Old Bailey Proceedings.
2nd February 1874
Reference Number: t18740202

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
2nd February 1874
Reference Numberf18740202

Related Material


Sessions Paper.








Short-hand Writers to the Court,










On the Queen's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Monday, February 2nd, 1874, and following days,

BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. ANDREW LUSK, M.P., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; The Hon. Sir CHARLES POLLOCK , Knt., one of the Barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer; THOMAS QUESTED FINNIS, Esq., Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEN , Knt., and WILLIAM FERNELY ALLEN, Esq., Aldermen of the said City; The Right Hon. RUSSELL GURNEY , Q.C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; THOMAS SCAMBLER OWDEN, Esq., and JOHN PATERSON , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q.C., M.P., Common Serjeant of the said City; and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR , Esq., LL.D., 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.

CHARLES WHETHAM, Esq., Alderman.








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


OLD COURT.—Monday, February 2nd, 1874.

Before Mr. Recorder.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-148
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

148. ANN HAZEL (42), was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. BESLEY the



The following Prisoners PLEADED GUILTY:—

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-149
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

149. ANNIE GOULD (18) , to unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child— Judgment respited.[Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-150
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

150. RICHARD ROBSON (15) , to stealing twenty-four receipt stamps and 8l. in money in the dwelling-house of Henry Turner and others, and afterwards burglariously breaking out of the said dwelling-house— Two Months' Imprisonment and Four Years in a Reformatory. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-151
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

151. LOUISA DOUGLAS (17) , to stealing three gowns, two pairs of trowsers, one shirt, and 5l., in the dwelling-house of Robert William Selby, having been before convicted— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-152
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

152. EDWARD KEMP (24) , to feloniously uttering a certain deed of conveyance with intent to defraud —Five Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-153
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

153. JAMES WILLIAM JONES (27) , to stealing, whilst employed in the Post Office a post letter, the property of her Majesty's Postmaster-General— Six Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-154
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

154. JAMES ROBINSON (32) , to two indictments for a like offence— Six Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-155
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

155. JOHN DOW (31) , to three indictments for feloniously forging and uttering two orders for the payment of 60l. 14s. 8d. and stealing an order for the payment of 31l. 1s. 4d. of William Richard Stevens and others, his masters, having been, before convicted— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-156
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

156. ARTHUR MAY* (19) , to stealing 9l. 12s. of Edwin Ranwell, in his dwelling-house— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-157
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

157. LAURENCE ARCHDEACON (33) , to stealing twenty-four United States Bonds for the payment of 1,000l. each, and 40l. in money, the property of the Exchange Telegraph Company, his masters— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-158
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

158. GEORGE PARRATT (26) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. COOK and COOKE conducted the Prosecution.

BESSIE LANE . I was barmaid at the George Hotel, Strand, kept by Mr.

Billinghurst—on 13th January the prisoner came in for a glass of 6d. ale and a screw of tobacco—he put down 1 1/2 d. and afterwards took them up and put down this bad florin—I saw it was bad—I took it up and called the barmaid and said "This is the man who came in last week and passed a bad 2s. piece," and she told the waiter to go round and stop him—the prisoner said "Is that a bad one; give it me back and I will give you another"—I said "No, you are the man we have been looking for," and the waiter went out and stopped him—he said he was going out to call some respectable mates of his who had been with him in the Blackfriars Road, and had a pot of four half, and he had got it in change for a half-crown—I told him it would not be right, he would want another halfpenny out of the half-crown—he had got no more money in his pocket—I told him he had been in the week before, and he said no, he could prove he had been away in the country—he had then called for exactly the same thing on the Monday or Tuesday before, and it was noticed when he got out of the house that the florin was bad—I did not notice that it was bad until the head barmaid came and took it out of the till—it was the only florin in the till—the head barmaid put it into a saucer in the bar parlour, where the bad money is generally put—he was given into custody and the two florins were given to the police.

MARY ANN KELLY . I am barmaid at the George Hotel, in the Strand—on 13th January I was present when the prisoner came in—the last witness handed me a florin, which she broke—I gave it to the barman—I did not see the prisoner there on the previous Monday and Tuesday, but I found a bad florin in the till, which I gave to Mr. Billinghurst, and he put it on the mantel-shelf where bad money was generally kept—there was no other florin in the till but the bad one.

JOHN PRIOR . I am barman at the George Hotel—on the evening of 13th January Miss Lane called me and handed me a florin which had been broken—I had seen the prisoner there five or six times, and had given him warning—he always called for a glass of 6d. ale and a screw of tobacco, and I said "If you come in here again I shall give you in charge."

Prisoner. You are swearing a false oath against me by swearing that I was in your house before. Witness. No, I am not—I am sure that I am right.

Re-examined. On 13th January, I received from the barmaid a bad florin, which was broken—I handed it over to the constable.

JOHN BILLINGHURST . I am landlord of the George—previous to 13th January, I received from my barmaid, Miss Kelly, a bad florin, and I put it in a saucer on the mantel-piece, and it remained there until it was given to the constable, when he took the prisoner into custody on 13th January.

LUKE LANE (Policeman E 490). I was called to the George Hotel on 13th January, and the prisoner was given into my charge for uttering this broken florin—it was given to me by the barman—the prisoner said he was going outside to call in some companions to prove that he took it in change for a half-crown at a public-house in the Blackfriars Road, but he was prevented from going outside—I produce the two florins which I received from the barman.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These florins are bad.

Prisoner's Defence. I told the barmaid I knew where I had taken it, and she said I had been in the house before, and I told her I had not—I was never in the house before.

GUILTY .— Nine Months' Imprisonment.

NEW COURT.—Monday, February 2nd, 1874.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-159
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

159. MARY ANN DAVIS (36) , Feloniously uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. COOKE conducted the Prosecution.

ELIZABETH NORRIS . I am barmaid at the Black Horse, Oxford Street—on 5th January, Turner (See next case) came in between 8 and 9 o'clock at night, and called for a half-pint of half-and-half—she gave me a shilling which I gave to the landlord, who took it and told her it was bad—she then gave me a good shilling—a person named Boat wright was in the bar.

ROBERT WHIFFIN . I keep the Black Horse, 400, Oxford Street—on 5th January, between 8 and 9 o'clock at night, the last witness gave me this shilling—I saw that it was bad, and asked Turner if she was aware that it was bad—she said "No, sir, I had not the slightest idea of it," and gave me a good one.

WILLIAM BOATWRIGHT . I live at 39, Dean Street, Soho—on the night of 5th January, I was at the Black Horse—Turner was there when I went in, with a child in her arms, and Mr. Whiffin showed me this shilling—I went out before her, and when she came out I followed her about 30 or 40 yards down Dean Street—two persons called out "Poll, Poll" and she joined Davis, passed her child to another woman, and the three went down Wardour Street—the prisoner and Turner went into Mrs. Coppers' eating-house—I went in and asked some questions, and then followed them and gave them in charge.

ELIZABETH COPPERS . I am the wife of John Coppers, of 50, Wardour Street, eating-house keeper—on 5th January, between 8 and 9 o'clock, the prisoner and Turner came in and asked the price of some cuttings—I said "2d. a plate"—they said that they would take one plate, and Turner gave me a shilling—I bent it, and gave it back to her, saying that it was bad—they said that they knew where they had taken it, and would soon change it—Davis then gave me 2d.—they said that they would take another plate, and Turner told the prisoner to pay me in coppers, which she did, and there was a farthing instead of a halfpenny—I told her so, and Turner said "Oh, dear! oh, dear! everything is going wrong tonight."

JOHN GLEESON (Policeman C 44). I was on duty in Wardour street, Boatwright called me and charged the prisoners—I took hold of their hands, and Davis said "I have never been in the Black Horse"—Turner made no reply—I received from the female searcher 9 1/2 d. in bronze, and sixpence in silver, who said in Davis's presence, that it was found on her.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to Her Majesty's Mint—this is a portion of a bad shilling.

GUILTY .—She was further charged with a conviction for a like offence, in April, 1867, to which


2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-160
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment

Related Material

160. MARY DAVIS was again indicted >with CATHERINE TURNER (30) , for unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

The evidence given in the last case was repeated.


DAVIS**— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

TURNER— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-161
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

161. ALFRED HOWARD (16), was indicted for a like offence.

MESSRS. COOK and COOKE conducted the Prosecution.

FELICE BERNARD (Through an Interpreter). I am a tobacconist, of Greek Street, Soho—on 9th January, about 1.30, I served the prisoner with a twopenny cigar, he gave me a half-crown, and I gave him the change, and put it in the till—there was no other there—the same afternoon, about 2.30, I sent a woman named Clementine to market with the half-crown, and while she was out the prisoner came in again for a twopenny cigar, and gave me a florin, and I gave him the change—after he left Clementine came back with the half-crown cut—about 7 o'clock the prisoner came again for a twopenny cigar, and gave me a half-crown—I sent Clementine to a public-house with it, to see whether it was good—she came outside and told me to keep the shop door shut while she went for a policeman—I did so—she returned in twenty minutes or half an hour with a policeman, and gave the prisoner in charge with the coins—the prisoner remained in the shop—I had spoken to Clementine in French.

Prisoner. Q. Are you quite sure I was in the shop twice before 7 o'clock? A. Quite sure—while you were waiting, a boy came in for a penny cigar; you then asked me for the change, and I told you I had sent for it—you have been there several times before, and you always paid me with a florin.

Prisoner. I never was in the shop before.

CLEMENTINE BRUNETTE (Through an Interpreter). I saw the prisoner come into the shop about 1.20 or 1.30—the prosecutrix served him—she afterwards gave me a half-crown to go to market with—I took it to a public-house, and the landlord cut it and gave me back the pieces, which were put into the till—the prisoner came again about 7 o'clock for a twopenny cigar, and I saw him tender a half-crown—I went to a public-house to inquire if it was good, and went back to the door and told the prosecutrix to shut the door and I would fetch a policeman—I did so, and gave him the half-crown in the street, and the prisoner was given into his custody with the cut half-crown—I have seen the prisoner there several times, and have served him several times—I recollect on one occasion when a cigar would not draw, I put a darning needle into it to make it draw better.

WILLIAM FIELD (Policeman C R 30). On 9th January the prisoner was given into my custody, he said that he took the coin from a shoeblack in Castle Street by giving him change, and that he had never been in the shop before—I received one half-crown from Brunette in the street, and another from Barnard in the shop; I also received a counterfeit florin the next day—I found only 1 1/2 d. on him.

WILLIAM WEBSTER These two half-crowns are bad, and both from the same mould; and this florin is bad.

Prisoner's Defence. The first time I went into the shop was at 8.30—I gave the mistress a half-crown; she took it into the parlour, and was there about five minutes, and then came out and served another boy, and went back again; I waited and asked for my change, and then the dour was shut and I was given in charge.

GUILTY .—Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his youth—. Fifteen Months' Imprisonment.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, February 3rd, 1874.

Before Mr. Recorder.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-162
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

162. JOHN SLATE (26), was indicted for a robbery, with violence, on Gerson Hertz, and stealing a watch, a chain, and 3l. in money.

MR. AUSTEN METCALFE conducted the Prosecution.

GERSON HERTZ . I live at 3, Windsor Street, Bishopsgate Street, and am a hawker—on 27th January, I was in a public-house in White's Row—I had been drinking a good bit—I left the public-house about 11.30—the prisoner and another man followed me—two men put me against a wall and held me by my shoulder, and the prisoner opened my coat and took out my bag of money, containing between 3l. and 4l., and my watch and chain—I noticed one of the men in the public-house—the other two I cannot speak to because it was dark; there were four men altogether—I had seen the prisoner in the public house—I recognise him particularly because he was standing in front of me, and he opened my coat and robbed me, and knocked me in the chest when I tried to halloa—I know I had my money safe in the bag when I paid for my beer—as soon as they took my money they all ran away and I called "Police!"

BARNET GOULD . I am a caster—on the night of 27th January I saw the prosecutor in White's Row—I saw the prisoner and three more men there, standing up against the public-house window, speaking to one another; one of them was telling the prisoner to go away, another called out "Don't let him go, there is a good chance here, a man has got some money upon him, over 50l."—it was the prisoner said that—two of the men got hold of the prosecutor, and one was walking up the side of the pavement, looking out for a policeman or anyone that came—the prisoner unbuttoned his coat and took the money out while the other two held him—they pushed him out—the prisoner hit him in the chest as he was robbing him—I saw them run away—the prisoner dropped his hat as he ran; he did not stop to pick it up; when I came from the police-station the same night, about 1 o'clock, I picked the hat up and gave it to the policeman; that is it (produced).

JACOB RODRIQUEZ . I live at 36, White's Row, and am a cigar maker—on 27th January, about 11.30, I was standing at my door by the side of the Paul's Head—I saw the prosecutor come out of the public-house, and I saw the prisoners and two more catch hold of him, they got him up and got him up against the shutters of the Paul's Head—two of them held him while the prisoners robbed him, they then ran through the Fenton Ground—I am sure the prisoner is the man.

Prisoner. Q. How do you know me more than the others? A. Because you stood with your face towards the public-house, and I could see you more than the others.

MOSES BURNSTEIN . I live at 28, Clifford Street—on the night of 27th I heard somebody calling out "Police!"—I heard some money drop,. I picked up some, and some other persons picked up some more—I did not see who dropped it.

WILLIAM PICKETT (Policeman H 154). On the night in question I saw the prisoner running from White's Row, up the Fenton Ground—I stopped him—he said he had not done anything—I detained him—the prosecutor came up and charged him with robbing him of a watch and chain and between 3l. and 4l., he was running and had no hat on—I produce a hat

which was afterwards picked up, and at Worship Street the prisoner said it was his—I produced the watch chain, the prosecutor identified it—I picked it up close by—I produce 3s. 4d. which the witness picked up.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate:—"When I came by, about 11.20, the prosecutor was in the road calling 'Police!' and said he had lost his watch; there were three or four men there, like labourers. Someone said 'Don't lose a chance, he has a lot of money upon him;' they laid hold of him, and I went up to help get the prosecutor away, and I got my hat knocked off; I then ran after the men and called 'Stop thief!' and the policeman stopped me, and they said I had robbed him."

Prisoner's Defence. I don't see why I should be punished for what other persons have done, I had nothing to do with the robbery. I work hard, and have a wife and children. I was helping the prosecutor to get away.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-163
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

163. HENRY BROWN (17), and CHARLES CANNON (22) , Stealing a wooden barrel and 200 dead fish of John Martin.

MR. PLATT conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN MARTIN . I live in Half Moon Crescent, Barnsbury Road, and am a licensed cart minder, and attend to the property in the carts—on 17th January, about 9 o'clock, I was in charge of a cart containing some haddocks in a barrel; somebody spoke to me, and upon examining the cart I missed a barrel—I went with the witness Johnson in search of the persons who had taken it, and when I got opposite St. Dunstan's Hill I saw Cannon with the barrel on his back—I caught hold of him, he dropped the barrel from his back on to the ground—I took hold of it, and told Johnson to go after the other man, who turned out to be Brown—I gave them into custody.

HENRY JOHNSON . I live at 47, Victoria Dock Road, and am a fishmonger—on this day I was near Idol Lane—I saw Brown with a barrel of haddocks on his back, he went through a court and changed it on to the other prisoner's back—I took Brown into custody.

The prisoners, in their defence, stated that they were engaged by a man to carry the barrel to the Custom House.


Cannon also PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction at this Court in August, 1872.

BROWN— Nine Months' Imprisonment.

CANNON— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-164
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

164. JOHN HENRY HUDSON (41) , Feloniously forging and uttering an endorsement to an order for 3l. 15s., with intent to defraud.

MR COOPER conducted the Prosecution; and MR. MOODY the Defence.

HENRY OTTER . I am a wine and spirit merchant, at 1, Union Terrace, Notting Hill—on 22nd September last my clerk called me into the shop; I found the prisoner there, he showed me this cheque, and asked if I would oblige Mr. Horner with change—I said I would by his getting Mr. Horner's endorsement; he took the cheque away and brought it back with this endorsement upon it, "Mr. Horner"—Mr. Horner lives next door, his name is William—I then cashed the cheque, gave him 3l. 15s., and he then left—I paid it in to my account at my bankers', the National Bank, Notting Hill; it was returned.

Cross-examined. It is a cheque drawn by G. Wheatley & Co. on the

Birkbeck Bank, payable to Mr. Hudson—I saw nothing more of the prisoner until he was arrested, about the 6th or 7th December—he was then in custody at the police-station, he was placed with four or five others and I picked him out—I knew they had somebody who was suspected.

Re-examined. I am quite sure he is the man that brought the cheque to me.

ALFRED ANDERSON . I am clerk to Mr. William Horner, who lives next door to Mr. Otter—on 22nd September the prisoner came into our office and asked for Mr. Parnell, our head clerk; I said he was out—he put his hand in his pocket and asked me if I could cash him a cheque—I said "No"—he went out and in a few minutes he came back and asked me to lend him a pen, I lent him one and he wrote something on a piece of paper, which was folded up in four, and then went out again—it was a piece of paper like this cheque—I did not see him any more; I am sure he is the man.

Cross-examined. I went to the station with Mr. Otter and Inspector Shaw—I was taken into a room there; I don't remember how many men I saw.

FREDERICK MORLEY HILL . I am accountant at the Birkbeck Bank—we had a customer, G. Wheatley & Co.—this cheque was presented on 24th September, it was dishonoured on account of want of assets—the letters "N. S.," not sufficient, are on it in the writing of the ledger clerk—the account was opened in April, 1870—there had been no business transacted since October, 1871—this is one of our cheque-books which we supply to customers—400l. or 500l. was paid in to the account of Wheatley & Co.

Cross-examined. The signature to the cheque is genuine—the reason it was not honoured was that there was not sufficient.

JOHN SHAW (Inspector of Detective Police). I saw the prisoner at the Kentish Town Police Station on 5th or 6th December, in the morning—he was taken there by my direction; I read the warrant to him, he denied his name being Hudson—I took him to the Notting Hill Station, he was put with four other persons; Mr. Otter and Anderson saw him separately, and both identified him.

Cross-examined. I think one of the persons placed with him was a constable in plain clothes, and three others were brought in from outside.

WILLIAM HORNER . I am an auctioneer at Notting Hill—I do not know the prisoner—the endorsement to this cheque is not my writing—I never authorised the prisoner or anybody to endorse it (cheque read).

GUILTY *— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-165
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

165. JOHN LAKEMAN (29) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Spencer Leigh, and stealing therein five sheets and other goods.

MR. CURRIE conducted the Prosecution.

MARY ANN LEIGH . I am the wife of Spencer Leigh, and am a laundress, at 91, Charles Street, Stepney—on the evening of 6th January I fastened up the house at 9.30—I fastened the window-sash, but I could not positively swear that I bolted the shutters, they were closed to—I heard no noise in the night—at 7.30 in the morning I came down and found the window open, two drawers partly stripped, the cover gone from the table, and a wire blind from the window—I ran to the station at once—I afterwards looked over my things, and missed the articles now produced in this basket—this wire blind, and a quantity of line.

URIAH HARVEY (Policeman K R 1). On the morning of 7th January,

about 1 o'clock, I was in Baker Street, Stepney, in a small court there—a man passed me up the court, he saw me, turned round, and said "Look out!" speaking to a companion behind me—I immediately rushed out into Baker Street, and saw the prisoner carrying this basket immediately under a lamp, outside the court—I made a grasp at him with my right hand—he threw the basket on to my feet—I jumped over the basket, with the intention of running after him, but on second thoughts I stopped and picked up the basket, I then ran with the basket under my arm, calling out "Stop thief!" as loud as I possibly could—the prisoner and another ran down Baker Street into Nelson Street—I saw them turn the corner of Nelson Street into Sidney Street—I continued calling "Stop thief!"—as soon as I turned the corner of Sidney Street I heard a voice say "Here he is, I have got him!" and when I got up I saw the prisoner in custody of the witness Chapman—I said "That is the man"—he said "No; I was not carrying the basket; I did not run that way"—he made a desperate struggle to get away, I threw down the basket and held him with both hands—he still struggled—I said "If you don't be quiet I will hit you," and I did hit him across the nose with my left hand; he was then quiet, and with the assistance of two other constables we took him to Arbour Square Station, where he was charged—I lost sight of the men for about half a minute twice daring the time they turned the corner of Baker Street into Nelson Street, and again into Sidney Street—I can distinctly swear the prisoner is the man I saw carrying the basket—at the station the prisoner wished to see the inspector before going into Court—I was present—the prisoner said "I was not carrying the basket; I went over the water to my sister, in Kent Street in the Borough; I left there at 12 o'clock; I walked from there to the George in Commercial Road, there I met two men carrying a basket, who asked me to go back with them, where were they to take the stuff to—I said 'To a house in Baker Street'"—I have since found it was within one door of where they intended to take the property to."

Prisoner. I made no struggle, nor said a word to him; he would not let my witness come; he even struck a young woman in the street. Witness. A prostitute came and tried to get hold of the basket—she said "You vagabond, don't hurt the man"—I said "I won't if he will be quiet," and I struck at her to-get her away.

JOHN CHAPMAN . I am a messenger, and live at 80, Rutland Street, Wile End Road—about 1 o'clock on the morning of 7th January I was at the corner of Sidney Street—I heard cries of "Stop thief!"—afterwards I saw two men come running down the street—I heard the cry of "Stop thief!" again—I looked round and saw a policeman's lamp; seeing two men running, I thought all was not right, so I ran across the road, and detained the prisoner until the constable came up—he struggled violently, and struck at the constable—the constable struck him back again.

Prisoner's Defence. I am innocent of the burglary. I was not near the house. I met two men; they asked me where they could take these things, I said to Baker Street; I showed the place, but was not certain what house it was.

GUILTY of receiving.

He also PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction at this Court, in July, 1869.**— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-166
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

166. JOHN WELLS (20), PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously forging and uttering a request for the delivery of goods, with intent to defraud.

GUILTY .— Six Months' Imprisonment.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-167
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

167. ALBERT GEORGE HERZFELD (41) , Embezzling 132l. 18s., and other sums, of Wilhelm Holthaus.

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


NEW COURT.—Tuesday, February 3rd, 1874.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-168
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

168. WILLIAM BLACKBURN (42) , Embezzling the sums of 2l. 10s., 3l. 1s. 9d., and 1l. 16d. 6d., of Henry Smith and another, his masters.

MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution; and MR. M. WILLIAMS the Defence.

JOHN BOWSHER . I am managing clerk to Messrs. Almada, Oporto wine merchants, 41, Seething Lane; they owed 2l. 12s. 7d. to Henry Smith and Co., which I paid to the prisoner on 25th October, and deducted 2s. 6d.—he gave me this receipt for 2l. 10s., without date (Signed "W. H. B.")

WLLIAM HART . I am clerk to Coibell, Jamieson, and Co., of 6, Fenn Court, City—in November last, they were indebted to Henry Smith and Co., 1l. 16s., which I paid to the prisoner on 29th November, and he signed this receipt (produced).

GEORGE CUTHBERT DENT . I am book-keeper to Hogg and Robinson, of East cheap, who were indebted to Henry Smith and Co. 2l. 16s. 9d. and 5s.—I paid those amounts to, I believe, the prisoner, on 18th October—the person I paid gave me this receipt (Signed "W. H. B.")

HENRY SMITH . I am a packing-case maker, of 15, Tower Street—the prisoner was my clerk at 1l. 15s. a week—it was his duty to collect money, and to account to me or my partner, who is here—he has not accounted to me for any of these three sums—they are not entered in this book—these four receipts are signed by him.

Cross-examined. All the entries in the book are not in his writing, because we have more than one collector—any one who receives money enters it in this book—I never enter cash when I receive it from a collector, he always enters it himself—I limit it to cash—a collector might give me a cheque, and I should enter it—all the entries are initialled by the partners—I do not find any without any initials, except this last one, which was entered this morning—we have three collectors—the sums are always entered in this book, but the amount of them is put on slips, which are afterwards destroyed.

THOMAS EDWARD WALKER . I am in partnership with Mr. Henry Smith—it was the prisoner's duty to go out collecting, and on returning to the office to enter the amounts he received in a book, and if there were several small amounts, he would put them on paper and hand them to me—I should cast them up, put my initials against all the amounts, take the money and pay it in to the bank—I should take the money as soon as the collector came in—I find no entry of Almada's accounts of 2l. 10s., nor of Hogg and Robinson's account—after the prisoner was in custody, I broke open his desk, which was locked, and found in it this paper, which has written on it "Almada, allow 2l. 12s. 7d., Hogg and Robinson, 2l. 16s. 9d., Coibell, Jamieson and Co., 2l. 6s."—2l. 16s. 9d. was one of Hogg and Robinson's bills, the 5s. bill not being there—where the names are not struck out, those are outstanding accounts; those struck out have been received and not accounted for, with the exception of one.

Cross-examined. The items are not made up of several small sums, they arc all entered in separate customer's names—the book would be a copy of

the slip—whoever received the money would copy the slip—the slip is just for the purpose of casting it up—no sum is received on any occasion which is not initialled by me or my partner—there are some sums not initialled, but that was owing to my absence—those are all cheques received and paid in, as I can prove by my banker's book—I mean to say that this 1l. 18s. was a cheque—we receive cheques for smaller sums than that—this "H. S." is my partner's initials; he was receiving at that time, but I know that these were cheques because they are not initialled.

Re-examined. I find entries on 29th November of moneys received—they are all initialled—there is some of the prisoner's writing on that day—all the entries on 18th October are initialled, and there are entries by the prisoner on that day—all the entries on 25th October are initialled, but I do not see any entries on that day in the prisoner's writing.

GUILTY .—There were two other indictments against the prisoner, and the prosecutor stated that his defalcations exceeded 100l. in three or four months.

MR. M. WILLIAMS stated that the prisoner's conviction would cause him to lose his Government pension of 76l. 19s. per annum, obtained after twenty-three years' service. Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-169
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

169. WILLIAM BOND (32) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Hoare, with intent to steal.

MR. LANGFORD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. COOPER the Defence.

ELLEN CRAWLEY . I am in the service of John Hoare, a grocer, of 1, Charlotte Street, Mile End—on the night of 23rd January I closed the house about 11.30 and fastened the parlour window, where I sleep—I put the two latches down and fastened them—I was disturbed about 1.15 on the morning of the 24th—the window was then open, and the shutters up—it could have been opened by putting up this knife (produced) and putting the latches back.

Cross-examined. I never tried to open it in that way, but I have seen a boy do it—I sleep by the side of the window, and I cook there too—I have never spoken to anybody out of that window after I have gone to bed—I never saw the prisoner before.

EDWARD NYE (Policeman H 135). On 24th January, about 1.15 a.m., I was on duty near Mr. Hoare's shop, and saw the prisoner loitering about—I concealed myself in the churchyard opposite, and within 15 yards of the window, over which there is a lamp, and saw him go and tamper with the window—he opened it and opened the sliding shutters and got partly in—I went across; he heard me and ran away, I ran after him—he said that he would not be taken by me, but the sergeant came up and took him—I saw his head and shoulders inside the window—he resisted, but I searched him and found this knife on him—I had noticed at 11.30 that the window was not securely fastened—I spoke to Crawley about it and she fastened it.

Cross-examined. Both blades of the knife are broken—I saw a man loitering about at 12 o'clock, and saw the prisoner at 12.45—I never lost sight of him.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I had been to the Agricultural Hall last night with two friends, and I had taken too much, and had stopped out rather late; one was the man I work for; as I was going down the street when the constable caught me, I was running to get home, and he said he wanted me for loitering about there. I have no recollection

of going there; he must have made a mistake; he might have seen somebody there."

EDWARD NYE (re-examined). He was not the worse for liquor.

HOARE (Policeman). I saw the prisoner first about 1 o'clock—he was not the worse for liquor.

Witnesses for the Defence.

GEORGE BOND . I am the prisoner's brother—I am an actor, and he is a ticket writer and occasionally a photographer—he lived with me fourteen years in one house, and three years in my present house—I have not slept away from home since 10th December—I have examined the window which the prisoner is charged with breaking open—I do not think it possible to get in with a knife—I produce one of the latches; it was fastened with two of these, and when the window is dropped down the latch drops into its place; this part is 1 1/2 inches from the crevice, and it is impossible to reach it with a knife—I have seen my brother with this knife many times—I believe he found it—one blade was broken when I first saw it; the small one I believe, and about a month ago when he was cutting the letters on this card (produced), he broke the other blade—it is impossible that this damaged knife could open that window, the blades are broken close—I am a music hall artist, and so is my wife—on the afternoon of the day this happened the prisoner was at the Agricultural Hall with Mr. Chapman and Mr. Jacobs—I have never known a single stain against my brother's character; there was always a good home for him to go to, and he was always industrious and honest.

Cross-examined. We live at 68, Bloomfield Road, Mile End, pretty nearly three-quarters of an hour's walk from Mr. Hoare's house; we could do it in half-an-hour—Mr. Hoare's house is the nearest to the Agricultural Hall—my brother slept at home at my mother's house on the night of the 22nd—he and I live with my mother, and my wife and children—I think it was last Wednesday that I went to Mr. Hoare's window, it was the Wednesday after the Saturday—I saw Crawley, and asked her who slept in the room, she said that she did—there was a bed under the window—I asked her if she thought the fastening could be removed from outside—she said "I do not know"—I said "But you swore so before the Magistrate"—I went inside the room but I did not experiment upon the latch—this is a latch which I have brought, and it is an exact fac-simile of those at Mr. Hoare's; directly I saw them I recognised them as the same as one I had at home—I was in the house about ten minutes, Mr. Hoare was not at home—Mrs. Hoare, I presume it was, was in the shop, she asked me if I belonged to the police—I said "No, I am only engaged in the case," and she allowed me to go in.

HERBERT GILES . I live at Croydon, and am a barber—I have known the prisoner six months—I know this knife—I was helping to move a lady from Addiscombe and found it, and gave it to the prisoner—I cannot say whether the large blade was broken then—I have worked for the prisoner six months at photographing—he left me before Christmas.

JAMES CHAPMAN . I am a comedian, of 190, Great Titchfield Street—I worked with the prisoner from the beginning of 1873 up to May, at photography—he met me on this night at the Agricultural Hall, and he was very much intoxicated—I have known him eleven or twelve years, and never known a speck or blemish on his character—the latest time I saw

him that night was about 10.25, in the middle of the hall—he was very much the worse for liquor.

Cross-examined. It was on a Friday—I was in his company about three-quarters of an hour, I am so used to drunken men as a comedian—I was trying to get away from him, for he was a nuisance to me—I am out of an engagement at present.

FREDERICK JACOBS . I am a photographer, at 216, Pentonville Road—I have known the prisoner about six years—his character is first-rate—I was with him at the Agricultural Hall on this night—I left him there at 11 o'clock—he was intoxicated.

Cross-examined. I was in his company about four or five hours—we both had a good deal to drink before we went there; we had beer and a drop of gin or two—we had nothing to eat—it was on a Friday—I first met him just before 8 o'clock, when I left work—he works in the next shop to me.

The prisoner received a good character.


2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-170
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > directed
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

170. HENRY THURLOW (34), and MATTHEW BRYANT (22) , Robbery on Domingo Lorenzo, and stealing from his person 14s., his money.

MR. A. B. KELLY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. BESLEY the Defence.

DOMINGO LORENZO (Through an Interpreter). I keep a lodging-house at 220, George Street—on the evening of 8th January I was in St. George's Street, and three men approached and hustled me—I went into the middle of the road, and two of them caught me by the breast of my coat—Thurlow is one of them—they put their hands in my trowsers pockets—I then received a blow on my face and fell, and they ran away—I missed a half-sovereign and 1s. from my left trowsers pocket—I cannot swear to Bryant—I saw Thurlow next morning.

Thurlow. Q. At what time! were you robbed? A. 12.15 at night—I don't recollect saying at the Police Court that it was at a little after 9 o'clock—the public-houses were shut—I was a little bit tipsy.

CHARLES PRICE . I am a porter, of 5, Chambers' Square, East Smith-field—on 8th January, about 12.15, I saw three men surrounding Lorenzo, and they rifled his pockets—Thurlow is one of them, but I am not positive about Bryant—they followed him into the road, and caught him one on each side, and one of them put his hand in his side pocket and took something—it was not either of these men, it was one with a black coat and cap—Thurlow knocked him down, and then they ran away—I informed a policeman two or three minutes afterwards, and accompanied him to the door where one of them lived.

Thurlow. Q. Can you swear it was me who knocked the man down? A. Yes; two of you came back afterwards—I am not bribed to do what I am doing, and I did not tell your mother so.

WILLIAM THICK (Policeman H 248). I was on duty on 8th January, about midnight—Price spoke to me, and I found the prosecutor at the door of his house, bleeding from his mouth—Price gave me a description—I walked with him down George Street, and saw the two prisoners comeback, looking about on the ground, evidently for something which might have dropped in the scuffle—they ran away, and I chased them up Wells Street; I got near enough to Bryant to recognise his face, and called out to him "Mat Bryant, that is you," and I thought I would secure Thurlow as he was more of a stranger to me, and I knew Bryant well—Bryant said that he would go

away and fetch some one to prove it was not him—I understood him to mean that he would bring a person to prove that Thurlow had nothing to do with it—I seized Thurlow and told him the charge—he said that he knew nothing about it—I took him to the station and Lorenzo identified him—next day H 192 brought Bryant in; I placed him with three others, and Lorenzo identified him as the man who picked his pocket.

Cross-examined. It was about 12.20 when Price spoke to me—he told me the whole story, and I stood and listened to all he had to say—I then walked with him to 220, St. George's Street, because he said that he had seen the sailor there, and believed he boarded there—we got there in five minutes; it is only forty or fifty yards—the door was open, and there was a mob of six or seven people round it—Lorenzo was not very drunk—he said from first to last that it was at 9 o'clock, but he was not so drunk but that I could understand perfectly what he told me—I say that the prisoners were looking on the ground, by the direction of their eyes—there was a lamp near the spot—they were not on their hands and knees—I went after them; it may be 200 yards, and as soon as they ran I ran—when I got up to them they were both together—they did not stop for me to speak to them—I may have told the Magistrate that I called Bryant "Mat" only, and not "Mat Bryant"—Bryant called witnesses before the Magistrate, who proved where he was that night at the time the prosecutor fixed upon 9.30—Price was perfectly sober—he said from beginning to end that he could not swear to Bryant.

Thurlow. Q. Did I run? A. You walked first, and then ran—when I took you you said that you knew nothing about it—Price was not there when you were charged at the station—he voluntarily came to the Police Court next day and gave evidence against you—I fetched him—I had no money to bribe him.

COURT. Q. Did you say anything to him about money? A. I did not; he was waiting outside the Police Court, and I fetched him in.

Re-examined. I have known Mat Bryant seven years; he goes by the name of Mat O'Bryant.

WILLIAM HAWS (Policeman H 192). About 10 o'clock on the morning of January 10th, I saw Bryant in Leman Street—I asked him if his name was Bryant—he said "No"—I said "I shall take you in custody for being concerned with two others in a highway robbery"—I took him to the station and the prosecutor identified him.

Cross-examined. I knew him as Mat Bryant, not O'Bryant.

WILLIAM THICK (re-examined). The way the name is spelt is Matto Bryant—they always call him "Matto."

The Prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. Thurlow says: "I am innocent of knocking him down, or of robbing him. I can prove where I was at 12.30. I call witnesses." Bryant says: "I saw nothing of the robbery at all."

Thurlow's Defence. I am innocent. The prosecutor said at first that he was robbed at 9.15, then about 12.15, and afterwards he said at 11 o'clock. My mother can prove where I was from 9.30 to 10 o'clock.

Witnesses for Thurlow.

MARY ANN THURLOW . Thurlow is my son—on Thursday, 8th January, he was at my place, 9, Norfolk Street, from 7.15 till about 9.45 with his father, brother, and me—he then went out with his wife.

JOHN THURLOW . I am Thurlow's brother—he was at our house on 8th

January till about 9.45—he then went away, and I went to the door with him.

—THURLOW GUILTY **— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

MR. KELLY stated that he could not ask the Jury to convict Bryant


THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, February 3rd, 1874.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-171
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

171. JOHN WILLIAM GIBSON (33), PLEADED GUILTY to stealing 47 pieces of cloth, the property of Charles Stuart Edwards .—He received a good character.— Two Years' Imprisonment. And

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-172
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

172. JOHN EGAN (20) , to stealing a chair, the property of Richard Graham, having been before convicted in November, 1873.*— Two Years' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-173
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

173. WILLIAM EACOTT (24) , Feloniously marrying Hannah Eaton, his wife being alive.

MR. CHARLES MATTHEWS conducted the Prosecution.

ESTHER EACOTT . I am the prisoner's mother, and live at 35, Ironmonger Street, St. Luke's—I was present on 25th December, 1868, when he was married to Caroline Eliza Radford—I last saw her about a week ago—I put my mark to the certificate.

Prisoner. Q. Did my first wife run away from me? A. Yes, it was her own option—she had no complaint to make against you.

FRANCIS EDWARD KNUCKEY . I am a bookbinder, and live at 7, Orchard Street, St. Luke's—on 5th September, 1869, I was present when the prisoner was married to Hannab Eaton—she is here to-day—I was one of the witnesses to the certificate of the marriage.

JAMES COWLEY (Detective Officer H). I took the prisoner into custody on the morning of the 14th—he told me that he thought he had a right to marry, on account of his first wife being a prostitute—he also said that his second wife was a servant in a coffee-shop in Old Street, when he married her—the second wife gave him into custody—she went to the Magistrate for protection, and it came out that his other wife was alive.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "When I married the second one, she was a prostitute. I have been a good father to her child."

HANNAH EATON . I went through the ceremony of marriage with the prisoner on 5th September, 1869—he lived with me four years to the end of 1873.

Prisoner. Q. Did you know I was married? A. No—I have not had a young man in my room when you have gone to work.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-174
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

174. JULIA CRAWLEY (17) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Michael Sullivan, and stealing one shirt, fourteen duplicates, and other articles.

MR. MEAD conducted the Prosecution.

ELLEN HANNEN . I lodge at Mrs. Sullivan's, 7, Wellington Buildings, St. George's-in-the-East—on the night of 16th January, I went to bed about 11.15—there was no fastening on my window or shutter, but they were closed—early in the morning I was disturbed by hearing a chair move close to me—I asked who was there, and got no answer—I saw the prisoner with her foot on the chair, getting out through the window—I caught her hand,

but she got away from me, and then I caught her dress and held her—she said "For God's sake, let me go"—she had a shirt in her hand, I grabbed a pocket from underneath her arm, and I found it was the pocket that contained the papers and tickets—I called Mrs. Sullivan down, and the prisoner was given into custody—I have known her from a child—she was brought up in the neighbourhood—she does not live in the house—the things had been taken from the room, and they were Mrs. Sullivan's property—I pulled them from under her arms—she had been drinking, but she knew what she was about—I don't know that she had ever been in the room before—I go out at 8 o'clock in the morning, and know nothing of what happens till 8 o'clock at night.

Prisoner. I did not go inside the window at all—I was very drunk, or I would not have gone into her room.

MARGARET SULLIVAN . I am the wife of Michael Sullivan, and live at 7, Wellington Buildings—on 16th January I went to bed at 10.30; next morning I was disturbed by Mrs. Hannen calling me, "Mrs. Sullivan, Julia Ragan has come to rob you"—I came down stairs, the window and the shutters were open—I put on my clothes, and gave her into the custody of the first policeman for coming into my window at 2.45 in the morning—the shirt and towel and pocket were removed from where they were the night before—there were fourteen duplicates in my pocket—I have known the prisoner from a child—her name is Julia Ragan.

WILLIAM BUTLER (Policeman K 427). I took the prisoner about 3 o'clock on the 17th—I produce the property, I got it from the table under the window—the prosecutor came and told me what was the matter, and I went with her and met the prisoner in the street and took her—she was sober.

Prisoner's Defence. I never went inside the place at all; I opened the shutter and the window, but I did not go inside.


2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-175
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

175. JOHN WOOD (15) , stealing 6s. 6d., the moneys of James Ward.

MR. CHARLES MATTHEWS conducted the Prosecution.

ELLEN HAWES . I am in the employ of Mr. James Ward, fruiterer, of 19, Newgate Street—about 4.45 on the evening of 8th January I was serving in the shop, the prisoner came in with another boy—he asked for some nuts; a little girl in the shop served him—they left, and immediately they had gone I missed the money box—I had seen it safe while they were in the shop, as I had put some money in—it contained about 1s. 6d. in silver, and some coppers, but I could not say to what amount—I went to the door, and a young man nest door went in search of them, and the prisoner was brought back in custody.

Prisoner. I went in for a pennyworth of nuts, and the other boy brought a box out; he sees somebody coming and he said "Hold that a minute," and he runs away; the policeman sees me with the money and I was taken into custody.

JAMES SAMPSON (City Policeman 311). On the afternoon of 8th January the prisoner was pointed out to me, and I took him into custody—he threw away some coppers—I picked up all that I could find—I was taking him hick to the shop, through Newgate Street, and I heard some money fall on the ground—I stooped, and as I stooped a shilling and some coppers fell through his trowsers—I shook his clothes, and several other coppers fell out; I took him to Mr. Ward's shop and then to the station—I found on him 3s. 6d. in silver and 10 3/4 d. in coppers the box could not be found.

Prisoner's Defence. I am not guilty of stealing the money. The boy had the box, and as soon as he saw the policeman he put the money into my hand and ran away.


Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his youth.

Judgment respited.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-176
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

176. JAMES WINGROVE (49), and ROBERT WILLIAM BREWER (25) , stealing 4 yards of plaid, 17 yards of serge, and 50 yards of silk, of Josiah Willey and others, the masters of Brewer, Second Count—Receiving the same.

BREWER PLEADED GUILTY Two Years' Imprisonment.

MESSRS. POLAND and GRAIN conducted the Prosecution.

JOSIAH WILLEY . I am a silk mercer, carrying on business at 9, Regent Street, under the firm of Howell & James—Brewer was an assistant in my service—he would serve customers, and make out a ticket to deliver to the porter when he sold goods, so that the goods might be delivered, having first made out his bill and duplicate of the transaction—he was taken into custody on the morning of 14th January, and in consequence of information I went with Beechey, the officer, to Rochester, on the 15th—we went first to the Chief Superintendent of Police and then to 31, Burridge Street, where Wingrove lived—he is Brewer's step-father—he was in bed up stairs, at 12 o'clock in the day—the Superintendent went up to him, and I did not hear what conversation took place between them; he came down stairs afterwards, and I asked him if he was Mr. Wingrove—he said "Yes"—I said "I may as well tell you that your step-son is in custody on a charge of embezzlement, and he has forwarded parcels to your house," and I requested to know what he had got there—he first denied having anything in the house, and then subsequently said "It is all my fault"—I asked him to explain—he said "I have been a soldier, I have kept a public-house, I have lost all my money, and I have been in difficulty"—I asked him if he had got any employment, and he said "No, I have tried to get employment, and the only employment I can get is hard work, and that I am not accustomed to"—search was made on the premises, and the things produced were found, Scotch plaids, serge, and cashmere goods, in various drawers and cupboards in the house—I have examined those things and identify them as my property—I said to him "What has become of the silks, Mr. Wingrove?"—he said "I have had altogether five lengths of silk"—I said "What lengths?" and he gave me the number of yards for the different lengths, which I cannot repeat from memory, but I took them down on a piece of paper, and it amounted to about 100 yards of silk—he said he received them from his step-son—I asked him what had become of the silk—he said he had sold it—I said "To whom?"—ho replied "To Mr. Dunning, a pawnbroker"—I went to Dunning's, and he produced a piece of silk of 24 yards, which I identified as my property—it was worth about 8s. 6d. a yard.

Prisoner. Q. Did I tell you that I received those things from Brewer? A. Distinctly—you said you had received them from your step-son, and it was all your fault.

THOMAS DUNNING . I am manager to a pawnbroker, at 145, High Street, Rochester—I know Wingrove—I have bought silk of him—I bought this piece (produced) on 13th January, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon—I gave him 5l. 3s. for it—that would be about 4s. 3d. a yard—I knew him by

sight before—he said he had got the silk to dispose of, and he wanted money—he did not say where he had got it—I knew that he kept a public-house at Chatham some two or three years back—I have bought silk of him four or five times; two pieces were light coloured silk, at 5s. 6d. a yard—I should think I have paid him between 20l. and 30l. for silk—I had no invoice.

JOHN HAWKINS RADLEY . I am superintendent of the Rochester Police—I went with a London officer and Mr. Willey to the prisoner's house—I went up stairs and saw the prisoner—he was dressing himself when I went up—I asked him if he had a stepson in London living with Howell & Co.—he said he had—I said "Have you received any parcels of goods from him?"—he said he had not—I said "Well, one of the partners is downstairs, and he can easily identify any goods if I find them; I am going to make a search, and you stand by and look on while I do so"—I opened the drawers in the room he was dressing in, and I found this piece of muslin, this piece of check, and a small piece of serge which had Mr. Willey's mark on it, and I showed it to him, and he identified it—I made a search in the back room, and in a box which was used as a dressing table—the prisoner said the box was his—I found this piece of merino in it—I said "Have you sent a Post-Office Order to your son-in-law on Tuesday?"—he said "Yes"—I said "For how much?" and he said "2l. "

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not find any property on you personally—you did not say the boy belonged to the premises; you said it was your box.

Prisoner's Defence. I never received any communication from Brewer, nor any letters, and I never received any property direct from him.

WINGROVE— GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-177
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

177. JOSEPH MOSS (54) , Feloniously marrying Fanny Smith, his wife being alive.

MR. THORNE COLE conducted the Prosecution.

FRANCIS GREEDERS . I live at 9, Hay's Court, Soho—the prisoner was married to my sister, Ana Greeders, about twenty or twenty-one years ago, at Plumstead Church—I was present and saw them married, and signed the register as one of the witnesses—my sister was here yesterday—they lived together somewhere about ten years—the prisoner was in prison a month, and his wife came home to her mother's, at 204, High Street, Hoxton—when the prisoner came out of prison he wanted to come there, but I said if he came home I should go out—I have seen the prisoner many times during the ten years they have been separated—he used to come up and down the neighbourhood and annoy me—he said we had got his wife, and he had a right to be there—that lasted about four or five weeks—it was about two years ago that I last met him—I did not have any conversation with him then—I did not speak—I had not seen him for two years till lately—I think this last two years is the longest time that I had not seen anything of him—I don't know where he was living, but my sister was living at home with us—she did not see him when she was with me, but I believe she used to meet him very often.

WILLIAM ABERY . I am scripture reader at St. Thomas's Schools, in connection with St. Thomas's Parish, Bethnal Green—on 23rd December, 1873, I was witness to the prisoner's marriage to Funny Smith, the' woman now present, at St. Thomas's Church.

THOMAS GOODCHILD . (Policeman G 122). I took the prisoner into custody for bigamy—he said it was quite right; he knew all about it.


OLD COURT.—Wednesday, February 4th, and Thursday, February 5th, 1874.

Before Mr. Baron Pollock.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-178
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

178. CHARLES STUDDERT MAUNSELL was indicted for unlawfully assaulting His Royal Highness, George William Frederick Charles, Duke of Cambridge.

MESSRS. POLAND and BEASLEY conducted the Prosecution; the Prisoner was


H.R.H. THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE . I am Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief—on the morning of 6th January, I was in Pall Mall, about 1.10—the prisoner was walking towards me, as far as I could judge—he stepped across me; in short prevented my proceeding, and before I could at all appreciate what was going to happen, he hit me in the chest—he said that I had done him a grievous wrong, and he said that before he struck me—he struck me with his fist, and then when I thought he was in the charge of one or two gentlemen, who were close by, because there were a good many persons walking at the time, by some means he slipped round, and hit me again in the same place—I then called a policeman; one of the two policemen who were on duty opposite Marlborough House, for it was just in front of Marlborough House, and I asked him to take the names of those gentlemen—I am not sure that the prisoner hoard that—I went a few steps in front and beckoned to the policeman to come over to me, and gave him some directions—that was the last I saw of the prisoner—he remained with the policemen and the gentlemen around him—I believe the prisoner has been at one of my levees, and he may have been oftener, but when he met me and struck me, I had not the slightest idea who he was—I received this letter (produced) on Saturday last, and I handed it to my solicitor on Monday—I think it came by post; but I will not be quite certain—it came to my house, and I found it on my table when I came in.

LIEUT.-COL. CHARLES ARMSTRONG . I am a Lieut.-Colonel in the Bengal Staff Corps—on 6th January I was in Pall Mall—His Royal Highness passed me there—after he had passed me the prisoner stopped him, and said something which I did not hear, and then struck him twice on the chest with his clenched fist—I was close up to the prisoner at the time—I merely took a longer step than usual, and seized him by the right arm—I said to him "This is a most serious offence, what do you mean by it?"—he said "I have done what I wanted to do"—I said "That is all very well, but what possible benefit can it do you?"—he said "I am the most ill-used man in" something, I could not catch the last word—His Royal Highness had stood on the other side of him just at the beginning of the conversation—he then stepped across the road (this was on the pavement) in the direction of Marlborough House, where two policemen are generally stationed—he had gone but a few yards when he turned round and looked at us, and the prisoner wrenched his arm away from me, stepped briskly up to His Royal Highness, and struck him again with his clenched fist—I followed as well as I could, and seized him again, and he repeated the same words he had previously used—a small crowd collected—His Royal Highness stepped up to the

edge of the crowd, and said to me "Find out who and what he is"—aconstable came up—I asked the prisoner for his card—he had not a card—the constable produced a pencil and paper, and he wrote his name and address—he then repeated what he had said, and said "Where are you going to lock me up?"—he gave his name as Maunsell, 37, Clarendon Buildings, George Street. Oxford Street—I advised the constable to see if that was a right address, and he was then allowed to go.

Prisoner. I wish to ask Colonel Armstrong if he is positive that he ever laid his hand upon me at all. Witness. I caught him by the right arm of his great coat on both occasions, and held him—may I add that on neither occasion did he offer any resistance.

WILLIAM HUME (Police Inspector C). On the evening of 6th January I apprehended the prisoner on a warrant at his residence or lodging, 37, Clarendon Buildings, Oxford Street; that was the address that had been furnished to me—I told him that I was an inspector of police, and held a warrant for his apprehension for assaulting H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge at Pall Mall, that day—he said "Very well, I will go with you"—I then took him to the station—on the way there he said that he had been suffering with a violent headache all day, and had been lying down all the afternoon—the warrant was read to him at the station, and he simply replied "All right."

ALFRED MALVIN . I am a clerk to Cocks and Co., the army agents—I have known the defendant many years—I know his handwriting—I have no doubt this letter (the one produced) is in his handwriting (Read:—"May it please your Royal Highness,—In now addressing your Royal Highness, I desire to offer the amplest apology possible for the unprovoked and unjustifiable assault I committed upon your Royal Highness on the 6th of January. I know that your Royal Highness cannot suppose that I intended any grievous bodily harm. My services in the field will, I hope, plead in my behalf against anything unbecoming the conduct of an officer and a gentleman. But for years I have been brooding over my wrongs until they had produced in me uncontrollable morbid imaginings. In this state of mind and feeling I came upon your Royal Highness, when I thought the moment had arrived for bringing my case before the public. Goaded on to the verge of madness, I committed the rash act; not to injure your Royal Highness, but to seek occasion of ventilating my wrongs. I do not seek by this letter to mitigate my offence, but simply to perform an act which, as a gentleman, I feel myself bound to do, regardless of all consequences. I regret deeply to have caused your Royal Highness the slightest inconvenience, and from my heart I deeply deplore it, not because of the punishment I so justly deserve, but for having given any annoyance to your Royal Highness. CHARLES S. MAUNSELL."

The Prisoner in his Defence read the following Statement: "I shall occupy the Court but a very few minutes. His Royal Highness has said,—'He ran at me and struck me as hard as he could on the chest with his clenched fist' I did step back one or two paces as His Royal Highness was advancing, and then struck his Royal Highness a harder blow than I at all intended, but certainly not with my full force. With regard to Colonel Armstrong's evidence, I will only say that he is entirely wrong in stating that I struck the Commander-in-Chief on the back. That is disproved by the Commander-in-Chief himself and by the evidence of the police-constable. I never struck His Royal Highness on the back. I shall endeavour now to

deal with the evidence of the Assistant Military Secretary. Colonel Hawley commences his statement by showing that I served sixteen and a half years as a subaltern, thirteen and a half years abroad. The memorandum then shows that in October, 1871, I applied to realise the value of my commission. This is the case. I was offered an exchange into a regiment of the Line, with a view to the lieutenant purchasing succeeding me, the captain exchanging coming on the half-pay list in my place. I submitted this exchange for approval, but was informed by direction of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, that it could not be allowed as there was a supernumerary captain in the regiment. I wrote again, venturing to point out that the number of captains would not be influenced by the exchange, and stating, further, that the captain desirous of exchanging with me had been but recently appointed, to the Staff—an appointment he was likely, in the usual course, to hold for five years, rendering him unavailable for regimental duty for that period, while the lieutenant purchasing the step, and succeeding me, would be available. I was not well off—having no means beyond, what my profession afforded, and it was an object to me to sell before the Army Bill came into force. I applied often that my retirement might be allowed in the manner I describe, bringing forward past services and every claim I possessed in support of my request; but my appeals were not listened to. I then applied to sell my half-pay commission; but it is a long story, and I would rather not go into it. Colonel Hawley's memorandum next states: 'In the interval he wrote numerous letters asking for a step of rank on retirement.' On the 24th of July, 1871, he says it was too late then to do anything for me, for I was no longer in the service; nevertheless, as the memorandum states, 'after he had left the army'—speaking of me—'he reiterated his claims to a step of rank, and to be brought back into the Army to obtain it.' This is the truth, for up to my retirement I did not cease to ask for a step of brevet or honorary rank, bringing forward every claim I possessed in support of my request, and it was after receiving the value of my commission I wrote the letter from which the Military Secretary quotes. But after writing that letter I received a communication from the Military Secretary, written a few days previous to my retirement, from which I concluded that the honorary rank would be conferred, although I saw clearly that the brevet rank would not. But this letter I did not receive for weeks after it had been written, owing to my having left London, and it was after receiving it I renewed my application, the rank not appearing on my retirement being gazetted. Without following Colonel Hawley through many portions of his memorandum, and which, if I were to take them separately, would occupy the Court longer than I desire, I will state that from the time of receiving the Military Secretary's letter referred to I renewed my application for a step of rank, and to be brought back into the Army in view of being gazetted out with it, bringing forward cases of men having been restored, mentioning one case in particular, where an officer of superior rank, who had resigned his commission to avoid trial by court-martial for behaving badly before the enemy at Cawnpore, was brought back into the Army to be gazetted out with a benefit conferred which he could not otherwise have obtained. I submitted that, if this man who did not do his duty were brought back to have a favour conferred on him, I, who was recognised as having done my duty, might at least with equal justice be brought back for a similar purpose; and I further submitted that although no longer in the service my claims were still as strong as before I

was gazetted out. About this period (and here is the secret of part of the injustice I so often and so long complained of) I received a communication, dated the 26th of August, 1872, and signed "J. B. Johnstone," written by direction of the Field-Marshal Commander-in-Chief; its chief purport being His Royal Highness, although consenting to your application of the 2nd and 18th of May being considered as cancelled, in no way admitted your claim to receiving a step of Brevet or honorary rank, which were fully considered on your being promoted in 1869." Now, in the first place, the Commander-in-Chief must have been misinformed about these applications, as I have never requested they might be considered as cancelled; nor did I at any time, previously or subsequently, ask that I might be allowed to withdraw my application for a step of brevet rank on retiring. But one of my greatest causes of complaint was that while the Commander-in-Chief should, time after time, tell me he was fully sensible of the good service I rendered at Cawnpore, he should never have shown me any substantial appreciation of those services. I am told, but I can never admit it, that when promoted to a half-pay company, my services were rewarded. It is a hard and ungenerous thing to tell me this. I shall not again go into those services, but I can say that if I had never been commended for conspicuous conduct in the field; if I had never seen a shot fired in action; if I had never served 13 1/2 years abroad; if my health had never given way through many a severe illness during a long service in India, obliging me to return home on sick leave with an impaired constitution,—in fine, had I never served a day out of England, and had I simply gone to the Commander-in-Chief and said, 'I have served 16 1/2 years as a subaltern, give me a half-pay company,' His Royal Highness could not, without doing great injustice, and without promoting a junior over my head, on the next half-pay company being filled up, refuse my request, on the grounds of long service alone, and it was to my field services, in addition to these, I looked for some little recognition, in the shape of a step of rank on retiring from the Army. It was hard to go on half-pay after being four years the senior lieutenant of my regiment, and with one exception, of the whole Army; and with such long subaltern service as I possessed—giving up all hope of promotion, and becoming a poorer man than I was before. But my health was broken, and finding I could no longer perform subaltern's duty, I renewed my application for a half-pay company, which I had previously withdrawn. But I am told in a leading paper that my failing to obtain the rank of major seems to have been the sole cause, as it states, of my 'bitterness.' It is true I asked for this rank, and was greatly disappointed that my request was not granted, but I had other causes of complaint greater than this: I had long complained of a rule of the service having been broken through. When on the death of a captain of my regiment a junior officer was promoted by purchase to the death vacancy, and afterwards when a captain of the regiment was promoted without purchase, the vacancy thus created was sold to an officer fifth on the list of lieutenants. I complained of these wrongs till I found myself drifting into expressing my feelings in language stronger perhaps than I ought to have used, telling the Commander-in-Chief that I had been twice robbed of promotion that I should in fairness and in justice have succeeded to. I hoped that an inquiry would be made, that the Commandor-in-Chief would, in fairness to me, direct an inquiry, and cause the result to be made known to me. This was never done, and I left the Army feeling that the step of rank I sought, which was refused me, was but

another act of wrong and injustice added to the many already inflicted on inc. I searched in my mind for a reason for all this; I had performed my duty honestly and devotedly in quarters and in the field; and 1 was at a loss to know why so much injustice should have been done me, and my thoughts dwelt on these things, driving me at last into an act which I could not believe it were possible I could ever have committed. I tried every means I could think of to bring my case before the public, but all my efforts were unavailing. It is needless for me to say that I bore no malice towards the Commander-in-Chief. In my last letter to His Royal Highness this feeling is expressed. That short letter is included in Colonel Hawley's memorandum; only he has omitted the last few words; but I will ask permission to read them, for it is unfair to hold back any portion of that short letter. The memorandum says:—' The following answer was received, and it is his last communication, "I have no longer hope of justice from your Royal Highness, you have wronged me to the utmost limits of your power;" the memorandum omitting the remaining words, 'but I bear your Royal Highness no malice.'" These latter words were and are still the words of my heart. I plead for no mitigated sentence. I ask only that it may not be believed that any malicious feeling prompted the act for which I stand here. No man in England would hurt the Duke of Cambridge. I myself would cheerfully shed my blood for any member of the Royal Family, and this has ever been my feeling. I cannot recall the past; I can only say that I am deeply sorry for what has happened. The object of the assault was to oblige the Commander-in-Chief to direct my arrest, my last, and the only, hope left to me of bringing my wrongs before the public. I am punished, and shall be further punished for the act I have committed, but some day the Duke of Cambridge will forgive me freely from his heart."

GUILTY .—Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his long service.

MR. POLAND stated that, in reference to the alleged wrongs of which the prisoner complained, his claims had been fully considered by the authorities at the Horse Guards, and that no injustice had been done him, but that his case was dealt with in accordance with the ordinary rules of the service.

GUILTY.— One Month's Imprisonment without hard labour.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-179
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

179. HERBERT TEMPLEMAN (42), and ANDREA GIRAUD (52), were indicted for feloniously forging and uttering an order for the payment of 1,242l., with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. POLAND and STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; MR. METCALFE, Q.C., with MR. BOTTOMLEY FIRTH appeared for Templeman, and MR. HARRIS for Giraud.

WILLIAM MOORE BRANDHAM . I am a clerk to Robarts, Lubbock & Co., bankers, 15, Lombard Street—they are the London agents for Messrs. Dunsford & Co., bankers, of Tiverton—as far back as July, 1872, Major-General Morris had an unlimited credit on our bank, and we had authority from Dunsford & Co. to pay any cheques drawn by him—on Friday, 5th July, 1872, I received this cheque for 1,242l.—it is a cheque dated 2nd July, 1872: "Messrs. Robarts, Lubbock & Co., please pay to C. Carew, Esq., or bearer, 1,242l., which charge to my account with Dunsford & Co., of Tiverton"—it is written on a sheet of paper, and signed "H. J. Morris, Major-General"—I am in the country department, and the cheque would come to me in course of business—the cheque required that I should initial

it for payment, and I did so—the blue murk upon it is my mark—at that time the witness Hawkins was a clerk in the country department of the bank—I can't say that we have on any former occasion received cheques on blank paper from Major-General Morris.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. We were not furnished with Major-General Morris's signature at that time, and his cheques were sent up to us without at all knowing or being able to test the signature—I don't know of any other clerk besides Hawkins who has since been sent away from the bank in disgrace—I don't know the handwriting on the cheque—I know Hawkins's handwriting—it certainly is not his—I don't know it at all.

Re-examined. Hawkins has been a clerk in the bank fifteen years, and I have been there about nine years.

EDWARD GRANVILLE COARD . I am cashier at Messrs. Robarts, Lubbock & Co., and I was so in July, 1872—this cheque is marked by the last witness for payment—I paid it to a man who came from Allard's, on 5th July.

EMILE DE WAAL . I am in the service of Messrs. Allard &Co., foreign bankers, No. 3, Great Winchester Street—we are the London agents of Messrs. Allard & Co., the bankers, of 12, Place Dubois, Paris—on 5th July, 1872, we received this cheque from Paris—it is endorsed "Francis Kelvers" at the back—he was the manager of the bank at that time—the cheque was sent to Messrs. Robarts, Lubbock & Co., and the money was received for it in bank-notes—we telegraphed that fact to Paris.

HENRY JOSEPH MORRIS . I am Major-General of the Royal Artillery—I have an account with Messrs. Dunsford's, bankers, at Tiverton, and have an unlimited credit at Messrs. Robarts, their agents—the signature to this cheque is not my writing, nor made by my authority.

FRANK JOHN HAWKINS . I was formerly a clerk in the service of Robarts, Lubbock & Co., and I was so in July, 1872—I had been in their service for fourteen years up to July, 1873, when I was discharged—I was employed in the country office—in May, 1871,1 was in want of money, and Mr. McLean, an acquaintance of mine, drew upon me for 30l.—I accepted the bill, and Mr. McLean was to get it discounted for me—I did not receive any money upon that bill—it was a three months' bill—before it became due Mr. Tuck called upon me about it, he is a stationer in Union Court, City—when it became due it was presented by the prisoner Templeman—I had never seen him before—he left me his address, No. 1, Aldermanbury Postern, and he said he was a solicitor—the bill was presented to me at the bank, and he asked for the payment of the bill—I said that I had not received any consideration for the amount, and that Mr. McLean would attend to it—nothing further passed at that time—I was afterwards sued in the Mayor's Court upon that acceptance by a person named Brown—my solicitors were Messrs. Peckham, Maitland, & Peckham, of Doctors' Commons, and Mr. Templeman was the solicitor for the plaintiff—the action was not tried—the arrangement was made that I was to pay 12l. 10s. by instalments, and I was to make those payments at Mr. Templeman's office in Aldermanbury Postern—after the compromise I made the monthly payments until the whole of it was paid—I used to pay the money personally, and I received from Templeman these receipts (produced) from time to time; they are signed by him—there was also an action by Brown against a person that I knew, relating to another bill, and they were both included in one settlement, so that on the two bills 25l.

was to be paid—the last receipt is dated 21st June, 1872, and at that time the whole of the 25l. was paid—I saw Templeman write the receipts—while I was in communication with Templeman, he spoke to me upon certain matters—I can't fix the date exactly, but seeing him from time to time we got into conversation—of course he knew where I was—we conversed upon banking matters generally, and what means were used in the case of any one living in the country wishing to draw a cheque payable in London—I told him that arrangement was made with the customers of the country banks according to their wishes and their standing, some to draw large amounts and some small amounts—he said that we might use that information to our advantage, and obtain some money; that he could cause a cheque to be presented, of which the proceeds could be obtained and divided, and subsequently to that I gave him the name of Major-General Morris, and that any cheque that he drew would be honoured, because he had an unlimited credit—I told him that the country bankers of Major-General Morris were Dunsford & Co., of Tiverton, and it was arranged that a cheque should be prepared and presented for payment—he said if I left it to him he should be able to carry it out—it would be about the latter end of June, 1872, that I gave him the information about Major-General Morris—some little time before that I had received a sum of 22l. from Mr. Tuck—I had told Templeman that I wanted some money and I asked him if I could get it through his means in anyway—that was some weeks before—he said no doubt if I went to Mr. Tuck he would accommodate me—I afterwards went to Mr. Tuck, of Union Court, and got from him 22l. on my acceptance of 25l. to run six weeks—Templeman said that a cheque was to be drawn, and that it would be presented at the bank for payment, and I should inform him when it was paid—General Morris's name was mentioned as the person whose cheque it should be—he also said it would most likely be presented through a French house, and that the amount would be about l,200l.—I saw Templeman frequently at the end of June and the beginning of July—I was to let him know when the cheque was paid, and he would go over then to Paris and receive the proceeds—on Friday, the 5th July, the cheque came into the bank, and was paid—I saw Templeman on the afternoon of the same day, but I don't think I knew at that time that it had been cashed—I saw him the next day, and told him that it had been—I met him by appointment, either at his office or some place close by—I can't fix the exact place—when I saw him on the Friday afternoon, he said that he expected that the cheque would have been in—I went back to the bank that afternoon, and the following day I met him and told him that the cheque had been paid, and he said he would start off at once to Paris and obtain the proceeds—I had not given the information about Major-General Morris's account to anybody but Templeman—I saw him again on the following Tuesday after the Saturday when he said he would start for Paris—he told me that an unforeseen circumstance had occurred, the man who had been employed to receive the money had been lost sight of, that no doubt he should find him again; we should have to wait—he said he saw the man come out of the bank of Messrs. Allard and Co., in Paris, and get into a cab, that after following the cab for some little distance, it took a contrary direction to what had been arranged between them, and it was lost sight of—I saw Templeman continually after that, from day to day, and at last he told me that the man had come back to London; that was three or four days after—he told me before that that the

man had the money with him—he told me that the man had come back to London, that he had mentioned the business to some friend of his, who advised him to keep the money, or at least half of it, if not the whole—he afterwards told me that an arrangement that the man should give up half the money and keep the remainder, and the half would be divided between himself, myself, and a third person—he said the odd money, the 42l. was to be paid in expenses to the man who went to the bank—on Friday, the 12th July, I think it was, he gave me either 180l. or 183l., the difference between that and the 200l. I was to receive he accounted for by commission, exchange—at that time I did not know at all who the man was who had gone to Paris—I knew that a man had gone, but I did not know his name, nor who he was—I knew nothing of Giraud—at the end of the year 1872, I was in want of money again, and I applied to Temple man upon the subject, and he drew a bill for 75l., which I accepted, and he got it discounted for me of a Mr. Pilley—I lodged a bond as security, and this memorandum was signed by Templeman (Read: "7th December, 1872.—Bond 1,000 dollars, Cincinatti Water Works, deposited with Mr. Pilley as security for the payment of bill for 75l. for two months. Templeman on Hawkins"—on 14th July, 1873, I was discharged from the bank, and on the 15th I made a statement to Mr. Mullens, the solicitor to Robarts, Lubbock & Co.—I saw Templeman on the 15th, at his office, and I told him that these matters had been mentioned to me, and they had also mentioned that they disapproved of some of my actions, and I had been dismissed—I saw Mr. Mullens again within a day or two, and made a further statement to him—I saw Templeman several times after that—it was not until the latter end of November last I agreed to be a witness in this case—I had seen Messrs. Peckham & Co., my solicitors, from time to time, and I agreed to give evidence, and I attended at the Mansion House before the Lord Mayor after Templeman was in custody—the 2nd December was the first day I went there, and on that occasion I saw a man named Asselin—I had never seen Asselin up to that time.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I remained in the bank for twelve months, from July to July—after the cheque had been presented I received part of the money—it was known in the bank that such a cheque had been paid, and that it was a forgery—I was the only one sent away—I never heard that suspicion attached to any one in connection with this matter—I believe there was one clerk sent away, but I forget the date—he was a man of the name of Mitchell—I continued in the same department—nothing else was ever lost to the bank or to any one else—I have been made a bankrupt since—that was in September last year—my father-in-law, a man named Penton, made me bankrupt—I had a house down at Merton, and a quantity of furniture—my wife was living there—I gave my mother" authority to take the furniture and turn my wife out of doors, and then I went and lived with another young lady part of the time at Godalming, in Surrey—I was discharged from the bank in July, 1873—I was called in, and asked about these matters, and I was accused of dissipated habits—they said they had had me watched, and had seen me in undesirable company; female more especially—Mr. Robarts told me that himself—Mr. Mullens was not there—he told me about the matter of the 1,200l. cheque, that he suspected me—I denied knowing anything about it, and I was then discharged—I left the bank on 14th July, and have not been there since—I saw Mr. Mullens on the following day—I made an appointment on the

14th to meet Mr. Mullens on the 15th, and then Mr. Mullens said something further about the cheque—he said something about Templeman also—he said it was known that I was intimate with Templeman, that I had been seen with him—I knew that Asselin was in custody before that—I think he was awaiting his trial at that time—he did not tell me at that time that they were going to let off Asselin—I believe he told me so afterwards, and he wished me to give evidence against Templeman as the man who had something to do with the cheque—J refused at first—it was before November he told me he was going to let off Asselin, and take him as a witness—I had four or five conversations with Mr. Mullens before November, and during those conversations he was endeavouring to persuade me to give evidence against Templeman, until November I refused, and in November I was finally seduced, and I gave a statement then to Mr. Mullens, which was taken down in writing—I said, amongst other things, that from the day the cheque was presented I saw Templeman for five or six days, and that was true—I saw him at his office, or in the neighbourhood—I know the Lombard Rooms—they are close to the bank—I have been inside there twice or three times, part is a luncheon room, and part is a kind of exchange—I have been in the luncheon part frequently—I have seen Mr. Bonbernard, and know now who he is, and I knew from Templeman where his place of business was—I know now it was Benet's Place close to the bank—Mr. Templeman has supported me from the time of my discharge until his arrest, and since then I have received such small amounts as I want from Messrs. Peckham & Co; who are also solicitors for my mother—it comes from my mother as far as I know—I have not received any money from the bank—I have not had a promise made to me to go out to Australia.

Re-examined. Messrs. Peckham & Co. are my mother's solicitors, and that was why I went to them to defend the action for me, and I have been receiving money from them—Templeman allowed me money on account of the bill, after the money was paid to Pilley—I received money from him up to the time of his arrest; on an average about 1l. a week—I saw Templeman on the Saturday after the cheque had been presented, and afterwards on the Tuesday; and after that every day for several days—when I had an interview with Mr. Robarts on the 14th July, I denied knowing anything about the cheque, but before I left I said that if they would not take any further proceedings, I would not mind telling Mr. Mullens something about it—Mr. Robarts said that he could not make any promise about that at all, I had better place myself in their hands—I saw Mr. Mullens afterwards, but I refused to appear as a witness—I did not know Bonbernard.

JOHN CHARLES ASSELIN . I am a commission agent, and reside at Brixton—in June, 1872, I knew Mr. Louis Bonbernard—he had an office in St. Benet's Place, Gracechurch Street—I had known him about two years at that time—about that time; about June, I think, I made the acquaintance of the prisoner Giraud—I met him at other places besides Bonbernard's, I met him in some wine vaults near the penny boats, in Thames Street, and at the Lombard Rooms—I remember his speaking to me about some business at Paris—that was in the commencement of June, as far as I can remember, about a week before I started—he told me that a friend of his who had an office in Lombard Street, was the son of a rich proprietor or land owner in the country, and that he was in the habit of having from his father, who was very ill in bed at the time, cheques in blank to pay for

whatever was necessary in the business; that a short time previous to that he had incurred some debts for betting, or in business, which he did not explain to me, and that he wanted to fill up a cheque for a rather larger amount than he usually used to draw, and as the father was very ill he was afraid to cause his death by showing that he was drawing for such a large amount—he never told me the amount, but he said if I was willing to go over to Paris with him and cash the cheque for him, which he could not do, because he was too well known in the Exchange there, and by everybody, that I should be paid a commission, and he added "There is nothing to fear, as I have the clerk of the bank who will let me know if the cheque has been paid, or if they will send a telegram to the father and if the father has said that the cheque is not to be paid, in which case you shall not present it, you shall not go to receive the money"—I was to have 40l. for my trouble—I asked five guineas a day, and Giraud agreed to give me 40l. altogether—I agreed to go about three days before I started—we were in Gracechurch Street, and he said "If you go over you must not receive the money in your own name, because if the father does recover (he is very ill, and it is a crisis in his illness that may recover or kill him), he will at once sue against you; and that is why you must not go in your own name, you can take any name, you can call yourself Jones, or Jack, or James, or any name you like"—he told me to take the name of Foster, and I took it—I wrote this slip of paper "Captain J. Foster, 10, Albert Terrace, Clapham"—Giraud suggested that address; he took a piece of paper out of his pocket-book and tore it and said he had no eye-glass, and could not write it himself, and asked me to write it, which I did—he took it away with him and said "In half an hour I shall bring you the cards printed"—he came back in about an hour with the cards printed—he arranged with me to start the same evening, Wednesday, 3rd July—I saw Bonbernard at the London Bridge Railway Station, and Giraud and a woman—I don't know who she was; she was some friend of Giraud's—I had 6l. given me before I started—Giraud got the tickets—Bonbernard left us just a moment before we went into the train—we went to Newhaven, Dieppe, and on to Paris—we arrived at Paris on Thursday, 4th July, and went to the Hotel de Lille et d'Albion, in the Rue St. Honore—I do not know where Giraud stayed, we parted at Paris—we arranged to meet in the Palais Royal, at the Cafe de la Rotonde—I stayed at the hotel as Captain Foster—I met Giraud that same day at the Cafe de Rotonde, and we went together to the Comptoir Escompte, near the Post Office—it is a discount office—Giraud there gave me this cheque (produced)—he gave it me just at the door, and told me to go up stairs and ask one of the clerks if they would send it for cash ment—I went on to the first floor and saw-one of the cashiers—he told me something—I came outside with the cheque, and told Giraud that they told me I had come to the wrong place, that I ought to have gone to a banker's instead of them, that they would send it for cashment if I required, but they would not pay it till twenty-two days after—he said "That will not do at all, then you come with me;" we then went together to Allard's bank—Giraud had the cheque in the meantime—he told me to give it to Mr. Allard, and send it for cashment to London—I left it with Messrs. Allard, and they told me if I came in two or three days that they would have a telegram and would let me know in a couple of days—Giraud had told me to ask for a telegram when it was paid—I left the cheque and gave a card, one of those I had

received from Giraud, with "Captain Foster" upon it, and I wrote on it the "Hotel de Lille et d'Albion"—this is the card (produced)—when I left the cheque Messrs. Allard gave me this receipt—I gave it to Giraud when I came out, and told him what had occurred inside—he said that he was expecting his friend, the son of the gentleman who was ill, over on the Sunday with a clerk of the bank, that the clerk of the bank was to meet him late on the Saturday afternoon to sec if any opposition had been put by the father to the payment of the cheque—on the Thursday night I went back to the Hotel de Lille et d'Albion—on Friday I saw Giraud again, and he told me he thought it would be better for me to change my hotel in case they were not coming, to keep my room at the hotel but simply to state that I was going over to Versailles—I did as he told me; I left the Hotel de Lille et d'Albion and went to the Grande Hotel de Paris in the Boulevard de Strasbourg—I knew that house, and had been staying there once before; I then stayed there in my own name of Asselin—on the Sunday I went with Giraud to the railway-station at the Chemin de fer du Nord; he told me he was waiting for his friends to come over; we remained there about three hours but nobody came—we then parted, but he said he knew where to find them if they had come—I saw him next day, Monday, the 8th, in front of my hotel, he said "My friends have arrived, it is all right, you have only to go and receive the money, I shall wait for you at the Cafe Cardinal"—he put me into a cab, gave me a receipt, and I went to Allard's; I there presented the receipt and received the money, 30,000 francs in French notes, thirty notes of 1,000 francs each, 55l. in English money, notes, and gold, and 19 francs and 60 centimes in French money; the telegram was 6 francs, and the other was only the difference of exchange—I signed my name to the receipt, "J. Foster"—while I was at Allard's I saw two persons there, I think Templeman was one of them; I had never seen him before—I did not know his name, or who ho was—the counter is like a corner counter, those two persons were at one corner whilst I was at the other corner, so one was near me and the other was further from me—they were exchanging some English coins or English notes for French money; one was speaking English and the other French—I came out with the money and got into a cab—I went to Gibus, the hat maker's, and bought a hat there; I had a hat which was paining me very much, and I left it to be put in shape, and went to the hotel in the one I bought instead—after that I met a friend and went with him to the Palais Royale; I remained with him about three-quarters of an hour—I discharged the cab; I left my friend and went to the Cafe Cardinal to meet Giraud and give him the money; he was not there, I waited there about two hours, he did not come; I afterwards went to my hotel—I saw the landlord, M. Chevallier, and he told me something—I remained at the hotel that night and next day; that day, the 9th, I loft for London—at the time I was in Paris I did not know where Giraud or Templeman were staying—I went to Dieppe and stayed there about ten hours—I lost a portmonnaie there, with about 17l. or 18l. in it; with that exception I had all the rest of the money in my possession—I left Dieppe at 8 o'clock that night, and arrived in London on the Wednesday morning—I went first to the City; I went everywhere where 1 could think of meeting Giraud, as 1 did not know his address—I went to the Lombard Rooms and afterwards to Bonbernard's office—I had the money with me, and I gave it to Bonbernard to take care of, not liking to carry it about me—I handed to him 30,000 francs as they were handed

to me, pinned as Mr. Allard had given them to me, by ten each—I owed Bonbernard about 70l. at that time and I paid him 27l. on account; the rest of the money I kept, I only handed Bonbernard the notes—I saw Giraud I think the same evening—I told him that I ought not to be the loser of what I had lost at Dieppe, that it was through his own fault in not waiting for me; he wanted mo to be the loser of it, and also to pay back the 6l. that he had advanced tome—I did not agree to that, I told Bonbernard not to pay over the money until I gave him my authority to pay it—I got the notes back from him the same evening, and I returned them to him about an hour or two after; that was after I had seen Giraud—on the following day I saw Giraud again in the wino vaults, and went with him to Bonbernard's—I believe it was forty-eight hours after that we came to an arrangement that he was to indemnify me for my loss, and he was to take the 30,000 francs; I was to keep the rest—we went to Bonbernard's together, and Bonbernard produced the notes and gave them to Giraud in my presence that was two days after my arrival, on the Friday—that was the whole of the money at I 'had for my share in this matter—some three or four weeks after this I saw Templeman near my house in Malpas Road, New Cross—a man was with him, who told me that his name was Walker—I recognised Templeman as the man I had seen at Allard's—Walker first spoke to me, Templeman was only a few yards off—I was in a shop, buying something—Walker came to me and said "Mr. Asselin?"—I said "That is my name"—he said "I want to talk to you"—I came out—he said "You have been to Paris, and you have received' 1,242l."—Templeman was on the other side of the road at this time—Walker made a statement to me—I did not have any conversation with Templeman on that occasion—about two or three days afterwards Walker called again, Templeman was just by—I would not answer Walker, seeing somebody very near, and he said "Oh, it is no matter, he is a friend of mine"—Templeman then came near, and said "You can say all, because I know all about it"—then I said "Your name must be Mr. Templeman"—he said "That is my name"—he said that Giraud was a scoundrel and a thief, that he believed I had paid over the whole of the money, but that he had kept it, giving them only 200l. at first, and then 200l. afterwards, and keeping the remainder—I said I could prove that I had paid the whole of it, because I deposited it with a merchant in the City, and he handed it over—he said "Will you name the merchant?"—I said "No"—he said "Will you come and meet Mr. Giraud, and then you shall have your share, your share is 300l., you have not received it"—I said "If I had known that I would not have had anything to do with the matter, because I would have known then that there was something wrong in it"—I said "I am prepared to meet Mr. Giraud"—I told them I had received only about 60l., of which I had lost about 17l.—I then made an appointment with the person who gave the name of Walker for the next day—I did not see Giraud next day, I saw him perhaps six or seven, or eight weeks after—I told him I was quite annoyed at having these people coming and annoying me, I meant Walker and Templeman—I told him they had annoyed me by going about and telling everybody that I had been a thief and robbed them of their money—he said "I don't know thorn at all; the best thing you can do is to give them in charge when they come' to trouble you"—in the following year, 1873. I saw Sergeant Reimers, of the detective police, at Scotland Yard; something passed between us—

after that I saw Giraud, that was about a fortnight before I was arrested—I was arrested on 24th June—after seeing Giraud, I went with him to Templeman, at his office at Aldermanbury—I told Templeman that I had been met by Sergeant Reimers, who had asked me some questions, and wanted my handwriting, which I had given him, and I said I was sure it was about this business—Templeman said "No, it can't be, they would never employ a Scotland Yard officer for that business, it must be for some other matter"—I told him that could not be, because I had nothing at all except this business—he said "Oh, it can't be, it must be something else, they would employ a City officer for this case; but if you are wanted send for me"—Giraud was waiting down stairs for me at this time—Templeman said that Giraud had been robbing them, there was no mistake about it; then he stopped me not to speak any more, because the clerk or somebody in the office understood French; we were talking in French all the time—he said that there was some other business, a large transaction, that Giraud knew all about it, and he asked me if Giraud had spoken to me about it—Giraud had spoken to me about another transaction—I did not agree to do anything else—I met Giraud down stairs after seeing Templeman, and I told him what Templeman had told me—Giraud said "Will you come up stairs with me, and I shall tell him before you that I gave him the whole of the money"—I said "No, I have had enough of the business"—I would not return—I told him that he had spoken to me about the large business—as to this matter, I said if I was arrested of course I would tell as it had passed—on 24th June, I was arrested, taken before the Lord Mayor, and committed for trial—Mr. Wontner was my solicitor—while I was in Newgate I was visited by a person named Hauzau—I knew him—I afterwards saw Mr. Mullens in Newgate, and made some statement to him; Mr. Wontner, my solicitor, introduced me to him—I was examined as a witness against Templeman before the Lord Mayor in December—up to that time I had never seen Hawkins at all, or heard his name, or knew who he was, until I saw him there—I was afterwards acquitted in this Court of the charge upon which I was sent for trial.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I did not arrange with Mr. Mullens that I was to be acquitted—I never made any terms with him at all—I was taken into custody by Inspector Clark—he told me the charge was going to Paris and uttering a forged cheque, and I said I knew nothing about it—I did not say I had not been to Paris, because I had been to Paris four times that year; I said nothing more than that I knew nothing about it—I think it was about two months after I was in custody that I was introduced to Mr. Mullens—I was not pressed in the least to go to Mr. Mullens—the moment I was taken I gave my statement in full to Mr. Wontner, I mean the day I saw Mr. Wontner, that was three days after I was taken into custody; he had the whole of my statement—my notion was that this was a cheque drawn by a son for his father who was dying, for a larger amount than he ought to draw, so that he would cheat his dying father; but I was told he was the only son, he was only cheating himself—I was helping nobody, I was helping myself, to have my commission—I helped myself to 40l.—I was told he was an only son, that if his father recovered he would of course make it right with his father, who was very sick, and if he died he was the heir, and he would lose nothing—if the father recovered, I was told he would be very angry, and therefore I was to give a false name

in order to give the son time to pacify the father—I wrote my name as "Captain Foster, 10, Albert Terrace," on the cheque—I put the "10" in pencil—I did not put "23"—I have not been to Bonbernard's house more than twice in my life, I have been frequently to his office, he lived at 23, Albert Terrace—I don't know whether No. 10, was an empty house at the time I wrote this, or whether it belonged to the same landlord as No. 23, I had never been there at all at that time—that address was suggested to me by Giraud—I did not see Bonbernard, it was not at his office, I swear that—I saw Giraud at Bonbernard's office once, that was the first time I had a conversation about these matters—I afterwards saw him in the wine vaults near the penny boats in Thames Street, and in the Lombard—Bonbernard's office is just opposite the Lombard—I don't know whether Robart's bank is very close to it—I never saw Bonbernard at the Lombard but once or twice perhaps; I went there frequently, to the refreshment part—when I had no office of my own I used to receive my letters at Bonbernard's; my letters were addressed to me there—my name has been always Asselin; I never changed it except this time—I did nothing else there, more than doing some commissions; the letters were about commissions for me to do; I used to do some transactions with Bonbernard on business—when I executed commissions I frequently gave the parties Bonbernard's office as my place of business—he is a commission agent; he has one room on the ground floor, a large room at the back—he was frequently there when I was—I have only seen Giraud there once—Bonbernard first told me that Giraud had offered him to go over to Paris for a certain business—I afterwards told Bonbernard that I was going on the business that he had proposed to me—I did not tell him about getting the cheque cashed—he came to the station to see us off by the train—a lady went with us, I don't know who she was; it was a lady with Mr. Giraud—I did not start from Bonbernard's office, I told him we were starting by that train—he saw the last of me when I left, and I went to his office when I came back, and I gave him all the money except the 17l. or 18l. that I lost at Dieppe—I paid him 27l.—I took about 13l. for myself, besides that—I had 6l. given me to go with—I did not make a very bad thing of it—I signed the name of Foster to the cheque, I knew that was no forgery—I changed my hotel because Giraud told me that it was not advisable for me to remain there, and to say that I was going to Versailles for a day or two—that was not to keep me out of danger; there was no danger, but he told me too so, and I did so, I was under him—I went to the Grande Hotel de Paris, in the Boulevard de Strasbourg, that is not quite at the other side of Paris, it is near the Northern Railway; it is a very good hotel, I went there by my own name, I was obliged to, I was known there—the hat I changed was one that I bought a few days before I left London, it was a very hard one, and pained me, and I left it to be put in shape, and bought one of those soft hats; the other was sent to the hotel, and it is there now—the hat I bought was not a slouching hat that came over my face, it was a small hat, not a chimney-pot, I had had enough of that—my luggage was sent to London forty-eight hours previous—I had merely a hand-bag with me—I did not go to Barton's, the printer's, I swear that—I heard Barton say that I gave him the card; that was wrong, he swore it, it was a perjury—there was a watch factory in the Malpas Road, near where I lived—there was no watch factory that Bonbernard was carrying on at that-time, that I knew of—Bonbernard came once to see me in prison; that was long after I

was introduced to Mr. Mullens, I had been six months in custody—Bonbernard assisted to relieve my family during that time; he did a little, nothing regularly, sometimes 10s., sometimes 1l. when he could—he did not pay for my defence—my brother-in-law instructed Mr. Wontner for me and paid for it—Bonbermard did not.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. There is no ground for saying that I am not a perfectly honest man—I am honest as much as you are—this money was to be obtained without the father's knowledge because he was too ill, and if he knew so much was obtained it might kill him—if he was to be killed I would have stuck to the money, which I did not, which shows I did not know anything about it; I shared nothing—the 27l. I paid Bonbernard was out of my money, because I was to receive 40l. commission; I was offered that before I started, by Giraud—I did not come back with Giraud, because he missed me; I did not see him after I got the money, 17l. I lost—I paid Bonbernard the 27l. out of the money I got at the bank—that was part in cash and part in notes, about 7l. in English sovereigns, and two 5l. notes—I don't know whether they were new notes; I lost them at Dieppe—I did not telegraph to the bank—I took no means to ascertain the numbers—I lost them in a billiard-room where I was playing; I did not lose them at billiards; I lost them out of my pocket in the billiard-room;. I was robbed of them—I don't know how many people were there, perhaps about forty; the money was in a small portmonnaie, it was a pocket-book and portemonnaie—I had separated that 17l. from the other on purpose, and put it into my portemonnaie, and it was in my pocket—I did not know that I had lost it till I was on board the steamer—I had no bill to pay, I had a return ticket—I was at no hotel, I arrived in the morning and started in the evening—I had some loose silver—I am married—I gave my wife 13l.; that makes 63l., with the 6l.—I was only to receive 40l.—it was a dispute with Giraud—that would be the difference that I had lost; I wanted not to return the 6l.—the dispute was about the 23l.—I believed at the time that this was a perfectly fair transaction—I had met Giraud many times before I met him at the wine vaults, without knowing even his name; I had met him at Bonbernard's—you ought to know what a commission agent is; it is an English term, I am a foreigner—I sell and buy for persons, upon which I receive a commission—I have been in that line for the last five or six years in London—I have no shop—I had an office for about a year in Lawrence Pountney Hill—I did not do anything in English races—I keep no books and no clerk, and no banking account; I have nothing at all—I could tell you firms that I did business with, no great firms—I had dealings with Sir Antonio Brady, of the Admiralty—I had a large estate in Australia, and his brother was my partner—I came over here about that estate, Sir Antonio Brady will give you an account of it—I don't want to give any other firms, I think that is enough—I have not gone to Paris before to cash a cheque—I have never been called Foster before—I wrote that name on the cheque at Giraud's suggestion, and he had no spectacles, he could not see—he speaks English as well as I can—I did not think there was anything suspicious about my going over in a false name, or in changing my name when I got there, because it was explained what it was for—I was first apprehended on the 24th June, I think—I met Giraud, and told him that complaints were made about my being a thief, that was very annoying, I did not much like it, and he told me to give them in charge—they said I had stolen the money—I never did give anybody in charge; I

never made any complaint until I was taken into custody—after I had seen Sergeant Reimers I went to Giraud—I was not in custody then—it was a fortnight before I was arrested that T saw Reimers, perhaps on the 18th; he said he wanted me to sell him some wine—I sell wine sometimes, I sell anything as a commission agent—I have frequently wine to sell—I have not any at my office, but if you want some I can send you some—I hare no licence, I am only an agent for many persons, for Messrs. Renaud Freres, for one—Reimers said he wanted some of my handwriting to know where to send for me, and I gave it him—I said "You want my handwriting, not my wine," and he had it in his pocket-book—it was after that that I went to Giraud—I was taken in custody about a fortnight afterwards, and then two months afterwards I made a clean breast of it—I was not told that if I saw Mr. Mullens no doubt I could square it, if I would implicate somebody—two days after I was arrested I saw Mr. Wontner, and made a clean breast of it—I told him all I knew, and left it in his hands—Mr. Mullens came to me to know all that I told to Mr. Wontner; he came with Mr. Wontner, Mr. Wontner remained with him—I then told this story about picking up Giraud, and his paying me to go to Paris, I had never had such a transaction before—Bonbernard never told me that the cheque I had uttered in Paris was a forged cheque—I told him so after I had seen the man who calls himself Walker.

Re-examined. Mr. Wontner acted as my solicitor all through—my brother-in-law paid him, he paid the whole, and was answerable for a part, and my family and Mr. Bonbernard paid part—I acted entirely under Mr. Wontner's advice—when Reimers-spoke to me about buying some wine he asked me to write my name and address, and I did so—this (produced) is what I wrote in his pocket-book "J. C. Asselin, care of Mr. Bonbernard, 10, St. Benet's Place"—I am quite certain that I did not get the cards printed—I was waiting in Gracechurch Street; I did not know the printer, nor where he resided—I was never near it—Giraud brought me the cards.

Louis Bonbernard. I am a commission agent, residing at 23, Albert Terrace, Clapham Road—I had an office at 10, St. Benet's Place, Grace-church Street, but I left it last December—I had been there about four years—I have known Asselin for about three years, and Giraud a little over two years—Asselin was in the habit of coming to my office from time to time—about June, 1872, I remember Giraud coming to my office and asking me if I would go over to Paris on a certain financial business he had to conclude over there, that he would pay my expenses, and besides that 10l. or 15l., or a certain sum for my trouble—I had business to attend to at that time, and I declined—Giraud did not tell me what the business was—I could not say that Asselin was present at that conversation, he might have been—I don't remember whether I communicated with him, or whether he was present when Giraud came, but he made a proposition to Giraud, and after that I saw them together at a public-house in Bell Yard, and also in Talbot Court—I ultimately saw Asselin and Giraud at the London Bridge Station, with a female, that was the end of June or the beginning of July, 1872—Giraud told me that he was going to Paris with Asselin—I don't know whether he or Asselin told me that they were going by Newhaven and Dieppe—I did not see them go by the train—some few days after seeing them at London Bridge Station, I saw Giraud at my office—he was very excited, and he asked me for Asselin's private address—he told me that he had missed Asselin on the road from Paris to London, and that

he wished to sec him as soon as possible—I refused at first to give the address—he asked me to go with him, but I told him I had no time to do so, and then he said he wished only to see him for his own good, and I ultimately gave him Asselin's address—on the following day Giraud came again and told me that he had not seen Asselin—he said he was very sorry to have made the acquaintance of Asselin, because Asselin had robbed him of a large sum of money—I don't think he mentioned the sum at that time, but he may have done so—when he told me that Asselin did not behave honestly, I told him I was surprised at the accusation, and he told me then he had an appointment in Paris at the Cafe Cardinal, and he did wait for Asselin there, but he did not come, and so he did suppose that he had run away with the money entrusted to him—I said that I did not believe it—he said I would be obliged to believe after Asselin did not come back, and he was afraid he would not return—I afterwards went with Giraud to Malpas Road, New Cross, where Asselin was living, to try and find him—I went to the house, and Giraud waited for me at a public-house opposite—Asselin was not at home, and I went to the public-house and told Giraud—he said that Asselin was a thief, and had robbed him of his money—I asked him if he was quite certain that nothing had happened to Asselin at Paris, and he said that he was quite certain that Asselin was very well, and that no accident had happened to him—I knew a person named Walker at this time, but I did not know him before—I also knew Templeman—I took him for a solicitor—after I had been to New Cross with Giraud he came to me again, and wanted me to go to New Cross again, but I declined to go—Walker came to my office after Giraud came back from Paris, but never before—he came twenty times during the day and wanted Asselin—I saw Templeman outside once when Walker was in the office, but I never saw him in Walker's company—on Wednesday, 10th July, Asselin came to me at the office and made some communication to me, and I communicated to him the fact that Walker had called, and Giraud wanted him—Asselin handed to mo on that day some French notes—I did not notice how many there were—they were 1,000 franc notes; there was a bundle of them—he told me there were 30,000 francs, and they were left for me to take care of—Asselin owed me some money at that time, and he paid me 27l. on account—after Asselin had left the money in my charge, Giraud came to my office—he ultimately mot Asselin, and I heard part of the conversation between them—Giraud was very pleased to see Asselin come back, and Asselin said "I am surprised that you accused me before Mr. Bonbernard, my friend, of having robbed you; if you had waited for me in Paris we would have met each other there, and you would not have been in anxiety, and you would have saved my anxiety"—Giraud said that he was waiting at the Hotel Cardinal a certain time, and Asseliu did not come as appointed—Asselin told him it was impossible that he could have waited there, that he had his breakfast and his lunch there—Giraud said that he did wait at the cafe, and afterwards went to the hotel and inquired for him—Asselin said "I can't understand it, because after I left the caft I went to my hotel, I slept there all the night and left Paris the next morning"—there was considerable conversation between them as to how they came to miss each other, and after that Asselin asked me to hand over to him the bank-notes, as he wanted to give them to Giraud—I handed Asselin the notes, and he and Giraud left my office together—Asselin afterwards returned alone, and again handed me the notes to take care of—I afterwards saw

Giraud in reference to the commission Asselin was to get for his trouble—I told Girand that I was surprised that after accusing the man as he did, that he was disputing the commission—he told me that if the business was in his own hands he would not dispute it at all, but as he had to give account to some other people he could not deal with it—Walker came after that, and on the day following, Giraud and Asselin were together at my office, and I then handed to Giraud the notes that Asselin had handed to me to take care of—I said to Giraud "Now the matter between you and Asselin is settled, I should like to get rid of that man Walker, if he comes again to trouble me at my office, I shall ask a policeman to put him out"—Giraud said "When Walker comes again, tell him that you know that he comes from Mr. Templeman, and he will never trouble you again"—about the commencement of January, 1873, I went with a friend by train from Cannon Street to Charing Cross—I saw Templeman at the Charing Cross platform—he asked me to have a glass, and I did so—I remained with him in conversation two or three hours—we went from the station to a cigar shop, and then to the Alhambra—he mentioned Giraud's name more than once in the course of conversation—he told me that Giraud was not one of my friends, that ho accused me of robbing him of five or six hundred pounds—I said it was perfect nonsense, because if I had robbed him of anything he would have had plenty of means to ask for it—he said that Giraud had told him that out of the 30,000 francs Asselin brought from Paris, he had only received 15,000, saying that I had kept 15,000 myself—I said that it was a perfect lie, and that if I had robbed Giraud of anything he would not have left without asking me for the difference—'when I told Templeman that Giraud had received all the money, he said that Giraud was a very great rogue because he told him that he had only received 15,000 francs, and he took him one-third of it, leaving to Templeman and another person 5,000 francs each—he said that the other person was a banker's clerk; the 15,000 francs had been divided between Templeman, Giraud and the clerk—Templeman said he would not do any more business with. Giraud, because having taken the trouble to bring the business to a certain point, he thought it was a shame of Giraud to rob them afterwards—he said "If I have any more business, I will call upon you instead of going to Giraud"—I said I would not like the business, because I could not understand that the business in which the proceeds were to be divided was an honest one—he said "Oh, you are a child, you don't understand business, there is no fear at all"—I said "You say there is no fear, anyone would have known that the proceeds were to be divided, and in what case would poor Asseliu be"—he said it was all perfectly arranged that nothing could happen to Asselin—he said, through a money lender in Union Court, he knew a clerk of a bank who was in difficulties, and through that clerk he had certain information which enabled him to do the kind of business he was doing, Asselin went over to Paris to cash a cheque there, but there was no danger for him at all, because he did not go to the counter and ask for the money, but he did go and say "Here is a cheque, cash it, and when you have received the news from London that the cheque has been paid, then I will call and fetch the money;" and at the same time that he did so that they were looking out here in London to know from the clerk at the bank if the cheque was paid or not; if it would not have been paid in London, Asselin would have been prevented in Paris from going back to the bank to receive the money—I am not quite certain whether Templeman told me that he was in Paris with Giraud, but he said that he told

Giraud when the cheque was paid, and Giraud told Asselin, and he went and fetched the money—I don't know whether he sent a telegram to Giraud, or whether he went to Paris with him—Templeman told me that some one was in the bank when Assclin received the money, that Asselin left the bank and drove off in a cab or carriage, and from that time he was missed in Paris—he also told me that between the time that Asselin presented the cheque at the bank and the time for fetching the money he had changed his hotel—I knew before that that Assclin had gone to Paris to get some money on a certain paper, but I did not know, until that conversation with Templeman, whether it was a cheque or a bill, or what it was—I did not know Hawkins the clerk at all—from the time of the conversation with Templeman to the time of his being taken into custody, I saw Asselin frequently.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I am a commission agent—I buy and sell goods and take a commission upon them—I did act for people and firms upon the Continent, but I don't now—the office at St. Benet's Place was a back room on the ground-floor—Asselin did not use it jointly with me—he received some letters there—he did not do a commission business there at all—if he says so, that is utterly untrue—he was a commission agent—at first he did his business at Mr. Deacon's, where I knew him—he had an office in Cannon Street in the beginning of 1872—he had no office in July, 1872—he came to my place at that time—he was there every day—I did not use the Lombard Rooms—I went to the refreshment rooms from time to time, but not often—I don't know that I heard the first conversation between Asselin and Giraud—they had twenty or thirty conversations altogether—I did hear one—I did not hear anything said about cashing a cheque for a dying man—it was that the son wanted to get a larger cheque, or something of that kind—the son wanted to get some money, but I don't know whether that was at the first meeting—I don't remember when it took place, but I heard it said that Asselin was to go to get the cheque for a son who was drawing on a father beyond what he ought to do, or something of that sort—that the father was ill, and the son was in his business—I declined to go over to Paris—I said I was too busy to go—I went to see Asselin off at the railway-station, and Asselin came to me directly he came back—he was not clean when he came, and he went out afterwards to get shaved and washed, and left the money with me—I did not count the notes—I think I told Assclin, after 1 had seen Templeman, that I was afraid that the cheque was a forgery about which he went to Paris—I know when Asselin was taken into custody; it might be six months after my conversation with Templeman—I told the solicitor after Asselin was in custody—I don't know whether it was after he was sent for trial—I did not give any information of what Templeman had told me before Assclin was taken into custody—I was about four years in St. Benet's Place—before that I had an office in George Street, Westminster—I called at the Union and Credit Bank, or something of that kind, but I did not speak English at that time, so I don't remember the English name—I had a partner at that time in Spain, and it was to do some business with Spain—I lost my money by it, and the landlord distrained and swept off everything—nobody trusted to the bank, so nobody lost any money—I am a bankrupt at the present time, and I have been bankrupt once before—I did not pay anything, because I had done no business at that time—there were no creditors in fact—I was not a bankrupt in Switzerland before I came to this country—I male an arrangement, but it was in my father's name—I did not come over here

then—I remained there for four years—I did not fail again—I was summoned at Clerkenwell Police Court in September last for obtaining diamonds by fraud—I had given a cheque on some bank, and there was not sufficient money to meet it—I bought diamonds then—I never proposed to take a house of the Mr. Walker that I have mentioned—I don't know a house of his at Westminster, near the Abbey—I know nothing at all about it—I never went to look at it in my life—I did not tell Walker I was carrying on business as a watch maker—my bank-book is in the hands of the trustees, but I have one of my diaries here—I live at 23, Albert Terrace—I don't know whether No. 10 is held by the same landlord—I don't know whether No. 10 was an empty house—I never had the curiosity to look—I did not consult Templeman about any business after my conversation with him.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. Giraud asked me to go to Paris on some financial transaction—that was not at all in the way of my business; I am a merchant, I was then a commission agent—I was doing business then in my own name, for myself—I did business for nobody but myself—I did not ask him what the nature of the transaction was, because I declined it altogether; I had not the least idea what it was—it was long after that that I went to see them off by the train—I had only known Giraud about six months at that time, I had very seldom seen him—I did not know what ho was—I did not know whether he had got plenty of money, or if he was poor—I had known Asselin for some time—I knew he was not a man of wealth, I knew ho was poor—I was certain that the 30,000 francs was not his, it was merely entrusted to have—if it had been 30,000l. I should not have been more surprised than at its being 30,000 francs; I thought he was an honest man, it was not his own money, it was only entrusted to him; I knew that from Giraud first and from him afterwards—I did not know at all what Giraud's means were, but I knew perfectly well that Asselin was only acting as an agent for Giraud—he told me it belonged to Giraud—I had seen Giraud at my office an hour or two before, and he said that Asselin had not come back, and he was going to New Cross to see if he was at home, and if he came to my place to tell him he would return and see him there—he said that Asselin was coming with 30,000 francs—he did not say that it belonged to him, he did not say at that time who it belonged to, but an hour or two afterwards he told me that the money did belong to him and somebody else—he afterwards came back in a state of excitement, saying that he had missed Asselin in Paris; I had not then got the 30,000 francs—he did not come to me after I was in possession of the money; if he did it was only for a few minutes—I told him I would not give up the money to him without the presence of Asselin; Asselin told me not to part with it without his presence—I did not find out who the third party was to whom it belonged; I did not wait till he came on the scene; I had the money from Asselin, and I had only to return it to Asselin—I had no share of it, certainly not—I had 27l.; that was no share of the 30,000 francs, I got the 27l. from Asselin, it was part of his commission, he owed me about 55l. or 60l. at that time—he was ill more than once before, and when he was ill I lent him some money—I was not a bankrupt in 1872, I had money to lend—I got it in my business—when Asseliu gave me the 27l. he said "Here is 27l. on account of the money I owe you"—no I O U passed between us—I did not give him a receipt for the 27l.—I think he paid me in English money, I don't know—Giraud said, but not to me, that I had

kept half the 30,000 francs; he charged me with stealing it; he said so to Templeman, if Templeman told me the truth—I had such a little amount of prospect from Giraud, and such a low opinion of him at that time, that whatever he would think or say of me would be quite equal to me—he never accused me of stealing the money, I was told by Templeman that he did—I took no means to put it right, my character was not affected by such a charge—I had heard before that that I was accused of keeping some of the money, and I met Giraud and Asselin together at the corner of Cornhill and said, "What does this rumour mean?" and they said it was all nonsense, they never did say a word of the kind, it was not true—Giraud himself told me so—I could only see him accidentally because I did not know where he was living.

Re-examined. The charge that was made against me at the Clerkenwell Police Court, was last year; it was dismissed—I was a bankrupt in 1869—it was when I first came here, I could not speak a word of English—I bought some furniture of a man, and paid him 40l. in cash, and 40l. in a bill—I knew Templeman at that time, and through him I came to be a bankrupt, but I did not owe anything in business at the time; Templeman acted for me at that time, as my solicitor was away, Mr. Plews of the firm of Plews and Irving—I think I have known Asselin since 1871, I knew him long before, but only to see him often since the end of 1870 or 1871—he told me before he went to Paris that his travel was to be paid, his expenses, and he was to have 20l. or 25l., or something of the kind, I don't know exactly—Templeman speaks French, I only spoke French with him—this letter (produced) is my writing, I wrote it the day after I had seen Templeman and had the conversation with him, the letter was dated 3rd January, it was on the 2nd that I had the conversation with him.

CHARLES ROLAND BROWN . I am a printer and stationer, at Eldou Street, Finsbury—in 1871 I received several bills from Jabez Tuck, and in 1871 or 1872 I received a bill from Tuck which was accepted by Hawkins—I cannot positively tell you the date, but it was in August, I think—it was not then due—I delivered it to Mr. Templeman with directions to act upon it, I mean to present it to Mr. Hawkins—Templeman afterwards brought an action on the bill in my name—I had given value for it in printing.

ALBERT CAHEN (Through an Interpreter). I am chief cashier to Allard & Co., money changers—this cheque for 1,242l. was brought to the bank by Asselin on 4th July, and left for collection, and we handed him this receipt (produced)—I saw him write the name of Foster on the back of it—he left this card with me (produced)—we simply sent the cheque to London, and got a telegram back that we were to pay it—Asselin called about three days afterwards, he produced this blue paper, and we paid him partly in French and partly in English money—the particulars are on the paper.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Captain Foster did not tell me he was going to Constantinople, or where he was going.

LOUIS ARTIMON ESTAMPE (Through an Interpreter). I am a porter at the Hotel de Lille et d'Albion, Rue St. Honore, Paris—in the beginning of July, 1872, a person named Captain Foster came to stay there—Captain Foster and Asselin are one and the same person—when he left the hotel he said that he was going to Versailles—he left no address; he only had a small black bag.

JEAN CLAUDE NOEL CHEVALLIER (Through an Interpreter). I am proprietor of an hotel on the Boulevard de Sebastopol—I know Asselin; he stayed

there from 5th to 9th July, 1872, in the name of Asselin—on the 8th, which was the day before he left, he was in and out a good deal, and while he was out Giraud, who then wore a beard, came and inquired for him several times, and I told him every time that Asselin was out—he seemed anxious and troubled about it—I remember a hat coming from Gibus for Asselin; I received it myself,

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Asselin said that he was living in London, but he did not leave any address—he sent his luggage to London the day before he left—he took the hat Gibus sent away with him.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. I had never seen him before, and I did not see him afterwards till my attention was called to him at the Mansion House this January—I was shown a photograph before that, and I found it much more like him than he is now—I was asked whether it was like the man who came to my place in July, and I said "Very nearly"—I said that I should not be able to swear to him because of the long time which had elapsed; of course you cannot keep features in your memory for so long a time—when I was shown Giraud I said that it resembled him a little; he had no beard then, and I recognised him mostly by his eyes—I would not swear to him then, nor will I now.

Re-examined. This (produced) is the photograph which was shown me—I recognised the person who came by the photograph—I afterwards came over and saw Giraud at the Mansion House; there was a great change in his appearance then altogether, he appeared very much aged, and he was rather stooping—he asked me whether I recognised him by his voice, and I then observed that I could not recognise his voice at all—I recognised his eyes and his look—he seems to me to be the person who called at the hotel, but of course I cannot swear positively.

COURT. Q. Do you recollect what kind of hat it was that came from Gibus to the hotel? A. A black felt hat; he left at the hotel the hat he had previously, and there it is now; I found it about a week ago at my hotel.

JULES LOUIS . I am a photographer, of 299, Euston Road—I do not know Giraud, but in 1869 I took a portrait of a man, and have an entry of the name of Giraud in my book—this is the photograph—the person gave me a name, and he seems to have written it down himself, but I would not be positive, because on one occasion he had a lady with him, and it may be the lady's writing—I cannot recollect whether he wrote it himself, or the lady for him—it was not written by anyone in my establishment—there is no number on the photograph.

JOHN CHARLES ASSELIN (re-examined.) I know Giraud's writing—this entry, "6 vignette, A. Giraud, 157, Gray's Inn Road, W.C., paid 2s. 6d.," is to the best of my knowledge in Giraud's writing.

WILLIAM PILLEY . I am a tax collector for the City, and have an office at 1, Aldermanbury Postern, and my son carries on business as a tailor in the front shop—Templeman was my tenant on the first floor—he told me that he was a solicitor—I have seen Giraud several times in 1872 in the passage leading to Templeman's offices—I do not think I ever spoke to him, except once when I asked him what he wanted there, as he was rather shabby looking, and he said that he was waiting for Mr. Templeman—on the first Saturday in July, 1872, I believe it was, I saw Templeman, who said that he was going to Brussels—he shook hands with me and wished me good bye—he did not say how long he should be away—I am not

certain where he said he was going, but I know it was on the Continent—lie was often away for a few days together—I know a man named Walker, I have seen him constantly in Templeman's office during the whole time of his tenaney—I took the premises, to the best of my belief, in 1869, and Templeman was a tenant there then—early in 1872, I discounted a bill for 75l.—I believe it was a bill of Templeman on Hawkins, but I don't know whose acceptance it was—it was at Templeman's request—I discounted it for Hawkins, but I paid the money to Templeman—a bond was deposited with me as collateral security—I don't remember ever seeing this memorandum before—the bill was not paid, but I received about 25l., and a fresh bill was drawn, I retaining the security—I will not swear whether it was Templeman or Hawkins who paid the 25l., they were both together.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Walker is a builder, he has done work for me.

ROBERT YOUNG . I live at (5, Bridge water Square—I know Pilley—about 8th or 9th July, 1872, I went to Templeman to consult him as a solicitor; it was cither on a Monday or Tuesday—ho was not there, but I saw his clerk. (MR. METCALFE submitted that what the clerk said in Templeman's absence was not evidence, especially as the clerk was in Court subpœnaed by the Prosecution. MR. POLAND contended that he had a perfect rigid to put the question, and relied on the authority of "Price v. Marsh" (1, Carrington and Payne.) THE COURT ruled that the evidence was admissible, and declined to reserve the point.) The clerk said that Mr. Templeman was not in, and that he would not be back for two or three days, or three or four days, I don't know which—the clerk went by the namo of Thomas—I knew him by that name up to the time of leaving—I heard at the Mansion House that his name is Condie.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I have seen him here to-day—I do not know that he is subpœnaed for the prosecution—I did not see him at the Mansion House—I am a builder, of 23, Red Cross Street, City, on my ray own account, and have lived twelve years at 6, Bridgewater Square.

CHARLES HAUZAU . I live at Dalston, and am employed at Ebert's, the commission agent's, in Tower Street—I know Asselin; I was present when he was taken in custody on 24th June—I knew Giraud—after Asselin was taken in custody I went and saw Giraud; he begged me to go and see Asselin—he had asked me for an interview, and I went—I did not say anything to him before that—Giraud asked me to be at Mr. Templeraan's next day, and then he asked me to go and see Asselin in prison, to ask him whether he would like to take Templeman as his solicitor—Templeman did not mix up hardly at all in the conversation—I afterwards had some conversation with Asselin in Newgate, and after that saw Giraud and told him that Asselin did not intend to take any solicitor as ho had one already.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I do not know whether Mr. Templeman defends a great many people who get into trouble in criminal matters—he does not often act as an attorney, to my knowledge.

ROBERT CHILD (Policeman N). I knew of a warrant being taken out against Giraud in November—I afterwards saw him in Le Fevre Road—he went to 10, Merchant Street, Bow Road, at 10.30 at night—I did not see him again till ho was arrested—he had then changed his appearance—he formerly had long Dundreary whiskers, and they were shaved off; that was on 22nd November—Sergeant Moss knocked at the door; no one answered—I got in at the area window, and went up and opened the front door—

we then went into every room of the house with Giraud—it was dark then; but next morning I saw gravel on the path and gravel on the wall, as of a person escaping over the wall—I had watched closely, and he did not come out the front way.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. I sometimes wear a moustache and no beard—I please myself about that.

JOHN MOSS (City Detective Sergeant). On 22nd November, I had a warrant from the Lord Mayor to arrest Giraud—I searched his house and he was not to be found—100l. reward was offered for him—I saw him in the Euston Road on 12th January, and told him what he was charged with—he said "Yes, I will tell Mr. Mullens when I see him all about it; Mr. Mullens can speak French"—I afterwards searched some papers at 1, Aldermanbury Postern—thoy were not in the office, they were in the basement, a lot of papers had been removed by the clerk, Condie, upon whom I found this pocket book (produced)—he said it was Mr. Templeman's—I found in it this letter dated 3rd January, 1873—I searched at Mr. Templeman's for any call-books, and a book called a cash-book was found among the papers in the basement—this call-book (produced) is not for 1872—the dates outside it are 1867, 1868, and 1869—I find entries in it "Giraud, 25, Road," and "Mr. Giraud, 7, Grove Road, Antill Road"—those appear to be addresses—when Giraud said "I will tell Mr. Mullens all about it; Mr. Mullens can speak French," I had not mentioned Mr. Mullens's name; I am sure of that.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. I do not speak French; what I said to him was in English—he said he could not speak good English, but he understood English very well.

RICHARD MULLENS . I am a member of the firm of R and S. Mullens, solicitors to the Bankers' Association—we were consulted in July, 1872, on the subject of this cheque for 1,242l.—after Asselin was arrested, on 24th June, 1873, his solicitor, Mr. Wontner, made a communication to me, went with me to Newgate, and introduced mo to Asselin—I took down asseliu's statement, which I have here—I saw Asselin on 7th, 8th, and 12th August—I first spoke to Hawkins on the matter on the day ho was dismissed, 15th July, 1873—I was busy, and asked him to call at my office next day—I then took down his statement—I saw him again on the 17th, again on the 30th, and then not again till November—I asked him to become a witness; he asked time to consider, and did not come back again—I communicated with his solicitors, Peckham and Maitland, after I came back, having been away two months ill—I afterwards saw Hawkins, and he was called as a witness at the Mansion House—after Giraud's arrest I was present next day, 13th January, at the Mansion House, and after the evidence was given he said he wished particularly to speak to me; I asked the Lord Mayor for permission to see him down stairs, and I saw him in the jailor's room—I speak French—I said "I don't know what you are going to say, but you know who I am, and I hold myself quite free to make what use I please of what you are going to say"—he said "I quite understand, but if you will listen to me and receive me as a witness, I will tell you a great deal that you do not know now"—I made no reply to that—I did not take down anything that he said—(MR. HARRIS submitted that the witness's remark "You know who I am" might be considered to operate as such an inducement as to exclude the statement that Giraud afterwards made. THE COURT entertained some doubt upon this point, but as Giraud knew that Mr. Mullens

was the person to accept him as a witness or to treat him as a criminal, his statement had better be excluded, the more especially as Giraud was a foreigner.

MR. POLAND did not press the question).

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I have been accustomed to deal with such matters for many years—before I agreed to acquit Asselin, his information was taken on oath before the Lord Mayor; that was before he was acquitted—he had sworn in formations before I made him a free man—I then found Hawkins—Messrs. Robarts handed him over to me, and I examined him—that was in July, 1873—after that I applied for warrants against the two prisoners—one was given to Sergeant Moss, and the other to Inspector Clarke—that was not the first time I communicated with the police—I have had thirty years' experience—I act as attorney, but I certainly do not give personal attendance in watching—I do not think I ever watched a person going to a bank in my life—Bonbernard was brought to me by Sergeant Moss—he did not come voluntarily—Walker was brought to me in March, but that did not relate to this matter at all—I asked him questions about this matter—I have not taken his examination in this matter—he calls himself a builder in Westminster, he is not in a large way, I should say.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. They were not brought to me to put the screw on—I examine prisoners in the cells when they wish to see me—I never turned the screw on in my life.

GEORGE CLARKE (Detective Officer). I took Templeman in Coventry Street on 22nd November—I told him the charge—he said "I know nothing about it."

LOUIS BONBERNARD (re-examined). I received this letter from Giraud—I have only seen his writing three times, but I believe it to be his.

RICHARD MULLENS (re-examined). I did not see Giraud afterwards—I refused him as a witness—(The letters were translated as follows: "Newgate, 16th January, 1874. Mr. Bonbernard, I have received to-day the visit of one of our mutual friends. I have begged him to convey to you that I should be delighted to see you, because you might be useful to me, and as he lives far from you, namely, at Stratford, he has suggested to me to write to you directly, and therefore I entreat you not to refuse this favour, and you will oblige much the person who calls himself your very devoted, A Giraud. I can only see one lady at 10.30, and a gentleman at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. I depend so much on your kindness, that I have sent word to the porter that I will not receive anyone to-morrow, but you. Mr. Reimers will see you outside to speak to you about a solicitor"—The other letter was dated 3rd January, 1873, to Mr. Templeman from L. Bonbernard, requesting Templeman to meet him at any hour he, liked to fix at his office, and stating that he would sell him, if possible, the diamond of 21 carats, of which he spoke to him the night before.

E. G. COARD (re-examined). I am second clerk in the bank of Robarts & Co.—I remember the dismissal of Hawkins—no other clerk was dismissed with reference to that matter.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Two other clerks were dismissed in July, 1872—that was for intemperance—they were not in disgrace for any other act— GUILTY Fifteen Years' Penal Servitude each.

NEW COURT, Wednesday, February 4th, 1874.

Before Mr. Deputy Recorder.

For cases tried this day, see Kent and Surrey Cases.


Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-180
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

180. JOHN JORDAN (32) , Robbery, with violence, on Samuel Buckingham, and stealing a scarf and 10s. his property.

MR. MEAD conducted the Prosecution.

SAMUEL BUCKINGHAM . I am a labourer, and live at Old Town, Croydon—on 13th January, about 12.45 at night, I was in the Standard public-house, Woolwich—the prisoner was there—I left the Standard with a woman, and the prisoner followed me out—I walked about sixty or seventy yards with the woman, and the prisoner pushed the woman from me and struck me a violent blow on the cheek bone, which knocked me down and rendered me senseless—when I recovered, I found I had been robbed of 10s., and a scarf; I had those articles before he struck me—as I was coming to myself he was bringing me into the street, and he took me to the Pier Tavern Coffee Room—he was with another man—I said "I will wait upon you in the morning," and they both left—I missed 10s., a white handkerchief, and two coloured ones out of my pocket—this (produced) is my handkerchief.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. There was only one woman with me—I was too excited to have you taken when you were going through the town with me—I did not give you the handkerchief.

JAMES ELLIOTT . I am a labourer, and live at 68, High Street, Woolwich—on 14th January, about 2 o'clock in the day, I was selling my goods, and the prisoner came up and asked me if I would buy a handkerchief for 6d., and I bought it.

WILLIAM MORGAN . (Detective R 155). About 2 o'clock, on 14th January, I was called to the Standard public-house, and saw the prosecutor there—I afterwards went to Rope Yard Rails, where the prisoner lives—he was not there—I returned to the Standard and saw the prisoner pass the door when I had been there about a minute—I called him in, and told him he would be charged with stealing between nine and ten shillings, two handkerchiefs, and a white wrapper—he said "I know nothing of it"—the prosecutor was there at the time—he said "You know very well you robbed me, and where is the handkerchief?"—he said he did not know anything about the handkerchief—he said "Where is the wrapper, the white one?"—the prisoner said he knew nothing about it—he further pressed him, and he said "Well, I have sold it, but you know you gave it me"—I accompanied the prisoner to seek for Elliott, but I could not find him, and I took the prisoner to the police-station—he called witnesses at the Police Court, and they were bound over to appear here, and I ordered them to be here last night.

Prisoner's Defence.—That is the only chance I have got; my witnesses are not here—I am quite innocent of this. I never touched the man, and he knows I did not.


Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-181
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation; Guilty > unknown

Related Material

181. JAMES HAZLEDEN (35), and JOSEPH HOWDEN (30) , Stealing eight bushels of a certain mixture, the property of John Larking, the master of Hazleden.

MR. BESLEY conducted the Prosecution; MR. WARNER SLEIGH appeared for Hazleden, and MR. GLYN for Howden.

RICHARD LARKING . I am a carrier, of Pudding Lane, Maidstone—my

father's name is John, it is his business—he keeps about sixty-five horses—for several months my suspicions have been aroused about fodder—Hazeleden was my father's servant, and drove a van between Maidstone and London—he started to come to town on Friday morning, 16th January, and had to stop at Mailing, six miles short of Maidstone—he was due in London on Saturday, and back at Mailing on Sunday morning—I went into a bed room there, which looks into the yard, but took care not to make myself visible—I did not sec Hazleden's van drive into the yard, but I saw it in the yard—the horses were then in the stable—I saw Hazledcn get up on the van, and take a full four-bushel sack into the lock up—he was out of sight about three minutes, and then brought out the empty sack and put it into the van—I saw Howden, the, ostler, about five minutes afterwards, just inside the lock-up, and saw Hazleden put something into his trowsers pocket—he then got his horses out and started on the road to Maidstone—that was about 4 o'clock p.m.—I went to the police-station and came back with a constable—I was absent about twenty minutes—the prisoner went into the house to find the ostler, and I watched outside—the policeman afterwards told Howden to unlock his lock-up place, he did so, went in, and looked, and the prisoner said "You can match it if you can"—I then saw that the mixture there did not belong to my father—when I was at the window there was a horse and cart in the yard with the name of Frisby on the cart—there was a sack in the cart which the constable then took out, and asked Frisby where he got it—he would not tell him at first, but at last he said that he bought it off Joe—Joe was about two yards off, and head that—I found in the sack two sorts of oats, beans, meadow hay, a little oat straw, and some tares—this is not a very usual mixture—it is the mixture made up for my father's horses, and I told him it belonged to my father—he made no reply—Frisby said that he paid 3s. 6d. for it—it is worth 6s.—I gave Howden in custody—the constable went on the road and brought back Hazleden, and I gave him in charge too.

Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. Hazleden would start with three sacks of fodder, half of which was for the up journey, and half for the return—he was taken at Farningham, eighteen miles from Maidstone—there is a private stable of ours there where there, is fodder—he need not have had our fodder in his waggon at Farningham—I positively say that the mixture belonged to my father—I saw some mixture in a barn and took it up in my hand and examined it—I told the policeman it belonged to my father, but directly I took it in my hand I said that it did not—I was not able to find any tares in it—I was in Mr. Goodwin's room about half an hour—he could not see what I saw; he was ill, and was sitting in a chair close to the fireplace—I told him what I saw—I saw Hazleden throw his dinner basket on the waggon, and an empty sack after he came from the lock up—the mixture we gave to Hazleden was generally the same stuff—this (a sample produced by MR. SLEIGH) is my father's mixture, I am perfectly sure of that—it is the same kind as was taken from Frisby—this (another sample) I cannot swear to; it is identical with some which was given to my father's horses, but not till last week—I know it by the beans—Hazleden would have to feed his horses at Eltliam in the stable view of the window where I was watching—this was on the return journey; he had to fee his horses at Spring Farm, after you get to Farningham—he has been off and on with us about fifteen years, and has also been in the employment of other respectable people in the neighbourhood, and always bore a good character.

Cross-examined by MR. GLYN. It was not because there were no tares, but because there was clover in it that I could not identify the mixture, and even if it had been formed of the same ingredients I could tell whether it was ours or not—the lock up is a small place for keeping a little corn—we do not pay once a year for the baiting, each man pays at the time—mixture which is left after being paid for is not the ostler's property—I have known Holder about fifteen years—the mixture really costs us 6s. a sack.

Re-examined. Three sacks are four bushels to each horse—the last feed on the return journey ought not to be given at Eltham—Hazleden always had the same three horses—they were in good condition—Marchant who is here delivers out the fodder.

WILLIAM FRISBY . I am a farmer, near Eltham—on 16th January, between 4 and 5 o'clock I went to Eltham with a horse and cart and drove into the yard of the King's Arms—I went into the house, and in coming out I saw Howden in the yard—I did not notice Mr. Larkins waggon there, I think it had gone—I asked Howden whether he had got any rough stuff—he said "Yes, I have got a sack, you can have it if you like, the price is 3s. 6d"—he went to his lock-up place, brought it out, and put it in my cart—it was in a plain sack, with no name on it, which I was to bring back—I had not brought my own sack—I donot usually buy fodder of ostlers at inns—rough stuff is sweepings of the manger—I cannot say whether this sack (produced) contains sweepings or not; it is a mixture.

Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. I don't see anything particular about there are a few beans in it—when-the sergeant asked me what I had got in my cart, I said "What is that to you?"—he said he wanted to prove what I had got and where I got it—I said "I bought it," he said "Of who?" I said "I bought it of Joe. and paid him for it," that is all the difficulty I made.

Cross-examined by MR. GLYN. 3s. 6d. would be a fair price for a sack of sweepings—I did not look at it—when I said "rough stuff" I meant sweepings—ostlers, I believe, are entitled to the sweepings of the stable after the baiting—I acted on that belief—I have never bought any before in that way.

Re-examined. I do not very often buy what I don't look at—I should say that 6s. is a fair price for four bushels of provender mixture—I did not know that he had ever sold any before, but I was rather short, and he had three horses come in, which he is paid so much a week for.

DAVID COLLEY (Police Sergeant R 28). On 17th January, I was at Eltham—Mr. Larking came to me, and I went to the King's Arms and saw Howden in front of the bar—I told him he was charged with receiving a quantity of forage belonging to Mr. Larking—he said that he did not know anything about any forage, and he had not received any—I sent a man to call Mr. Larking, and told Howden I must search his place, that is the lockup—he said "You can search here," and unlocked the door—Mr. Larking examined a quantity of forage in the bin, and found that it was not his—he said that there was a sack on a cart in the yard which he should like to examine—I called Frisby out into the yard and said "What is that you have got in that sack in your cart?"—he said "What has that to do with you?"—I said "I wish to know"—he said "I suppose you will want to know where I got the other things next; there is some pig wash in the-cart"—Mr. Larking said "It is my property"—he said "I bought it of Joe, and

gave him 3s. 6d. for it"—I took possession of the sack and this is a sample of the contents—I took Howden in custody, and about 8.30 I took Hazleden at Farningham, having his tea—I told him the charge was stealing a quantity of forage—he said that he had not stolen any, ho was too fond of his horses to steal their forage.

THOMAS MARCHANT . I am a chaff cutter, employed by Mr. Larking—it is my duty to mix the fodder—on January 14th I was giving the horses a mixture of oats, beans, tares, meadow hay and oat straw we are never supposed to have one sort in the mixture long together, one or other is always left out—on 14th January I delivered three sacks containing four bushels of mixture, to Thomas Mercer to take to Mailing—no one has a right to take samples, and I have not given any except to young Mr. Larking.

Cross-examined by MR. W. SLEIGH. I know what the mixture consisted of because I made it—I am the only man who does so—I never serve any mixture exactly like this—I don't run over the country to see what other people give their horses, but I mean to say this is my work.

Cross-examined by MR. GLYN. I have not got a receipt for it, or any figures.

Re-examined. I have been employed by Mr. Larking ten years, and have been mixing all that time.

ROBERT MERCER . I am a carman, employed by Mr. Larking—on 14th January I received three four-bushel sacks from Marchant—I took them with me and handed them over to Hazleden between East Mailing and West Mailing, as he was coming from London—I did not see him again.

HAZLEDEN received a good character GUILTY Recommended to mercy the Jury on account of his character.

HOWDEN— GUILTY Twelve Months' Imprisonment each.


Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-182
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

182. ALFRED WILLIAMS (20) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. POLAND and PLOMDEN conducted the Prosecution.

THOMAS PERRY . I keep the Three Compasses, Brentford—on 13th November, I served the prisoner with a pint of beer and a pennyworth of tobacco; he gave me a half-crown, and I gave him 2s. 3d. change—before I put it in the till I saw it was bad, and told him so—he said "Give it me back"—I said "Certainly not"—he gave me a good shilling, and wanted to go away with the change which I had given him, but I collared him; he had a struggle, and I got him down in the road—he drew a knife to stab me, but I got the change from him, and gave him into custody—I preferred a charge of assault against him at the Police Court, for which he got a months' hard labour, but the Mint authorities did not prosecute him for bud money.

GEORGE SMITH (Policeman M 73). I took the prisoner on 13th November, on the charge of assault, he gave his name as Alfred Brown, that is his right name—he gave a correct address—a woman was charged with him, she was concerned in the uttering.

CHARLES WOOD . I am barman at the Kentish Drover, Old Kent Road—on 16th January, the prisoner came in for a half-pint of half-and-half, a pennyworth of tobacco, and a few matches—he gave me a bad half-crown,

I told him to wait for the change, and did not tell him it was bad, but called my master.

DAVID MCCLEAN . I am landlord of the Kentish Drover—on 16th January, I was called down stairs and saw the prisoner there—my barman said that he had given him a half-crown which I examined and found to be bad—I asked the prisoner whether he had got any more of them—he said "No," and that ho did not know it was bad—he had received it in change at Rotherhithe or Wapping on the Saturday previous, this being Friday, and that his wife gave it to him when he came out that morning, to see a friend at Woolwich—I asked him if he was down that way the previous afternoon—he said "No, he had not been that way for four years"—I sent for a constable, and gave him the half-crown after marking it—he gave me his master's name, somewhere in Rotherhithe.

CHARLES WRIGHT (Policeman P 315). Mr. McClean gave the prisoner into my custody with this half-crown—I found only a penny on him.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These half-crown are both bad.

GEORGE SMITH (Policeman P 75). Mr. Perry gave me the half-crown on 13th November.

Prisoner's Defence. I waited ten minutes or quarter of an hour for the change, which I should not have done if I had had any guilty knowledge. The other case ought not to have been brought against me, as it was more than three months before. If they refused to prosecute me for it three months before, I don't see why they prosecute mo now.

GUILTY .**— Six Months' Imprisonment.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-183
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence; Not Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

183. HENRY FROUDE (27), and JANE LEMMON (26) , Stealing 1 opera glass, a riding habit, and other articles, the property of George Sanger.

MESSRS. BESLEY and MOODY conducted the Prosecution; and MR. F. H. LEWIS the Defence.

ROBERT DAVIS (Detective Sergeant L), On 15th January, about 4.15, I went to 49, Poole's Park Road, Holloway, where the prisoners were living as man and wife—I saw Lemmon, and asked her what property she had belonging to Messrs. Sanger—she said "I have nothing belonging to Sanger, I have something belonging to Ellen Chapman"—I asked her to show me, and we went together to a bedroom, where I saw in a portmanteau, a riding habit, a bridle, and a horse cloth (produced)—tho portmanteau was not locked, it was fastened by the straps—I told her she would bo charged with the unlawful possession of the things, and asked her if she had any-thing else—she said "No"—I said "What about the money?"—she said "I know nothing about any money"—I said "Do you remember Mr. Moore coming here on one occasion for some money?"—she said "I remember his coming here, but I thought it was for these things ho came, for Ellen"—while this conversation was going on, Froude came in and stood in the middle of the room; he said nothing—I went there next day and made a further search and found this opera glass in a box in the same room.

Cross-examined. When I went to the house Messrs. Sanger said that the solicitor instructed me to take the prisoners at all risks—Lemmon pointed out, the portmanteau to mo and told me that the things in it belonged to Kllen Chapman, who had left them with her in that condition to take care of—the portmanteau was strapped, but not locked—any person going into the room could sec the portmanteau.

JESSE WILGOSS (Policeman 202). I went with Davis to the prisoners' lodging—Davis asked Lemmon if there was any property there belonging to Mr. Sanger; she said "No, nothing belonging to Mr. Sanger; I have something belonging to Ellen Chapman"—Fronde then came in; he and I followed her up stains, and when we got up Davis was opening the portmanteau—I asked Fronde how he accounted for having the things in his possession—he said "I did not know they were there till a few days ago; my wife knows all about it—I said "I should have to take him in custody," and asked him if there were any other things belonging to Sanger, or to Ellen Chapman there—he said "No, and he came away without the opera glass"—Davis said "Do you remember Moore coming here some time ago about some money for Ellen Chapman 1"—Lemmon said "Yes, I don't know anything about the money, I thought you came for these things."

ELLEN CHAPMAN . I am Mrs. George Sanger's niece, and am thirteen years old—I have been with them six years—I was going about with them last summer to different towns in England with the troupe—the prisoners were employed by my uncles—Froude was musician, and Lemmon was wardrobe keeper—Lemmon left before Christmas; she was paid off the next morning after we came to London to Astley's—she said to me last summer "If you get money enough to buy a nice horse, you can go to France with me and make a good living"—she told me to get as much money as I could from my uncle to get the horse, which she said could be bought for 60l.—this riding habit belongs to one of the Miss Sangers; it was kept in a box in a tent with the other things, and I took them out of a box at Edgware and gave them to Mrs. Froude, who said she would mind them for me—no one but Mrs. Froude was present when I took them out of Miss Sanger's box—I took a riding habit, a saddle cloth, and a bridle—this opera glass is Mrs. George Sanger's; it was kept in the carriage where we lived, and Mrs. Lemmon said "Do you mind lending them to me to-night?"—I said "No, but you must give them back to-morrow morning, because they belong to Mrs. George Sanger"—that was three weeks before we were at Edgware—I asked her for them two days after, and she said "Have you not got them?"—I said "No"—she said "I don't know where I put them"—I said "My aunt will be sure to miss them"—they were not talked of after that, and I did not get them back—after we got to London I took a lady's saddle from Astley's—I told Lemmon I had got it, and it was taken to Mrs. Moore's house—Lemmon was paid off on the morning after we got to Astley's; but she used to come there for me, and I have seen her six times since—she said she had sent the money for the horse to the man, but had had no answer, and she did not know whether the ship was lost in going over there—we were afterwards both put in the same cell, and she said "Mind, Ellen, when you get into Court don't you say you ever gave me a halfpenny; if you do it will be worse for you, and you will get transported, "and she kept saying" Keep up yourpedcer, Ellen; keep up your pecker"—I was frightened, because I thought I should be transported if I spoke about it—it is a fact that 1 told Moore to go to them at one time.

Cross-examined. I did not live at Moore's house, I lived at Mr. George Sanger's—I took the saddle about a week after we had been in London—I stole it, and delivered it to Mr. Moore—I asked him to take care of it—and told him it was my own—that was a lie—I took it from the stable, and about a week afterwards I asked Miss Moore if she would go to France with me, and told her that she and I could earn about 8l. a week together

—I asked Mrs. Froude to take care of the other things; she knew I had stolen them—she had said "If you get them, I will mind them for you;" and I said "All right"—she said that the portmanteau would be very handy to put the things in—she was in the tent then—I mean to say that she knew who they belonged to—I go to church—I have not been a thief long, I only took a shilling this summer, and my uncle beat me for it, and I left off—I know a man named Watson, I have given him about 9l.—I have not given him 70l.—he did not ask me to steal—I used to give the money to Mrs. Froude, and afterwards gave it to John Watson—he is eighteen or nineteen years old—he is not a sweetheart of mine—I have not told many people that I am sixteen—I have not been told that I am older than thirteen—Watson is a performer, he is not an apprentice, he is in the company—I gave him the 9l. because he had agreed to buy me a pug dog if I brought him so much money—I told him I got the money from Mrs. Froude, but he never asked me where I got it—he has got the money still—I have not told this to my uncle and aunt, but they know all about it—the dog was not going to France, too—I never gave money to anybody else only Mrs. Froude—my uncle beat me for stealing the shilling, and, of course, I left off, but when Mrs. Froude asked me, of course I took some more more—I was examined as a witness before the Magistrate—this is the first time I have mentioned the conversation between me and Mrs. Froude; I did not mention it before, because I was frightened—Moore was charged before the Magistrate with receiving the saddle, and I with stealing it—I was allowed to become a witness, and so was Polly Moore—that is the girl who was to go to France with me—I did not tell Mrs. Froude that these articles were my own property, and ask her to mind them, but I told the Magistrate so because I was frightened.

Re-examined. The story I have told you to-day is true as to the conversation about going to France, and about buying a horse—I spent the shilling, and my uncle beat me for it, that was while Mrs. Froude was there—I do not know whether she knew that I was beaten by my uncle—with that exception, I had never taken anything till Mrs. Froude asked me—the largest sum I gave Watson was 1l. 10s., it took about two months to give him the 9l.—it was he who suggested to me buying the pug dog.

WILLIAM MOORE .—I am a tailor, of 30, Stangate, Westminster Bridge Road, I did not receive a side saddle from Ellen Chapman, I know nothing of it—it was at my house without my knowledge—I received a request from Ellen Chapman to call on Mrs. Froude at 49, Poole's Park, Holloway, at the beginning of December—I had a conversation with her, and asked for 20l.—I did not ask for any of these—the male prisoner was not there, but I saw him when she sent for him.

MR. LEWIS objected to the conversation which passed being given, as it referred to another indictment on the trial of which he had witnesses to call. THE COURT considered that the conversation had better be excluded.

MARY ANN MOORE . I am the daughter of William Moore, and do work for Mr. George Sanger—Ellen Chapman brought this side saddle to me one morning before my father and mother were up.

Cross-examined. I was charged with receiving the saddle—she said that Mrs. Froude bought it for her while travelling, and I kept it for her.

GEORGE SANGER . I am one of the lessees of Astley's Theatre—Ellen Chapman is my wife's niece—she was thirteen on the 2nd of last month—this bridle is mine, it cost 18s. at Birmingham, being a special one for a performing

horse—it is worth about 2s. now—this habit cost 7l. new—it was in a little better state than this when it was at Edgeware—I will include the horse-cloth with the habit, it is not worth much now—I have some recollection of the little girl taking a shilling at Leamington—I think it was in June last—Mrs. Froude was there at the time—I know Johnny Watson, he left me a fortnight before Christmas—we were at Edgeware about 28th September—we came to Astley's about 1st November, and Mrs. Froude was paid off the same evening, or the following morning—the most that the prisoners received was 52s. 6d. the two of them—there was no pay sheet—Ellen Chapman boarded and lodged under my roof all that time, but she did not perform—her health was too bad to learn the business—she had plenty of spending money, but no salary—I did not know anything about a pug dog till this case.

Cross-examined. These are wardrobe clothes, being clothes belonging to the performers themselves—this part of the property was under Lemmon's charge, and when this habit was wet through she has hung it out to dry often.

SARAH HAWKES . I am married—I bought these opera glasses and gave them to Mr. George Sanger last January twelvemonth.

THE COURT considered that there was no evidence against



There was another indictment against the prisoner which was postponed to the next Sessions.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-184
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

184. JAMES NEWTON (17) , Feloniously cutting and wounding William Thomas Cook, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

MR. F. H. LEWIS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. STRAIGHT the Defence.

WILLIAM THOMAS COOK . I am a hammerman, of Southwark Bridge Road—on 17th January, between 6 and 7 p.m., I was in Lant Street, with a young woman—the prisoner came up to us; he was interfering with everybody who came about, knocking up against them and then furning round and speaking to them—he knocked up against me—I said "Mind who you are knocking against"—he used foul language and challenged me to fight—I said "I will," but before I had time to take my coat off he struck me, and when I got my coat off I struck him—he fell, and while he was on the ground I saw his hand in his pocket—when he got up I saw a knife in his hand—he rushed at me three times with the knife, and then I found I was stabbed under the right ear—it bled, and I was taken to a doctor.

Cross-examined. He might have had a drop, but he did not seem drunk—he was staggering about—I cannot tell where I hit him, I was quite sober—my blow did not knock him down, but he seemed to slip off the kerb—I said before the Magistrate "he reeled from my blow"—two friends of mine came up as it happened, but neither of them pushed him or touched him.

WILLIAM GREENLAND . I am a bedstead maker—I saw Cook talking with a girl at the corner of Lant Street—the prisoner knocked up against them and Cook asked him what he was doing—the prisoner said "If you want to fight have a fight"—I am not sure whether Cook knocked him down or whether he fell, but when he was down he put his hand in his pocket, pulled it out, and I saw a knife in his hand—he got up and opened it, and

said "Now come on"—I saw him strike at Cook twice with the knife, and the third time it hit him, and he said "I am stabbed"—I went for a constable.

Cross-examined. He did not rush at him, but Cook's head was down like this—I believe I said before the Magistrate that they rushed at one another, but I can't recollect—the prisoner held out the knife and I said "Come on"—the whole thing was very quick—I did not say anything before the Magistrate about its being accidental.

Re-examined. I have forgotten to say that when he struck with the knife some word was used, but I can't recollect it—I recollect what occurred, and my story is as nearly accurate as possible.

HANNAH BROWN . I live at 8, Northampton Street, Walworth—I was talking to Cook at the corner of Lant Street—the prisoner struck Cook first, Cook then struck the prisoner, and he fell—while he was on the ground he fumbled in his pockets and pulled out a knife—it was open when he pulled it out—he rushed at Cook—I called out "Oh, the knife," and turned my head away and did not see Cook struck—I saw the prisoner run, I ran after him.

Cross-examined. Cook did take his coat off.

ROBERT STEEL (Policeman M 132). I was on duty in Lant Street and saw the prisoner running down Southwark Bridge Road—I took him and charged him with cutting and wounding William Cook—he said "I am very sorry, I hope he will get over it, I have not done it"—I took him to Cook, who was at a druggist's; he identified him, and I took him in charge—next morning I found this knife blade on the spot.

THOMAS EVANS . I am surgeon to the Southwark division of police—I examined Cook and found a slight incised wound in his neck 1 1/2 inches long, but of no depth at all—this knife blade would produce it.

Cross-examined. It was merely a skin wound, not penetrating at all; it was merely the length.

COURT. Q. Was it in a dangerous place? A. Very. If it had been deeper it would have severed an artery, and killed him on the spot.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding .— Two Months' Imprisonment.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-185
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

185. JAMES LEE (40) , Feloniously setting fire to a house, with intent to injure James Jeffrey.

MR. CROSS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. CHARLES MATTHEWS the Defence.

GEORGE FRANKLIN (Detective Sergeant W). On 16th September I received information and went to Hayter Road, Brixton Hill, to a house which has no number—it was just ready for occupation; the passage and staircase had been destroyed by fire, and the doors of the rooms were damaged by scorching—I could not get up stairs—from what I heard I looked after the prisoner, but could not find him—I knew him as watchman to the prosecutor—on 17th December I saw him at the Brewery Tavern, Brixton—I called him out and told him I should charge him with setting fire to a house of his master's in Hayter Road, Brixton Hill—he said "All right, I did it, I have settled matters"—I took him to the station, where he said "You are very zealous, but you will not make a case, for I have settled with Jeffreys"—I asked him when he had seen Jeffreys—he said "Two months ago"—I fetched Jeffreys and he was charged.

Cross-examined. There were bolts and locks on the doors, but the houses were unoccupied.

GEORGE GIRARD . I am engineer in the Metropolitan fire brigade—on 16th September, at 12.46, I was called to a fire in Hayter Road—I found the bottom part of the house well alight—the under part of the staircase was on fire, and the flames were ascending—I could not get inside, I saw through the glass of the door—I got an engine ready for work, and having some time to wait for water, my attention was drawn to some shavings which went from the house to the third house from it—I went to the third house, saw the prisoner there, and asked him if there was any chance of getting any water—he said "No, only the water which was in the closets"—I got some water, got the engine to work, and extinguished the fire—I then found the remains of a bag of shavings under the staircase—they were all burnt except the bottom part—I afterwards saw the prisoner, and asked him if he could account for how the fire originated—he said "No"—I called his attention to the shavings; he said he knew nothing about them—I said "Is there any way of getting into the place?"—he said "Any one could get in at the back"—I found the fire originated under the stairs, where the bag of shavings was—it had burnt the staircase away, and the whole house, nine rooms, was damaged.

Cross-examined. I saw him 20 minutes after the fire.

JAMES JEFFREY . I am a builder of Battersea Park—the prisoner was in my employ as night watchman to look after some houses which I had completed in Hayter Road, Brixton—they were safe on loth September, and I left them in the prisoner's charge—I was called by a constable on 16th September, between 3 and 4 o'clock, and found the corner house which was named the Hayter Castle, had the staircase burnt out, and the ceiling was much damaged by fire and water—I said to the prisoner, who was there, "How did this occur?"—he said "I can't tell, I am sure"—I said "You ought to know; I put you in to look after the buildings, and it is your place to know"—I asked him where he was when it occurred—he said "Well, I certainly was not on the premises; I had run away for a time"—I told him he ought to be horse-whipped for not looking after the property better "How on earth could any one get in to fire this house, as I left it shut and bolted, with you last evening, and the front door locked—he said he could not account for it—I said "I have a strong opinion that you are the scamp who has done it"—he said "I am sorry to hear you say that"—I asked him where he had been in the habit of lying down lately, because he had no home—he said "On the first floor, back of the fourth house"—I said "Let us go and see your bed"—the constable, the fireman, the prisoner, and myself went there, and found two sacks—the prisoner said "That is where I laid down last night"—I said "I don't believe it; what has become of your bed, that you had in the back parlour down stairs? let us go and see it"—I went down, and found that the two sacks of shavings which he had been lying on were gone—I said "What has become of them?"—he said "Oh, I emptied those out about a week ago"—I said "You won't dare tell me that, will you? don't you remember my remonstrating with you last evening for allowing one of the sacks to lay out in the middle of the room, as I had always told you to stand thorn up against the wall in the day time?"—he said "I think you must be mistaken"—I said "You know I am not; if you emptied those shavings, what has become of the sacks?—he said "I put them in the lock up"—the fireman put his lamp down towards the floor, it

being before day-break, and then we saw traces of mahogany shavings from the back parlour to the house that was burnt down, all along the passage and pathway—I said "This more than convinces me that you have done it, because we have no mahogany shavings on the premises, except those which your sacks were filled with—he said that nobody could get in as I had locked the whole of the doors and gave him the keys the night before—he then said "I cannot tell, I am sure, unless they have got over at the back"—I asked the fireman, in the prisoner's presence, how he found the back premises—he said that he found them closed—a police sergeant came up, and that ended the conversation—I afterwards saw the prisoner again, and said "I cannot tell what could possess you to do such a wicked deed; I have been to the police station, a detective is coming at 8 o'clock, and unless you can clear yourself very much more than you have at present, I shall be under the necessity of giving you in charge. (The Court considered that this amounted to a threat which would exclude the Prisoner's answer). He made some answer and left at once—I went to look for him with the policeman, but could not find him—on the evening before the fire, a widow who has four children, and whom I employ to clean the houses, had some difficulty in getting water, as it was not laid on, and I told the prisoner I should expect him to get water for her, and assist her in any way—just before I left I saw her, some conversation passed, and I afterwards saw the prisoner and said to him, "How is it you have caused this poor woman to go home and lose her time, by not providing any water for her?—he said "I don't know"—I said "She tells me you would neither draw it for her, nor allow her to have the can; where is the can?—he said "It is in the cupboard, locked up"—I said "You are an unmitigated scoundrel, to treat a poor widow in that way, who has to keep four children; if I acted by you as you have by her, I should discharge you—you are not worth the name of a man—the Insurance company have paid me 147l. 10s. "

Cross-examined. It will cost me 20l. more than that, but I don't wish to press the charge against the prisoner—I went into every room the night before; the back doors were bolted—there were no shutters, but the windows were down—the prisoner has been in my employ two or three months—the train of shavings was outside, from the house that was burnt to the other house—I left the prisoner to go and tell a constable.

MR. MATTHEWS stated that the prisoner had handed him a written statement by way of instructions, which, being read, stated that he had no purpose to serve, or profit to gain, or object in view, to induce him to set fire to the house, as all his own goods were in the house No. 4, but that he had not always perfect control over his reason, being subject to attach of insanity, and not being at such times responsible for his actions, and that on the night before the fire, when his head was bad, he was induced to drink spirits, and then received information that the house was on fire, that a gang of young thieves used to visit the houses every night to steal rope or anything else; that the windows were open, and there was no difficulty in any one entering. Be also stated that his head had been injured by a lathe.

Witnesses for the Defence.

JOHN HENRY SWAN . I am surveyor to the Walthamstow Board of Works, I have known the prisoner fifteen years—he was peaceable and inoffensive—he was very eccentric, and during the last twelve months he has been unfortunate in business—he is an ivory turner, and the Germans have

cut up his business—he has had an accident, his head came in contact with a lathe—he has epileptic fits, and I have always thought that an operation he has undergone for a tumour has caused him to be eccentric—the operation was performed before I knew him.

FREDERICK BARDELL . I am a member of the firm of Bardell and Son, Royal Exchange—I have known the prisoner for twelve years, and never knew him quarrel with any one—I have noticed his eccentric manner—he called on me some time ago, and asked me to advance him some money to get his tools out of pawn—I said that if he would call again I would do so, and he never called.

JOHN ROWLAND GIBSON . I am surgeon to the gaol of Newgate—the prisoner came in on 6th January, since when he has had a fit—I believe it was epileptic, for his his tongue was moving—I consider that he is subject to fits of that character—at the time of the seizure, his mind would be confused and deranged—the time which the aberration lasts depends on the individual; it may last two or three days, and sometimes it passes off very quickly.

Cross-examined. He is a person of weak mind, but certainly not insane—the influence of the fits upon his mind would depend very much on their severity and on the succession of them—I am not aware that he had more than one fit at a time—I am afraid he has indulged in intoxicating liquors, which would also produce an effect—I have made a personal examination of him, but find no trace of a wound in his head, of which he speaks—I examined him with regard to the operation, and there evidently has been a tumour removed from his person, but I do not attribute any mental result to that.

JURY. Q. Is it possible for a person in an epileptic fit to leave the place before it is over? A. Perfectly impossible.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-186
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment; Miscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

186. THOMAS EDWARD TAGGART (29), was indicted for unlawfully publishing a false and scandalous libel upon Thomas Mortiman.

MR. BESLEY conducted the Prosecution.

THOMAS MORTIMAN . I am employed by the Surrey Commercial Dock Company—MR. ROSS is the superintendent there—I am landlord of the Pyrotechnic Arms beer-house, at Nunhead—I live there with my family, among them was the prisoner's wife, her name is Ellen Caroline—I had no other children living there at that time; there was another daughter, but she has since gone to a situation—the prisoner's wife has two children by him, the eldest will be seven on the 13th of this month, and the younger four next birthday—in November, 1872, my daughter ceased to live with the prisoner—she commenced to reside with me from that time—there was a regular judicial separation, I think that was in April or May, 1873—this letter is in the prisoner's handwriting, it is dated 24th September, 1873—it was brought by a messenger to my public-house. (This and three other letters, dated respectively 4th and 5th October, were put in and read, they were ouched in most offensive terms, and accused the witness of keeping a disreput able table house, and of encouraging his daughter in prostitution).—I also received this letter of the 5th of December at the docks—this letter of 31st December is in the prisoner's handwriting, but I never saw that until it was handed to me by my attorney—this one of the same date, addressed to Mr. Ross, is in the prisoner's writing—Mr. Ross handed it to me—this letter of

1st January, 1874, is addressed to myself, but I never saw it until it was handed to me by my attorney—the letter of 5th January is also in the prisoner's writing—I have never used the beer-house of which I have a licence, as a brothel—it is certainly not a fact that my daughter is a prostitute, or have I ever had prostitutes at my house—the whole of those imputations are entirely and totally false.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I have been in the employ of the Surrey Commercial Docks for twenty-four years, and I trust I have always conducted myself in a creditable manner—I was suspended in 1866 by an error of judgment, and the superintendent wrote to me stating that he was very happy to see me back there—I was unfortunately acquainted with you at that time—I never borrowed a farthing of you in my life—I remember a loan instituted at 17, Albion Road, which you borrowed, and I was security—I received a portion of that to pay for arrears that you were in as a lodger of mine—I know Thomas Clark—I invited him to my house—you were certainly not my recognised son-in-law at that time—I was on amicable terms, with Clark—he' did not show me any letters that he had written to your wife in-reference to a' prior affection which he had for her—I heard there were such letters, but he did not show them to me—I know a young man named Donald Ross—I believe he is the son of a gentleman occupying a very high position—he used to come to my house and you always insulted him—you did not find fault on any occasion with"; his familiarity towards my daughter;—did not know that he called her "Today" or that he slapped her on the back and" kissed her—your conduct was so disgraceful towards him that he was driven from the house—I have been to Ramsgate with Mr. Thomas Clark—you were never accepted by me as the suitor of my daughter—my daughter was staying, at Ramsgate at the time I went down with a gentleman friend of mine, Mr. Lewis—I certainly was surprised' to see that you followed us down to Ramsgate—I returned to London that night with Mr. Clark, and left my daughter there with a friend—I have been landlord of the Pyrotechnic beer-house about five years—the house is in the name of Davison, my brother-in-law, but I am the landlord—we have had singing there—my daughter never played the piano there publicly—I daresay parties objectionable to you visited my house; you objected to everybody, except yourself—I remember Mr. McGillicudy, a friend of yours—I did not see him take any liberty with your wife—I remember hearing it said—I was not aware that any correspondence passed between your wife and a young man named Attwright—I am aware that you summoned two men for an assault, and I wrote a letter to my solicitor at that time—I heard that you were taken ill in January, 1872, with rheumatic fever, and went to the hospital—I told my daughter she ought not to come and see you after you were separated from her, "but she exercised her own discretion—I objected to my wife-coming also—I believe my wife visited you at the hospital—I have been in liquidation—I passed before Mr. Registrar Keen about three weeks ago—I swore at that time that I was not indebted to you a penny, and a document was put in which I denied being in my handwriting, and I deny it now.

Re-examined. I was suspended from duty about a fortnight; that was in 1866—I was reinstated in my old position, and since then I have been put in a better position.

JOHN ROSS . I am superintendent at the Surrey Commercial Docks—

I have been there nearly twenty years—I received this letter, which I handed to Mr. Mortiman (This was to the same effect as the other letters.)

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. Mr. Mortiman occupies the position of examiner now at the docks, he has been so about two years, before that he was ledger-keeper—I was not aware of my son Donald Ross's visits to Mortiman's house, he was a mere boy at the time you are alluding to—Mr. Mortiman has borne a very excellent character for twenty years at the docks—he was suspended, as he has very properly explained, for an error in judgment—you did call on me once and your manner was very strange, whether you were labouring under excitement or the influence of drink, I don't know—I certainly did not enter into a discussion with you with reference to a man named Rose—it is customary that a man employed in a public company, should at the same time have another business—I was aware that the prosecutor had.

The prisoner in his defence, read a long statement, in which he repeated in substance his accusations as to the conduct of his wife and the prosecutor.

GUILTY .—Recommended to mercy by the Jury in consequence of the excitement under which the letters were written.— Twelve Months Imprisonment, and to enter into recognisance to keep the peace.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

2nd February 1874
Reference Numbert18740202-187
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

187. GEORGE CALLARD (20) , Feloniously wounding Robert Woods, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

MR. CHARLES MATTHEWS conducted the Prosecution

ROBERT WOODS . I keep a lodging-house, at 11 and 12, Kent Street—between 12 and 1 o'clock, on the morning of 30th December, the prisoner came there rather the worse for liquor, and made some disturbance—I went up stairs and ordered him out—he remained up stairs about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, and he came down—I was in the parlour at the time—he came to the door and said "Give me my money back?"—I gave it to him in his left hand—he raised his right hand and stabbed me in the chest, saying, "I will be your murderer"—he struck me once or twice after that—I felt I was stabbed—he went outside and then tried to burst the door open, and he said "If I get you outside I will have your life"—I opened my waistcoat and I found a severe stab—I went outside and saw a policeman on the opposite side of the road, and went over and said "Take this man into custody, he has stabbed me."

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not come up and say "What game do you call this?" and strike you on the nose—you were very violent—I did not say I would put you out of the window—you had a chamber in your hand, you were very violent—I did not see your nose bleeding, but there had been a fight with someone up stairs.

MARY ANN DIXEY . I am servant at this lodging-house—I was with the prosecutor in the parlour when the prisoner came down to the door—the master was standing at the door, and he says to the missis "Give this lodger his money, I shall not have him here"—and he gave him his money and the prisoner put it in his pocket and said "I will pay you before I have done with you, and he brought his hand out of another pocket and he brought out something and struck the master twice with it—I did not see what it was.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. Mr. Wood did not throw you down

stairs—ho was down about ten minutes before you came down; your nose was bleeding when you came down, but that had been done up stairs, as far as I know.

JOHN LACY MORLET . I was house-surgeon at Guy's Hospital—the prosecutor was brought there and I examined him—he had a wound on the loft side of his chest, just below the second rib; it was a clean cut wound, about 1 1/2 inches long, and the lung was wounded—it was a dangerous wound—he is now convalescent—I saw the knife at the Police Court, it would produce such a wound as I saw.

Prisoner's Defence. I did not do it wilfully. I know I had a knife in my hand in the scuffle, but I did not do it.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding.— Six Months' Imprisonment.


View as XML