the cart he was to go direct to Lynes, Twister's Alley, Bunhill Row—our course of business is to give the carter a delivery note when the customer is not to pay for the wood—I gave Lovett a delivery note on this occasion—the delivery note is in duplicate, one half is kept by the customer, the other signed and delivered to carman, and brought back home—that is held as evidence of the receipt of the wood by the customer—that half delivery note was brought back to me by Lovett, about half-past 11 in the morning—it is here—about half an hour before Lovett returned Mr. Lynes's boy came to me—in consequence of what he told me, when Lovett returned I told him that Mr. Lynes had sent down, saying the wood was short, and he would have to back with me and see to it—I had not then seen Curtis—Lovett said, "I don't know anything about it. If the other man, Hickie, has done anything wrong, I must get out of it the best way I can"—strict orders had been given to all the carters not to leave their carts to any one else—Hickie worked for us 18 months ago—I told Lovett that Lynes's boy said that some of the wood had been left in Lower Whitecross Street—his answer was that he didn't go with the cart—he said, "I have been on a message for my father"—Lovett went with me to Mr. Lynes—I measured the wood, and found five-sixths of the quantity that left the yard—the value of the wood missing was about 10s.—I. then gave Lovett into custody—I saw Clark the same morning at his cellar, in Whitecross Street—he rents a cellar under the shop, No. 51—I told him that I had come on very unpleasant business, that we had information that one of our carts had been leaving wood there that morning—Clark denied that any had been left—he said he had had no wood in that morning—I said, "We have witnesses that one of our carts had been delivering wood here this morning"—he still persisted that he had none—I went to fetch an officer, who searched the place, and found a lot of wood similar to that which had been sent to Lynes's that morning—the quality was sound dealings—I took 39 pieces of that wood away—that was nearly the whole of what was missing from Mr. Lynes's cart—Clark said, "I bought that of you"—he is a customer of ours, but not for boxwood—when we sold wood to Clark we always sent a receipted bill—our transactions with him were always for ready money—we did not pursue the delivery note system with him.

Cross-examined by MR. GRIFFITHS. Q. You say that Lovett had been in your employ six or seven years? A. It might be a little longer—I had previously told him I would not allow any one to go with the cart except himself—not that morning—he went with me to Lynes's directly.

Cross-examined by MR. WARNER SLEIGH. Q. Clark has been a customer of yours for some time? A. He has, I think for two or three years—we have been in the habit of supplying him with firewood—the fire-wood and the boxwood are not different kinds of wood, but of different quality—these are invoices for deals sold by us to Clark amounting to 2l. and upwards—for 2l. we would give a goodish number of pieces—I don't

think I have seen Clark more than three times until this case—I have seen a young man, his son or his nephew—I do not see all the carts loaded myself—when I took away the 39 pieces from Clark's I left a lot more behind—I didn't take them, because what I took was about the quantity missing—this was a little pile by itself—we do not serve anybody else in the same street—I don't know what quantity of wood of the same kind was left in the cellar—the cellar is used only for wood.

MR. STRAIGHT. Q. How do you put wood in the cellar? A. There is a flap under the pavement like a public-house flap.

MR. WARNER SLEIGH . Q. When you told him you had come about unpleasant business he took you right down into the cellar and heard what it was about? A. We walked into the cellar—he made no objection.

MR. STRAIGHT. Q. Where was the wood lying? A. In the corner, separate from, all the rest of the wood.

JURY. Q. After you took away the 39 pieces what quantity of wood was left in the cellar? A. Some firewood, and some not—some was of the same quality as this.

WILLIAM CURTIS . I am a woodcutter—on Monday morning, 11th June, about 9 o'clock, I was going to work at the house in Golden Lane where I am employed—I passed through King William Street, and when there I saw one of Mr. Humphrey's carts going in the direction of the Bank with a load of boxwood—the cart went down Coleman Street—I went down Moorgate Street—I saw the cart again in front of 51, Lower Whitecross Street, standing still—a carman was by the side of it—No. 51 is an oil and colourman's, I believe—I saw a man at the top of the cart—he threw the wood off the cart—Clark was on the pavement catching the wood—I noticed that it was boxwood—after I saw the cart driving away I spoke to a constable—the cart went to Lynes's, Twister's Alley, Bunhill Row—Hickie was the man I saw with the cart—I have seen him before—I said to Hickie at Lynes's, "How much wood have you in the cart?" he said, "Half a fathom." I asked him, "Who put the wood down at Clark's?" he said, "Nobody." I said nothing more, and he said nothing more—I wanted to see Mr. Lynes, who was engaged—I saw him after the cart drove away—I assisted in measuring the wood with one of Mr. Lynes's men—ten shillings' worth was missing, one-sixth of the whole quantity—the whole quantity was 3l.—there was only 2l. 10s. worth—I believe it was Hickie who was throwing wood off the cart.

Cross-examined by MR. GRIFFITHS. Q. You know Lovett, don't you? A. Only by bringing the wood up occasionally—I didn't see him with the cart.

Cross-examined by MR. WARNER SLEIGH. Q. Do you say you saw the cart before you got to Whitecross Street? A. Yes—when it got to White-cross Street I stood and watched it, and saw it away—I didn't count the number of pieces that were thrown into the cellar—I think there were about 40—it took less than five minutes to throw them down—I have seen Clark two or three times before—I have spoken to him once, I believe—it was about half-past nine—I didn't see anybody else there besides Clark and the man who was throwing the wood down—I knew before this that Clark dealt with Mr. Humpheys—I have never seen wood delivered at his place before—he is a woodcutter—I am a wood-cutter—I had reasons for waiting and watching—I am employed by Mrs. Hayley—I believe I have seen a woman of the name of Braze—I don't know whether her house has a large yard—she used to live in

Crown Court, Golden Lane—I believe she now lives in Milton Street—I went to the cellar the same day before the wood was taken away—there was about 4l. worth of wood in the cellar—I don't know how much there was of the same quality as this—I didn't take the trouble to look about much.

MR. STRAIGHT. Q. Did you go down to the cellar before the wood was taken away? A. Yes—I went with the constable, Mr. Hope, and Mr. Lynes—my reason for watching was that last February there was a quantity of wood that had been sent from Mr. Humphreys's delivered to Clark from the carman—I didn't see it delivered—I heard that it was delivered—that made me go that way—I was in the employment of Mrs. Hayley, the person to whom the wood ought to have been delivered.

WILLIAM PICKERS (City Policeman 163). I was on duty in White-cross Street about half-past nine on 11th June—Curtis came to me, and, from what he said to me, I noticed the cart—I saw it before he spoke to me—it was standing at a woodcutter's, 4, Lower Whitecross Street—I noticed the man in the cart throw down wood from off the cart—the man is not in custody—Clark caught the wood and threw it into the cellar—it was thrown into Clark's hands—this went on for about three minutes—I was standing just opposite—I think about 20 or 30 pieces of wood were thrown down—I am not exactly sure—I saw the cart drive off—in the afternoon Mr. Hope came to me, and I went with him to Clark's cellar—Mr. Hope pointed out the wood that was in the cellar, and said that was the wood, 39 pieces—Mr. Hope said, "There are a number of pieces here that we never sold you"—Clarke said that the wood had been delivered for the last fortnight—I said that I saw wood going in that day—he said again that he had had no wood for a fortnight—he was then given into my custody—he said at the station that he had received the wood the last Thursday—he didn't say from whom—this was on Monday, 11th June.

Cross-examined by MR. WARNER SLEIGH. Q. Is there another wood-cutter's in that street? A. Not that I am aware of—it is not my beat—I was only there for a time—the Prince of Wales was coming into the City, and I was put on duty there that day—when Mr. Hope went into the cellar I walked into the cellar with him—he said, "This is wood which we haven't sold you"—he said something else, but I don't remember what passed—Mr. Hope said that he had received information which made him go there—he said he had two witnesses who saw it—he still denied that he had got it—he was standing in the cellar with the implements for cutting the wood, and the wood itself—the cellar was in a state of business—when we got to the station he said he had had the wood in last Thusday—those were his exact words—he was asked from whom he received it, but he didn't say.

COURT. Q. What words did he use when you asked from whom he received it on Thursday? A. He said, as well as I remember, that he could produce the receipts, but he didn't name any persons—Mr. Hope was there at the time.

JOHN LYNES . I live at Twister's Alley, Bunhill Row—I received the wood from Humphreys—it was 18 ft. short of what I had ordered—it was delivered to me as a full load.

Cross-examined by MR. GRIFFITHS. Q. Lovett didn't deliver it to you? A. No.

MR. WARNER SLEIGH called the following Witnesses:—

HENRY CLARK . I am the son-in-law to the prisoner Clark—I am in his employment as a wood-cutter—on 11 th June I was out from a quarter-past nine till a quarter to eleven—before I went out I noticed the state in which the cellar was—I had been working there—when I got back I saw that no wood had been added to what was already there—I know that the wood in the cellar had been stored there for four days—it was stored there on a Thursday—it was brought from Mrs. Braze, 47, Adelaide Place—I brought it myself in a barrow—I also brought it to Mrs. Braze from Mr. Humpreys, on the first occasion when it was bought—this is the delivery order for that wood—there was some wood stored in the cellar before that—we have been in the habit of bringing that wood from Mr. Humphreys—we have dealt there some time—Clark is in the habit of buying both that and the inferior kind—I have seen wood of this description delivered by Mr. Humphrey's carman—there was one load last Saturday—I have had deals in the cellar three feet long—this is a better kind of wood—some-times we get more of it with our wood than at others; sometimes we get less—Mr. Humphreys sent wood to our place in the way of business last Friday—I paid 2l. 10s. for it myself.

COURT. Q. Where was the wood stacked before this was brought from Mrs. Braze? A. Along the wall.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. Q. How long before this 11th June had you received wood in? A. Seven to eight days before I have been in the habit of receiving wood of this kind from Mr. Humphreys—I never was charged with receiving wood that ought to have gone to a woman named Hayley.

MR. SLEIGH. Q. What is the difference between deals and battens? A. Battens run from six inches to seven inches wide, and two and a half in thickness—the deals are three and a half—they are larger pieces—to my knowledge, no investigation has ever been made into my conduct as regards any wood—I have never received any wood that ought to have gone to some one else.

MARY ANN BRAZE . I live at 7, Adelaide Place, Lower Whitecross Street—I have a very large yard to my house—the prisoner, Mr. Clark, is on terms of friendship with me—about 24th May he came to my husband and asked his permission to put some wood in the yard—I afterwards saw the wood in the yard—my husband is a house decorator—I don't know what kind of wood it was—the wood was there six or seven weeks—the wood was carried away by Mr. Clark's son-in-law.

LOVETT— NOT GUILTY . CLARK— GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months .

OLD COURT.—Friday, July 13th, 1866.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-643
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

643. WILLIAM CORDERY (29), ALFRED WILTSHIRE (22), and JOHN THORB (26) , Stealing one sheep, the property of John Warren.

MR. DIGBY prosecuted. MR. WARNER SLEIGH appeared for Wiltshire, and MR. STRAIGHT for Thorb.

THOMAS LANE . I am in the employ of Mr. Warren, a butcher, of Homerton—on 11th June I put 15 sheep of his into Mr. Shaw's field.

JOHN WARREN —I am a butcher, of High Street, Homerton—on 11th

June I had 15 sheep in a field there—I was called up next morning about half-past five—I sent Lane to bring the sheep from the field—he brought them, and I missed one—I gave information, went to a house in Victoria Street, and found a sheep's head very much mangled—the skin was not there, but I have since seen it and sworn to it, by my mark—I could almost have sworn to the head—this (produced) is a portion of the skin of the head—the sheep had been recently killed—the head was quite hot—the skin was brought to me by some boys.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. Q. What kind of sheep was it? A. Kent breed, which is peculiar—a butcher could not help noticing it—I saw some carcase on Tuesday morning.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. Do you know Wiltshire's family, A. Yes—they have lived for some years in my neighbourhood—I know nothing against him.

THOMAS BISHOP (Police Sergeant 31 N). On Tuesday morning, 12th June, about nine o'clock, I went to 9, Victoria Street, and saw the prisoner Cordery there, the carcase of a sheep, twelve fowls, three ducks, and two live pigeons—I told him he would be charged with stealing sheep and fowls—he said, "It is somebody else as has put me into this"—I took him to the station—Nixon went with us—I then went with Plowman in search of the other prisoners, and saw them in company in Well Street, Hackney—I took Thorb—he had two granite stones in his hand, and when I laid hold of his collar he struck me and threw me over his shoulder, and kicked me—I told him what he was charged with—he said, "I would rather see my brains lying on the pavement than go with you, for I can see what is in front of me"—after a great deal of trouble I took him to the station, but I was obliged to send for assistance, as he was so violent—I found blood on his boots, and on Wiltshire's—I took Thorb's boots off—there were spots of blood on each of them—I took them to the gardens and compared them with the footmarks, and they corresponded—I traced the footmarks of three persons from the field to a pond in the garden—it was a fower garden, fresh dug up—Thorb's boots corresponded with the foot-marks in the fresh mould—I then compared Wiltshire's with one of the foot tracks, and they corresponded—the nails were turned over the toes—there were other footmarks in the garden, and marks of blood through the garden, and up the footpath into the field, and to Victoria Street, No. 9, Cordery's house.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. Q. Do you mean to say that Thorb threw you over his shoulder? A. Yes—when I got on the ground I caught hold of him behind, and laid my hand on his shoulder—he struck me on the breast—he said nothing to me before he got me on the ground—he was walking from me—I followed him down the street—I was in uniform, but the other constable was not—he was with me—there were tracks of three or four persons, and a good many footmarks—I could not trace them to the pond because of the grass—I compared the boots with five or six independent footmarks.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. Do you know Wiltshire's family? A. Yes—I have known him over twelve years—he bears a good character—Plowman was with me.

RICHARD WEAL . I am a wheelwright, of High Street, Homerton—on Tuesday, 12th June, I saw my garden gate open—the lock was pulled off, and there was a number of sheep there—after that I found traces of blood, which I traced through my garden up to the fence, on the other side of

which I afterwards found the entrails of a sheep buried—I was present when the footmarks were examined, about a quarter past nine o'clock—they corresponded with the boots—I examined two or three—the police were there.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. Q. Then all you did was to look at the footmarks? A. Yes—the policeman had two shoes, and I fancy a boot; I am not certain.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. Do you know Wiltshire? A. No—9, Victoria Street, is 500 or 600 yards from my garden.

HENRY NIXON (379 N). On the morning of 12th June I went with another constable to Mr. Warren's fields about five o'clock, and saw a large pool of blood against the gate—I traced blood where a sheep had been drawn by its legs from the field and down the nursery ground to the back of some house leading into Brooksby Walk, where there was a little gate on the left side—I traced them to 9, Victoria Street, where I waited some time, and then went in and saw the carcase of a sheep—half was on the table, and half was on the floor—the head lay on the floor with its skin on—the animal's skin was missing—I took Cordery and told him the charge—he said, "Here is a pretty mess they have let me into"—his dress was covered with blood, about the bottom of his trowsers and his boots.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. Q. Did you examine the footmarks? A. Yes—I had the shoes of the whole three prisoners—the marks went right across the garden—the sheep had been killed at the gateway of the field—the footmarks went down to the pond as if the men had walked side by side down to the pond—there were also marks of blood across the garden, as if dropping from something—the skin was found in a piece of building ground they call the Priory a day or two afterwards.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. Do you know Wiltshire? A. I have known him by sight about twelve months—I was in the station when he was brought in—he always bore a good character till now.

WILLIAM PLOWMAN (222 N). I accompanied Bishop—he took Thorb, and I took Wiltshire—Thorb had a bit of a tussle, and both fell to the ground—I then left go of Wiltshire and assisted in securing Thorb—Wiltshire went away, and I afterwards took him in Hackney Churchyard—I knew him very well.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. Q. What did Bishop say to this man? A. He said, "I take you into custody for sheep-stealing"—as well as I remember, Thorb commenced swearing—he was the worse for liquor, and they both fell instantly.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. Was any violence offered by Wilt shire? A. No—I know him and his family—I never knew anything wrong of him.

MARTHA HAMMOND . I am Cordery's sister, and live at 10, John Street—I saw Wiltshire on Tuesday morning, 12th June, about ten minutes or a quarter to eight o'clock—they were all three together at my house—Wiltshire asked me to allow him to go through, and I did—he asked me if I could lend him a chopper—I said I could not—he asked a neighbour of mine, but could not get one, and I borrowed Tom Cooper's—Wiltshire lives next door to me—he went away after that, with a bag under his arm.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. Has Wiltshire made the acquaintance of your brother and the other man? A. Very likely, by living next door—I was not at the police-court—I knew that my brother was in custody, but I did not know I was wanted.

LUCY CROWTHER . I live at 3, John Street—on 12th June, about seven in the morning, I saw the prisoners together going along High Street—I then went up to Cordery's sister, Mrs. Hammond, for some hot water, and found the three prisoners there—Thorb stood outside the door—Cordery came inside, and Wiltshire asked to go through to his lodgings—he went through, and took a bag out of his landlady's place—he asked Mrs. Hammond if she had a chopper—she said, "No"—he said, "You have one, mother"—I said, "No, but Tom has"—he went, and came back and said, "His tools are locked up"—that was the last I saw.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. Q. Who said the tools were locked up? A. Wiltshire said that Tom's tools were locked up—Tom is the servant of the landlady where he lodges.

Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. Do you know Wiltshire? A. By living in the neighbourhood—I had never seen a bag in his hand before.

The prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate:—Cordery said, "On Monday night, 10th June, I and Wiltshire were drinking together, and went to the 'Woolpack' and saw Thorb—we stopped there drinking for about an hour—then we went for a walk—Wiltshire was so drunk he said he would go home, and I said, 'Come home to my place'—I went home and chucked him on the bed—he lay down—Thorb left me—I sat for about an hour considering whether I should go to bed or not, and I got up and went for a walk up Shoreditch, leavinzg Wiltshire only in the room." Wiltshire said, "When I woke up the next morning after being tipsy I saw a sheep hanging by the side of the bedpost—I was surprised, and put my things on, to get out of the house as quick as I could—I was walking along Well Street, and I met Thorb—as soon as I saw Thorb the constable came up and took me in charge."

Cordery, in his defence, stated that he and Wiltshire were drinking together, and Wiltshire told him that there were a lot of fowls that he should have, as he wanted some money; that he refused to go with him to steal them, and Wiltshire and Thorb insisted on putting them in his place, and threatened to run a knife through him if he said anything; that Thorb told him to go to his room and lock the door, and when he did so he was taken.


THORB was further charged with having been before convicted of house-breaking at Clerkenwell in 1857, in the name of Thomas Walker, to which he PLEADED GUILTY.**— Confined Eighteen Months . CORDERY— Confined Eighteen Months. WILTSHIRE to mercy, an account of his character.— Confined Six Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-644
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

644. JAMES HALLIWELL (47) , Unlawfully obtaining 5l. 5s, and 52l. 10s. of John Puddefoot by false pretences.

MR. SLEIGH prosecuted.

JOHN PUDDEFOOT . I am a contractor, of Cumberland Market, Regent's Park—I have known the prisoner about twelve months—I met him in May in Great George Street, Westminster—he asked me if I had anything to do—I said that I had not—he said, "I know of a nice job for you; do not say anything to any one about it; it is quite private, but meet me in the city to-morrow morning at nine o'clock"—I did so, and we went to the station to meet Mr. Blackie, but did not meet him—we then went to 62, Cornhill—the prisoner went into the office, and came out and said Mr. Blackie was not there—as soon as we got out we met Mr. Blackie—the prisoner and he went into the office, and stayed ten minutes or a quarter of

an hour—I remained outside—the prisoner came out and brought out this specification (produced)—I told him I could not write nor read—he told me, "This is the specification for the contract"—he took me to a public-house and read it to me, and read all the papers over to me, and asked me what I could do them for—I told him, and he put it down on paper—he told me my prices were too low—he had got his own prices—I asked him the same evening where the work was—he said, "It is for Lomax, Esq., two miles and a half from Southend; I am the engineer of the works to Mr. Lomax. Will you be the contractor?"—I got a person to fill up the papers in the specification—he had got his prices on a piece of paper, but he took them away with him—we went to Charing Cross, and the papers were filled up by a young man whom I knew—the prisoner then asked me for 5l. 5s. to pay Mr. Blackie for writing the specification—we then went back to Cornhill—he went and left me outside—he came back and told me he had left me the money with Mr. Blackie, and it was all right—he made an appointment to meet me on the 17th at Mr. Blackie's office—I met him there—he went in, and brought out a letter, which he read to me—it was about 50 guineas for binding the contract (a notice to to produce the letter was here put in)—the prisoner said I was to pay 50 guineas to be bound to the contract—I said I could get it—he said, "It is to be deposited with Mr. Blackie, and if you do not get the contract the money will be returned"—I went home and got 50 guineas, and we went by the Underground Railway to Aldersgate Street—I gave the prisoner the money as we were going into the station—he went to Mr. Blackie's office and said that he was going to give it to him—I waited outside—he came out and told me he had left the money there with Mr. Blackie, and made an appointment with me to meet him there on the following Saturday to sign the contract, as they were getting all the papers ready—I went on Saturday, but the prisoner was not there—I found Mr. Blackie there—I next saw the prisoner on the 1st June at my house, and asked him what he had done with the money—he told me he had put it into Coutts & Co.'s bank, Strand—I asked him for a receipt for it, and he gave me one—on 2nd June he came to my house again and wanted 10l., but I would not give it him—I did not see him again till he was in custody—I went down to Southend and made inquiries for Squire Lomax, and could find no such person, nor any land on which building operations were carried on for him—I ascertained from Mr. Blackie that the money had been paid to him—I parted with the five guineas to pay Mr. Blackie for writing the specification because I believed the prisoner was speaking the truth, and that he was engineer to the works—I parted with the 50 guineas to bind me to the contract, as he told me there was no one in for the contract but me, and that the contract was mine—I have never got my money back.

Prisoner. Q. Did your nephew fill up the specification according to your prices? A. You took your prices—you said mine were too low—you did not tell me the five guineas was for the schedule of the contract—I gave it to you to pay Mr. Blackie for writing the contract, and it was understood that if I did not get the contract I was to have the five guineas returned, as well as the 50l.—my nephew wrote this receipt (produced), and you signed it, as I wanted an acknowledgement that you had the money—you said you could not write, as your hand was shaking—my nephew wrote it, and you signed it—I did not tell him to make it an I O U—I received several letters from you, but you never put an address on them, and I never asked Mr. Blackie your address.

THOMAS BLACKIE . I am a solicitor's clerk, at 63, Cornhill—I have known the prisoner about twelve months—he came there originally to sell part of a patent or to raise money upon it—in April last he gave me a draft specification, all ready prepared, which I was to copy; this (produced) is a copy of it—he told me he wanted it for a Mr. Lomax, whom he had known for many years, and who was about building upon one of his estates at Southend, and that he was appointed engineer to see to the sewage and the building, and the water and gas mains; that several of his friends wanted him to get the contract—he mentioned Mr. Offord and Mr. Smith, who had offered him a premium of, 50 guineas to do so—I made two copies of the specification, and sent them by post, at his request, to the two addresses—I never received five guineas for doing so—I did not get 50 guineas, and never heard of it till Mr. Puddefoot came—I did not know that he had any money from Mr. Puddefoot—I had never seen Mr. Puddefoot—I have seen no contract or anything like one, nothing but this specification—the prisoner gave me an address-card, 41, York Terrace, Regent's Park—I could not find him there, but I heard of him through a gentleman of position, who said that he had no right to issue those cards.

Prisoner. Q. Did you tell me not to come to the office? A. Certainly, as this had nothing to do with the office—you told me you would pay me, but no sum was specified—you never paid me a farthing—you told me to make exact copies, except the figures, and I told you that it was very ungrammatical—you told me distinctly that it was Southend, Essex.

GEORGE STEWART . I am a sergeant of the Essex constabulary, and have been stationed at Southend nine years—there is no Mr. Lomax there carrying on building operations.

WALTER CHILD (Policeman). I apprehended the prisoner in the "Mail Coach" Public-house, Farringdon Street, on 9th June, on a warrant, which I read to him, and said that he must consider himself in my custody—he said, "Very well"—on the way to the station he said, "Where is Pudde-foot. Can I see him?" I said, "Do you wish to see him?" He said, "Yes, to ask him if he means to lay me up." I said, "Do you mean, lock you up?" He said, "Yes; if he does that he will not get his money back; if he don't do it he might get it back. Where are we going now?" I said, "To the police-station." He said, "Then I reserve all I have to say"—I searched him, and found copies of the specification and letters upon him—he said that he had no fixed residence.

Prisoner. Q. Did you warn me that what I said would be brought against me? A. I did not—you did not say that you had offered him money a fortnight ago.

GUILTY .— Confined Twelve Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-645
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

645. SARAH MARSHALL (20) , Feloniously cutting and wounding Louis Lyons, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

MR. NICHOLSON conducted the Prosecution, and MR. STRAIGHT the Defence.

LOUIS LYONS . I am a labourer, of 2, Hungerford Street, St. George's-in-the-East—I was returning home from the "Clyde" Public-house, Commercial Road, about a quarter-past one o'clock, I can't tell the day of the month—I saw about twenty people on the opposite side—I went across to see what was the matter—they began to move, and I moved with them—as I went to step off the kerb the prisoner's husband seized me by the legs, and threw me down and kicked me, and the prisoner kicked me—I had no chance to get up, and was obliged to make a scuffle—my coat was pulled

off in getting up—the prisoner's husband then challenged me to come on the pavement and fight—while I was on the ground the prisoner got hold of me and said, "I will have your head off"—she took hold of my head and used very bad language, and cut my ear off—she then gave me several kicks—her husband was holding my legs at the time—a policeman came up—her husband then said, "Sling," and she slung a knife across the road—I was perfectly sober—I went to the hospital.

Cross-examined. Q. Was the whole of your ear cut off? A. No—I cannot see how much—I left work at half-past eight that evening, and went to the "Clyde" Public-house, and then to the barber's—I was not in the a "Clyde" from half-past eight till one—I was there from ten minutes or a quarter to nine—I drank about two pints that evening, or it might be three, and two pennyworth of gin and bitters—there had been a row in the Commercial Road, but it was all over when I was there—I did nothing when I went up to the crowd—I did not roll against anybody—I do not know the man as the prisoner's husband, but I know him about the "Bed-ford Arms" fighting—I call him her husband because they pass as husband and wife—they live together, people tell me—when I was on the ground seven or eight prostitutes were round me—the twenty people were the mob in the first row; they had all cleared away—I told the magistrate about the prisoner slinging the knife across the road.

MR. NICHOLSON. Q. Did you know the prisoner before? A. When I have taken sawdust into the "Bedford Arms" I have passed her in the street—the man she lives with spoke to me once, and to my father-in-law—I have had no dispute with them, but I do not associate with them—I always pass them in the streets.

COURT. Q. You say that the man the prisoner lives with knocked you down; did he say anything? A. He said, "Sally, give me the gib," and then she came up, and he said, "Sal, give me the knife"—she then got hold of my hair and cut a piece of my ear off—I am sure she did it.

JOHN PEED (404 K). On 19th of June I was on duty in the Commercial Road, saw a disturbance, and went up and saw the prisoner and the man she lives with and some more people—as I got half-way across the road I saw the prisoner throw something from her hand, but could not see what it was distinctly—I saw Lyons on the ground bleeding very much from his ear, and blood running down his coat—he said that the prisoner had done it, and I took her in custody—there was a mob round them, but they flew into the road where the knife was thrown, and covered the place—they were prostitutes—Lyons was not tipsy, but the prisoner was the worse for liquor.

Cross-examined. Q. Were you on the other side of the road? A. Yes—Lyons was trying to hold the prisoner, but there was a mob round him who would not allow him; I mean five or six chaps—the knife came from the prisoner's hand—it was not thrown till I was half across the road—they were struggling away, and I firmly believe they would have taken the prisoner away if I had gone to look for the knife—I did not take the man, because I saw no assault by him.

FREDERICK PERRIER . I am a packing-case maker, of 29, Corner Street, Commercial Road—on the morning of 19th of June I was bidding some friends good night at the corner of Hanworth Street, and saw a bit of a row across the road—I crossed to see what it was, and saw Lyons fighting with another man—as I crossed I heard something fall, which sounded like a knife—I did not see from whence it came—I saw the prisoner there.

WILLIAM STIRLING . I am house surgeon at the London Hospital—on the morning of 19th June Lyons was brought there—he had lost a piece of his ear—the wound was an inch and a half or two inches long—it bled a good deal, but was not dangerous—the piece could not be replaced—it was not brought to me—a knife would do it.

Cross-examined. Q. Might not it have been done by falling on a sharp stone? A. No; I think it would have injured the scalp behind then.

MR. STRAIGHT to LOUIS LYONS. Q. Have not you been charged twice at the police-court with assaulting women? A. Never in my life—I never was locked up for assaulting anybody—I had a summons for the police-court, and was there one month; the summons was put back, and afterwards dismissed.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. Confined Eight Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-646
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

646. DANIEL WELCH (28) , Feloniously wounding James Wheeler, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. HORRY conducted the Prosecution, and MR. STRAIGHT defended the Prisoner.

JAMES WHEELER . I am a paper-stainer, and live at 3, Smith's Buildings, Cambridge Heath—on Monday night, 2nd July, at nearly one o'clock, I was in the "London Hospital" Tavern—the prisoner was there, playing the violin—he told me he wanted to speak to me downstairs—I went downstairs with him—he left his violin at the bar with the landlady, and said, "I want to speak to you outside"—when we got outside he asked me, "When did you see Jem Manning last?" and before I could answer him he struck me in the eye—I felt something very sharp, but I could not say what it was done with—he said, "That is all I want with you"—I fell from the blow, and while I was down he kicked me several times in different parts of the body—I did not strike him at all.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you not run out of the public-house after him? A. No; I followed him out when he asked me to come; I swear I did not strike him—I have known him many years; he gets his living by playing the violin—I once knew him in possession of a public-house—Jem Manning is his brother-in-law—I believe he works at a tobacconist's opposite Whitechapel Church—he did keep a beer-house—I once had a house next door to the prisoner—it was not a house where men and women congregated—my wife did not walk the streets to keep me—she was a cripple all her life; she is dead; I have two children—I know a Mr. Sheridan, who was in the police—he never made any charge against me, nor did anybody else—I am living by myself now, not with any woman.

COURT. Q. When did you see Jem Manning last? A. It might have been two months previously—I knew the prisoner better than Manning—I don't know why he asked me that question—he was sober—we had had no quarrel before this—he had drank with me not two minutes before—I had not said anything about Manning—I never had an angry word with the prisoner in my life—I did not say that I hoped the ship that Manning was going to sail in would sink; nothing of the kind.

MR. HORRY. Q. Were these same questions put to you on the part of the prisoner at the police-court? A. Yes, and I denied them all there; it is. all utterly untrue—after the prisoner had done this he went back to the public-house, and I went to the hospital—I afterwards took out a summons against him, and he attended the summons.

MARY ANN SMITH . I am the wife of John Smith, of 20, Henry Street,

Whitechapel—on Monday night, 2nd July, between twelve and one o'clock, I was keeping an oyster stall there—I saw the prisoner and prosecutor come out of the "London Hospital" Tavern—I saw the prisoner strike him, and when he struck him the second blow be fell to the ground, and when he leant over him he violently kicked him—I screamed for mercy—I did not see the prosecutor strike any blows—the prisoner walked into the tavern after he had done it, and the prosecutor struggled up and went to the hospital.

Cross-examined. Q. You say there were two blows given? A. I didnot see the first blow, only the second, the blow that knocked him downsenseless.

ELIZABETH THOMPSON . I am a tailoress, and live at 20, Henry Street, Whitechapel—I saw the prisoner and prosecutor upstairs at the "London Hospital" Tavern—I did not see any quarrelling—I did not know they were friends—I went down before them, and was standing by Mrs. Smith, at the stall, and while there I saw the prisoner and prosecutor speaking together at the door—I saw the prisoner strike the prosecutor two blows; he fell, and while he was on the ground the prisoner leaned over him, and said, "You b——, that was what I called you downstairs for", and he kicked him brutally—the prosecutor did not strike him—he never resisted at all.

Cross-examined. Q. How far off were you, 20 yards? A. Yes; about the same distance as Mrs. Smith—I did not see them come out at the door—I knew neither of them before.

JOHN ELLIOTT . I was house surgeon at the London Hospital on Monday night, 2nd July, when the prosecutor came there, he had a small punctured wound on the cheek, below the eye, about a quarter of an inch across, and about an inch and a quarter deep—I probed it—I do not think it would have been caused by a blow of the fist; in my opinion it was done by some sharp-pointed instrument—a penknife would have done it—his eye was slightly blackened, and he complained of contusions about his body—he is an out-patient now.

Cross-examined. Q. Was the eye that was blackened the one under which the wound was? A. Yes—I do not think the wound would be caused by falling on a sharp stone, or by a ring with a stone in it—he is well now.

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding/—Recommended to mercy by the prosecutor. Confined Four Months .

NEW COURT.—Friday, July 13th, 1866.

Before Mr. Recorder.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-647
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

647. SAMUEL GREGORY (10) , Feloniously wounding John Nash, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

MR. GRIFFITHS conducted the Prosecution, MR. SHARP the Defence.

JOHN NASH . I am in the employment of Mr. Ward, biscuit maker, Commercial Road—I live at 52, Dean Street, with my father—I remember a hogshead of sugar being delivered to my master—I cannot exactly say when, I think about five weeks ago—it was the day I went before the magistrate—some boys were scraping some fragments of sugar from the hogshead—the prisoner was there—I went out two or three times and

told them to go away—the last time I went out prisoner ran a knife into my side—I cannot remember that he said anything before he stabbed me—I did not push him before—I did not fall down—I didn't know that I was stabbed at first—they took me to a chemist close by, and then to the hospital.

Cross-examined. Q. There were a great number of little boys there were there not, and they were scraping out sugar from the hogshead? A. Yes—I did not strike the boy—I will swear I did not—I will swear I did not have a tussle with him—there were a great many people about besides the prisoner—I didn't feel the stab at the time—I remember prisoner running towards me—I saw the knife in his hand when I got across the road—I think that was about three or four minutes afterwards—I didn't see any of the boys who were scraping away the sugar, with knives—I am quite sure I didn't have a tussle with some boy or other, and roll down—I know prisoner has got a brother—I am quite sure it was not his brother—I have known them both by sight for the last eighteen months—(a boy was here brought forward)—I will swear that is not the little boy—that is his brother.

WILLIAM STIRLING . I am house surgeon at the London Hospital—the prosecutor was brought to the hospital on 15th June—I examined him, and found a small punctured wound in the side—it was bleeding pretty freely—I did not examine any further—we never do wounds about the groin—he was confined to his bed for some days—I did not examine whether it was a deep wound—we should be afraid of injuring the parts—a small knife would do it—he is now perfectly recovered.



Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-648
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown

Related Material

648. WALTER FRANCIS (32) and WILLIAM WELLS (28) , Unlawfully obtaining by false pretences a horse, a chaise, and a set of harness, the property of James Henry Dodsley. Second Count against Wells for unlawfully receiving the same.

MR. DALY conducted the Prosecution and MR. NICHOLSON defended Wells. JAMES HENRY DODSLEY. I live at St. James's Road, Walthamstow—on 1st June Francis came to me and said, "I come from Dr. Jones, of 19, Finsbury Pavement, to look at the horse, chaise, and harness"—I had advertised a horse, chaise, and harness for sale that day—he asked me what the price was—I said, "Fifty-five guineas"—he said he supposed 55l. would do if the doctor would like it—he had the horse put into the chaise and tried it, and liked it very well—at four o'clock on Saturday afternoon, the next day, he came back and brought this cheque (produced)—it purports to be signed by Dr. Jones—Francis wrote his name on the back—he said I should not get the money unless he wrote his name at the back—he wrote "William Smith" on the back of it (read) "No. 21033. Threadneedle Street, London, June, 1866. Bank of London. Pay to Mr. Smith or bearer the sum of 55l. Signed, W. Jones." Francis said he had brought the cheque for the horse and chaise, and the doctor had just signed the cheque before he came away—he said that the doctor had made it out in his name because he did not know mine, as I had not advertised the sale in my own name—he gave me an address, Milton Street, City—

I afterwards presented the cheque, and it was dishonoured—the bank had been closed two days—I afterwards saw Dr. Jones, and in consequence of what passed I gave the prisoner into custody, when I saw him—that was at 4, Trafalgar Place, Park Road—I have since seen my chaise at Mr. Barber's, in the Walworth Road—I was induced to part with that chaise and horse, having known Dr. Jones for a number of years, and knowing he lived on Finsbury Pavement—I parted with it because he represented that he came from Dr. Jones—not knowing the bank was stopped, I thought the cheque was genuine.

Francis. Q. Is there more than one Mr. Jones on Finsbury Pavement? A. I believe not—I don't know one—there is one at 19, on Finsbury Pavement—I did not tell you I had looked in the Directory and selected the first Mr. Jones I came to.

THOMAS WILLIAM JONES . I am a physician, of 19, Finsbury Pavement—I did not authorise Francis to purchase a horse and chaise and harness for me—I do not know him—on 3rd June the prosecutor called on me—I had no knowledge of the particulars till I saw him—this is not my signature to this cheque—I do not bank at the Bank of London.

Francis. Q. Are there any other Dr. Jones's in Finsbury? A. There is a Dr. Walter Jones in Finsbury Square—there is a Thomas Jones in Finsbury, a solicitor—there was a Dr. Jones in Finsbury some time ago—I don't know whether there is now—there is only one physician, that is myself.

MR. DALY. Q. Is there any other Dr. Jones on Finsbury Pavement? A. No.

ROBERT TUCKER . I am ostler at Mr. Barber's livery stables, Camberwell Gate, Walworth Road—on Sunday morning, 3rd June, the dark man, with whiskers (Wells), came to my master's place, he said his name was W. Smith, and said to my master, "Can I leave this four-wheel trap?"—he had a four-wheel trap with him, he said, "Can I leave this four-wheel trap, and you lend me a gig?"—my master said, "Yes," and lent him one—he came home with it the following Friday afternoon, and paid me what my master charged—he said, he should come for the four-wheel trap on the Monday or Tuesday—he came on the Monday evening, a little after 7 o'clock—before that I had seen Policeman 42 P, who told me not to let the trap go—when Wells came for the trap he was given into custody.

JOHN COLLINS (P 42). On this afternoon, about 4 o'clock, from information I received, I went to Mr. Barber's livery stables, and there saw a four-wheeler answering the description I wanted—in the afternoon I saw Wells, and asked him about the cheque—he said, "I bought the trap of a man on Blackheath"—he said he got the cheque at Blackheath—he presented a card with the name of Sims on it—I asked him about the horse and harness—he said he sold them at Clapham—he did not say to whom—he afterwards said his name was Wells, and he lived at 51, New Cross Road.

Cross-examined. Q. How did you get that card? A. I found it on the prisoner at the station—previous to that he presented the card to the inspector—it had W. W. Sims on it—I have been to the address on this card, 38 A, King William Street—they knew the prisoner there—he holds offices there—that is his address.

WILLIAM BROWNING (39 N). I was the acting inspector at the station—I saw a card taken from the prisoner.

Cross-examined. Q. Should you know the individual card again? A. No; there were other cards as well, all mixed together—we compared them, and found they were all the same—he lives at that address.

MR. DALY. Q. On Wednesday, 13th June, did you go to 4, Park Road, Peckham? A. Yes, accompanied by the prosecutor—I watched a house in Trafalgar Place—I saw Francis—he went in about a quarter to nine in the evening—from the description given me by the prosecutor, I took him into custody—I told him he was charged with obtaining a horse, chaise, and harness from the prosecutor—he said, "I know nothing of it."

Francis. Q. Did I make any objection to your searching the house? A. No.

JOHN HAGREEN . I live at 38 A, King William Street—I have never let offices there to Wells—he has been in there, but without my consent—I let to a Mr. Day—I know Wells by the name of W. W. Sims—that was on the first interview that I had with him—that was about two months before he was taken ashore.

Francis's Defence. I was in the city, and I saw a party of the name of Jones, who is well known in the city—he said, "I wish to purchase a horse and trap. Will you go and look at one?" I said, "Well, I don't mind, but I can't lose my time for nothing." He said, "Here is my friend Smith." I met him by appointment at the "White Bear," in King William Street—I told him the horse and trap was 55 guineas, but that I got it for 55l.—he said, "Very well"—I went by appointment at 3 in the afternoon, and met Smith, who handed me the cheque, and said, "My name is on the cheque, and you can put my name on the back of it before you give it up"—I said, "Can't you do it?" He said he had no pen and ink, and I said I would do it—I went and fetched the horse and trap—Smith gave me half a sovereign—I can clearly see I have been made a dupe of by these vagabonds—they don't bring up the right parties at all—the prosecutor did not go to the bank till the Monday morning—he does not know whether the money is in the bank or not.

FRANCIS— GUILTY .— Confined Nine Months .



Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-649
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

649. JOSEPH RICHARDS (22) was indicted for, and charged on the coroner's inquisition with, feloniously killing and slaying William John James Buchan.

MR. SLEIGH and MR. WARNER SLEIGH conducted the Prosecution, and MESSRS. LEWIS and STRAIGHT the Defence.

WILLIAM BUCHAN . I am chief engineer to her Majesty's ship Warrior, and live at 39, Church Terrace, Blackheath—I am father of the deceased William John James Buchan—he was 23 years old—he was an engineer—he was a very temperate, steady, persevering young man—I saw him alive on 20th May; he came down to Portsmouth to see his mother and me—on the last night in May I saw him at home; he was then dying—he died the next day—I was with him until he died—Dr. Purvis attended him—he was in good health before the time of this occurrence.

CHARLES DEAN . I am a coach-builder, and occupy one of the arches

of the railway at Deptford, No. 119—on Whit Tuesday, about five in the afternoon, I was just going to close my doors, and had put up a bar that goes across, and the deceased came and leaned over the bar for some ten minutes—as I was in a hurry to go away, I went up to him and asked if he wanted to speak to me—he made no answer—he recovered himself off the bar as soon as he could, which he had some difficulty in doing—he was very tipsy—I saw him again some half-hour afterwards further down, standing talking to the prisoner with his hands in his pockets—they were talking rather loud, but I thought they were out together—about six o'clock, as I came back, I saw a mob of people—I went up and saw the deceased lying on the ground, and Mr. Worth had hold of him—he had some blood on his face, but, being in a hurry, I did not stop—I saw no violence—on the occasions that I had seen him I had not observed him do anything violent to anybody.

Cross-examined. Q. Did you see him placed in a truck by the police? A. Yes, after they took him on a charge of drunkenness—I did not see how he was placed in the truck—there were three or four policemen—they were not all holding him—I saw two just come and lay him down in front of my door first of all—I did not notice how many policemen put him into the truck, or how his head was after he had been put into the truck.

CHARLES WORTH . I am a butcher, and live at Deptford—on Whit Tuesday, about a quarter past six, I got down at the Deptford Station, and as I was standing the deceased passed me, merry-like, singing, being holiday time, at the other side of High Street, near the arches—some ten or twelve minutes afterwards, as I was going to the other end of the arches, towards Church Street, I saw four boys cavilling with the prisoner and the deceased—the deceased had been under the arch for a purpose, and the boys threw stones, which irritated the deceased, and he was going to strike one—the prisoner said, "If you hit the boy I will hit you"—they called each other names—the prisoner was smoking a cheroot, and the deceased knocked it out of his mouth—being irritated, the prisoner struck him four blows—the deceased came at him in a staggering position, but he was too drunk—the prisoner hit him in the head, which caused him to reel—that was part of the four blows, and as he was reeling to fall he hit him right and left underneath the jaw—I picked him up afterwards, and placed him between my knees—blood came from his mouth and nose; I should say pretty nearly three pints—I said to the prisoner, "You have done something now; don't go away," and he stopped about a quarter of an hour—the deceased was quite unconscious—I had him for the space of half an hour—I did not see him strike the prisoner any blow before the prisoner struck him—there was no one engaged in it but the prisoner and deceased—Inspector Ebbs came up, and I told him he had been knocked about a good deal—the prisoner was gone then; he had walked away—Inspector Ebbs waited till A 447 came, and they took the deceased under the armpits to remove him to the station—they took him 60 or 70 yards and then lay him down—A 447 minded him, with a mob round, till they procured a truck—I did not accompany them to the station.

Cross-examined. Q. You were there from the very commencement of the transaction to the end? A. Yes—there might have been another person or two close by, but not on the spot, before any blow was struck—I can't tell who they were—a great many persons came up afterwards—the transaction lasted a very few moments; it might be five minutes—the deceased did not attempt to strike the boys—he said he would give one a

clout—he did not do it—he did not strike the prisoner at any time through-out the transaction; he was too drunk—I did not say before the magisrate, "The deceased also struck him"—he waved his arms about in a rambling way—he might have touched him, but he had no power—he might have hit him, but not enough to knock a fly off—I interfered and stopped it as soon as I could—nobody else interfered—I saw the deceased put into the truck—his head was not hanging over the truck; it lay inside, on the ledge of the truck, resting against the side—it was a truck without front or back, such as carpenters use to lay boards on—there was a police-man on each side to hold him, and one at the front and one at the back.

MR. SLEIGH. Q. When you last saw the deceased on the truck, being conveyed away, was he still unconscious? A. Quite so—the prisoner had been away about 20 minutes or half an hour at the time the deceased was placed on the truck.

DAVID OLIFF . I live at 3, Crossfield Lane, Deptford—I was employed in the dockyard there—on the evening of Whit Tuesday, as I was returning from work, I saw the deceased near the railway arches, lying against the wall, with his arms down and his head a little drooping, and I saw the prisoner strike him two blows, one with his right hand, and the next was an up blow, as it appeared to me—he fell forwards—the blows were struck while he was in a stooping position—he fell along by the side of the wall—I went up to him afterwards—he was then lying across Mr. Worth's lap, bleeding from the nose and mouth—he appeared to me to be quite insensible—the prisoner was standing in the middle of the road—he was going away, and I put my hand on his shoulder, and said, "Stand your ground; do not run away; it appears to me he may require medical assistance"—the man, who I have since found out to be Fletcher, nudged him on the shoulder, and said, "The b—has not been hit hard enough"—that man went away with the prisoner—I followed them—the deceased seemed still in the same position when I left—a woman was bringing a glass of water to him, and Mr. Worth was going to put it over his face.

Cross-examined. Q. How far off were you when you saw the blows struck? A. About fifty yards.

GEORGE KADWELL (Police Sergeant 8 R). On Saturday evening, 9th June, in consequence of information, I went to the "Green Bank" Public-house, in Half Moon Street, and there saw the prisoner—I was in plain clothes—I told him I was a police sergeant of the R division, and that I came up respecting a man who was assaulted on Whit Tuesday at the railway arches, Deptford—he said, "Yes; I have been down there. What I did was in self-defence. I had been with some friends to a public-house called "The Gunner"—I told him he would have to accompany me to Deptford, on the charge of assaulting a man named John James Buchan, who was since dead—he said, "Very well; I will go," and he went.

Cross-examined. Q. Were these the words he used: "Yes; I were there. All I did was in self-defence?" A. Yes—it was after that that I told him the man was dead.

ROBERT EBBS (Police Inspector R). In consequence of information, I went to the railway arches, and found the deceased lying on the ground—there was a great crowd of persons standing round—I do not know whether Mr. Worth was among them—the deceased was insensible—I caused him to be removed to the station—I was not told that he had been knocked about—I heard on the way to the station that there had been a fight, but there was no sign of it on him—I saw no blood on him—I

assisted to convey him some twenty or thirty yards, and found that he could not walk—I left him in charge of a constable while I went to the station to send the stretcher for him, but he was brought to the station in a truck soon after I got there—that was a few minutes after seven o'clock—I saw him when he was brought in—he was partly unconscious—he could stand, and he could talk—he could tell his name—he was evidently quite tipsy, and I thought nothing else—the divisional surgeon was called in about a quarter-past nine, I believe, but not by me—I went off duty at nine—the deceased was put into a cell in the ordinary way, and a police constable placed with him to watch him—no medical man was sent for till after nine o'clock—before he was put into the truck I assisted him along the road—a police officer had hold of one arm, and I had hold of the other, and between us we took him twenty or thirty yards; but, finding he could not make any use of his feet, I set him down, and said I would send. the stretcher—we conveyed him very carefully—I did not see him placed in the truck—I saw him taken out of it at the station—there were three or four officers with him taking care of him—I find by the book that he was bailed out about ten o'clock that night.

Cross-examined. Q. When he came to the station did he give his name and address? A. He did—I do not recognise Mr. Worth as having made any complaint to me as to any ill-treatment to which the deceased had been subjected—I could say that he did—no pointed complaint was made to me—there were several talking among the crowd—I should say one hundred persons followed the truck to the station—it was an ordinary costermonger's two-wheel truck.

MR. SLEIGH. Q. Did not Mr. Worth tell you that the man had been ill-used, and did not you see him bathing his face with vinegar and water? A. I saw his face being bathed with a liquid which I thought was water, and Mr. Worth may have been the person who was bathing his face—he did not tell me that the man had been illused—I heard when I came up generally that there had been a fight, that was all—I could not particularized Mr. Worth—I would not undertake to say that he did not say it to me.

ARTHUR HANCOCK (280 R). I saw the deceased when he was brought into the station about seven o'clock on the night in question—he was drunk—he was conscious when he got to the dock—I was placed in the cell with him—I remained with him from a quarter-past nine to a quarter to ten o'clock, when the doctor was sent for—during that period he spoke to me several times—he gave me an account of himself—he told me he had been drinking down at the arches, and he said somebody had struck him, but who it was he did not know.

GEORGE KADWELL (Re-examined). I went to the station with the truck—I placed the deceased in the truck—his head was not hanging over the side, it was on my arm—I had him by the shoulder all the way to the station—I walked by the side of the truck—it was a small spring truck—I took charge of him myself from the time I left the ground till we arrived at the station.

PRIOR PURVIS . I am a physician and surgeon at Deptford—I saw the witness Robert Tomlinson the day before yesterday—he was extremely ill, apparently suffering from some effect of the brain—he was not in a condition to travel, and I should fear will never be able—I am not his medical attendant, but I happened to see his medical attendant the day before yesterday, and asked him if he had any objection to me seeing him with him; I did so, and he is in a very sad state—I fear he will scarcely live

many days—it is impossible that he could be here to-day—I scarcely thought he would have been alive 48 hours—he is quite unconscious.

ROBERT EBBS (Re-examined). I was present at the examination of the prisoner—this is Mr. Maude the magistrate's signature to the witness's deposition—I have frequently seen him write—I saw the depositions taken and saw Tomlinson sign it—the prisoner had an opportunity to cross-examine him.

MR. LEWIS objected to the reading of the deposition, on the ground that there was a non-compliance with the statute on the part of the magistrate, who had only signed at the end of the whole depositions returned to the court, and had not signed each deposition separately, as directed by the Act. MR. SLEIGH referred to the case of Reg. v. Collins, Central Criminal Court Sessions Paper, Vol.60, page 115, to show that the course suggested was not necessary. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE did not concur in the opinion expressed in the case cited. He considered that, according to the words of the statute, each deposition should be signed by the witness and the magistrate, and that it was not a compliance with the Act for the magistrate merely to sign at the end; but if the matter was pressed he would receive the evidence and reserve the point. MR. SLEIGH did not press the point, and the deposition was not put in.

DR. PURVIS (Re-examined). I am the family physician of Mr. Buchan—the morning after deceased received the injury I was called in, and I found him in a most peculiar condition, in a half conscious state—I could not rouse him or get any answers from him that day—the impression I had was that he had been drinking apparently some beer that had been drugged, and I gave a certificate to that effect—he continued under my care till the 1st of June, when he died—he did not remain unconscious the whole of that time—he became conscious the latter part of Thursday or Friday morning, and then gave me some little account of what he supposed was the state he was in—I made a post mortem examination on 2nd June—the abdominal thoracic viscera were healthy—we first of all laid open the spine, throughout the whole canal, and across the back and throat—throughout the whole of the track of the spinal marrow there was considerable effusion of blood—I should have mentioned that there were some few bruises externally, but not of any marked character—there was no injury to the bone of the skull—on taking off the skull-cap, the whole of the vessels of the brain were highly congested—on the top of the brain there was a deposit of lymph, showing that inflammatory action had set up—the vessels of the brain generally were in a congested state—the brain itself showed red spots in the substance of the brain, there was blood in the ventricles, and at the base of the brain; all the vessels were considerably congested with blood—we found a clot of blood on the right side of the neck, two of the muscles of the neck were lacerated, one completely, and the other two-thirds or three-quarters of the substance—they were muscles proceeding from the breast-bone to the throat—they were torn—one was torn completely across—the jaw-bone was fractured completely through, to the left of the chin-bone—very great violence indeed must have been used to fracture the jaw and lacerate the muscles—I have been in court, and saw one of the witnesses describe the position in which the deceased was when he was struck an up-blow in the jaw—I should expect such a blow would produce the injuries that I saw, especially if there was a resistance at the back of the head, so as to prevent the head from going back—I think the same cause of violence would also produce the effect on the brain that I found—the cause of death was inflammation of the brain, and an effusion

into the ventricles—the fracture of the jaw and the laceration of the muscles had nothing to do with the cause of death—the mischief at the brain was the cause of death—I attribute it to the inflammatory action set up, and the effusion into the ventricles—I think the blow which fractured the jaw would produce such a bruise at the brain, that as a result there would be inflammatory action set up there, which would terminate in effusion and death—I found no other cause of death.

Cross-examined. Q. How long did you consider the effusion had been going on when you were called in? A. I cannot say—I do not think it was going on for the whole period up to the 31st May—if it had taken place immediately after the blow I should have thought he would have died long before—when I said there was effusion into the ventricles I meant an effusion of serum, not blood—there was no decided clot of blood, there was a coagulated state of the vessels—he died from inflammation, inflammation of the brain, decidedly—it was very difficult for me to say how long the effusion had been going on—it had not come on until within two or three days of his death—I do not consider the inflammation of the brain set up until about the Monday before he died—there were no indications of it—Monday would be the 28th—he died on 1st of June—when I was first called in I did not observe any indications of inflammatory action of the brain—the first apprehensions of it were on the Monday as he died on the Friday—I do not think inflammation of the brain consistent with a strong drinking fit, accompanied by a shaking of the body—I have frequently read of drunken people being found dead in police-cells next morning, not after an interval of days—I should not attribute that to inflammation of the brain—it is not so rapid in its course as that—I don't think that would have produced the post mortem appearances I saw—it might be injurious to a drunken man to be kept for two hours in a cell—I don't think it would be likely to bring on inflammation—before I made the post mortem I considered that he died from injury to the brain, followed by inflammatory action—I was aware then of the fracture of the jaw, but not that he had been hit—I assumed that he must have been hit, by the jaw being fractured—I knew the jaw was fractured on the Mon-day as he died on the Friday.

COURT. Q. When did you first see him? A. The day after the alleged injury, Wednesday morning—he was then unconscious, but he became conscious on the Thursday and Friday, and on Friday he gave me an account of what he had done on the Tuesday, from the time he left home at nine in the morning up to one or two o'clock, but from that time it was a perfect blank to him—I am very much at a loss to account for the unconscious state—I thought at first it was the effects of drink—I have not had much experience in drunken cases—I examined him very minutely indeed on the Wednesday, the very day I saw him; there was something in his appearance different to what I had ever seen in drunkenness, and I could not account for it—there was a greater amount of stupor than I had ever seen in drunkenness.

The prisoner received a good character.— Confined Eight Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-650
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

650. MARY ANN MONROE (56) PLEADED GUILTY to three indictments for stealing a flannel shirt and other goods of Patrick Cremer, and others. Confined Twelve Months .


Before Mr. Recorder.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-651
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

651. JOHN KELLY (18) , Robbery with violence, upon Richard Neal, and stealing a watch, his property.

MR. GRIFFITHS conducted the Prosecution, MR. SHARP the Defence.

RICHARD NEAL . I am a tinplate worker, and live at 7, Victory Place, Wall Street, Bermondsey—on Saturday night, 7th June last, I was going home—whilst passing under the railway arch in Bermondsey Street I was suddenly prounced upon by three men—they forced me against the wall, tore away my watch, and threw me down heavily on the pavement—I became partly unconscious from the violence with which they threw me down—I believe the prisoner was one of the men, but I can't swear positively to him—from the time I had to look at him I should say he was the man—I only caught a very transitory view of his face—I couldn't see the features of any of them—when I recovered myself I found the. watch was gone—the chain was hanging on.

Cross-examined. Q. You had been drinking, and were the worse for liquor? A. Yes; that is right—I had been to the city on business—I was walking from Tooley Street, straight up Bermondsey Street, in the direction of Bermondsey Old Church—this was under the railway arch—it is very wide, and very dark underneath—I believe the men came up behind me, and seized me behind—they got in front of me before I was thrown on the ground—I might have said, before to-day, under the sense of excitement, that I didn't see any of them, but I don't think I did—I had never seen prisoner before—I saw him next at the police-station on the Sunday morning—I was sent for, I don't know whether it was by the officer in this case—the policeman asked me if he was the man who robbed me—I can't swear to him—he is like him—the robbery was between eleven and twelve o'clock.

MR. GRIFFITHS. Q. I understand you to say you saw the face of one man? A. Very transitorily—I think the prisoner was the man whose face I saw, but I can't swear to it—I was not so drunk that I could not have got to my own home if I had not been assaulted.

ARTHUR CHAPMAN . I live at 50, Under Street, Dover Road—on Saturday night, 16th June, I was in Bermondsey Street—I saw the prosecutor, and I saw the prisoner drag him down, snatch his watch, and run away with it in his hand—there were several other men with him—they struck the prosecutor and knocked his hat off—he fell down—he was on the ground when the watch was taken from him—the prisoner was standing in front of him—the prisoner ran away first—the others didn't follow directly—I am sure the prisoner is the man—I can swear to him—it was underneath the gas—I helped the prosecutor up, and took him to the station—another man, who was going by, helped me to take him to the station.

Cross-examined. Q. Is that man here? A. No; he is not to be found—I was going home from my work in Gracechurch Street—the prosecutor was going towards Tooley Street—I am quite sure of that—I am quite sure he was not going from Tooley Street—he was coming towards me—I was three or four yards off when I saw it—I will swear I was not twenty yards off—I stopped there the whole time the men were assaulting the

prosecutor—I stopped to see what they were up to—I can swear the prisoner is the man—I saw him at the police-station on the Sunday morning—I picked him out from three—it was not because he had a crutch that I remembered him, but because I had a full view of his face by the gaslight—the person I saw running away had a crutch, but I saw him before he snatched the watch standing in front of the prosecutor.

GUILTY .—* Confined Eighteen Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-652
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

652. BENJAMIN MORTLOCK (26) and LOUISA BRIDGET MORTLOCK (23) , Feloniously having in their possession a mould for making a florin.

MESSRS. POLAND and M.J. O'CONNELL conducted the Prosecution, and MR. COOPER the Defence.

JAMES BRANNAN . I live at 39, Radnor Street, St. Luke's, and am in the employment of the Mint—on Thursday morning, 3rd May, about half-past seven or a quarter to eight, I went, with Inspector Dann, Inspector Bran-nan, and many other officers, to No. 3, Little Queen Street, Camberwell—we forced open the door of the house—it consists of two rooms, one above the other, with a kitchen at the back—we proceeded upstairs, and in the first floor found two moulds for making florins, five double moulds for making shillings, and one treble mould for making sixpences—on the mantelshelf stood a good florin and two good shillings, fifteen counterfeit shillings, and two counterfeit sixpences—the shillings corresponded, in date with the mould and with the two good shillings, which I believe the impressions were taken from—the mould also corresponded in date with the good florin, one of the sixpences also corresponded in date with the mould, and one I believe was cast in the same mould that was found in another house where a large seizure was made that morning—in the room I found several tin bands for making moulds, and iron clams for holding the moulds when the metal is poured in in a state of fusion—in the cupboard I found two galvanic batteries charged, containing acid much diluted, with these wires, bent as they appear now, to hold the mould at each side, some plaster of Paris, and some powder, a file, with white metal in its teeth, and all the necessary implements for making and coating counterfeit coin—in the back kitchen there was a middling-sized copper, full of broken plaster of Paris moulds, a glass with plaster of Paris adhering to it, and a box containing a small quantity of quicksilver, which is used in the process of coating—we took possession of the articles, and came away, leaving persons to watch the house—on the morning of 20th June, a little before eight, I accompanied Inspector Fyfe, with another officer, and placed myself in a position to command a view of Bowman's Buildings, Aldersgate Street—I saw the male prisoner come from the court, accompanied by another man—I pointed him out to Serjeant Elliott, who took him into custody—I said to him, "Well, Mr. Williams, we visited your house, 3, Little Queen Street, Camberwell, on 3rd of last month—you have not been there"—he said, "I never lived there, I was never there in my life, nor do I know where Camberwell is"—I said, "Quite a stranger, Mr. Williams. Where do you live?" He said, "I have no fixed residence"—I asked the man who was with him where he lived—he said, he worked for Mr. Brock, and lived at 41, Snow Hill—he did live there—I knew him to be a working man—I went there, accompanied by Fyfe, and saw the female prisoner—she was taken into custody—I called her by the name. of Williams, and

told her the charge, and that we had her husband in custody—she afterwards said that she did live at No. 3, Little Queen Street, but in the name of Thompson—I have known the male prisoner going by the name of Williams.

Cross-examined. Q. You have apparently regarded the female as the man's wife? A. Yes; they have cohabited together as man and wife—the other house where we found something was about half a mile from Little Queen Street—we did not take up any persons there—we had been looking after them some time—they were convicted last session, and sentenced to penal servitude.

MR. POLAND. Q. Did you see any sixpences at that house? A. Yes, 133—they are all here—Mr. Webster has examined them—we found two persons of the name of Lowe—there were no implements of coining there, only a large quantity of counterfeit coin—that was at No. 1, Cambridge Terrace, Peckham—we made three seizures that morning.

JAMES HANN (Police Sergeant 5 P)—I know the house No. 1, Cambridge Terrace, Peckham—two persons of the name of Lowe lived there—I know the prisoners—I saw them frequently a week before they were taken into custody, going into No. 1, Cambridge Terrace, both together and separately, from Peckham Grove—I have followed them from Cambridge Terrace, in company with the Lowe's, to a public-house within 100 yards of Little Queen Street, and have there seen them drinking together.

Cross-examined. Q. Had you been on the watch for these Lowes for a long time? A. Yes; and others—I have seen the prisoners with the Lowe's six or seven times, at least.

JOHN FYFE (Inspector G). I was with Brannan on the morning of 20th June, when the female was taken into custody—I told her the charge—she said, "You don't mean to lock me up?"—I said, "I must"—she said, "I am quite innocent, when we were living at No. 3, Little Queen Street, my husband would never allow me to remain in the room while he was making the bad money."

SUSAN HAYES . I am the wife of Henry Hayes, a carman, and live at 4, Little Queen Street, Camberwell—I know the two prisoners—they lived at No. 3 for about five months—I remember the officers coming there to make the seizure—I had seen both the prisoners there the day before—they did not return after the seizure—this (produced) is the rentbook of No. 3—the female prisoner gave it to me on the Monday before the seizure to pay her rent, as they were going out—she left the money with me—she had done so on former occasions—I knew them by the name of Thompson.

Cross-examined. Q. Have you ever been in the house? A. No—Mr. Hunt is the landlord.

MARY CHAMPION . I am the wife of Charles Champion—I now live at Wellington Street, Camberwell—I did live at No. 5, Little Queen Street, at the time in question—I have frequently seen the prisoners passing and repassing, going in and out of No. 3—when the house was vacant the female prisoner came to me and asked the landlord's address—I saw them at the house the same day the seizure was made, about seven in the morning—they passed my house.

Cross-examined. Q. What makes you so sure about it? A. Because I was at the gate taking in the milk—Mr. Brannan spoke to me the same day about this—I am sure of the date, because I was wondering where they were running so fast—nobody else lived in the house.

HENRY THOMAS HUNT . I am landlord of No. 3, Little Queen Street

—I was not at home when the female prisoner took the house—my mother let it to her—this is the rentbook of No. 3—I used to collect the rent—I have received it myself three times from Mrs. Thompson—sometimes it was left with Mrs. Hayes.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am inspector of coin to the Mint—here are two florin moulds, and here is the pattern coin used for the making of them, a good florin—there are no bad florins produced—there are five double moulds for shillings, and here are two good shillings, which have been used as patterns for making these moulds, and there are eleven counterfeit shillings from these moulds—there is a treble mould for making sixpences for the years 1855, 1858, 1862—here are two sixpences, which have been made from the '55 and '62 moulds—there is none of '58—I saw some of the sixpences that were found at the Lowes, and they are from this mould of '62—here is everything necessary for coining on a very extensive scale.

BENJAMIN MORTLOCK— GUILTY **— Seven Years' Penal Servitude .


9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-653
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > other institution; Imprisonment

Related Material

653. HENRY SANDERS (14) and ANN GARNETT ( ), Uttering counterfeit coin, and having counterfeit coin in their possession.

MR. POLAND and MR. M.J. O'CONNELL prosecuted.

JOHN JAMES . I keep the "British Queen" Beer-house, in Picton Street, Camberwell—on Saturday evening, 16th June, the two prisoners came in together, about half-past seven—I was busy at the time—they asked for a pint of six ale—I served them, and the female paid with a counterfeit shilling—I tried it in my detecter and it bent very easily—"I said, "This won't do; it is a bad one"—she said she knew where she got it from—I thought she was a poor working man's wife, and gave it her back, and she gave me a good one for it—I gave her the change—they drank part of the beer and went away—I know there was a queen's head on the shilling.

THOMAS WHAPHAM . I keep the Rose and Crown, Acorn Street, Camberwell, about 150 yards from the British Queen—on Saturday evening, 16th June, between seven and eight, the prisoners came there together, and asked for a pint of half-and-half—the female gave me a bad shilling in payment—I gave her the change, but kept the shilling in my hand—somebody called my attention aside, and when I looked again Sanders had pulled the till open and got his hand in—I told him of it—his mother, the female prisoner, said, "What is he doing?"—I said, "Trying to rob my till," and then I said, "You have given a bad shilling, and are not satisfied without trying to rob my till"—I discovered it was bad before I let it out of my hand—she offered me a good one for it, but I refused—they went out—I told two or three men to follow them, and I went to look for a policeman—I found one and gave the boy in custody for trying to rob my till—the female was walking by his side at the time—as the boy was being taken along I saw him put his hand in his breast pocket and drop a black bag not half a yard behind him—this is it (produced)—I picked it up and gave it to the constable, and the shilling I gave to the inspector at the station.

WILLIAM BRIGDEN . I am a coal porter, and live at 3, Acorn Street—I was at Mr. Whapham's and saw the prisoners—the prosecutor spoke to me, and I followed them out—when we got to Southampton Street the boy began to cry, and offered me a shilling if I would let him go—the female said, "If a shilling is not enough I will give you half-a-crown"—

I said, "It is more than I dare do"—the boy tried to make his escape, but I caught hold of him, and he was given in charge—on the way to the station I saw him drop a black bag—I was close to him—Mr. Whapham picked it up.

Garnett. Q. Did you not touch my boy as he came out of the public-house and say, "If you have anything to sling sling it at me, and tip me a shilling?" A. No; I did not say I would get him off if he gave me half-a-crown.

THOMAS NEVILLE (41 P). The prosecutor gave Sanders into my custody for attempting to rob his till—he made no answer, as I was taking him along the Walworth Road, I saw this black bag fall from under his coat—Mr. Whapham picked it up and gave it to me—I examined his coat at the station and found there was no breast pocket to it, only a hole, so that anything would drop right through—I found on him 5s. 4 1/2d. in good money, eight sixpences and 1s. 4 1/2d. in copper—the bag contained six counterfeit shillings, two wrapped up in separate pieces of paper—the female prisoner said to Mr. Whapham if she had given him a bad shilling she would give him a good one for it—the boy had been drinking slightly.

WILLIAM ANDERSON (32 P). Garnett was pointed out to me in the Walworth Road by Brigden—I said to her, "I believe you are looking for your son, are you not?"—she said, "I am"—I said, "If you accompany me to the station you will see him"—she went with me—I told her the charge—she said she knew nothing about it—1s. 6d. was found on her in good silver, 5d. in coppers, a pair of new carpet slippers, two pieces of calico, a small quantity of tea and sugar, and a basket—the prisoners gave separate addresses—they were not known there.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . The shilling uttered and the four in the bag are all bad—they are not from the same mould.

Garnett's Defence. The prosecutor did not offer to give me in charge—I went to the station to see how my son got on.

SANDERS— GUILTY. Recommended to mercy by the Jury. One Month and Four Years in a Reformatory . GARNETT— GUILTY .— Eighteen Months .

Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-654
VerdictMiscellaneous > no agreement

Related Material

654. MARGARET BAKER (25) was indicted for the wilful murder of a female child, lately before born of her body, and not named; she was also charged on the coroner's inquisition with the like offence.

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

In this case the Jury, being unable to agree, were discharged without giving any verdict. The prisoner was detained to be tried at the next Session.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-655
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

655. JANE CUSHION (26) , Feloniously wounding Henry Cushion on his neck and throat, with intent to murder him.

MR. DALY and MR. STRAIGHT Prosecuted.

HENRY CUSHION . I live in High Street, Putney—at the time of this accident I lived at No. 2, College Street—on Monday night, 21st May, I got home about half-past seven—eight o'clock was the time to go in, appointed by me and my wife—I went in company with my wife and a broker—we all three went in together—the broker was to buy the things—there had been some disagreement between me and my wife—we had a mutual consent to sell the things—I consented to sell the goods and give her half the money, and separate, and for me to allow her a maintenance—

I only sold part of the things to the broker—after they were sold it was very nearly eleven o'clock, or a little after, I could not say to a quarter of an hour—I saw my wife go up Wandsworth Lane towards Putney, and I thought I would go home and have a doze with my clothes on, which I did—we were to separate on that night—I was at the street-door—she went one way and I another—the street-door was locked, and the landlord opened it—I got into my room by entering the window, as the door was locked, and my wife had the key—when I got into the room I laid down and went to sleep, for I was very tired—I had worked very hard all day—when I awoke I found my left hand tied above my head to the head of the bed-stead, and my right hand to the foot, and the rope passed across my bed, and my throat cut—I awoke by the feel of the cut, and the blood coming out of it profusely—it was perfectly dark, there was no light in the room—I heard my wife say, using a foul word, "I will see if you will go away from me," and she gave me another cut—I was entirely in her power—I then got my feet disentangled, and got them on the floor, and I promised her I would not go away—I felt something, I do not know whether it was a razor or a knife, in her hand, but I felt something cut my throat—she then loosened my right hand from the rope, and I got loose, opened the door, and went out into the street—she followed me—she said she hoped I would not transport her; she would attend to my throat herself, and say nothing about it—I told her I was going to the doctor's, but I made my way to the police-court—she helped me part of the way—I fell down, and I know nothing more till I got to the station.

Prisoner. He has not spoken the truth—I never tied him down, at all.

Witness. I am sure my hands were tied—we had lived a very unhappy life from three weeks after our marriage, which is close on five years—I do not wish to enter into that—I wish not to hurt her more than possible—I do not wish to punish her—she has sold my home and left me destitute, and several other things—I do not think I have given her any provocation—she has never accused me of having done so—she has made complaints and charges against me ten or eleven times—I have been to Marlborough Street on summonses at her instance, for abuse and one thing and another—I was innocent of it—she convicted me once for twenty-eight days, falsely swearing I struck her—that is nearly two years ago—previous to that I had to swear my life against her, and for the protection of my daughter—she is my second wife—she was bound over for six months—that was two years and a half ago—after that she drew a bill on me for 3l. 18s., and broke 3l. or 4l. worth of crockery—I cannot say she has taken out a summons against me for the last twelve months—I thought it was best to take her away from a lot of her companions, and I went from London to Putney, and when I went to remove my goods I found they were all taken for rent; I did not owe anybody a halfpenny—it was a conspiracy between my wife and the landlord—I have been paying double rent—she kept the rent-book—that caused disturbances between us—I have lost many of the best places in London in my business through her—I have gone home at seven at night, and have had to walk the streets till twelve and half-past, she has locked the door and gone out—I go out at half-past four or five every morning—I am a farrier by business.

Prisoner. He used to ill-use me—I got my own living, for he hardly ever gave me any money—he is a very great drunkard, always in public-houses. Witness. I should not have the best places in London if I did that—I had not been drinking on this evening—I was perfectly sober.

CHARLES ALBERT TUCK . I live at Wandsworth—on Monday night, 21st May, after 12 o'clock, I was returning from Putney, and saw the prosecutor lying on his back in Wandsworth Lane bleeding, and the prisoner lying on him—I asked what was the matter—he said his throat was cut—I asked who did it—he said his wife had done it, and said that was the woman—I told him he must get up—he said he could not—I got him up as well as I could and got him to the station—I was present when he made the charge.

Prisoner. Q. Did not I assist you to the station with my husband. A. You walked by his side and helped me as well as you could.

WILLIAM JOHN MORTON (Police Sergeant 3 V). On the morning of the 22nd of May, about half-past twelve o'clock the prisoner came to the station with her husband accompanied by Tuck—the husband did not charge her at that time—the doctor was afterwards sent for—Tuck told me that the prosecutor had accused his wife of cutting his throat—I asked him whether his wife had done it; he said, "Yes"—I then took her up into the office, cautioned her, and asked her to explain how her husband came in that position—she was crying and sobbing very much, and she said, "I don't know"—I then removed her from the presence of her husband into another department, when she said, "I will tell you the truth. For some time past my husband has been in the habit of ill-treating me, and saying terms towards me that I never deserved. He commenced again last night, and I could not stand it any longer, and I committed the act"—I asked her what she had done it with, and she said, "With his razor"—I asked her where it was—she said, "On the top of the dressing-table in our bedroom"—Inspector Usher came in at that time.

WILLIAM USHER (Police Inspector). I was sent for to the station—I got there about one o'clock in the morning, on 22nd May—I found the prosecutor attended by a surgeon in the reserve room—he was in considerable danger—the magistrate had been sent for, who arrived shortly afterwards, and I took down his statement—he afterwards charged his wife with attempting to murder him; at least, I charged her for him, for he was unable to write—I told her it was by cutting his throat with a razor—she paused for a second or two and then said, "Yes"—I then asked her for the key of her door—she gave it me—I asked her whether there was anything particular I should find in her room—she said, "You will find the razor on two boxes in the bedroom"—I went there and found this razor open, covered with blood, on two boxes by the side of an iron bedstead—I found this rope tied round the bedstead two or three times—it extended from the foot of the bed to the side, and then back again across the top part—there was blood on the razor—the counterpane and the floor and the rope were covered with blood—there was also blood on the handles of the door—there was no cut on the rope—I afterwards examined the yard, and found a clothes-line with a portion of rope missing, and this corresponded with it.

HENRY WINSLOW . I am a member of the College of Surgeons—on the morning of 22nd May I was sent for to the police-station—I found the prosecutor there—he was very much exhausted from loss of blood, and I found that his throat was cut—it was a very extensive cut, about five inches in length from side to side, and it extended through the skin into the muscles—the large vessels were not divided—I suppose it was about half an inch deep—I believed him to be in a dangerous condition, and instructed the police to send for the magistrate to take his deposition—it was such a wound as might be caused by a razor—it just escaped the main arteries

—the main artery laid just underneath—I could see the pulsation of the large vessel of the neck—the breathing apparatus was cut, but the cut did not extend right through, so that he breathed through his mouth, and not through his throat, as he would have done if the larynx had been divided—the danger was from exhaustion from loss of blood—there must have been a great amount of force used, and with a very sharp instrument, such as this is—there was only one wound, but there had been evidently two cuts—there was a line or cord of skin, showing that the instrument had been used twice—the two wounds went into each other.

Prisoner. Q. Did my husband make any remark when you were dressing his wounds? A. No.

The prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I did not deserve the cruel treatment I received from my husband—he had no provocation for calling me the names he did—I gave him but two cuts—I gave him one cut and he moved himself, then I gave him another, and he sat up in bed; two altogether—after I gave him the second one he cried out, "Murder!"—I then got behind him in the bed, and took hold of him by the shoulders and lifted him off from under the bed rope—I never cut it at all—he then said, 'I caused you to do this,' he put his hand on my shoulder and kissed me—he then said, 'Ducky, ducky, I have caused you to do it,' and kissed me again—then he said, 'Tie my neck up, and take me to the doctor's'—I put a scarf round his neck—he told me not to cry, he would be well in a few days, he would get it strapped up, and nothing should be done to me—I said, 'I do not expect to be unpunished for a thing like this'—he said, 'You shall not be punished, I will make that all right'—I then put his hat on his head, and asked him to wait while I put some-thing round me—I put my dress and boots on and followed him down-stairs—we got to the corner of the street, and he said to some people, his throat was cut by his wife—I then took hold of him and led him along until I met a man, and I asked him to help me with him somewhere, to get him attended to, and we came to the station-house—another man was coming towards me, and I begged him to help, and he did so—he was lying on the road when the man came, and I was kneeling by him, holding his head and asking him how he was—he did not speak, but closed his eyes—I thought he was dying, and he kissed me—we got him up again and brought him to the station—that is ail."

Prisoner's Defence. My husband has brought it all on himself; he was so unkind to me—I am very sorry to think I have done any such thing—what he has said respecting the knife two years and a half ago is quite false—it was himself that took it to bed with him, and took it to the shop—next morning he got a summons out against me, and said that I had done it—I have had great provocation in many ways—he said he would never be contented until he had put me into prison, because he had got twenty-eight days for cutting my head; and his own daughter can prove that he did so—I was very jealous of my husband—I did not like his going away from me—I found I could not bear it.

GUILTY on Second Count. Recommended to mercy by the Jury. Ten years' Penal Servitude .

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-656
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

656. WILLIAM WATSON (40) , Unlawfully obtaining 140l. of Henry Law by false pretences.

MR. METCALFE, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.


9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-657
VerdictsGuilty > unknown

Related Material

657. EDWARD THOMAS SAUNDERS (28) , Feloniously marrying Elizabeth Luff, his wife, Jane, being alive. He was further charged with feloniously marrying Caroline Elizabeth Ward, his wife, Jane, being alive.

MR. STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution, and MR. DALY the Defence.

RICHARD DAVIS . I am a gas and brass fitter, and live at 15, Newell Road, Blue Anchor Road, Bermondsey—I know the prisoner—I was present at the prisoner's marriage at Trinity Church, 6th September, 1857—I saw the prisoner married to Jane Pyson—I signed the register—I had not seen Jane Pyson since the Sunday she got married till now—she is now alive and here.

Cross-examined by MR. DALY. Q. Do you know that this first wife has been living with a man? A. I know nothing of her history, nothing at all.

THOMAS EDGINGS . I live in South Lambeth, and am a paperhanger—I was present at St. Luke's, Lower Norwood, on 3rd July, 1865, and saw Edward Thomas Saunders married to Caroline Elizabeth Ward—I am her friend—I have known her from childhood.

Cross-examined by MR. DALY. Q. Do you know how he lived with his first wife? A. No—I don't know whether she has been living with a man named Bull—I don't know whether she was a good wife.

HENRY HEATH (Inspector L Division). I produce the certificate of the first marriage—I have compared it with the marriage register—it is a correct copy—I produce a second certificate of the marriage to Elizabeth Luff—I have compared that—this is a certificate of the marriage to Caroline Elizabeth Ward—I have compared that—it is a correct copy—I compared it on 1st July—I took prisoner into custody on Tuesday, 26th June—I cautioned him and told him the charge—I was in plain clothes—I asked him, "Is your name Edward Thomas Saunders?" he said, "Yes." I said, "I am a policeman, and an inspector, and I am going to take you into custody for bigamy, one in Portsmouth, one in London, your wife Jane being then alive. "He said, "All right, all right; who can prove it?" I said, "I have witnesses to prove it." His answer was, "Who has done this for me?" I took him to the station.

COURT. Q. Who gave him into custody? A. The first wife—she came to the station.

Cross-examined by MR. DALY. Q. You say you compared this yourself? A. Yes.

GUILTY .— Confined Six Months .

9th July 1866
Reference Numbert18660709-658
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

658. JOHN JONES (22) and JOHN LEARY (27) , Robbery on Frederick Heath, and stealing a watch and guard, his property.

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

FREDERICK HEATH . I live at 124, Great Dover Street, Borough, and am a bookseller and stationer—about twenty minutes past eleven on the night of 1st July I was in Dover Road—I had got to the corner of Napier Street, when a man suddenly rushed out from the corner, seized hold of my watch-guard, broke the chain away, and ran up Napier Street—I called out, "I have lost my watch"—my wife was walking with me at the time—I was proceeding a step or two up Napier Street towards where the prisoner had run, and a man crossed the road to me, with the intention, as I thought then, to stop my progress—I had an umbrella in my hand—I struck him with it—then some voice said from Napier Street the man was caught, and that he had got my watch—I went up Napier Street, and found two men struggling on the ground—one of them was the prisoner

Jones—I could not identify the person who took my watch at the time, it was so quickly done—I could only say it was a man about Jones's height—I collared him—we were immediately surrounded by a number of people, and he was dragged into Dover Road—he struggled very much—there was a very great fight and struggle indeed between him and some of my witnesses—I shouted out "Police!" for some minutes—it was a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes before any police assistance came—Leary was brought into the station-house after Jones—whether or not he was the man that afterwards stopped me, after I had lost my watch, I can't positively say; he is about the height—I can't say whether he had a smock frock on or not.

Cross-examined. Q. Was this about half-past eleven? A. Twenty minutes past eleven—I had been out with my wife to visit a friend—Napier Street is about two or three minutes' walk down Dover Road—it was within five minutes' walk of my residence that this occurred.

MR. SHARPE. Q. Has a watch-guard been shown to you? A. Yes; I identify that as part of my guard—I have the corresponding part in my pocket—the piece was shown to me at the station-house—one of the witnesses, I believe Rich, gave it me, and I handed it over to the police officer.

WILLIAM JOHN RICH . I live at Union Place, Crosby Row, and am a labourer at Mr. Standon's—I was with Wybrow on the night of 1st July about half-past eleven—I was in the Dover Road, near Napier Street—we were coming along together, and saw Jones and Leary stop the prosecutor, and Jones snatched a watch from his pocket and ran down Napier Street about twenty yards—he stopped there, and then he took one boot or shoe off and ran on again—I said something to Wybrow, ran after him, and Leary stopped the prosecutor, and would not let him go—leaving the prosecutor with Leary, I went to assist Wybrow—while Jones was struggling on the ground with him he hallooed for his boot—I looked for the boot, and in the boot I found this piece of guard, and gave it to the prosecutor, who was then coming towards me—Leary came up, and I caught hold of him—there was me and a sailor, who is not here—we got Leary to the Dover Road, and a policeman took him to the station—Jones was gone on to the station before that.

Cross-examined. Q. Were the lamps all lighted? A. Yes—I do not know whether there was a lamp at the corner of the street or not—I was coming towards St. George's Church, towards the prosecutor—I do not know which turning the prisoners came through—their backs were to me—I did not see Jones's face at the moment, but as he turned round to run I saw it, when the watch was taken—it was not a second after he took the watch—I was about two yards from him at the time, not quite close enough to collar him; I did not know what was going to happen, or I should have done so—I did not lose sight of him.

JOHN WYBROW . I am a labourer, and live in New Park Street, South-wark—I was in Dover Street with Rich about a quarter-past eleven on the night of the 1st June—I saw Jones snatch a watch from the prosecutor's pocket—it was done in half a second—as soon as he snatched it he ran down Napier Street about twenty yards—I ran after him—he fell down, and I fell over him—he got up again and ran five or six yards—I caught him again, and while I was struggling with him Leary came up and gave me a violent blow in the face, which knocked me down, and he then kicked me—when I got up Reeves came to my assistance and helped me get

Jones out of Napier Street—he was wanting to get into Kent Street, and I had hard work to hold him from there—he struggled to get away—with Reeves's assistance I succeeded in holding him, and gave him into custody—I did not see what became of Leary—I can swear he was the person who was with Jones.

Cross-examined. Q. Where had you been? A. To see some friends at Peckham—I had had very little to drink—I was going home—I was about three yards from the prosecutor when the prisoners came up—I saw Jones's face so distinctly that I can swear to him—they snatched the watch, turned about, showed their faces, and ran off—I was not above a yard from Jones as I was following him—my companion went after Leary—I saw Leary's face, and am certain of him.

GEORGE REEVES . I am a clerk, and live in Albany Street, Old Kent Road—on the night of the 1 st July, about half-past eleven, I was in Dover Street with my wife going home—I heard a female cry, "Stop thief! my husband has lost his watch"—I then saw a man in a white smock stop the prosecutor—I cannot swear to either of the prisoners—I went round the corner into Napier Street—I ran round and saw Wybrow on the ground with Jones—I seized hold of Jones—he was struggling very violently, kicking and punching as hard as he could at everybody—I saw the watch on the ground—he fell on to the ground again, when we seized hold of him, and, in so doing, he managed to take up the watch from the ground, and I then left go of his collar, and seized hold of his hand with the watch in it, and his fingers and mine met on the watch—I struggled with him with the watch in his hand for full ten minutes—I then received a severe kick, which caused me to take away my hand, Leary said, "Get up mate," and, in so doing, the watch left—he then got up and said, "I have not got the watch"—I did not see the watch in Leary's hand, but I will swear it was in Jones's hand when Leary took hold of it—I then took hold of Jones and struggled with him, and gave him to the sergeant—I held him by one arm along Blackman Street until we met another constable.

Cross-examined. Q. Are you positive you saw Leary? A. I will swear to him—I do not swear to him by his white smock, but by his face—I was not on the ground then—I had hold of Jones—I saw Leary before I fell, and also while I was on the ground.

WILLIAM JOHN PITTOCK . I am a basket maker, and live in Colt Street, Great Dover Road—I was returning home on this night, and saw the prosecutor—I saw Leary take the watch from Jones, and pass it to a woman—I followed her to the bottom of Napier Street, when she disappeared among the crowd—I went after her, but could not catch her—I afterwards returned to Dover Street, and the scuffle was still going on—I am quite sure Leary is the person who took the watch from Jones.

GUILTY . The prisoners also PLEADED GUILTY to previous convictions: JONES at the Southwark Police-court in February, 1864, and LEARY in October, 1859. Seven Years each Penal Servitude. The Court directed a reward of 1l. each to be paid to the witnesses Rich, Wybrow, and Reeves.


View as XML