Old Bailey Proceedings.
17th September 1877
Reference Number: t18770917

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
17th September 1877
Reference Numberf18770917

Related Material


Sessions Paper.








Short-hand Writers to the Court,










On the Queen's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Monday, September 17th, 1877, and following days,

BEFORE THE RIGHT HON. Sir THOMAS WHITE , Knt., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; The Hon. Sir HENRY HAWKINS , Knt., one of the Justices of the Exchequer Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; THOMAS QUESTED FINNIS , Esq., Sir ROBERT WALTER CARDEN , Knt., Sir WILLIAM ANDERSON ROSE , Knt., Sir BENJAMIN SAMUEL PHILLIPS , Knt., Sir THOMAS DAKIN , Knt., and Sir ANDREW LUSK , Bart., M. P., Aldermen of the said City; The Right Hon. RUSSELL GURNEY , Q. C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; Sir FRANCIS WYATT TRUSCOTT , Knt., JOHN WHITTAKER ELLIS , Esq., JAMES FIGGINS , Esq., and HENRY EDMUND KNIGHT , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; and Sir THOMAS CHAMERS , Knt., Q.C., M.P., Common Serjeant of the said City; Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery of Newgate, holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.









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


OLD COURT.—Wednesday, September 19th, Thursday 20th, Friday 21st, Saturday 22nd, Monday 24th, Tuesday 25th, and Wednesday 26th, 1877.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-672
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > with recommendation

Related Material

672. LOUIS ADOLPHUS EDMUND STAUNTON (26), PATRICK LLEWELLYN STAUNTON (24), ELIZABETH ANN STAUNTON (28), and ALICE RHODES (20), were indicted for the wilful murder of Harriet Staunton, at Penge, in the county of Kent; certain of the prisoners were also charged as principals and others as accessaries after the fact. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL, and MR. POLAND conducted the Prosecution; MR. M. WILLIAMS with MR. C. MATHEWS appeared for Louis Staunton; MR. E. CLARK for Patrick Staunton; MR. STRAIGHT and MR. PURCELL for Elizabeth Staunton, and MR. PERCY GYE for Alice Rhodes.

HARRIET BUTTERFIELD . I am the wife of the Rev. Mr. Butterfield, of Great Brastead, Essex—before my marriage to that gentleman I had been named to a Mr. Richardson, and had by the first marriage a daughter lamed Harriett, if now alive she would be thirty-six years of age—on the 5th of April last, I saw her lying dead at 34, Forbes Road, Penge—in 875, my daughter Harriett was staying with my nephew Mr. Thomas Hincksman, at 55, Heygate Street, Walworth Road—his wife was a Mrs. Rhodes—she had been married before I believe, and by her first marriage as the mother of the two female prisoners—I believe the two male prisoners re brothers—in 1875, I learnt that Louis Staunton, was paying his addresses to my daughter—at that time she was possessed of about 1,600l.—did not think she was in a fit state to marry, and tried to procure her a ward in Chancery, and herself declared unfit to manage her own affairs, but was unsuccessful and my daughter was married to the prisoner Louis Staunton, on the 16th June, 1875, at Clapham—I was not present at the marriage—about three weeks after, I paid her a visit at 8, Loughborough "mark; my daughter opened the door and asked me in—I asked if her husband was at home—she said "Yes," and called "Louis, mamma is here" he came and we went into the dining-room—I did not see my daughter one, her husband was present—I asked my daughter if she was happy—

she said "Pretty well, mamma middling"—I asked her husband why he did not keep a servant, and be told me he had advertised for one—I afterwards went upstairs with my daughter at his suggestion to see the house; when I came down I made some remark about the rooms not being all furnished, and then said "I must be going"—he told his wife to put on her hat and sea me off to the station, he came with us—I do not think I was in the house more than ten minutes—when I got to the station the train was coming up—I shook hands with both and wished them good-bye, when the train moved off Mr. Staunton took his hat off and I kissed my hand to my daughter; I never saw her alive again—there had been no quarrel or words of any kind—the next day or the day after I received a letter from Louis Staunton, enclosing one from my daughter—I have not been able to find those letters, though I have looked everywhere—I think I must have destroyed them—as near as I can remember she told me in that letter that her husband objected to my calling upon her, and she thought I had better not come as it would cause a disturbance between them—the letter from him was to tell me not to come again—it was a very rude insulting letter, telling me he would not have me go to the house again—I did not visit again, in consequence of those letters—I heard sometime in the following year that my daughter had had a boy—sometime in the following year I heard a statement about Alice Rhodes, and in consequence of that began to make inquiries about my daughter—in February of this year I saw Alice Rhodes, at the London Bridge Railway Station—I asked her where my daughter Harriet was—she said she did not know—I said "You must know where she is, you do know where she is," or something to that effect—she then said "Upon my word I do not know"—she afterwards said she was at Brighton with her husband and child—I asked her to give me her address; I noticed she had on a favourite brooch that had been given to my daughter twenty years ago—it was not of much value, but my daughter was fond of it—I said "You have got my daughter's brooch Alice"—she said "Yes, you can take it if you like, but she gave it me"—I said "I will not take it if she gave it you, but I really do not understand her giving it to you as it was her favourite brooch"—I asked her if my daughter was well—she said no, my daughter had been very ill, but was better now—I said "Will you give me the address of her medical man"—she said "Oh, I do not remember, but if you will give me your address I will send it to you," and I gave her my daughter's address where I was stopping then; I never heard from her—I continued to make inquiries after my daughter, and in consequence of some information given me by a charwoman in the Walworth Road, I went to Cudham, near Knockholt, a station on the South Eastern line—on my way there I met Mr. Patrick Staunton, near the ticket place at the South Eastern Railway Station—I saw him come from the train and told him I was going down to Cudham—I asked him where my daughter was, he said he did not know anything about her, and what was I going to Cudham for—I told him I should go and see the clergyman—he said "If you come to my house I will blow your brains out"—he also said "Damn your daughter, I know nothing about her," and went away—when I got to Halstead Station I inquired and found that Louis Staunton was living in the neighbourhood—I took a cab and drove to his house—Little Gray's Farm was the name of it—I got there about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, on the 5th March, 1877—I think it was five miles from the station—when I knocked at the door Mrs. Patrick Staunton answered it—I

asked to see Mrs. Staunton, my daughter—then Mr. Louis Staunton came along—he was in a great passion, and swore at me, and said I should not see her; he would not allow me to see her—I said "If you will only let me hear her voice or see her hand on the bannisters, I shall then go away content that she is in her proper place, with her husband"—he was going to strike me with a knife, and Mrs. Patrick Staunton said "No, don't hit her"—that was in a little room on the right hand side, going in from the door, where they appeared to have been dining—he called me a dirty old bitch, and other names—then I begged of Mrs. Staunton to let me see my daughter, and told her "Some day you will want to see your children and you will be denied"—she said "Your daughter is well cared for"—I am not quite sure whether it was Mrs. Staunton who opened the front door, but they bustled me out as soon as they could; pushed me out—Louis and Mrs. P. Staunton were the only persons present; the cabman was standing outside the door—when I got into the fly he pointed out to me a Dr. Creasy who was coming by—I made some enquiry of Dr. Creasy, and then came home—shortly afterwards I made an application to the Magistrate at Marlborough Street police-court—I afterwards went down to Sevenoaks, and on 9th April I went to Bromley, before the Magistrates in Court there, but I was unable to get any information about my daughter—on Sunday, the 15th, I received this telegram from a Mrs. Urridge, in consequence of which I went at once to 34, Forbes Road, Penge—(I had been several times to Mrs. Urridge, she was the landlady of Little Gray's Farm)—I there saw my daughter lying dead—when I last saw my daughter at the end of June, 1875, she was in very good health; she was always in good health; she had very good general health—she was always well dressed, very fond of dress, and knew how to dress—she was a very clean girl indeed; very particular in her person—she was a temperate person, not at all given to drink—I won't say she did not take a glass of ale at her dinner, she was. not in the habit of drinking to excess—this photograph (produced) which was taken of her about nine months before her marriage, fairly represents her at that time—when I saw her on the Sunday she was in her coffin—I noticed a great change in her, apart from the change from life to death—we always treated her more like a child, because she was so simple—there was no change whatever in her habits as to cleanliness up to time I last saw her; she was looking old, very much older than she really was, and looking very dirty and very miserable; greatly changed; in fact I scarcely knew her—this letter (produced) is in my daughter's handwriting; this is her ordinary mode of spelling—she had the opportunity of being educated, but she was not able to avail herself of it—these three other letters were received; this one is from Mr. Staunton, I think—I remember these three letters being received; this one is from Mrs. Patrick Staunton—this is my laughter's letter. (Read: "Friday. My own darling,—I write these few lines hoping this will find you well. Will you be down on Sunday? if not, shall be disappointed. Hope to see you on Monday; if not, will you let me know which day you will be down, by Percy. It has been raining all ay. Will you bring me down peace ribon and frilling for my colour and selves? I hope to return to town with you soon. Percy is coming back to-morrow night, so I believe—Tommy is quite well; so good night, my dear, and God bless you. Will you let me know? I have not had clean flanel for a month. I have been here a month on Saturday; it is time I should be at home; my boots has wore out. From your affectionate wife, Harriett")

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I was very much averse to the marriage from the first—the proceedings in lunacy with regard to my late daughter, were taken I believe at the end of 1874—I thought it was my petition but I understand it was my sou's, I was not aware of it at the time—I have since ascertained that it was my son's petition in his name for me; I remember that I made an abstract of the proceedings—I did not know that my daughter Harriett had made a voluntary settlement on my son of her money, till Mr. Straight read it in Court—I knew nothing of it before and 1 have not heard of it since—Mr. Straight read it and spoke to me about it. Mr. Straight here stated that he did not read it.) I never heard from my daughter before her marriage that she wished to register that settlement, she never spoke to me on the subject of any settlement at all—she had been living with me prior to her marriage, but the last six months prior to her marriage she was living first in Heygate Street with her aunt Ellis, with whom she stayed till her aunt Ellis died, and then she went to live with Mrs. Hincksman—the house belonged to my sister Mrs. Ellis—Mrs. Hincksman is not my sister; she stayed with Mrs. Ellis four or five months—she ceased to live with me seven or eight months before her marriage, I am speaking to the best of my recollection, I do not think it could have been more—I remember that I made an affidavit in the lunacy petition—I do not remember what it stated; I do not remember stating that my daughter had occasional fits of violence—I have never stated to my knowledge that my daughter Harriett had always been of weak intellect and had a running of saliva from her mouth—I objected to that when the lawyer put it to me when the affidavit was read—I never remember her having saliva running from her month—I was net aware until you told me that I had sworn it, or I would not. have done so if I had known it—she was quick tempered, but quiet and harmless—I said in the affidavit" Believing her to be of unsound mind and unable to enter into any contract, I advised her not to marry; but when I endeavoured to reason with her on the subject she became very violent, and has always been excited when I have spoken to her on the subject, and has even threatened to kill me"—that is true; she did once threaten me—I verily believe she was of unsound mine and—incapable of managing her property—I know that my son Archibald has also made an affidavit, but I have never seen it—he is in Australia, at least he was some months ago—I don't know where he is at the present moment—she showed signs of violent temper to me when I spoke to her of marriage—I persuaded her not to marry; Drs. Tuke and Williams saw her, they reported her to be of sound mind—I say that she was hysterical—I did not say that on one occasion of an altercation I had with her she took out' a knife to me, I said a chair—that was a mistake of somebody's—if I said a knife before the Magistrate I must have confused it, I meant a chair—she took it up in a threatening way—the last communication I had with her after her marriage, after I last saw her, was the letter that has been produced—I only saw her on that one occasion after her marriage—the interview lasted about ten minutes; I had come from Essex—the meeting was quiet a pleasant and harmonious one—when I saw her previously was before her marriage—I saw her once afterwards, about three weeks—it must have been twelve mouths since 1 saw her previously—Mr. Staunton was present all the time of my last visit—my daughter answered the door—it was Mr. Staunton who spoke to me about a servant—we went into the dining" room, but Mr. Staunton was in a little conservatory close by—I considered

it was not right to have no servant—I did not speak angrily—I was only doing my duty as a mother—she had scalded her hand—when he told me he had advertised for a servant, I said no more—I then went upstairs—I said the bed-room wanted a bedstead, as there did not appear to be a room for the servant to sleep in—I said so to both; my daughter accompanied me over the house—it is a small house; I do not know that Alice Rbodes was with my daughter at her confinement—the brooch referred to is of very little value, but my daughter prized it.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I made Mrs. Patrick Staunton's acquaintance before she was married, some years ago; before I knew of the' attachment of Louis Staunton to my daughter—I do not know how many children Mrs. Patrick had—I knew at the time she had been lodging at Loughborough Road she had children—I do not know how many—I do not say I had not seen my daughter for nearly twelve months prior to her marriage—I saw her in Chancery Lane in 1874—the marriage was on 16th June, 1875; before that she went to Mrs. Ellis' and remained till her death, and then she went to Mrs. Hincksman—the period of those visits extended over six months, perhaps more—she never wrote to me while staying with her aunt Ellis and Mrs. Hincksman; she could not write—she seldom or ever wrote—she was not a good hand at letter writing; she was a bad speller—she was always violent to me if I spoke of marriage—I did not want her to be married, she was not fit—I know nothing of her threatening my son Archibald, or of the pecuniary relationship between him and her it the time I took the proceedings in lunacy—she had not communicated with me about his being possessed of her money; I do not believe he knew my thing about it; he was not trustee—I do not know that he had the administration of her 1,500l. or 1,600l. at the time of her marriage—I have never heard about it till I was cross-examined before—I never wrote a letter to my daughter after I paid the visit to her in the Loughborough. Road—I received a letter from her requesting me not to call, also one from Louis Staunton complaining of my conduct—I took active steps to discover her whereabouts after I heard of her confinement—that would be in March, 1876—Little Gray's Farm lies back from the road—there is only a small lawn in front, and then the roadway—I noticed part of a shoulder of mutton the table; it appeared as if some persons had partaken of a meal—it was small house—I do not remember saying, when in the house, that I believed my daughter was in a lunatic asylum—I do not remember Mrs. Patrick Staunton saying that that was a wicked thing of me to say, and at she had had dinner with my daughter that day (5th March), and that e was quite well—I will swear that I did not say to Mrs. Patrick Staunton "That is a lie," or "You are a liar"—I was in considerable anxiety and distress about my daughter—I cannot remember saying before the Magistrate at Bromley that I begged Mrs. Patrick Staunton to let me see my daughter, or that I said anything about "One day you may want to see one of your children"—I recollect it was said, but not before the Magistrate—ten Patrick Staunton exhibited some anger towards me Mrs. Patrick said don't strike her."

Cross-examined by MR. GYE. At the meeting at Louis Staunton's with Alice Rhodes I asked about my daughter, where she was—I never mentioned about her confinement—she said "You should see Harriett with little Tommy, it is great fun"—I understood that to be Mrs. Harriett Staunton's Child—I did not make any reply to the observation, because I knew

what she meant, I knew my girl was a very simple-minded girl, and 1 knew it would be fun to see her with a baby—I said nothing about little Tommy not being my daughter's child—I asked his name and she told me it was Thomas Henry—nothing was said about my daughter's health subsequent to her confinement—after her confinement I simply asked how my daughter's health was—she said she had been very ill and had got better—that did not refer to the state of her health consequent upon her confinement—I wanted to know how she was at the present moment—she said she would write to me as to whether she had medical attention, and who the medical attendant was—she did not say that that illness was consequent upon her confinement—I cannot swear that when I told Alice Rhodes I wanted to see my daughter very much she said "It is time you did see her;" if I said so before the Magistrate, it is correct.

Re-examined by THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL. My son Archibald is twenty-five; he has been in Australia a year last January—I did not stay longer than ten minutes on my visit because I thought there might be words—they were kind and civil, and I thought I had better get away while they were civil—I was quite pleased to make friends because I knew Mr. Staunton was very much against me—Mr. Staunton did not in the least resent my remark about the room or the servant.

GEORGE CAKEBREAD . I am a porter at the Bromley Railway Station—I was there on the night of Thursday, 12th April—I remember seeing all the prisoners there that night—it was just as the train from Bickley was coming in due at 8.26—it might have been two minutes late, but I cannot say—one of the male prisoners spoke to me; I cannot say which—he asked me to ask the guard to keep the train, as he had got an invalid lady to go by the train—I was in the booking-office—I told him I could not do that—I then went outside the station—I saw the two male prisoners lifting a female out of a wagonette—I saw the female prisoners come through the booking-office—the lady was got into the booking-office by one man getting hold of each side of her and they lifted her down, when one of her slippers came off and I picked it up and gave it to one of the male prisoners—I do not know what he did with it—the lady was carried on to the platform—I took hold of one side of the lady while one man got into the carriage, a first-class one; when in the carriage he took her arm from me, the other male prisoner had hold of the other arm in lifting her into the carriage—during that time I believe the slipper was dropped again—I did not see it—all the prisoners got into the same carriage—I heard one of the female prisoners ask for five first-class tickets to Penge—I saw the lady; she looked very bad and seemed to roll her eyes about very much—I never heard her speak—she did not seem as if she was able to stand on her legs—before the train started one of the prisoners asked me to put the trap up for him—I asked him where, and he said "Over at Beaumont's"—that is a livery stable over the Two Brewers opposite the station—I said yes, and they said they would see me when they came back—the train started towards Penge and London—no one else was in the carriage except the four prisoners and the lady—I believe Cudham is about 7 or 8 miles from Bromley—the journey by train from Bromley to Penge would be about a quarter of an hour—I saw the two male prisoners again the same night at Bromley station—they arrived either by the 10.56 or 11.56 train; I cannot say which—one of them spoke to me about the trap before leaving the station—I did not see them in the carriage; I saw them leave the carriage—I did not see a slipper at the station next

morning—it was picked it up by a porter named Watson—I saw it in the afternoon—it was a list slipper; similar to this one (produced) I picked up when the lady was getting out of the carriage.

HENRY WATSON . I am a porter at the Bromley Railway Station—I recollect the 8.26 train coming in on Thursday, 12th April—I remember seeing a lady being helped into a first carriage by somebody—Cakebread was one; he was holding her on one side and a gentleman on the other—I don't know if it was one of the prisoners—she was not able to walk; she—was dragged—her feet dragged on the ground—I was not close enough to notice her face—I found a slipper next morning on the railway, between 4 and 5 o'clock—the slipper was lying between the rail and the platform—I gave it to the station-master—the one produced is what I found.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. It appears as. if the train had been over it.

ROBERT MARSH . I am a ticket collector at the Penge Bail way Station—I recollect the 8.36 train coming in from Bromley on the evening of Thursday, 12th April—I saw the passengers arrive by it—the four prisoners are those I saw—they had an invalid lady with them—Patrick Staunton lifted her out of the train—I noticed her condition and fetched a. chair to enable her to sit down—I could see she could not stand, but they were holding her up—I did not go near enough to speak to her—I. cannot say whether she was conscious—the lady was carried to a cab by the two gentlemen—it was Hepplethwaite's cab—the porter fetched him—one gentleman got into the cab and took her hand and the other put her in—the cab was ordered to 34, Forbes Road—when Louis Staunton went to give me the ticket she put out her arms—Mrs. Patrick Staunton put the shawl over her arm and said "You shall have your supper directly."

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. The prisoners and the lady were at the station nearly ten minutes—I was standing at the door where I had taken, the tickets the whole time—this room is on the platform—I took the chair as far as from me as that wall where the clock is—the two ladies. stood by the chair and the other gentleman came towards me and gave me the tickets; it was Mr. Louis Staunton—I met him half way—I noticed her put her arm out; he was standing close to her; he was supporting her in the chair—the two female prisoners went away before the cab arrived—they went two or three minutes before the men did—I did not hear the lady speak, she merely groaned—I cannot say if she spoke without my hearing her—I heard her groan when she put her arm out; I did not hear her say anything.

JAMES THOMAS HILDER . I was station-master at Penge on the 12th April this year—on the evening of that day I saw the' prisoners moving from the direction of a first-class carriage of the train arriving at 8.36—I afterwards saw a lady supported by two gentlemen on the platform, and ordered the ticket collector, who has just been a witness, to bring a chair, and the lady was placed in the chair—I should say she was not able to support herself; she was shaking violently—I did not notice her face or hear her speak or make any sound at all—one of the gentlemen said they wanted a cab, and I sent for one—the cab was about ten minutes before it arrived; we had to send up into the villiage for one—there are generally cabs at the station, but there were none then—when the cab arrived I advised them to carry her on the chair, as I was sure she was not in a. fit state to walk—they were lifting her by each arm—they acted upon my

advice, and carried her in the chair to the door of the cab—when they got to the door I advised one of the prisoners to get into the cab and lift her up, and one of my porters lifted the chair up rather higher than the level of the floor of the cab, so that the lady could easily be got from the seat of the chair into the cab—the chair was put as close to the opening of the door as it was possible to get it, and in this way she was got into the cab—the cab then drove away—the female prisoners had left before the cab arrived—I cannot say if they said where they were going, but they made some remark about going—I did not hear one word spoken by the lady from the time I saw her supported on the platform till she was got into the cab.

CHARLES HEPPLETHWAITE . I am cab driver—on the night of Thursday, 12th April, I was sent for to the Penge Railway Station—I got there about 9 o'clock or a little after—I saw a lady brought out of the station in a chair and she was put into the cab by the ticket collector and station-master—I think one of the gentlemen got inside the cab first—I saw nothing of any women there, only the two gentlemen—I did not take any notice of the state of the lady—she did not speak—I did not notice her move—I was told to drive to 34, Forbes Road—the two gentlemen got into the cab with the lady—I could not get to 34, Forbes Road because the road was bad—I drove in at the other end of the road, to No. 26 or 27, as near as I could to No. 34—the lady was taken out by the two gentlemen who carried her as far as the gate of No. 34, and I assisted one of the gentlemen with her up the steps and through the passage to the back room which was level with the street door—when we got to the house the street door was already open—I suppose the back room was a bedroom—we sat her down in a chair just inside the door—we got her up the steps by taking hold of her arms—she was not able to stand at all—she did not speak at that time—I did not take particular notice of her, only I thought she was rather light—when he got into the back room I saw all four prisoners there—it took about five minutes to get from Penge Railway Station to the house—there was no luggage, only some parcels which they had inside with them.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. One of the men paid me my fare, and I went about my business in the ordinary way—it was about 20 yards from where the road was up to No. 34, Forbes Road, where we carried the lady—I helped to put her into the chair inside the room, but not when they brought her out of the station—I heard nothing more of it till Sergeant Bateman called me as a witness—I took no further notice about it.

EMMA CHALKLIN . I am the wife of David Chalklin—I had apartments to let at 34, Forbes Road, on the 12th April last, on which day, about noon, Mrs. Patrick and Mr. Louis Staunton came and said they wanted lodgings for an invalid lady; there was some difference about terms, but ultimately they agreed to give 15s. per week—they said they wanted them for three weeks or a month, or probably more—Mr. Louis Staunton wrote down "Mrs. Staunton, Frith Cottage, Cudham"—I believe that document is lost—he said they had a doctor at Cudham who did not understand her case—Mrs. Patrick Staunton was present when he said that—Mrs. Patrick Staunton said they wished to get her near to London to get the advice of a doctor—he said "I have been given to understand that you have very good doctors in Penge," and asked whether I could recommend one, and I recommended Dr. Longrigg, who had attended my little girl—he said that

the lady was inclined to be paralysed, and that her feet had begun to swell and I think they considered that her head would become affected—they said that it would be better to bring her at night that the doctor might see her in the morning—they said she was in good bodily health and that she could eat but she would not—Mrs. Staunton said they tried her with some bread and butter, egg and tea, that morning, and with a great deal of persuasion, they got her to eat a little—it was stated that they were to come at 9.30 in the evening—I was directed to have afire in the bed-room, but they would not require one in the sitting-room, because it would be so late when they came—the sitting-room and bed room were on the first floor—I told them where to go to Dr. Longrigg's—I did not write it down—they said they would call on him—when they left they went in that direction—in the evening the two female prisoners came; I did not let them in, I saw them in afterwards—my little girl let them in—I saw them directly after they came in, they were in the sitting-room—they said the invalid lady had come, and that she was very ill indeed during the journey they thought she would have died, and they could not account at all for her being so ill—I found the invalid lady in bed; she had been brought in without my seeing her—I did not see much of her, she was covered up entirely to her face—she did not speak in my presence—she made a kind of gurgling noise and moaned a great deal—I remarked to the prisoners that I was surprised to see her in bed, I had no idea they had brought her—I said "How shocking it is to see anyone lying here so ill"—neither of them spoke to me on the subject, there was no remark made—I said I expected to see an elderly person, and Mrs. Patrick Staunton said her age was thirty-six, and she was the wife of a gentleman who was there in the morning, and that she had no children—she said that Miss Rhodes was married, but her husband was away, and that she had come to nurse the invalid lady—Miss Rhodes had on a wedding ring and keeper—Mrs. Patrick Stannton said that the two male prisoners had gone to the doctor—I inquired if they wanted anything, and they said they had brought all provisions with them except some bread, and they asked whether I could lend them some—I then went downstairs—some time afterwards I was called up by Mr. Louis Staunton—I did not let him in, I think they did—he said that he had been to the doctor's, but he was not at home—he said the servant told him Mr. Longrigg was out and would not be at home till late, and that he asked her what she called late, and she said 1 o'clock in the morning—he said there seemed to be nobody that would take a message—I recommended him another doctor, Dr. Turner, but he said "There is no necessity for it; I do not like to behave like that to Mr. Longrigg without speaking to him"—I did not go into the bed room again' that night; at the time I left all the four prisoners were in the sitting-room—shortly after that Alice Rhodes came to the top of the stairs and asked me to boil some eggs, jiving me two eggs—she said that Mrs. Staunton had woke up and wanted some supper, and she said "I am sure she must require some supper after her long journey"—I boiled the eggs and took them up into the sitting-room—I found Alice Rhodes there alone—I brought up some plates and knives—shortly afterwards Mrs. Patrick Staunton called me up and asked one to boil another egg—Alice Rhodes was alone in the sitting-room putting he tablecloth on for supper—Mrs. Patrick Staunton gave me the other egg herself to boil, which I did, and brought it up myself—they only brought a high basket with them—I took up some bread when I took up the plates—

I did not see Patrick that night—she said Mr. Staunton and her husband had gone to the doctor—they brought their own table and bed linen—I supplied the plates and knives and forks—the next morning about 8.15 the bell was rung and I went into the sitting-room where Mrs. Pk. Staunton and Alice Rhodes were sitting by the window—they said they had been waiting for the doctor—I received an egg to boil—I did not know who it was for at the time—after breakfast Mrs. Pk. Staunton asked me to have a fire alight before the doctor came; I lit the fire—they had the folding doors open and were watching me all the time—I looked at the invalid lady and thought she was asleep—she was lying perfectly still—I cleared some remains of the egg from the dressing-table—there was some egg spread on bread and butter and a cup three parts full of tea—the remainder of the egg was in the sitting-room—when Mrs. Pk. Staunton asked me to send for the doctor I asked her when, and she said "Presently will do"—Alice Rhodes afterwards called out "Cannot you let the little girl go for the doctor at once," and I said "Yes, the little girl shall go"—I made a remark would not it be better for one of them to go themselves—it was at breakfast time that they said the lady was very ill indeed—Alice Rhodes went to get her jacket, and came in with it in her hand, while I was there about 9 o'clock—she appeared very anxious—she went for the doctor at once in the direction of Dr. Longrigg's—I went down the steps to show her—while she was gone Mrs. Pk. Staunton said the invalid lady came to her house on Saturday to see her, and they dined together and had steak and potatoes; that she appeared apparently in good health and said what a nice steak it was, and she stayed the remainder of the day till the evening, and Mr. Pk. Staunton went home with her and they had supper at the invalid lady's house, and she was taken poorly after supper, and that she did not see her on the Sunday, because she, Mrs. Pk. Staunton, went out to spend the day on Sunday, and did not see her—that would be the Sunday before, but on the Monday morning she went to see her she said, and she noticed how ill she was, and she said "How ill you look my dear," and she said "Yes I am," but she seemed better on the Tuesday, and on Wednesday and Thursday she was very poorly—she. said the invalid lady lived close to her—I heard the doctor come in at about 10.30, and he stayed about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—directly Mrs. Pk. Staunton let the doctor out I went up to ask her what he had said, and she said the doctor said that it was an epileptic fit she had had—Alice Rhodes had gone to the chemist's to get the prescription made up—Mrs. Patrick said what a nice man the doctor was and very clever, and he seemed to understand the case, and that she would probably be ill three weeks, and she was to be kept very quiet and have plenty of nourishment—she did not say whether the doctor said she would be likely to get well—she said she asked the doctor to send a nurse as she wished to go home to her own children and she could not stay herself, and it would be too much for one—she said the doctor was coming back in half an hour—Alice Rhodes and the nurse then came, the little girl let them in—I asked Mrs. Pk. Staunton when she thought she had had the fit and she said "Goodness gracious knows, I don't know"—I asked her whether it was on the Sunday when she was so ill, and that was the remark she made to me—I took a jug of hot water up about 1 o'clock; she rang the bell for it and I had to heat it and she called for it in a great hurry—the doctor had been a second time, between 12 and 1 o'clock—from 2.30 to 2.45 I was talking to the baker at the door—

while I was doing so Mr. Lee, the undertaker, came to the door—it was nearer 2.45 than 2.30—I did not know that Mrs. Staunton was dead and sent him away, thinking it might be No. 24 instead of 34—ten minutes afterwards I saw Mrs. Pk. Staunton at the sitting-room door and spoke to her about the lady—I asked her how she was and the remark she madewas "She is gone"—I went upstairs shortly afterwards and asked her if I should go for the undertaker and she said "There is no occasion, thank you, he is here"—about 4.45 I heard a rap at the front door and it was Mrs. Pk. Staunton—I was surprised, because I thought they were all at home—when I opened the door she said would I be kind enough to ask her husband when he came home to come to Bromley and he would understand what I meant—I asked her whether Louis Staunton was in time to see his wife and she said he was in the bed-room with her when she died, and that she and her sister were at the station at the time of the death, and she did not know where the nurse was at all—I had not seen Alice Rhodes; the little girl let her in with the nurse—Mrs. Pk. Staunton said. I could please myself about telling her husband of the death—I asked her if I was alone in the house and she said "Yes, my sister has gone some time and the nurse will come in the evening, and I will see you again"—she then went away—Patrick Staunton came at 5.45 and I told him of the death and gave him the message—he said he knew she was very ill when he was there in the morning—he stood talking a few minutes and then went away—when I came in after talking to him I found the sitting-room and bed-room door locked—the curse came with the undertaker on Saturday night; she unlocked the door—I saw none of the prisoners on the Saturday—I recollect Mrs. Butterfield coming on the Sunday when the door of the room was locked and. Mrs. Gooding had the key, which I did not know till the middle of Saturday—My husband went for the nurse and she opened the door and allowed Mrs. Butterfield to see her daughter—on the Sunday night the police came with the doctor—I had not seen Mr. Patrick since Friday night.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. On Thursday morning when Louis Staunton came to my place he wrote down on an envelope "Mrs. Staunton, Frith Cottage, Cudham, Kent," as being the address of the invalid lady—I save not got the envelope—that was her proper address—before the Magistrate, Louis Staunton said he had had a doctor but he did not understand the work—I said to the Solicitor-General that he said he had had a doctor at Cudham but he did not understand the case—I was asked the question where she had a doctor; I said so before the Magistrates at Bromley—I did not say that he said a doctor had not seen her at Cudham because he thought he would not understand the case—I had been downstairs to get the envelope and when I came back he made that Remark—ho said he thought of taking her to London at first, but that it would not suit her head; it would be too noisy, and that he understood here were very good doctors at Pehge—it was arranged they should bring their own linen, between me and Mrs. Staunton and Mrs. Pk. Staunton—they seemed surprised at her being taken so ill—when Mrs. Pk. Staunton told me that the invalid lady was the wife of Louis Staunton she volunteered that information to me, as also that Alice Rhodes was Mrs. Pk. Staunton's sister—she brought a high basket with her, somewhat higher than a hamper—I think I said "I got the breakfast and they wanted me to send for bacon, but Miss Rhodes went because I could not send; I boiled an egg for the deceased lady; I understood it was for the invalid lady"—the egg was

lying on the plate and I asked whether I should boil it, and Mrs. Staunton said "Yes, you may as well."

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. The expression that Mrs. Patrick made use of to me was that the doctors said Mrs. Harriott had had an epileptic fit not an apoplectic fit—before the Magistrate I said that he said she must be under the doctor's care three weeks—at the inquest 1 said "She did not say whether the doctor said she would recover, but that he thought he could bring her round in three weeks"—I noticed on the Friday morning when I saw Mrs. Patrick Staunton that she seemed tired and worn out—I think I used the expression that she seemed as if she had been sitting up all night—during the time she was at my house she seemed to be making everr effort she could to assist the unfortunate lady—they both did.

Cross-examined by MR. GYE. When Alice Rhodes said that she had woke up and wanted some supper, she seemed anxious for her to have it.

By THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Several times Alice Rhodes made the remark that she could not understand her being taken so ill.

By MR. GYE. In the morning, about 9 o'clock, when Mrs. Staunton asked me to send for the doctor, Alice Rhodes was present—afterwards, Alice Rhodes asked me the same question—they were in the sitting-room the first time they asked; I went downstairs, and when I came up again they were in the bed-room and then Alice Rhodes asked me if I could send for the doctor directly—it was a few minutes before Mrs. Staunton asked me that Alice asked me—they had just had time to go into the bed-room—when Alice Rhodes asked me she said "Can she go at once"—she came into the sitting-room with her jacket in her hand, put it on, and Mrs. Patrick Staunton said "You go, my dear; you can go quickest"—and Alice Rhodes went immediately—I went down to the gate with her, and I made the remark to her "I would not return without the doctor," and she said "No, that I won't"—I shewed her the quickest, the straightest way—she appeared to go off in a great hurry for him—I assumed that Louis Staunton and Mrs. Patrick Staunton had engaged the rooms of me, and I thought the patient was living with them—Mrs. Patrick Staunton, I thought, had charge of the woman Harriett Staunton—she did not say so, but I thought so—I was" not asked the question before the Magistrate whether Mrs. Patrick Staunton had the charge of her that I can remember—I thought Mr. Louis Staunton and Mrs. Patrick Staunton were man and wife—I considered Mrs. Patrick Staunton had charge of the woman who was ill, when they were in the house on the Thursday morning—I did not see anything in the conduct of Alice Rhodes inconsistent with anxiety for the invalid—she seemed very anxious.

Re-examined by THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL. I have told you all I saw with regard to the treatment of the invalid lady.

Thursday, September 20th, 1877.

ELLEN GOODING . I was engaged as nurse to attend upon the deceased lady by Dr. Longrigg, about 11 o'clock, on the morning of Friday, the 13th, and went at once—Alice Rhodes showed me into the bed-room where the patient was and gave me a blister—I went downstairs to make beef tea, then went direct into the room—the patient laid as though she was in a fit and never moved at all till she died—I tried to ascertain if she was conscious by speaking to her—then I went to the door and asked Mr. Louis Staunton if ho would come to the door and sec if she would speak to him—he came in

with Mr. Pk. Staunton; they both stood some minutes in the room—I spoke to her and tried to point them out, but she took no notice—about 12 o'clock I said "Will you send for the doctor, please, for I think your lady is very much worse," that was in the front room—Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton and Mr. Louis Stauuton were present; the latter went directly for the doctor—I tried to give the patient some beef tea, also medicine, but she could not swallow anything—about 1.30 she appeared to be dying—I went to the door which opened into the sitting-room and asked Mr. Louis Staunton if he would like to see the last of the lady, as I did not think she would be here long—Mrs. Patrick Staunton said "Do not ask him, nurse, you worry him so"—the lady died a few minutes after—neither of them went into the room before she died—I told them that the lady was dead and I should want some sheets to lay her out in, should I ask the landlady for some—Mrs. Pk. Staunton said I had better not ask the landlady for she did not think she had any, as the room was poorly furnished—there was no blind to the window—I asked her what I was to do, if I should borrow sheets, and she said she would be very much obliged to me if I would—I went to where I had been nursing, borrowed the sheets, and took them back—when I went to wash the body I found it in such a filthy state I could not wash it—I had never seen anything so dirty before—the head was alive with lice, and the dirt on the body was something like the bark of a tree, as though it had been on for a long time and not washed at all—she had on a white gown and chemise—I tore them off and put her a clean night dress on—before she died Dr. Longrigg came into the bed-room and said to me she was dying—he then went into the front room to the Stauntons—I did not hear what passed then—after I had laid her out, as I was going to borrow the sheets, Mr. Staunton named to me about the undertaker—I mentioned Mr. Lee—Mr. Staunton told me 1 was to give an order for a black coffin, a hearse, and a coach, and that the funeral was to take place on Monday—when I went to borrow the sheets I left word at the Park Tavern for the undertaker to come—about an hour and a half after I had finished laying out the body Mr. Louis and Mrs. Pk. Staunton said to me they were going away as they lived so far off—Mrs. Staunton asked me to keep the key of the room, they expected friends to see her, and it would be handier for them to come to me for the key—I asked Dr. Longrigg if I should come to him for the certificate on Saturday morning and he said "Yes"—in consequence of my conversation with Dr. Longrigg I registered the death on Saturday morning—on Saturday night I had just come out of the house for Mr. Lee when the police and Dr. Longrigg came up with another gentleman and called for the body—the body had been left alone during the Friday, and down to Saturday night no one went in; the room was locked up and I had the key at the Park Tavern.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. When I took the key of the room, Louis Staunton told me I was to show the body to any one that came—anybody coming to the front door could be seen by anybody in the front room out of the window—I had no conversation on Friday morning with lady I had been attending had laid a long time as if she was in a fit, as I had seen other people lay before—I told him, and it was a fact, that I had seen other people lay in the Same way before—I do not think she understood anything that was going on—I told them so; I tried to make her understand—I do not think she was conscious any time after I first saw her—I did say to

Patrick Staunton "I think, air, if you come into the room she would know you"—I also said I had seen a great many people suffering from the same kind of fits—he went into the room with me and stayed some minutes by the bed, and I tried to make her sensible and notice, but she did not—I do not remember that he said "How she has changed;" I cannot say that he did not—about 11 o'clock I asked him to go for the doctor, and he at once did so—I did not hear the conversation that he had with the doctor—after the death, Louis Staunton asked me if I would take charge of everything, and I said I would, and I would show the body to anybody that came—I did not say, "Don't bother yourself, it will do no good; I will see to everything"—he asked me if I would take charge of the key and show the body if anybody came to see her, and I said the key will be in the bar, and if anybody else asked, he was to see her.

By THE COURT. I said if he wanted the key it would be in the bar—I did not mean to convey it would be there for him only—I was to show the body by his order to any one that came, and the key was to be in the box if he came, but the barman was not to give the key to strangers—he said if they, that meant Mrs. Patrick Staunton or himself, came for the key, I was to give it them, and I was to show the body to anybody else that came—nobody was to have the key unless they came—he said if any stranger came I was to go over and show the body to them.

Cross-examination continued. That conversation took place after I had changed the poor woman's night-dress and after she had been laid out—I did not say anything to him about the dirty state of the body or about the state her hair was in—I had not seen the dirt on the body, or the state of her hair before Mrs. Patrick Staunton left—Mrs. Patrick Staunton left before—I did not mention it to any of the prisoners.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I did not notice whether her arms were rigid or stiff during the last half hour of her life—I never saw her eyes move; they were fixed—I never saw her move at all—Mrs. Patrick Staunton did not appear to be much exhausted and distressed, but she seemed very nervous; neither of them appeared to have been sitting up—the police came in on Saturday night between 9 and 10 o'clock.

Cross-examined by MR. GYE. I put on a blister and gave her some beef tea by the doctor's orders—Alice Rhodes gave me the blister and the beef tea—I endeavoured to get the patient to swallow it, and Alice Rhodes held the cup—I do not know whether Alice Rhodes went to fetch the doctor; she was with me only a few minutes—the hands and face of the patient were cleaner than the other parts of the body—I did not observe any particular dirt on the night-dress—it had been worn a week or a little more, or a fortnight—there was dirt from illness on the night-dress, and it was as dirty as if it had been worn a week or rather more—before the Magistrate I said "There was no particular dirt on the night-dress;" I do not remember using the words "I did not observe any dirt on the night-dress or on the face, neither during life or when I laid her out"—there was a great deal of hair.

By THE COURT. It was false hair, I think—I did not remove the hair because of the state it was in.

Re-examined by THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL. Her hair was alive with lice; it had not been attended to—I did not look at it enough to distinguish between the real and the false hair; when I saw the state it was in I did not examine it to see whether it was false hair or her own.

By MR. STRAIGHT. When I went to the deceased lady in the morning I found she had been suffering from diarrhoea very much.

By THE COURT. She had been suffering from diarrhoea a great deal when I saw her in the morning—when I first went in the morning I saw Alice Rhodes, and she gave me the blister—I do not remember that she told me the patient had been suffering from diarrhoea—I do not remember her saying anything more than "Here is the blister and the beef tea"—I do not remember anybody saying anything about the diarrhoea until I saw it myself—I did not mention it to Alice Rhodes—the deceased's hair did not look as if it had been brushed or combed for a very long time.

JOSEPH LEU . I am an undertaker at Penge—on Friday, 13th April, about 2 o'clock or 2.15, Dr. Longrigg's assistant came to me and I went to 34, Forbes Road—I saw Mrs. Chalklin, the landlady—I went away about ten minutes afterwards and returned—I went into the front parlour where I saw Mr. Louis and Mr. Patrick Staunton—I told them who I was and that the funeral would be carried out; an arrangement was made to bury at Beckeuham on Monday at 2 o'clock—I said forty-eight hours' notice of the funeral would be required for opening the ground—Mr. Staunton gave me the name Harriett Staunton, aged thirty-six, to put on the coffin—he did not write it down for me, I wrote it down myself—he gave me his address "Mr. L. Staunton, Little Gray's Farm, Cudham," in case I should want to write to him to let him know the time the funeral would take place—he said he wanted the funeral respectable, but not too expensive—I was not told what relation the lady was—I understood that the followers would be him and his mother, or the lady's mother, I am not quite certain—I afterwards left and the coffin was taken in on Saturday, for which purpose the nurse opened the room for me; she unlocked the room and I took in the coffin; I did not fasten it down—I have been undertaker in the neighbourhood of Penge about fourteen years—Penge is in two counties, Kent and Surrey—part of Forbes Road is in one county and part in the other; No. 34 is in the county of Kent, in the parish of Beckenham, and the place of registration would be Bromley—the place of registration for the other part of Forbes Road would be Croydon—the funeral did not take place on Monday, there was an inquiry, and it was postponed for some time—Mr. Staunton, the same gentleman I had seen, paid me 9l. 6.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. On the Sunday when I went down Cudham, Louis Stauuton told me he would rather wait if there was thought to be anything wrong about it, he was in no hurry about the funeral; at hat time everything was ready for the funeral.

Re-examined by THE ATTOHRNEY-GENERAL. On the Sunday night Sergeant Bateman told me not to carry out the funeral—on Sunday I went to Cudham to know what I was to do—then Louis Staunton said what I have mentioned.

DEAN LONGRIGG ., M. R. C. S. I am a general practitioner at Penge—I am not a physician—about 11 o'clock on the morning of 12th April Mr. Louis and Mrs. Patrick Staunton called at my house—they said they had got an valid lady living down in the country and they wished to bring her up and put her under my charge; I think it was Mrs. Patrick who said that—I asked the nature of her case and they said the lady was of weak intellect—the statements to me were generally made by Mrs. Patrick, she was chief spokeswoman, but Louis was present and assented, and sometimes made statements of his own; each spoke in the presence and hearing of the other

—I cannot recollect minutely what Mrs. Patrick said or what Mr. Louis said, hut I can give the substance of the conversation—I asked if the patient was paralysed and they said "Yes," she had lost the use of the loft side—I asked if she was cleanly in her habits—they said she was—I asked that because in cases of paralysis the patient is often very dirty—they said she was extremely thin, but hearty—after I learnt that she was paralysed I asked if she had had a fit and they said "Not to my knowledge"—I asked who had been attending her—they told me they would bring her up that day from Cudham—he said that a medical man bad been in attendance who lived 7 or 8 miles from the place and could not give the deceased the attention that be would like her to have—I asked the medical man's name—they were very reluctant to answer me, but at last said Dr. Creasy, of Brastead—I asked if it was Dr. Creasy, of Gravesend, as I knew him—they said "No," it was Dr. Creasy, of Brastead—I asked no further questions—I knew that the invalid lady lived at Cudham, but did not know what part of Kent it was in; I thought, perhaps, it might be near Gravesend—the had been ill for some time, I don't know how long—I entered the name "Staunton" in a visiting list and arranged to pay the invalid a visit the following morning—on the Thursday evening I went out to visit some friends and did not get home till 3 o'clock the next morning when I found a note from my assistant from which I understood that I was desired to go that evening to see the lady who had been brought up from Cudham and was much worse—I did not go then, for I thought as they had been twice she must be very bad, and that they certainly would have sent for some other medical man by that time—the time stated in the note was 10.30—the following morning (Friday) Alice Rhodes came to me, about 9 o'clock, before 1 was up—I got up, dressed, and accompanied her to Forbes Road—she told me they had been expecting me all night; the lady was worse—when I got there Mrs. Pk. Staunton let me in at the door—I went first into the parlour, then into the bed-room where the invalid was—that was a little before 10 o'clock—Mrs. Patrick and Alice Rhodes were in the room with me; no one else—I examined the patient—her pulse was very quick and weak, about 110—her arms were rigid; she was perfectly insensible—the pupil of the right eye was slightly dilated, that of the left contracted to a pin's point—the breathing was stertorous and laboured—the features indicated distress—the balls of the eyes were very much shrunken, their colour was a slight bronze—I noticed the lady was very much emaciated and in a dirty condition—I observed pediculi or lice in her hair—her hands were dirty, particularly her finger-nails—I tried to rouse her, but she did not move, or take the slightest notice—I came to the conclusion that it was an apoplectic seizure, and told her friends Mrs. Pk. Staunton and Alice Rhodes, that she was extremely ill and would not get over it; would not recover—they made no remark—Mrs. Patrick said that she had been like that all night with the stertorous breathing, and asked me to recommend a nurse; I sent one in—I wrote out a prescription for the patient to be made up at my own surgery, and said that I would call again—I did not say that she had had an epileptic fit—I might have said she was in an apoplectic fit—I believe I did say so—I may have said there was no accounting for how such things happened—I never in any way conveyed to them that she might be better in three weeks—I knew in my own mind that she was dying and told them so the second visit; I said she should be kept quiet, and prescribed beef tea and milk for her—I had been given to understand that Mrs. Pk. Staunton was

the sister-in-law of Louis Staunton—about 12 o'clock on that day Mr. Louis Staunton came for me, to say his wife was much worse—I said I would follow him shortly—it was about 12.30 when I got there—the nurse was in the bed-room with the patient, who was dying rapidly—Mrs. Pk. Staunton and Louis Staunton were in the sitting-room; I told them she was dying; they made no remark—I told them I would call again—later on I did call and found that the lady was dead—I saw Mrs. Pk. Staunton and Louis Staunton on this occasion and sympathised with them—on the following day I gave a certificate stating her age, thirty-six, and the cause of death" cerebral disease and apoplexy," that I saw her last on the 13th of April, 1877. the day she died—I had been told she was of weak intellect, and that she had had a fit—I concluded if she had had another fit it would be an apopletic seizure—I did not examine her to ascertain whether she was paralysed, she was so near death the case was so hopeless; I did not go into it at all—I gave the certificate to the nurse and heard nothing more about the matter till the next day when Mr. Cassabianca called upon me—I knew the deceased was Louis Staunton's wife, he told me so when he called, the day before her death—in consequence of a communication that was made to me on the Saturday, I withdrew the certificate and communicated with the coroner—I wrote to him on the 16th April, and he sent me a warrant to make a post-mortem examination, which was made on the 19th of April, at Forbes Road—there were present myself and my partner Mr. Pigott, and Dr. Bright, who came on behalf of the relations of the deceased lady, Dr. Wilkinson, a surgeon to the police, Mr. Lister, a friend of mine who came to me to do some dissection, during the progress of the examination—Mr. Harman, a medical man at Brixton, came on behalf of the prisoners—I made a minute examination of the body—it appeared to be that of a woman forty or fifty years of age nearer fifty, I should say—I made some notes of ray examination—the body was fearfully emaciatad and filthily dirty all over, particularly the feet—the skin of the feet was caked with dirt—the skin was quite hard, horny, the feet were slightly swollen—the horny condition of the feet would be produced by walking without shoes for sometime—there were lice all over the body, principally in the hair of the pelvis, about the vagina and the armpits, and on the head, wherever there was hair on the body—I noticed the bites of these lice on the body, particularly on the abdomen—they are called poverty lice, they breed faster where there is filth and where the body is in a weak, low condition than upon a healthy subject—the hands and nails were very dirty—the interior part of the things were smeared with foeces—there were no signs of marks of violence on the body—the black marks in the posterior part of the back had not existed during life, but were purely post-mortem—the weight of the body was 5 stone 4 lbs.; the height 5 feet 5 1/4 inches, I think—the ordinary weight of that size would be from 9 to 10 stone—the tongue was furred, creamy, like little pieces of egg which had not been swallowed—we found about 4 or 5 ounces of food in the stomach, milk and tea combined with some small pieces of solid food, bacon, undigested—the eyes were shrunken and closed—the white of the eye was perfectly normal, quite clear—we found on the head both real hair and false, not much real—it was very much matted—we were obliged to pull the hair pins out with the forceps and cut or pull the hair off, both real and false, in order to get to the scalp—I should say her hair had not been attended to for a considerable time—the breasts were very small, hardly anything but just the

nipples—she did not appear to have suckled her child—we removed a portion of the skull and examined the brain—there were old adhesions between the external and internal lining membranes of the brain, and there was a slight deposit there of tubercular matter—the brain itself was remarkably healthy and firm—there was every sign that the woman had been in good health—there was no disease of the brain, but there was this slight tubercular deposit—what I considered the abnormal condition of the brain was the old adhesion and the tubercular deposit—I have often seen old adhesions in the post-mortem room—as to its cause there might have been a tendency to it in childhood—the tubercular deposit, in my opinion, may have arisen from want of nourishment—I did not find any serum in the ventricles—the substance of the brain itself was perfectly healthy, but the external and internal blood vessels of the brain were both in an apoplectic state, gorged—I can give a theory as to what caused that gorging of the blood vessels; supposing the patient had been without food some time and a meal were suddenly given to her, that would produce it; it would produce apoplexy—we opened the stomach and the chest, and in the chest we found a tubercular deposit on the apex of the left lung, a deposit of about two inches square—that indicated the commencement of consumption, but that deposit on the lungs had nothing to do with the death—I examined the heart, it was very small, but very healthy—the sac which contains the heart did not adhere to the heart at all—the liver was remarkably small, but very healthy indeed—if this body had been kept without a proper supply of food, and became emaciated in consequence, the heart, liver, and other organs would diminish in size—the heart weighed 7 3/4 ounces, and the average weight of the heart of a female of the height of the deceased would, I should say, be about 9 ounces—the liver was very small, but heathy, and weighed a little over 30 ounces—I cannot give the exact weight, the decimals, but I think the liver weighed 2 pounds 2 1/4 ounces—from 50 to 60 ounces would be about the average weight of the liver of a woman such as the deceased—the gall bladder was full and heathly—the spleen weighed 4 3/4 ounces; about 7 ounces would be the average weight of the spleen in a woman such as deceased—the spleen was very healthy—the kidneys were healthy but very small, the right weighed 3 1/4 ounces, and the left 4 ounces—the average weight would be 9 ounces the two kidneys—the uterus was normal in measurement, but a little congested—there was a greenish, yellowish discharge from the vagina, and the left labia was excoriated—the 0 lower inches of the rectum were highly congested—that might have been occasioned by inflammation—there was not a particle of fat in the body—the congestion gave me the idea that poison might have been administered or taken into the body, irritant or narcotic poison—the condition of the eyes led me to believe that some narcotic poison might hare been taken—the contents of the stomach were analysed by Professor Rodgers, and from him I afterwards learnt that he had not discovered any poison—having learnt that fact, I gave it as my opinion that the cause of death was starvation—I so stated before the Coroner's jury, and before the analysis was completed; that opinion has not been altered by anything I have since heard, and that is my opinion now—the body was in a state of extreme emaciation—in my opinion it would take a considerable time to reduce it to such a state, perhaps three months, and for a considerable time it must have been apparent to those about her that the deceased was wasting away, there could be no mistake about that—there were no signs

that the deceased had been of intemperate habits, on the contrary, that she was a woman of strictly temperate habits—there was such a want of muscular development that I should say she could not have walked about for come time before her death—in a case of death from want, there are appearances of congestion at all the outlets, there is general inflammation of the outlets, and a high state of congestion—that might be produced by congestion or other causes, but it is one of the symptoms—in my opinion the deceased was not in a fit state to be removed from Cudham to Penge on 12th April; that she ought to have been kept quiet and not removed at all—I consider that the removal accelerated her death—the contents of the stomach and intestines were placed in a jar and given to Sergeant Bateman to take to Professor Rodgers.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. In the condition in which the deceased was, death would certainly be accelerated by her removal, and the rough mode in which she was moved would hasten death—in the condition in which She was when I first saw her she might have died if she had been left at Cudham and not removed; the removal of her from one room to another I do not think would materially have affected her, provided she was moved gently; it is a question of degree—my dispenser, Mr. Cox, was in charge when I went out in the evening of the 12th April—I had a conversation with Mrs. Patrick Staunton that day—I asked if the deceased was paralysed, she said she had lost the use of one side—I flexed the arm; it was rigid—you do not get rigidity in paralysis—Mrs. Patrick Staunton told me the deceased had not menstruated for six or seven months—that is a very difficult thing to tell—I considered the statement important at that time—I did not know that deceased had had a child—it did not strike me as of more importance when I had ascertained that fact—I knew it at the post-mortem—I do not consider the fact of the deceaced not having menstruated for six months important—we were unable to decide by examination whether she had had a child or suckled one—our inability to decide was not attributable to the delay; the body was in a beautiful state of preservation at the post-mortem—the external appearances were not altered, nor was the internal appearance of the brain affected—I asked if they had a medical man and they said "Yes"—I asked if they had one living near them and they said "No"—I cannot give the exact words—I did not ask how long he had been attending her, nor as to the treatment—she might have had medical treatment, I did not ask, not at that time—the distance from my house to where deceased was lodging is about 500 yards—I found a note when I reached home that night, saying the lady was worse, and requesting me to go as soon as I came home—I did not believe her to be suffering from apoplexy—I looked upon the prisoners as respectable persons and believed their statement—I believed her to be suffering from what I certified—I never gave it a thought as to what she was suffering from that night: I said in my own mind "This woman is worse and they have sent for another doctor"—Alice Rhodes came for me in the morning before I was dressed, and sent up two messages—I may have said to Mrs. Patrick Staunton at my first visit that the lady was in an apopleptic condition—I prescribed beef tea—I don't think I said that the only chance was to give her nourishing things; she had not a chance, so I could not have said so—I don't think I mentioned nourishing things—I prescribed beef tea and very likely I might have said she must be kept quiet; it is so long ago I cannot wear to it—I saw her twice, but I made no communication to the ladies

there with regard to the state of her hair, her face, or her hands—I had no reason to believe that there were any lice except in her hair during life—I saw them on the head; they breed and spread over the body very rapidly—I do not think they spread over the body after death—I have been in practice ten years; five in my own name and five as a qualified assistant—I have seen and made many post-mortem examinations, and have taken the ordinary hospital notes—I have not my notes here—I took the headings of the different viscera, and when I got home made out my notes in a small pocket-book, which contains private matters besides, I have searched for that book but cannot find it—the last time I saw it was in my consulting-room; it is a small book—I put down the weights and measurements of the different organs—the notes of the post-mortem examination did not occupy very much of the book; perhaps two pages and a half—I do not think I have said before that they occupied much more than that—when 1 say "I cannot tell how many pages of notes there were, perhaps twelve pages," I understood that to refer to the whole of the book, and two and a half pages of them were my notes made at the post-mortem examination; they were the only notes I made—the book is lost and cannot be found—I have some notes with me—I made the first set of notes, which I have still in my possession, half an hour or an hour after the post-mortem examination—I had not seen Dr. Bright's notes; I have my notes here; my dispenser has them in the bag—they are not an exact copy of the notes in the book that I lost; there is a great addition to them—the set of notes I made half an hour after the examination, are on the blue paper—they were made before I had seen Dr. Bright at all; the other set of notes, Dr. Bright's, were made on the Sunday—the post-mortem examination was on the Thursday, I think—I read Dr. Bright's notes all over; be gave them to me—the notes endorsed "Dr. Longrigg's notes of the post-mortem examination," were sent to Professor Rodgers—the second set of notes I made contain a narrative of the conversation that took place; I put it down, and then an account of the post-mortem appearances in cases of death from, starvation; they are for my own observation; it was not written when the notes were written, it was a day afterwards—the two sets of notes are the only papers or notes I have of the post-mortem examination—the chief part of the post-mortem examination, the dirty part of it, was done by my partner, Mr. Piggott—I dissected all the viscera and the brain—I think the height of the woman was 5 feet 5 inches; you will see it in the notes—when I speak of the average weight as between 9 and 10 stone, I compare it to a woman of that height; the lightest weight I have known for a woman of that height in average health, is about 9 stone or 9 stone 41bs.; it depends upon the build—I was not informed by Harriett Staunton's mother that her daughter's weight at her healthiest did not exceed 8 stone; Dr. Bright told me that—the weight depends upon the build; it depends upon the framework; if the framework is slight it might not be 9 stone—it is within my experience that a person of the height of 5 feet 4 1/2 inches might be considerably less than 9 stone in weight, and yet a healthy person—the weights of the particular organs were calculated in reference to the weight of the whole body—the heart would be one two hundred and fortieth part of the weight of the whole body calculated in that way—taking the actual weight of the body; the weight of the different organs of the body corresponded with the natural proportions, whatever the weight of the body might be, the heart would be one two hundred and fortieth part of it.

By THE COURT. In this case the heart, for instance, corresponded with the actual weight of the body as' I found it; if the body had been 9 stone the heart would have been so much larger—taking the weight of the body, the organs were considerably under the size I expected to find them—9 or 10 stone should he the average weight of a woman 5 feet 5 1/2 inches; if the weight had been from 9 to 10 stone then the internal organs, the liver, and so on, would have been much larger than the organs as I found them in the body that was before me; the organs of the body as I found them were of the same size as I should expect to find them in a body that was only 5 feet 5 inches; the internal organs were proportionate to the weight.

By MR. CLARKE. The spleen weighed 4 1/2 ounces and should have weighed 7 ounces—I gave a lower weight than 7 ounces before the Magistrate as a natural weight; I said 5 1/2 ounces to 7 ounces; 5 1/2 ounces would represent a healty state, but it is a mistake that it averages 5 1/2 to 7 ounces—what I said before the Magistrate was "Weighing 4 1/2 ounces against 5 1/2 ounces to 7;" 5 1/2 ounces is correct—the proportionate weight of the liver to the whole body in ordinary cases would be about one thirty-fifth—I did not weigh the brain—my observations during life showed me nothing inconsistent with the account given by the prisoners—I believed what was told me—when I gave my certificate, I had no reason to suspect anything; I gave it in good faith, and so far as I was able, the cause of death stated in my certificate was the cause—I had no idea at the time that there was any starvation—her symptoms did not indicate either poison or starvation—the chief of the head symptoms before death was the dilitation of the pupils and stertorous breathing; the pupils were unequally dilated, and that is evidence of brain mischief, an unmistakeable sign—if I had felt any doubt on the matter as to the cause of death I should have asked who the doctor was that had been attending her, and probably have put myself in communication with him before I gave my certificate; there was a special hurry about the certificate; there is not in an ordinary case, but there was in this—I did not think it necessary to communicate with Mr. Cassabianca, I saw him the following day; he called on me, he was a perfect stranger to me—Mrs. Cassabianca did not come with him—it was the day after the death that Mr. Cassabianca came, the same day that the certificate was given—I did not know anything about the Stauntons having gone back to Cudham when I gave my certificate—I tad not heard that either of them was going back—I had seen the nurse I recommended in attendance myself—I wrote this letter to the Coroner after seeing Mr. Cassabianca, on the strength of what he said. (The letter was here read as follows:—"16th April, 1877. Penge, S. E. My dear sir,—On Friday last I was called to a case of a somewhat peculiar character, and, from information afforded me, considered the symptoms sufficient to justify my giving a certificate of death; but from what I have since been told me I am of opinion that the circumstances necessitate an inquisition into the cause. The sergeant who delivers this to you will be able to give you all needful information. With kind regards, yours faithfully. Dean Lougrigg. P. S.—the name of the deceased is Mrs. Staunton, a niece of Lord——.") Mr. Cassabianca gave me the information contained in the postscript—he gave me a history of the lady and the family—he said there had been foul play—in consequence of that I put myself in communication with the police and he Coroner—then the post-mortem examination took place—I was suspicious of poisoning at one time of the post-mortem examination; I did not come to hat conclusion; there were symptoms resembling poison; the idea was not

suggested to me, it was my own observation—we had a conversation about if.—we came to the conclusion that death was from starvation—it was after we had finished the examination that I and the other medical gentlemen came to the opinion there had been poisoning, and determined to send the intestines to Dr. Rodgers—we could not find enough disease to account for death—the congested state of the upper part of the stomach was the first symptom that gave me the idea of poisoning, that was discovered in the early part of the post-mortem examination—the brain was opened first and the chest afterwards—I will undertake to say the word starvation was mentioned during the examination; I daresay 1 mentioned it; I mentioned it as one of the causes of death; we all mentioned starvation—I have seen several cases of persona who died in a state of great emaciation—I have seen post-mortem examinations of cases called starvation and have seen similar appearances; cases not exactly from disease, but from want of food, exposure to the cold, and want of proper nourishment—I have attended such persons before their death; there is no difficulty in inducing them to take food, it depends upon the state of their sensibility—I did not find anything in this case that looked like a refusal to take food—the egg remained on the tongue from insensibility and from inability to swallow it—indications of intemperate habits would easily be discovered; there would always be a trace of those habits if they had ceased some months before death, though not of a very serious kind; I am of that opinion; I do not think there would be any difficulty in discovering it—in the case of a woman who had contracted a habit of intemperance which has been indulged in for, say twelve months, and who was. deprived of the opportunity, and who died six months afterwards, traces of that would be discovered; you would find an enlargement of the liver and of the heart and a dilated condition of the blood vessels of the brain—that would always be present if the person had been a drunkard, or a person of strong intemperate habits—in the case of a woman who, living at her own house, takes too much wine or too much spirit, you would have symptoms of it then, but not so well marked as in a strictly intemperate person—I think hat would necessarily be visible if a person is given to indulging, although it had been abandoned six or seven months—the heart and the liver were not enlarged, but the blood vessels of the brain were distended—I attribute that to other causes—congestion of the coats of the stomach led me early in the post-mortem examination to a suspicion of poison—the principal matters discovered in the post-mortem examination which led me to the conclusion of poison, were the congestion of the stomach, congestion about the rectum, the congestion of the vagina and uterus, and the congested condition of the brain externally and internally; I did not form so strong an opinion that poison had been administered as I did of starvation, I do not recollect whether I said before the Magistrate that the symptoms conveyed to my mind were that it was a suspicious case of poisoning, or that I agreed that there were strong signs of poisoning—we thought that it was poison or starvation, and I thought that Professor Rodgers' analysis would find it out—my memory will not carry me so far back as to recollect positively what I said—it is three or four months since I was examined, and you cannot expect me to recollect—if I said I thought Professor Rodgers' analysis would find that there had been sufficient poison to cause death, it is true of course—what I said before the Magistrate was taken down, but I do not recollect using the expression—the symptoms I have mentioned to you as indicating the presence of poison would also be

referable to starvation—all the symptoms I did observe were fairly traceable to starvation—I do not think I said the inflammation of the peritoneum was, for instance; but the peritoneum was slightly inflamed—I have never heard of a case where the simple absence of nourishment has produced inflammation of the peritoneum, not what I call peritonitis, that is a symptom of starvation—I know it from what I have heard other medical men say, and from what I have read; I cannot say that I have ever seen it—I cut the stomach open and examined it carefully; I have given you all that I observed as far as I am aware—the stomach was not of its ordinary size substance and thickness; it was rather thiner than in nature—the mucous membrane of the stomach was thin; I had my notes with me before the Magistrate; but they were taken from me—I have had them back since from the Treasury; I have been examined two or three times—I have never mentioned the thinning of the coats of the stomach until you put the question—before the Magistrate I might have said that all the organs were healthy except the left lung, and that was diseased; I was confused slightly before the Magistrate; I am not confused now, but you are trying to make me so—I do not remember all that I said before the Magistrate—I do not think I said anything in the notes made at the post-mortem about the coats of the stomach being thin—I have not been examined from my notes—the thinning of the coats of the stomach would be a strong indication of starvation; one of the most natural and obvious signs; that is a matter which I have considered as important—the condition of the brain was firm, that is a condition indicative of the healthy condition of the brain that it should be firm several days after death—it was a very healthy conditioned brain—the brain was not wasted and pale—in a case of starvation the brain, I will not say would be wasted, but it would be pale—I should expect to find it pale; the brain was healthy—I will not be positive, but I believe in cases of starvation the brain is very little affected, or the nervous system at a 1; I should expect to find it pale, but not wasted—there was a very general congestion of the external and internal blood vessels—I do not consider the inequality of the pupils of the eyes a condition of starvation—it is a marked system of brain disease—phthisis will produce emaciation—there was a small patch of it in the present case, but not enough of it to account for death—the taking of certain poisons, I believe would cause emaciation and a bronzing of the skin—diabetes produces emaciation and a dark or bronzed condition of the skin—there is a dark appearance in the skin caused by diabetes, but I never saw a case where the skin was so bronzed as in this case—I have not had much experience of Addison's disease; it is an obscure disease and I am not sufficiently acquainted with it to give an explanation of it—there are frequent head symptoms in diabetes and in Addison's disease, and in the former you have coma sometimes and stertorous breathing—and they would be similar to the symptoms observed in this case—in diabetes there is sugar in the urine; I did not test the urine in this case—there were 3 ounces of urine in the body—Addison's disease would leave its trace in the super-renal capsules—I examined the kidneys, but not separately—in diabetes as death approached you would find occasionally coma and stertorous breathing and dilitation of the eyes—that appearance is not at all uncommon—I have read that tubercles on the lungs are often found in connection with Addison's disease; I did not examine the tubercles on the brain with a microscope; I did not attach importance to it; as they were

so plain to be seen, I did not consider it necessary to go further—the finding of tubercles in the brain was important, but not more so than the finding of tubercles in the lungs, but I did not follow up that discovery by any microscopic examination; I know a disease called granular or milliary tubercle, it takes its name from grains like millet seeds in the brain, and is the same sort of thing that 1 found in this case—the presence of tubercles in the meshes of the brain constitutes tubercular meningitis—it is a fatal disease; I have never seen a case recover—I had five cases in one house after fever—it was in children, the eldest was eighteen—it did not produce great emaciation in those cases; they got much thinner, but I could not call it true emaciation—its effects are very rapid, it is seven or ten days, and sometimes only forty-eight hours before death ensues—local disease may exist without tubercular disease, but if in combination with tubercle in other parts of the body, it would create a serious complication—it would produces the disease called acute general tuberculolis—of that disease I have had considerable experience, it produces great emaciation, and there are head symptoms in some cases—tubercular meningitis or acute general tuberculis would not account for the symptoms in this case in this case an acute tubercular disease was not sufficiently established to produce the symptoms I saw; there was not enough of it—if there had been a stronger condition of the disease itself it would have produced all the the symptoms which appeared in this case, except the rigidity of the muscles of the upper extremities—I have not seen any rigidity in death from tuberculolis—I will not say positively that it might not exist, but I have never seen it, and that is the only symptom I can point out that might not have been caused by those diseases—in this case the disease was not sufficiently advanced; I express that opinion positively—the amount of tubercles was very slight, both in the lungs and the brain—I did not examine the brain with a microscope—the microscope is a great advantage to diagnosis, but it would not have told me more than I knew, namely that there was tubercle—you could see with the naked eye the amount of tubercle that was there—I cannot speak so positively as if I had resorted to the use of the microscope—I speak positively that what I saw was tubercle—I did not see what the microscope would show me—I have no hesitation in my mind, I still adhere to the opinion which I have expressed all through—we all found the appearance of cerebral disease in the shape of that tubercles which have been Spoken of—my original certificate does not fairly represent my views—I consider it correct to a certain extent, with modifications—I arrived at the conclusion that there was poison, and was surprised to find Professor Rodgers did not discover any—I thought he might have done so—I formed my opinion before the analysist's report—I said I believed Professor Bodgers might find poison.

Re-examined by THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. They came to my house for the certificate several times when I was away on a visit—it was filled in but there was no signature—Louis Staunton came himself and saw my wife—he pressed for the certificate—he saw it in the surgery—I did not have any conversation personally with Louis Staunton about the certificate, nor with, any of the prisoners—there had been more than one application for the certificate, but not to me personally, when I said there was hurry for the certificate I alluded to these applications—I signed it when I was at dinner on the day following the death, about 4 o'clock—stiffness of limbs is not produced by paralysis—when paralysed they are useless—paralysis

deprives the limb of all muscular power—when a limb is paralysed it becomes atrophied—the bites were produced during life; I have no doubt of that—the bite of a louse is like being pricked suddenly with a pin—bites after death would not produce those appearances—I thought poison might have been administered because of the congested state of the organs I have described—congestion is an effect of an irritant poison, but might be produced by starvation or by eating after going without food for a long period—the appearances I saw in the eyes might be symptoms of narcotics as well as the congestion—there was a general thinning, not only of the stomach, but of all sorts, which might be produced by emaciation—any exhaustive disease that causes emaciation might cause a thinning of the stomach, but it is invariable in cases of starvation—a patient suffering from diabetes would complain of all food, whether liquid or solid, turning to urine, and of the immense quantity of urine that would pass—this causes a gradual wasting of the body, but it is a long time before it terminates fatally, and that time varies very much—I have seen several cases of diabetes—the patient would also complain of great thirst—extraordinary thirst is a frequent accompaniment of diabetes, but not an invariable one—if Mrs. Harriett Staunton had been suffering from diabetes for a considerable time, I am sure those about her would have known it—the passing of an extreme quantity of urine is an invariable symptom of diabetes—the kidneys are also enlarged and spongy—on the post-mortem examination in this case we found that the kidneys were enlarged, on the contrary they were smaller than usual—I have had no experience in Addison's disease—I believe it is a very rare disease—in ordinary language tubercular meningitis is an iuflammation of the brain—there is a tubercular deposit—tubercular meningitis will produce emaciation, but must exist some time to do that—if Mrs. Harriett Staunton had been suffering from that disease it must have existed for a considerable time, and she would have been in an enfeebled state for some time before her death, and the disease would have been more developed than it was—if she had suffered from acute tuberculolis the brain would be soft; my opinion is that her death was not caused by diabetes or tubercular meningitis, but by starvation—the doctors present at the postmortem examination discussed the matter amongst ourselves, and we all agreed—Dr. Harman was there on behalf of the prisoners—if the patient suffered from starvation it might bring on a fit.

DR. JOHN MEABUM BRIGHT . I live at Forest Hill and am a doctor of medicine at the University of St. Andrew's and a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England and a Licentiate of the Apothecaries' Company—I have been in general practice for fourteen years—I was present at the post-mortem examination of the deceased on the 19th: of April on behalf of the relatives—I have been in Court during the examination of Dr. Longrigg and heard his description of the appearances presented at the post-mortem examination; I believe' they are correct on the whole—some of those appearances might have been caused by poison—I agreed with the other medical men that an analysis was desirable; I have no doubt whatever that the cause of death on the whole was starvation and exhaustion—we could detect no fat whatever; the emaciation probably had been going on from two to three months, it was gradual; I may explain that I have "o experience myself of starvation, I can only form my opinion from analysis and study—the emaciation must have been apparent to those about her—the muscles were very much wasted—I should have thought that she

had lost the power of motion sometime before her death, probably for about a week, but it is difficult to say—her condition during life must have required medical care and treatment, as well as ordinary care and attention proper nursing and so on—I have no doubt her removal in an open wagonette accelerated her death—I saw the bites of lice on her body—they had undoubtedly been made during life—I made full notes of the postmortem examination and produce them to-day—the other side have had a copy of them.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I noticed bites on the abdomen, and the insects themselves in the hair—in answering the question as to Mrs. Harriett Staunton's power to move before her death, I assumed she died from starvation—perhaps the correct answer would be that whatever was the cause of her death—I am judging simply of her condition, the appearances before and after death—I only saw the deceased at the post-mortem examination, and my opinion is formed upon what I saw, and upon what Dr. Longrigg did—I formed my opinion then from the post-mortem examination, and from a history of the symptoms during life—I did not form any opinion as to the power of motion at the post-mortem examination—I have no doubt the word "starvation" was mentioned; I do not recollect it, but I have been told so—there was but little conversation in the room, most of the conversation took place downstairs—I told Mr. Lewis I did not hear the word "starvation" mentioned, and I referred to the time the post-mortem examination was going on—I never said death was caused by starvation alone; what I said was that the general appearances of the body were characteristic of starvation, but there were special appearances which led us to believe that an analysis was necessary—I did not suggest it was starvation and poison, in those words—I do not like the word "suggest"—we all agreed on one point—I could not give an opinion as to the immediate cause of death—I expressed an opinion that she died of starvation—I could not form any opinion unless I had an analysis—I took notes at the time, and gave them to Mr. Longrigg two or three days afterwards—Mr. Longrigg, Dr. Wilkinson, and I had a meeting afterwards—my notes were read over at that meeting—they were discussed between us—I have them with me—I had a description of the symptoms before death from Mr. Longrigg—those symptoms led me to the suspicion that the deceased had been poisoned by opium—they pointed in that direction as I thought—I then proceeded with the post-mortem examination, and on the stomach being opened there was a redness on the stomach, the small intestines and the lower part of the bowels—that led me to the suspicion of an irritant poison—the matter was submitted to Dr. Rodgers—I have not seen any case of starvation—I don't think my information scanty on the subject—I have tried to read everything upon it—after this matter I referred to Dr. Taylor's book on medical jurisprudence; it was a book which I borrowed—that is not the only work I have referred to with regard to starvation—I think that was the only work I had seen before I was examined before the Magistrate—what I said before the Magistrate as to the cause of death was accurate—I had only read Taylor's book up to that time—I said the information was very scanty in the book—I don't remember the exact words; if it is in my deposition it is quite true.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. At the close of the post-mortem examination I determined to defer my opinion until Dr. Rodger's report.

Re-examined by the ATTOKNEY-GE-VEKAL. I think we all tacitly agreed

that the symptoms pointed in one direction: that the general appearance of the body was most characteristic of starvation, but we all wished for an analysis of the contents of the stomach—starvation would produce the emaciation that I saw in the body of this woman—the other symptoms that I saw would have been produced precisely as if she had been kept for some time without food, and the emaciation caused in that way, and then poison had been administered to her—I had a difficulty in coming to the conclusion as to the immediate cause of death—I thought narcotic poison would produce the appearances I saw in the eyes, and which were described to me by Mr. Longrigg—I think in a convulsion the distinction between opium poisoning and apoplexy is exceedingly difficult to discover—I was present and heard Mr. Longrigg examined—in my opinion this lady's death was not caused by diabetes—I cannot reconcile it with the view of tubercular meningitis, or Addison's disease.

By MR. CLARKE. There was urine discovered at the post-mortem examination—undoubtedly with regard to diabetes the examination of the urine is the simplest and most perfect way of testing the presence of that disease—that is generally considered the test symptom—the examination of the super-renal capsules can only take place after death—with regard to Addison's disease there are certain symptoms during life which are unmistakeable—in examining for that disease after death I should feel it necessary to examine the super-renal capsules—I think in this case suck an examination was overlooked—I noticed tubercles in the brain myself—I made no microscopic examination—I remember they were put aside for examination with some of the matter of the tubercular deposit—I have no knowledge if they were ever examined—the presence of tubercles in the meshes of the brain and the existence of tubercular matter in the lungs was a very important coincidence taken together—I have had the treatment of tubercular meningitis—it is a local disease to the brain and very speedy in its effect—it is most frequent in children—as far as I can remember all the cases I have seen have run too rapid a course for emaciation, the usual course has been from two to three weeks; that is almost the limit—it is not long since I bad a case under my control—I have not been struck with great emaciation, though it may come on as the result of other conditions—another disease may have produced emaciation, and then tubercular meningitis follow, "which is very rapid in its effects—I can point out three things here which were inconsistent" with death from tubercular meningitis, the very fact of there being some small tubercular deposit in the membranes of the brain led us to examine the brain very carefully, and there was a complete absence of three marked symptoms: first, the flattening and the bulging of the sides of the brain; secondly, and much more important, a complete absence any effusion in the ventricles, in the chambers of the brain; and, thirdly, the absence of any tubercles whatever at the base of the brain—the characteristic post-mortem appearances of tubercular meningitis is the presence of tubercular deposit in the meshes of the brain, at the base of the brain—we examined the brain more carefully because we thought we found some small deposit of tubercles on the convex surface, that led us to examine more carefully—I made no examination with the microscope—I made a special note of there being a total absence of lymph, but I do not think I did so of the flattening and bulging of the brain—the presence of lymph is one of the most marked symptoms of inflammation—it becomes very serious indeed when there is

lymph or pus—the first stage of inflammation is a congested condition—we found that present—I must distinguish between the word congestion and inflammation, because the appearances of the brain were characteristic of intense congestion and 1 could not use the word inflammation—the presence of lymph is the third stage in inflammation, and congestion is the first—congestion was present in the brain—all the blood vessels in the brain itself were remarkably congested—a very small quantity of fluid was found in the skull—I doubt if there was more than a drachm; I don't think it was actually measured—it will be found mentioned specially in my notes that there was an absence of effusion, but not, I believe, as to the quantity—I think that was remarkable from the absence of it—I do not remember making; a written note, but I remember it perfectly—I recollect the appearance of the brain perfectly; we expected to find evidence of tubercular disease more marked and we did not find it—I won't say that military tubercles never occur without lymph or effusion.

By THE COURT. I said that I could not come to any decided opinion with regard to the immediate cause of death; I think there was enough upon the post-mortem examination to enable me to come to a conclusion, and I think the right answer would be that the post-mortem appearances of the body were not inconsistent with starvation—there were reasons why I thought there might be in the first instance a narcotic, and afterwards an irritant poison—the difficulty we had was to account for the immediate cause of death—I ought to say the special appearances are not limited either to poison or to starvation; there are certain appearances common to many diseases, in the stomach and so on.

FREDERICK WILKINSON . I am an M. D., and a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England—I attended at the post-mortem examination at 34, Forbes Road, on the 19th April—I have been present in Court, while the post-mortem has been described—in my judgment the appearances were correctly described by the witnesses who have been examined—the cause of death in my opinion was that of starvation—I have considered the various suggestions that have been made as to meningitis and so forth—I think there is no foundation for those suggestions—I have heard both Mr. Longrigg and Dr. Bright express their opinion as to what would be the effect of moving the lady in the condition in which she must have been, and the way in which she was removed—I concur in their opinion that that arrangement must have conduced to her death—it was most dangerous in her condition, and must have accelerated her death.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I agree with the doctors who have already spoken with regard to meningitis—I agree with their opinion with regard to the diseases; but not quite so as to their statements—I did not hear them all, but I agree with their opinions—I heard Mr. Longrigg give a description of the symptoms before death sometime after the post-mortem—at the time I made the post-mortem I came with a perfectly clear mind and without any knowledge at all of what had taken place—I refused to hear from Mr. Cassabianca what he had to say about the matter—he came with a policeman, and asked me to attend the post-mortem, but I refused to hear him say anything about it; I told him I would rather go unbiassed—at the examination the symptoms were put down to poison, but we thought we Would have an exhaustive analysis and sent the stomach to Mr. Rodgers—I was very dubious as to the symptoms; there was an inflamed stomach, and that was one symptom of poisoning—I concurred in the view of the other

medical men in their wish to send them, and in the reasons for which they sent those things to Dr. Rodgers for examination—I have had about thirty years experience in the treatment of brain diseases—I have not practically had special cases with regard to brain diseases—I have had general scrofula as you may call it, which is another name for general tuberculosis—I have also had cases of meningitis—those diseases generally do not last sufficiently long to produce emaciation—tuberculosis in the form of phthysis does so—tuberculosis has various forms; some lead to greater emaciation than others—the presence of tubercles in the brain, and tubercles in the lungs in that congested state of the vessels of the brain was too small in quantity to produce any bad result of tuberculosis I think—there are three membranes of the brain—the duramater, the pia mater and the arachnoid—this deposit was on the arachnoid membrane, the size of about a fourpenny or a sixpenny piece—it was very recent, quite transparent, and had not produced any inflammation—there was no inflammation present—I did not even see any congestion; it was a perfectly recent deposit—there was no congestion in the organs of the brain; I mean not connected with this tubercular deposit, there was some general congestion of the brain not dependent upon this tubercular deposit—I have had persons under my care who were suffering from brain disease—those persons for a long period differ in temperament and manner and in behaviour—persons who are afflicted with disease of the brain are very often affected in their temper which makes them sulky—I have not had experience of persons who are under the control of warders in asylums, nor have I visited persons who have been confined in asylums, neither my friends nor patients—vomitting is one of the things that may cause starvation.

By THE COURT. Starvation might occur from three causes—from wilful refusal of food, from having food withheld, and from vomitting.

By MR. CLARKE. I mentioned before the Magistrate that vomitting might produce starvation—I never had a case of starvation under my care—I have had a case of starvation where a patent refused to take food—it was a grown-up person of weak intellect—it was a case of imbecility—the patient refused for sometime to take food; it had to be forced down by the stomach pump—I saved the patients in that way, for I had two or three, a medical man is necessarily required to deal with a case of that kind—in this case I saw some food on the back of the tongue of the deceased woman—she had already some in the stomach; some that had been recently given her seemed of the same kind—it might have remained there from her inability to swallow, in the state in which she was—there are several writers on the subject of death from starvation—there is Kirk's "Hand-book," Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence," and Kasper's work, and one or two more I think, and there is a long account published of the Welsh fasting girl's case—Kirk does not treat it very lightly; he gives the weight of the organs and the way in which they lose weight—I did not notice anything about the brain that might have been caused in early life—I noticed no old injury to the brain, but there was slight adhesion between the dura mater and the skull-cap—I did not think much of that.

Re-examined by THE SOLOCITOR-GENERAL. Kirk's "Hand-book" gives inflammation in the stomach as one of the symptoms of poisoning—inflammation of the stomach sometimes produced by starvation is given in Taylor's Medical Jurispurdence," and Kirk's "Hand-book," as one of the symptons" of starvation—I desired the contents of the stomach to be analysed in order

to ascertain by exhaustive examination, what was the cause in this particular case—when poison is excluded as the cause of the inflammation, we hare advanced one step towards ascertaining what it is not—starvation is one of the things that produce it—the several diseases that have been mentioned are characteristic of those diseases, in Addison's disease you get the bronze skin, but 1 do not think the skin of this poor woman was anything at all of that colour; it was a more parchmeuty state of skin, and with regard to diabetes there is an enormous flow of urine which cannot be concealed, and an intense thirst; life may be prolonged by medical treatment, proper diet, and so forth—there is an effect produced upon the kidneys themselves by diabetes—there was no symptom of that in this lady at all—the kidneys were healthy—the tubercles were not in the substances of the brain but on the middle membrane, the arachnoid membrane, one of the envelopes of the brain—that did not fulfil the description of the symptoms which indicates cereberal meningitis—they appear in the substance of the brain, they go through the membranes—they do not assume the form of tubercles; it is an isolated spot of tubercles on the surface of the arachnoid membrane, on the middle membrane, outside the brain.

By THE COURT. There was one case which I had particularly under my notice where a person had refused to take food and where it had to be admistered by the stomach pump; I have had three such cases—I did not find in either of those three cases that the patient had on any occasion taken some quantity of nourishment, but refused to take more; it was a general refusal to take any—if I found certain particles of food in the stomach and other portions unswallowed resting on the tongue I should infer that the patient must have taken it voluntarily—in the cases 1 have had under my notice there was no partial refusal, it was an entire refuse.

ALAN PIGOTT . I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons and a licentiate of the College of Physicians of Edinburgh—I practice in partnership with Mr. Longrigg—I was present at the post-mortem examination of this lady—I have been in Court and heard the evidence that has been given by the other medical men—I have formed an opinion as to the cause of death; that opinion is starvation, accelerated by her removal from Cudbam.

JOSEPH BATEMAN (Police Sergeant). I received from Mr. Longrigg three jars sealed up; I took them on the following day, 20th April, to Mr. Rodgera—I delivered them to Mr. Rodgers in the state in which I received them.

JULIEN EDWARD DISBROWE RODGERS . I live at No. 38, Sussex Street, Warwick Square—I am professor of toxicology at the London Hospital a member of the College of Surgeons, and a licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries—I was for many years lecturer in the School of Chemistry, St. George's, upon chemistry—I received from Sergeant Bateman three jars on the 20th—one which I named No. I had the contents of the stomach and the stomach; No. 2 contained the liver, the intestines, the kidneys, and portions of the spleen; No. 3 the uterus and appendages—I have made an analysis for the purpose of ascertaing whether any poison was present; I did not find any trace of poison of any kind—there was a complete absence of fat—my opinion as a medical man is that the cause of death was starvation and neglect; there was a complete absence of fat—I heard there was extreme emaciation, from the evidence—that condition of the body would take many weeks, probably three or four months—the opinion that I formed was that it was a case of prolonged starvation so that all the fat was lost—in my opinion the patient must have been in a very enfeebled condition for some

time before her death—undoubtedly those about her must have seen the condition in which she was—I have heard the suggestion of several diseases—the patient some time before her death would be able to walk very feebly and latterly unable to walk; I should say from my experience of sickness ten days at least—I was called in to one case of starvation, but then that was after the death—I have seen many cases of starvation where there has been diseases such as cancer, incessant vomiting, fever, and certain other diseases, Bright's disease of the kidneys, and so on, bat always a very long time—I have had these cases under my care—in those cases where—starvation has been caused by disease the disease has prevented the food being assimilated—the emaciation has been caused by the want of proper food—in those cases the shortest time to produce emaciation that I can call to mind was three months, of great emaciation not death; of emaciation such as I have heard described in the evidence—some diseases do produce very great emaciation—it takes a very Jong time—it must have been most certainly obvious to everybody that for some time before the death of this lady she required medical attendance—the appearance of the stomach, the duo denum, the rectum and the vagina, no matter from what cause, not poison, certainly, must have created suffering which required medical assistance and great care—after a person has abstained from taking food for a considerable time, the effect of taking food in any quantity would be affection of the brain, congestion of the brain—it is a very dangerous thing to be—in my examination I saw nothing to indicate that the patient had been given to habits of intemperance; the liver had not the slightest appearance or indisation of habits of intoxication—if this lady had at one time indulged in liquor to excess and then had been prevented getting access to it, I should have expected in such a case as that to find some appearance, and certainly not the absence of fat in the liver—I should have expected in that case there would have been fat in the liver, and there was not a trace—during the cross-examination of the other medical witnesses I have heard suggestions made as to diabetes—I do not think the condition of this woman could have been caused by diabetes—my reason is that in diabetes there is so much suffering that medical aid would bare been required, and therefore, as no medical aid was ever sought, I believe starvation was the cause and not diabetes—there is an excessive quantity of wine in diabetes, and always excessive thirst—I have seen a great number of cases of diabetes over a lapse of something like forty years, and I have never known thirst absent—the food turns to urine, which contains a deal of sugar—diabetes is a disease of non-assimilation, and the food taken into the stomach has not much influence; the tissues of the body are converted into sugar rapidly—I found no sugar in the liver—in diabetes there is generally enlargement of the kidneys, but these kidneys were smaller than natural; the deceased's kidneys were perfectly healthy—in diabetes patients suffer pain in their limbs, particularly in the bend of the legs, and general weakness and great prostration, and they lose flesh to a very great extent—the symptoms in meningitis would have been far more urgent in requiring medical attendance, and, therefore, as I have not heard of any medical attendance, I keep to the starvation—I have not had any experience in Addison's disease; that disease is very rare.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. With regard to meningitis and tuberculosis, my reasons for saying that death did not arise from either of those diseases is that I have not heard of any medical attendance being given—

the total absence of fat in the body is regarded by the best authorities as perfectly diagnostic of starvation—tuberculosis does produce emaciation, but in this case there was nothing in the lungs to produce emaciation what ever—there was nothing in the lungs that would account for such a state of emaciation—I was not present at the post-mortem examination—in giving my opinion that the condition of the lungs would not account for that state of emaciation here, I am not acting upon the notes that were sent me by Mr. Longrigg, but only upon the evidence I have heard to-day—Mr. Longrigg did send notes to me—if there had been excess to warrant an opinion of intemperance, even for a limited time, it would necessarily leave its marks in the organs of the body—if there was intemperance to a very slight extent in this lady, intemperance that ceased six or nine months before her death, I think I should find signs of that; there would be a little nutmeg appearance about the liver, and there would be some fattening, in this case there was a total absence of it—I am not prepared to say that where a person has discontinued the habit, and then not taken any food, and then there has been a sort of system of starvation going on, I am not prepared to say that the indication would not be removed in such case; I think the indication might be removed—in an ordinary case of a person who had contracted habits of intemperance I should, upon a post-mortem examination, expect to find a fatty liver; the fat in the liver might disappear supposing the intemperate person who had died had been starved—after a long process of starvation fat in the liver, the result of intemperance, might be got rid of—I cannot say exactly whether it would if the starvetion, that is to say, the abstinence or privation of food, was caused by disease or not—I think three months would be the time during which the process of emaciation would be going on—I am speaking of starvation caused by disease—in consumption you frequently have a space of two or three years constantly losing flesh—my experience has not been in any case of enforced privation of food—the disease which, in my experience, in three months has led to emaciation of this kind is enteric fever—I have a very large experience in the examining and analysing substances—this case gave me a great deal of difficulty from this cause: the appearances warranted the suspicion of poison, therefore, I took a great deal of trouble, in not only analysing by two processes but by verifying the results, and I most decidedly proved the absence of any metallic poison and equally any vegetable—there was no irritant poison and there was no alkaloid poison—the case puzzled me up to the very day of the Inquest, because I could not account for the redness satisfactorily in my own mind, I thought there must still be poison, and therefore I took the trouble in the way of being puzzled to be certain that I was right in the negative results—the redness of the stomach, the duodenum, and the rectum taken together made me think there must be poison, but I disproved its existence.

Re-examined. Having disproved the existence of poison, I now think the redness of the stomach, the duodenum, and the rectum was caused by starvation.

THOMAS BOND . I am a fellow of the College of Surgeons and a M. B. of the University of London, and practice as a surgeon—I am also a lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Westminster Hospital, and have been for some time—I have listened attentively to the evidence given in this case by the medical men, and, having heard described all the appearances which presented themselves upon the post-mortem examination of the deceased, my

opinion is that the cause of death was starvation—I have had a case of absolute starvation under my care, where a woman swallowed vitriol and she got stricture of the gullet; she was unable to take any food after a time, and she died of starvation; the only food she got was food injected through the rectum, and ultimately she died from starvation; my patient died between three and four months from the time of swallowing the vitriol, through inability to swallow food—I have seen cases of persons suffering from want of food and exposure and have made post-mortems of such cases—my patient lasted between three and four months, I am speaking from recollection; I know it was about that lime; the only nourishment she had was from injecttions through the rectum; that was at the last; the gullet was entirely obliterated for about a month before she died—after swallowing the vitriol she took very little food and when she could not swallow any we injected such food as we could; in that case there was emaciation—I observed the condition of the outlets—there was a good deal of diarrhoea and inflammation about the rectum long before she died—there was a post-mortem, which I made myself—the appearances in that case corresponded with the appearances I have heard described in this case, excepting that there was a disease in the gullet, and I do not remember that there was any congestion of the stomach; there was congestion of the brain—in a case where there has been abstention from food of a sufficient quantity for a considerable time, in fact, starvation, and then food is, suddenly administered, it would be likely to produce congestion of the stomach—in this case congestion of the rectum is spoken of; I should expect it; it is usually a symptom of starvation that that there should be congestion of the outlets—I see no reason whatever to suppose that this woman was suffering from diabetes or that she died from diabetes; my grounds for saying that are that she had no kidney disease, I have heard no history of the thirst and I have heard no history of a large quantity of urine being constantly passed—there were no motions, no hard white motions in the intestines which is generally the case in diabetes; there were no hard white foeces in the intestines which are usually found; I can-not say invariably, but usually—if there had been diabetes I should expect the kidneys to be enlarged, and probably degenerated—here, on the contrary, they were smaller than usual, and they were healthy—those are my reasons for dismissing diabetes—I have never had a case of Addison's disease under my care; I have seen two or three in hospitals; it is a disease of rare occurrence—I have no reason to think from the evidence I have heard that this lady was suffering from Addison's disease—the pathology of the disease is very obscure and the symptoms are pretty well known; they are great bronzing of the skin, most marked in the cases I have seen, almost like an Indian skin, in fact I may say quite like an Indian skin; there is emaciation and very great lassitude, and it is a very long slow disease—if it had been Addison's disease the patient must have suffered for a very considerable came before her death—nobody about her could have doubted that she was extremely ill if she had suffered from Addison's disease; every one must lave seen that she was extremely ill—I do not think there is sufficient evidence to show that she suffered from the disease called tubercular meningitis, or tubercular deposit on the coating of the brain, and I do not think she died from that disease; my reasons for thinking so are that in death from tubercular meningitis there is usually a good deal of fluid effused into the ventricles of the brain; there is also usually lymph effused at the base of the brain, and there is usually more evidence of tubercles than that described

in the present case—there is a disease the chronic condition of which will cause emaciation an I will take a considerable time, several months, before it is fatal; during that time the patient would be very much enfeebled; there is also acute tuberculosis—I do not think in this case death was caused by acute tuberculosis—I should expect to find the brain soft, and there was no emaciation—there is also another reason, I do not know of any disease which would account for the total absence of fat in the internal organs—from the evidence I have heard I should not think that Mrs. Harriett Staunton would be able to move about easily for some time before her death—it is my opinion that for two or three weeks she would not be able to move about much or to move at all—I have heard about the removal on the 12th and am certainly of opinion that it accelerated her death; in my opionion it would be an injudicious step to take.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I was not present at the post-mortem examination nor concerned in the case in any way—I have not seen Mr. Longrigg's notes, I have seen his deposition, and have been listening to his evidence to-day, it is upon that that I form the opinion which I have just expressed, in common with Mr. Longrigg, and the other doctors—I cannot undertake to say that Addison's disease was not present—it is true that it is very often the case that when a patient is in a chronic state of wasting disease, another disease will supervene—with respect to the signs that would be visible upon a post-mortem examination of the existence of Addison's disease they are two, the bronzed skin and the condition of the super-renal capsules—J cannot say that I noticed in Mr. Longrigg's evidence that the skin of this lady was bronzed—I think he said it was dark—I have heard that the super-renal capsules were overlooked in the course of the examination—sugar in the urine is an unmistakable sign of diabetes; I do not say that because sugar is found in the urine it is an unmistakable sign of death from diabetes, but it is an unmistakable sign of the appearance of that disease.

By THE COURT. If you find sugar in the urine it is an unmistakable sign that there is diabetes, and if there is diabetes there is certain to be sugar in the urine—sugar in the urine would lead me necessarily to the conclusion that there was diabetes.

By MR. CLARKE. It is, after death, the one unmistakable sign—I have looked at the depositions but have looked at no notes of the post-mortem examination—judging from the depositions I do not find the post-mortem examination so completely and satisfactorily recorded as I should have done it myself; I should have recorded the weight of the brain, and the quantity of fluid in the skull if I had found a large quantity, but as there was very little there I should have taken no notice of it except that there was very little; if I had found a thinning of the coat of the stomach I should have recorded that, if is an important symptom of starvation—if I found such a bronzing of the skin as would lead my mind to the disease, I should then have examined particularly the super-renal capsules; I have never seen any thing like the bronzing in Addison's disease—the bronzing in diabetes is to a very small extent compared with the other—a slight bronzing might have directed my mind to starvation or to diabetes—I apply the word "starvation" to mean a process caused by any disease which would prevent the nutrition of the body—I cannot call to mind any specific disease, Addison's or diabetes, to which the bronzing of the face would have directed my attention—my patient, I have given an account of

I fed myself, by injection, first through the gullet and afterwards through the rectum—feeding by injection would cause some congestion of those parts.

Re-examined by THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Supposing emaciation had been caused by starvation going on for a considerable time, it would very likely lead to the deposit of tubercles—when a body becames in an enfeebled condition it is much more likely that some other disease will supervene.

By THE COURT. If starvation had been going on for some time, that might lead to it—I am not prepared to say it would have led to sufficient tubercles to lead to tubercular meningitis, but it might lead to a deposit of tubercles, either on the brain, lungs, or other tissues—if deposited in sufficient quantities they might produce the disease of tubercular meningitis—in a case of death by starvation I should expect a darkening of the skin, caused by the loss of vitality and the dryness of the skin.

JAMES GIDEON CREASY . I am a medical man living at Brasted, Kent, a general practitioner, and M. K. C. S.—I know the Woodlands at Cudham—I know Mrs. Patrick Staunton very well; Mr. Patrick Staunton, but very little—I believe I have only seen him once—I know that they lived there; I attended at the Woodlands, on the 25th July, last year, for a very trifling ailment; I believe it was for Mrs. Pk. Staunton, but I am not certain about that even—I afterwards attended there on the 28th August, when a child, which I supposed to be Mr. Pk. Staunton's, was my patient—I never attended anyone at the house again; it used to be called Woodside—I knew it as Woodlands; I did not know that it was formerly called Frith Cottage—I remember seeing Mrs. Butterfield, in the Spring of this year, I think it was the beginning of March; she was in a fly; she spoke to me, and I afterwards received from her a photograph of a lady—I would pass the Woodlands, sometimes daily, and sometimes once or twice a week—I never attended the lady whose photograph was sent to me, and never saw her in my life to my knowledge; I did not know she was living at the Woodlands, before the 12th April—I did not know her child; I knew Louis Staunton, who was living at Little Gray's Farm, or Woodside, as it was called—I knew Alice Rhodes, who was living with him, but did not know her name—I should think it would be a mile by the road from Woodlands to Little Gray's—Brasted is 2 1/4 miles,. as near as possible, from Woodlands—there is no other medical man at Brasted—Westerham is I should think 3 miles from Woodlands—there are two medical men living there—there is a medical man at Riverhead, within about 5 miles.

By THE COURT. I never attended any Mrs. Harriett Staunton in my life, or anybody as the wife of Louis—I never went to the house; I was never asked to; I am parish medical officer of Cudbam, and Knockholt, within a quarter of a mile of Woodlands—I have to attend at a fixed hour every week, because I have a surgery there—I was at home practising as usual from the 12th April, back two or three months with the exception of a fortnight at Christmas.

CHARLES EDWARD HOAR . I am a Batchelor of Medicine, and Surgeon to the Kent County Prison, Maidstone—Alice Rhodes was in custody there hiring the month of June last, and was delivered of a child on the 28th of hat mouth, which was healthy and apparently at the full time.

THOMAS KEENE . I am a solicitor of 32, Mark Lane, and acted as solicitor or Mrs. Harriett Staunton, and her husband afterwards—first of all I acted

for Miss Harriett Richardson—I am acquainted with the particulars of her fortune—on March 15th, 1875, I received on her account from the solicitor of the trustee, under a voluntary settlement she had made, 1,177l. 15s. 2d.—I do not know anything about the trustee personally, but I think his name is Malcolm—I afterwards received a further sum of 639l. 4s. 1d. from the solicitors of the trustee, making together 1,816l. 19s. 3d., for which I accounted to Miss Richardson—the next was 310l. 4s. 6d. which would be paid out of Court by the paymaster in Chancery, to her order on an order made in the suit of Richardson and Beauclerc, and paid to her separate use—she was then the wife of Mr. Louis Staunton.

By MR. STRAIGHT. The order was in July, 1875.

By THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. The next item was the sale of the remaining reversionary interest, which she had under the will of Lady Rivers, which she originally instructed me to put up for sale in December, 1875—I know the conditions of sale were settled by Counsel in January, 1876, and countermanded by Mr. Staunton, who told me not to sell them, they were sold by public auction by Messrs. Marsh, Miller, and Co., in December, 1875, or January, 1876, and realised 1,100l. gross, making altogether 3,227l. 3s. 9d.

By THE COURT. The auctioneers received part of the money, and I the rest.

By THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. It was paid over on 23rd October, 1875, to me—I received the whole of the money and accounted for it afterwards to Louis Staunton, my firm at least—I last saw Mrs. Harriett Staunton, on the 23rd October, 1876, when she came to my office by appointment to meet the Commissioners for taking the Acknowledgments of Married Women, to take her acknowledgment to this deed of assignment of the reversionary interest—her husband came with her, but of course was not allowed to be with the Commissioners—he was in another room; I had no reason to doubt her being in good health—she was certainly not emaciated; I explained the deed to her and asked her whether she really meant to give up the money—I do not know the handwriting of Mrs. Pk. Staunton; I think I should recognise Louis' handwriting—that is the only one I have seen—I am bound to say I have seen Mrs. Harriett Staunton write, but should be sorry to swear to anything put before me—these four letters (produced) marked L M N and 0, I have no doubt are in Louis' handwriting, and this one of 20th January, 1877, also the 4th April, and the 10th April, 1877 (produced).

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. Mrs. H. Staunton came up twice to go before the Commissioners—on the first occasion she was taken I suppose unexpectedly to the Commissioners, and she suffered from what they call nervous hesitation of speech and she could not start to speak—when she once commenced to speak you could hear her well enough—but she would hesitate very much—and the gentlemen who attended said "This lady hesitates very much and seems to us in a very nervous state and we think she should go away for a few days and come again at another time"—I never let her know she was going to be examined by these Commissioners and I put it down to my folly in not advising her before hand—it made her nervous—she had bean examined on many occasions by doctors.

Friday, September 21th, 1877.

CLARA BROWN . I was 10 last May—I am first cousin to Mrs. Pk. Staunton and Alice Rhodes—my mother died in September, 1872, about 12 months after that I entered the service of Mrs. Patrick Stauntou—I was twleve or thirteen when I entered their service—she was then living at 9, Loughborough

Park, Brixton, nearly opposite No. 8, the house that was afterwards occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Louis Staunton—I remember their being married—the house No. 8 was taken and furnished before the marriage—my father died in 1874, I think—I lived with Mrs. Patrick Staunton at No. 9 until she went to Cudham in Nov. 1875—there was no other servant in the house either at Brixton or Cudham—the family consisted of Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton and two children of their own, one was about a month old when they went to Cudham, the other a year and a half—I came up again to London two or three days before Mrs. Harriett Staunton's confinement and remained about a month with her at No. 8, Longhborough Park—Dr. Russell attended her during her confinement—Mr. Louis Staunton, Alice Rhodes, the nurse, and Mrs. Patrick's eldest child were present during the month—I noticed that Mr. Louis Staunton and Alice Rhodes were too affectionate to one another—I am not quite sure that Alice Rhodes always slept in her own bed—I found her night dress' in a chest of drawers that were in Mr. Louis' room—I heard Mrs. Harriett Staunton complain about her husband and Alice—I have seen notes sent down by Mrs. Harriett to her husband and recollect his opening and reading one very soon after she was upstairs—when the month was over I went back to Cudham—Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton and the children were there—Alice Rhodes was still at No. 8—about a fortnight after I went back, Alice, the baby, Mrs. Harriett, and Mr. Louis Staunton came down on a visit—they stayed from Saturday to Monday; when they went away, the baby was left with Mrs. Patrick—it was fed with the bottle—Mrs. Harriett came down twice afterwards I think with Mr. Louis to see the baby—I recollect Alice Rhodes staying at the Woodlands, but cannot remember the time—she stayed about a week I think—I heard Alice Rhodes ask Mrs. Patrick to allow Mrs. Harriett to come down for a week—I did not hear what Mrs. Patrick said—some short time after that I believe Mrs. Harriett came down—I do not know exactly how long after, it might be about a month—Mr. Louis Staunton was there when she came down—I heard him speak to Mrs. Patrick about his wife's hat and jacket—he said "You had better put Harriett's hat and jacket away or else perhaps she will come after me"—I saw them put into a box and locked up by Mrs. Patrick—I heard Mrs. Harriett ask after them—I do not remember who she asked—there was only Mrs. Patrick and I present, I think, when she asked—Mrs. Patrick I believe told her that Mr. Staunton bad taken them away with him—I have given her a similar answer to that myself—Mrs. Harriett left the Woodlands after that on two occasions before she was removed to Penge—on the two occasions when she left she came back the same night—on the first occasion she told me she had to go to London to see Mr. Keene at his office—the second occasion I think was about a week afterwards, and I was told by her she was going to the same place—I have heard Mr. Patrick Staunton speak to Mrs. Harriett about being out—that was before Christmas and after her visits to London I believe—he has asked her where she had been to when she has been out—that is all I have heard him ask her—I heard him tell her that she had to go to London—the words he used were "You will have to go to London and see Mr. Keene"—I have never heard him speak to her about quitting the house finally or tell her that she was to leave it—he has said to her in my hearing "You must not go out of the house for anyone to see you, and he has spoken to me upon the same subject—he has told me more than once not to let Mrs. Harriett Staunton go out for anyone to see her—when Mrs. Harriett

first lived there she used to take her meals with the rest of the family—that did not always continue to be so—there was an alteration just before Christimas—she was then sent upstairs more, and kept upstairs—her food was sent upstairs to her to prevent her coming down—she generally had the same food as the rest downstairs, but sometimes pudding or something was sent up to her instead of the meat that the rest had; she complained of not having enough to eat, and on several occasions complained of not having anything sent up to her—I have heard Mr. Patrick speak very angrily to her when she has complained, and on one occasion I saw him strike her; the blow left a bruise on her arm—I afterwards saw her with a black eye; I was upstairs when he struck her—Mrs. Harriett shut the door in Mrs. Patrick's face, and then Mr. Patrick struck her, that was in the back bed-room; he struck her and pushed her down—there was a bedstead and a chair-bedstead and two boxes in Mrs. Harriett's room, but there was no basin or jug or mode of cleaning herself—I was there when the policeman afterwards examined that room—other things had been put into it after she was taken away—the child used to sleep beside her in a basinette—there was only a shawl to cover it—the child used to be kept upstairs with Mrs. Staunton in the back bed-room—just before Christmas I saw Mr. Patrick Staunton strike her; Mrs. Patrick has been present when he struck her, and I heard her ask Mr. Staunton to leave Mrs. Harriett alone—she had but one pair of boots the whole time she was there, and those she wore—when she was removed she had no boots on, she had a pair of Mrs. Patrick's slippers on—I think it was about three weeks before that she had boots on—the room she used to occupy was rather dirty; I sometimes cleaned it; I think 1 last cleaned it about three weeks or a month before she died or before she was taken away—I have heard Mr. and Mrs. Patrick say "Don't you come out of the room," and "Don't you come downstairs; "I cannot use the exact language Mr. Patrick used, it was such foul language, and I do not recollect all of it—I have heard him say "You must not come down-stairs you damned cat, or I will break your back; "I have heard that more than once—I have heard Mrs. Patrick say "Don't come downstairs, Harriett, we don't want you down here"—I do not recollect her coming down after that—I have known her to be without food for a day; I have asked Mrs. Patrick if I might not take it up to her, and she has said "No, let her wait"—she had no fit or sudden illness, she appeared to be gradually getting very weak—I remember the child being taken to the hospital; she was then very weak; she had never been asked about whether the child was to go—on the Sunday before she was taken away, she was very weak and bad—on the Monday a fowl was boiled for her—I remember the news being brought that the child was dead—I do not think she took much notice of it, I am not sure—the fowl was boiled for her on the Monday; she eat but very little of it, at that time she did not appear to understand anybody; she was unable to help herself on the Monday—I remember Mr. Patrick Staunton getting some steak and cutting it up very small so as to enable her to eat it; I tried to feed her with it but she was unable to swallow; that was on the Tuesday I believe—they tried to feed her with some bread and butter and milk the night she went away, but she was unable to eat it—she was put into the trap about 6 o'clock in the evening—something was said by Mr. Patriakand Mr. Louis Staunton about keeping her later—they said "We should like to keep her later for fear of the people seeing her at the Portlands"—that is a house nearly opposite—Mrs. Patrick said "You had better

take her at once or else she won't last the journey"—at the time that conversation was going on she was in the kitchen in a chair—Mr. Patrick Stauuton carried her down in the morning, she was propped up with pillows and seemed very drowsy—Mr. Patrick Staunton tried to rouse her several times—Mrs. Patrick said "You had better let her sleep," and Mr. Patrick Staunton said "If she goes to sleep she won't wake up again in my opinion"—at the latter part of 1876, Louis Staunton was living at Little Gray's, that is about 2 miles from the house, and from time to time he came to the Woodlands, but not always, to see his wife—I don't think I heard him speak of her, nor do I remember to have heard him say he wished to see her—I have heard him speak to her—Mr. Louis Staunton and Alice Rhodes were living at Little Gray's Farm, but Mrs. Harriett Staunton did not know where her husband was living, or that Alice Rhodes was living with him—I remember picking up a letter which I afterwards burnt—it was in Mr. Louis Staunton's handwriting, and addressed to Miss Alice Rhodes—I found it in Mr. Patrick Staunton's bed-room at Cudham—Alice Rhodes had been at the house, but she was not staying there then—I don't recollect all that was in the letter, only the first few lines at the beginning—it began "My own darling, I was very sorry to see you crying so much when I left you. It seems as though it would not be but there will be a time when Harriett is out of the way, when we shall be happy together," and then it said "Dear Alice, you must know how much I love you by this time; we have been together two years now"—Alice Rhodes enquired after the letter when she came back to Cudham about a week after—she asked me if I had seen a letter addressed to her, and I told her no—I had already burnt the letter—I was examined at the inquest—I cannot tell the date or the month when I found the letter—I found it at Cudham in the beginning of last year, as near as I can recollect—I believe it was the first time Alice came to stay there—she had been down from Saturday to Monday several times—I went up to the confinement in March, 1876—I believe it was after that I went to Cudham, after I had been to London to the confinement; some time in March, 1876—I remained a month, that would bring it to April; I cannot fix it nearer than that—that was the first time I think that Alice came to stay for a month or some days—I know her handwriting, but would not swear to it—the letter produced I believe to be in her handwriting, but I would not swear to it—to the best of my belief it is—I have seen her handwriting once or twice; once at Cudham when she was making out a list of something. (Letter read: "August 19, 1876. Woodlands, Saturday morning. My dearest Louis. I was extremely thankful to have a letter from you yesterday, as you must know it is extremely dull for me here, and baby is very fretful. I have searched all over the house for the lost letter and cannot find it, and I am sure Harriett has not got it, so where it can be I cannot tell at all. Come down to me as soon as you can, if only for a few hours, for you cannot think how happy it will make me to see your dear old face again. With affectionate love, and trusting to see you soon. Your affectionate Alice. Though absence parts us for awhile, And distance rolls between, Believe whoever may revile, I'm still what I have been.'") Before I was examined before the Coroner all the prisoners had spoken to

me about being examined as a witness—they told me to say everything that I had said and did say—between the time of the death of Mrs. Harriett Staunton and the time I was examined before the Coroner, I had been to a person named Mr. Brae ford—I was examined two days—what I said before the Coroner was not true; it was what I had been told to say by the prisoners—while I was at the Woodlands, Alice Rhodes came there once or twice a week from Little Grays Farm—she generally saw Mrs. Harriett Staunton, down to the time that she was removed, ever since they have been living at Little Gray's.

THOMAS KEENE (re-examined). The first occasion on which Mrs. Harriett Staunton came up before the Commissioners was the 17th of October, 1876, the second was the 23rd October, 1876.

CLARA BROWN (continued). I remember the day when Mrs. Harriett Staunton was removed—Alice Rhodes and Mrs. Pk. Staunton were present—Alice Rhodes came about 4.30 and Mr. Louis Staunton came afterwards with the trap—Alice Rhodes was not in the kitchen when the talk took place about Mrs. Harriett Staunton being sleepy—no one was present but Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton and myself—I think Mrs. Patrick remarked to Alice Rhodes about how bad Mrs. Harriett Staunton had been since she was there in the morning, how much she had changed—I recognise this handwriting as Mrs. Patrick's. (Read: "Cudham, March 5th, 1877. Mrs. Butterfield. I hear from Alice, who has been on a visit to me, she met you the other day when in London, and you informed her you thought of coming down here. I wish you fully to understand that neither my husband or myself wish on any account to see you. How you could ever suggest calling on me? I cannot think, after your disgraceful conduct towards my mother, Mrs. Hincksman, and my husband, some months since. You also told Alice you were coining to be faced with a revolver, my husband having said something about using fire-arms. I have to deny he ever said anything of the sort, and another thing, I am sure he would not even waste powder and shot on such a vile woman as you have proved yourself to be. E. A. Staunton."

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I think Mrs. Harriett came to Mr. Pk. Staunton's in August, 1876, and remained there up to her death, 12th April this year 1877—I was the only servant at Patrick Staunton's house and was in the habit of going out frequently during the whole of the time, going errands and going to the shops in the neighbourhood, and seeing different people—since I made my statement before the Coroner I made another on 29th May, I believe, and another one to Sergeant Bateman on 8th June; then one on 20th June, was a written one; I cannot say whether I made one on the 23rd or 27th June; I do not know the dates at all when I made them—I was not called as a witness before the Magistrates at Bromley—I do not recollect anything I said before the Coroner; yes, I remember being asked "Was she able to eat and drink?" and answering "She always ate heartily," and I believe I was asked a question as to whether they always had meals together, and I replied "Yes that was not true—I remember saying that Mrs. Harriett Staunton was frequently out of doors on the farm morning, noon, and night; that was not true—I am not sure whether I said before the Coroner that Patrick Staunton struck her—I remember saying that I saw the deceased's clothes; I won't swear that I did not say they were very nice, I do not recollect saying so; I do not know whether I said that they were such clothes as a lady would wear, but I remember being asked—I said her flesh was very clean from what I saw—I made her bed; I will not undertake

to say that I said her bed was clean—I said that the night when she left the Woodlands she had on a cloth jacket, an Ulster, a blue shawl, and a rug—before she started I heard her husband say to her "Will you go?"—I cannot answer whether I said that she appeared all right, but she put her foot on the step, got hold of the brass railing, and got into the wagonette; she sat in between Mr. Staunton and Miss Rhodes—I do not think I said one word before the Coroner about Patrick Staunton saying to her "You must not come downstairs, you d——cat, or I will break your back"—I might have made the statement before 23rd June—I will not swear before she went away in the wagonette that I said she was going to a doctor—I remember being asked if I considered that she was ill and replying "No, not very ill until the Thursday afternoon"—I think I said it was between 3 and 4 o'clock and that she had sat drowsy over the fire—I should not like to say that I heard my master ask her how she was on the day that she went away and that she replied "Pretty well"—I cannot tell whether she answered or not; I might have said that she did—Mr. Patrick asked her in the morning bat I forget whether she answered him—I heard my mistress say that the child was going up to the hospital—I bslieve I said that "Mrs. Harriett Staunton hoped Mrs. Patrick would be fortunate enough to get it in as she hoped it would do it good;" that was not true, Mrs. Harriett had not said so—it was not true when I said that I heard its mother ask that it should be taken to the hospital—Mrs. Patrick Staunton did not tell Mrs. Harriett that she would take the child to the hospital—Mrs. Harriett Staunton did not know with whom her husband was living—I think I have said that Mrs. Louis Staunton knew that her husband was living with Alice Rhodes a little way off and that she was passing as Mrs. Staunton; that was false, she was not aware of it—the prisoners told me to say so before the Coroner, I swear that—I do not believe I said one word about finding the letter beginning "My own Darling, I am sorry to see you cry so" until the last time I gave a statement to the Treasury; I do not remember what the latter part of the letter was, but it-was something about the death of his father—it was six or eight months before the death of Harriett Staunton that I saw the letter I knew what it meant, and I understood what was meant by the sentence "There will be a time when Harriett is out of the way that we shall be happy together; it referred to the death of Mrs. Harriett Staunton; I destroyed the letter; I do not think I ever said one word about it until I came to give my evidence to the Treasury—Mrs. Harriett Staunton used to go out when she first came to Cudham—I have not said that she came home the worse for liquor—I might have said "I have seen her the worse for liquor;" I will not swear that I have not—I believe I saw her the worse for liquor at Brixton once, I am not sure; I went more by what I heard than what I saw; she seemed intoxicated to me—I have said that while at Cudham she went out on one occasion to a public-house in the village and told me that she had been there—I believe that was before she went down to stay at Cudham on the first or second visit—Mr. Patrick Staunton was frequently out from Christmas up to April for hours together—Mrs. Patrick Staunton used to get out sometimes, not very often; she seldom or ever went out shopping; she went out and about the Woodlands, the house and grounds, and she used to go to Little Gray's—at that time Patrick Staunton was out too, and I and Mrs. Harriett Staunton would be left at home—I was attending to my work at home—I have had some conversations with Sergeant Bateman since the inquest, I don't know how many conversations, a few, I

should say, I cannot give you an idea how many; a good deal more than three or four, it may have been half a dozen; it was not much more than conversation; it was about this matter—I don't remember making a statement to him on 8th June—I remember the end of the Coroner's inquest—I don't recollect making a statement to him about a fortnight after the inquest terminated—I think I did make a statement about six or eight weeks afterwards—ho asked me questions and I answered them—I remember his saying to me that I might get myself into trouble, I don't remember his doing so more than once, I think it was only on one occasion; that was some time before I made the statement to him—I don't remember when it was that he said that to me—I don't think he said anything to me about penal servitude; I won't swear he did not—he did not say "You had better take care, or you may get penal servitude yourself; I will swear he did not say that; I don't recollect that he said anything about penal servitude—ho said that if I went on in the state as I was then I might get into trouble, because he said he knew it was not the truth—I think he used the words "Go to prison"—I think fiat was some time before I made the statement to him.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I remember being examined before the Coroner; I was examined on more than one day—on the first day I was only asked a few questions, and the substantial examination was the second time—I think Mr. Patrick was in the room when I was examined on the second occasion—there were some witnesses downstairs, but I believe Mr. Patrick was upstairs—I believe, but am not certain of that—I believe the others were downstairs—the witnesses remained out of the room, and were called in as they were wanted for examination—I think Mr. Patrick Staunton had been examined the same day, before me—I was called up to the room when I was wanted for examination—I think the Coroner before my examination cautioned me very strongly—I remember on the second day the Coroner saying "Let me ask you to be very particular in the answers you give me, and give me the whole truth, not merely give part, but all that you know, when you are asked the questions; and you must bear this in mind, I have heard your master and mistress, I have heard Mr. Staunton, and I have heard Miss Alice Rhodes, and they have between them given me certain information which very likely may enable me to ask you questions also, and it is with that view I caution you that you may speak all you know, and unreservedly speak all that you know without any fear"—I remember the Coroner saying that, and the foreman of the jury saying "Speak all you know without any fear"—then the Coroner, and Mr. Poland, and Mr. Gye, I believe, examined me, and then I made the statement that 1 have been examined about—I do not remember how long I was in the witness-box that day—Mr. Patrick Stauuton is an artist, painting clown at Cudham—he used to paint in the large parlour; there was no special room built out from the house for the purpose—there were two parlours—there was a kitchen on the same floor as the parlours, and two bed-rooms upstairs—there were only two bod-rooms in the house, front and back—Mrs. Patrick Staunton occupied the front bed-room—one of the children slept with me, and one with Mrs. Staunton—I slept in the same room as Mrs. Harriett Staunton—Mrs. Harriett Stauuton slept in the chair bedstead—the wooden bedstead, in which I slept, was the bigger one—the chair bedstead was an iron bedstead, a thing that draws out, with cushions—the bed 1 slept on was a four-post wooden bedstead.

By THE COURT. Mrs. Harriett Staunton used to sleep on the wooden bedstead when she first came there, but from Christmas up to the time she finally left she slept in the chair bedstead.

By MR. CLARKE. When she first came and slept in the wooden bedstead I used to sleep with her—when I and Mrs. Harriett Staunton occupied the large bed, the child (Mrs. Patrick's child) then slept on the chair bedstead—afterwards there there was a change made—I continued to sleep in the wooden bedstead up to the time when Mrs. Harriett Staunton was taken away—before Mrs. Harriett Staunton came over to stay Alice Rhodes had been to stay for some time—Alice Rhodes slept with her sister—Mr. Patrick Staunton was not always away; he slept on the chair bedstead; I slept on the wooden bedstead—we did not sleep in the same room; he moved his bedstead either downstairs or on the landing—in the day time when Mr. Patrick Staunton was at home he used to work downstairs in one of the parlours—he had his easel there—the meals were sometimes taken in the other parlour and sometimes in the kitchen—I never heard Mr. Patrick Staunton say when he was painting he desired to be left alone—the children and Mrs. Patrick Staunton went in and out just as they liked—I cannot give you the date of the first occasion I saw Patrick strike Mrs. Harriett Staunton, but I think I can the second—the second was just before she went to Mr. Keene's, because her eye was black when she started—I believe the first occasion was several weeks before that—I believe it was the second occasion on which there was some difficulty about the door not being opened—I have no accurate recollection, I am unable to tell whether it was the first or second occasion, but—I believe it was the second—Mrs. Harriett did not refuse to open the door, she shut it in Mrs. Patrick's face—there was a quarrel between them; Mr. Patrick pushed the door open with his hand; she was holding it—it was in his doing that that she was struck—I used to wash myself in the washhouse downstairs, where there were basins, towel, soap, and so on—she used to wash in the kitchen.

By THE COURT. There were no drawers in the room occupied by Alice Rhodes at the time I found the night-dress—I found the nightdress in the room in which Louis Staunton slept; I don't know where the rest of her clothes were kept—there was no other article of hers in the drawers except the night-chemise—in addition to the two parlours and two bed-rooms and kitchen at the Woodlands, there was a cellar, wash-house, and pantry; the wash-house and pantry led into the kitchen—there was a lawn in front of the house, but no garden.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I have been living with my aunt, Mrs. Hincksman, for some time since the defendants were given into custody—I went to her after the inquest, after the 19th May—I knew that Patrick Staunton, Louis Staunton, and Mrs. Patrick had been examined on the same day as myself—I remember going to the Treasury—I do not know whether it was at the end of the month of May; it was after the inquest—I believe it was within a week or ten days that I saw Sergeant Bateman at the Pengo police-station, I think—I had gone to stay with my aunt at that time; Sergeant Bateman came to my aunt's house and fetched me to the police-station—I do not know that he had been to the Treasury with me at the end of May; I cannot recollect it—I have not remained at my aunt's until to-day—I was with her a fortnight or three weeks—I have been staying with Mrs. Judd, at 16, Wakeling Road, Penge; Sergeant Bateman took me there—I do not know exactly how long I have been there; more

than five weeks, more than two mouths; perhaps a little more—I had not known that lady before; I have been lodging with her—the Treasury, I believe, have been paying my lodgings—I was not examined before the Magistrate, though I was before the Coroner—this is the first time I hare given my evidence in the presence of these people—at the time of the first hearing before the Magistrate I had made a long statement to the Treasury—I attended at Bromley but was not called as a witness—I attended on all the occasions and hearings before the Magistrate—it was after I went to Bromley to the examination before the Magistrate that I went to Mrs. Hincksman's—I went to Bromley first when the hearing was going on before the Magistrate—it was before the hearing before the Magistrate closed that I was taken away from my aunt's and taken to Penge, I think; I do not think, on reflection, that on the day when I first went to the Treasury, Sergeant Bateman went with me; I think one of Mr. Lewis's clerks did—at the time of the interview with Bateman, on the 8th June, I was at my aunt's—I went down to Penge Station to see some of the things that came from Forbes Road; Seageant Bateman fetched me—I went back by myself in the evening—I do not think Bateman asked me any questions that night—I next saw him very soon after that date; it was after the 8th June I made my statement—I wrote it myself; I believe it was about a month back that I wrote it—it was more than a month, not so much as three months—I do not think it was so long back as 20th June—it was written at Wakeling Road, Penge—Sergeant Bateman was not present at the time it was written; he asked me if I would like to write it, and I did—I think this photograph produced is a fair representation of the Woodlands—the windows in the upper part of the house relate to the bed-rooms; Mrs. Staunton's and Mrs. Patrick's—there are two doors, one at the front and one at the side—it is not many minute's walk, hardly a minute's walk from the front door down to the road—there is a house called the Portlands there; Mr. and Mrs. Stewart lived there—they have been living there ever since we lived there—the butcher that Mr. Patrick dealt with came from Brasted—I do not know his name—the baker came from Westerham—we had another one afterwards from Down—the grocer never called, we used to go to the shop—the brewer used to call—the butcher called I think about every other day, in the morning—sometimes he came to the side door and sometimes to the front door—I went into the village to the grocer's very often; perhaps more than three times a week—the milkman did not call; we used condensed milk, which we got from the grocer's—I used to get a good deal of golden syrup—Mrs. Harriett Staunton was very fond of that, I think—we had a difficulty in getting vegetables, and did not have much in the way of vegetables—there was not meat every day for dinner; and very seldom fish—sometimes we bought a little at the door; that ceased at Christmas when there was some disturbance with the fishmonger—I have said that the deceased lady, Mrs. Harriett Staunton, always ate her food day by day and week by week up to the last—I have said "We did not often have vegetables because we could not get them down there"—I have said "We mostly ate bread with our dinner—we seldom ate fish; sometimes Mr. Patrick would bring a bit home; we could not get any down there"—it is a fact that I have heard quarrels between Mrs. Patrick and Mrs. Harriett Staunton in reference to her not doing her hair; it is true, I have—it is true that Mrs. Harriett would not do it for two or three days at a time—Mrs. Patrick remonstrated with her on her being so untidy—

Mrs. Patrick Staunton had two children of her own; one was about two rears old.

By THE COURT. One was a year and a half and the other was three weeks when they were at Cudham.

By MR. STRAIGHT. The younger one required a good deal of attention—the washing was done at home—Mrs. Patrick would assist in the washing—I have washed Mrs. Harriett Staunton's things from time to time, but not every week—the little child of Harriett Staunton's cried a great deal—Mr. Staunton objected to the noise it made—I have known the child sitting on the mother's knee making a great disturbance at meal times and I have known him get angry with her because she could not keep the child quiet, and tell her to go upstairs with it—we were not particular as; to the time we got up in the morning—I used to go down first—Mr. Patrick Staunton used to come down about 8 o'clock, sometimes before—the breakfast hour was all times, but about 9 o'clock and it would be generally over by 10 o'clock—there were no regular hours—breakfast used to consist of bread and butter and sometimes eggs, but not always—fowls were kept at the Woodlands—Mr. Patrick Staunton used to complain that Mrs. Harriett did not come down to breakfast in time—I have heard him call out for her—there was a picture on the landing which he rather valued, with a big frame—Mrs. Harriett Staunton used to carry the child down in the basinette sometimes but not very often and then it used to be brought into the breakfast-room—I have seen her in Mr. Patrick Staunton's room where he painted—the meals were taken sometimes in the kitchen, sometimes in the sitting-room, the smaller parlour—I have not sat and played at cards with Mrs. Harriett—after Mrs. Patrick went away on Thursday, the 12th, I did not see her again till the Saturday—I slept alone in the house on the Thursday night with the two children—the first person I saw after she was taken away was the butcher—I saw Mr. Patrick on Friday, I think it was about 8 o'clock in the morning—Mrs. Harriett Staunton had her feet in hot water on two occasions—I think that was in the week preceding the week when she went away—I remember taking her up a tin bath for her feet—that was not the week before it was the same week that she went away.

Cross-examined by MR. GYE. The notes that were sent to Alice Rhodes down to the confinement were put in the back place—she put them there—I don't know exactly when Alice Rhodes went to Cudham and asked if she would allow Harriett to come for a week—I cannot fix the date, nor do I remember accurately what took place at that time—I picked up the letter beginning "My own darling" in Mrs. Patrick Staunton's bed-room—it was in an envelope—the envelope had been opened—I think I read it over twice, not the whole of it—there was a whole sheet full, four pages—I believe it was all filled with writing—I only read the whole of it once I did not read it twice—I might have read the portion I have given twice or three times—I do not recollect any more of it with the exception of the part about his father's death—I do not remember anything else, or what the words used were—I think I was good friends with Alice Rhodes at the time, but she seldom spoke to me—I had no cause to quarrel with her, I was the same as I always had been, perfectly friendly together—when she asked for the letter I told her I had not found it—she asked me if I had found it to give it her—I had burnt it then—the reason I did not tell her was because I was afraid she would be angry with me for burning it—I have never said

that when she asked me for it I had it in my pocket—I have said that when she asked me for it I said "No, I have not seen it, but I had it in my pocket all the time'"—that was when I was first asked about it—I burnt it directly I heard them talking about it—I had it in my pocket when I heard Alice Rhodes ask somebody outside for it—I have never been asked to make another statement—I don't remember the date of that statement, but I have never been asked by the Treasury to make any other.

Re-examined by THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. I read the letter at once, and a day or two after I found it I heard Alice Rhodes enquiring about It—I did not read it after I heard her enquiring for it—I burnt it—the reason I did not give it up was because I was afraid she would be angry at my finding it—after I had burnt it she asked for it—that is a correct account—I have seen Louis Staunton's father several times; he died at Guy's Hospital—I heard it—I cannot tell when be died, but I remembers conversation about old Mr. Staunton having died in the hospital—that was before I found the letter, I think about a month before—I don't know who spoke about it, I rather think it was Mr. Patrick and his wife—I am sure there was something in the letter about old Mr. Staunton's death—Mrs. Hincksman lives at 53, Heygate Street, Walworth—when I wrote that statement I was living at Mr. Judd's at Penge—I had been there only a day before I wrote it—I was living at Mrs. Bradford's when I gave my evidence before the Coroner on the 8th of June—she was a friend of Mr. Louis Staunton's—when I made that statement on the 8th of June to Sergeant Bateman I was not living with my aunt; it was after that that I went to live with her—on the 20th of June, three days after I wrote that statement, I made a statement to the Treasury—I was living with my aunt then—the Coroner cautioned me to tell all I knew about the matter and I signed my statement—I told the Coroner my statement was not true; that was before I signed it, but I told the Coroner at that time that it was not true—I gave my evidence before the Coroner early in May, and on the 29th I went to the Treasury with Mr. Lewis' clerk—I think I said to Sergeant Bateman that my statement was not all correct, and afterwards I wrote out a paper myself—I said I thought I had seen Mrs. Harriett Staunton intoxicated at Brixton;. it was at Mr. Patrick's house, and there was him, and her, and Mrs. Patrick Staunton, and Alice Rhodes, and her, and her sister—I don't think Mrs. Hincksman was there—we had some spirits to drink—I rather think Mrs. Staunton sent for them herself; Mrs. Harriett, I mean—I do not know whether everybody had been drinking—the spirit was gin—when Mrs. Harriett Staunton first came to the Woodlands on a visit, before she came for good, she was nicely dressed, tidy about her hair, and seemed to be fond of her personal appearance; fond of dress—Mrs. Patrick first began to complain of Mrs. Harriett neglecting her hair just after Christmas—I am not quite sure whether it was before or after Christmas, or before or after Patrick gave her the blow on the arm—when he struck her I believe she was in good health—when Mrs. Patrick complained about her neglecting her hair, she was not in good health—she complained of a great deal of pain, of her feet being swollen, and of her hands; and from that time to the time she was removed she continued ill, getting worse and worse—at the time the complaints were made about her hair she was generally up-stairs in the back bed-room—Mr. Patrick Staunton was frequently away from the house, and sometimes Mrs. Patrick was out of the house at the same time; when they were both out she was generally upstairs, and when

they were going out they often used to tell me to keep her away if anybody came to the door, and let no one see her—sometimes while they were out people came to the door—I used to tell her to stop upstairs and she generally obeyed me; but sometimes she would attempt to come down, and when she did I used to tell her I would tell the master if she did not go back, and then she would go back at once—at Christmas I was left alone with her for two or three days; myself, Mrs. Harriett, and Mrs. Harriett's baby, and one of Mrs. Staunton's babies—during the time I was alone with her she did not attempt to get out of the house; she stayed in—there was a four-post bedstead in the room where I, Mrs. Harriett, Mrs. Harriett's baby and one of Mrs. Patrick's children slept; it was the same bedstead that was there when the police came, but I believe the posts had been taken off—they projected up above the level of where the bed was placed, but before Mrs. Harriett Staunton was removed they were there—there had been curtains, but they had been taken off—Mrs. Harriett and myself slept in the bed, but afterwards she slept on a chair bedstead; but when that alteration was made I do not know, nor do I remember how long it was before she left—I don't recollect whether anybody directed that it should be done, or whether Mrs. Harriett and I arranged about it—the bedstead that was there before her removal to Penge was there when the police came; the bedstead on which, we slept—I did not see her slam the door in Mrs. Patrick's face, but I heard say she had done so—we were not all downstairs; I was in the room with Mrs. Staunton, but in bed—Mr. Patrick was in his bed-room—it was night—Mr. Patrick came up and asked Mrs. Harriett why she slammed the door in Mrs. Patrick's face—Mrs. Harriett laughed, and he got out of temper and struck her with his hand on her shoulder or the back part of her arm—that was at the time she had got a black eye, which Mr. Patrick said she got by striking the bedstead—I am sure when Patrick Staunton came into the room he struck Mrs. Harriett—I believe he asked her why she shut the door in Lizzie's face, and she laughed, and after that she had a black eye—she got the lamp when Patrick had gone, and showed me her eye; it was very much swollen and black—after she had the black eye she went to Mr. Keene's; when she went it was rather black, but not so black as it had been—when she went to see Mr. Keene, she wore a bonnet with a dark fall; a rather thick one—Mrs. Harriett's child used to cry a great deal and annoy Patrick, and' he used to send her upstairs; this was before Christmas—I have seen him flog the child more than once in the back bed-room on its face and arms and hands—he gave it a very severe blow once which left a bruise on its cheek, when it was taken to the hospital; that was for crying when it was laid down—the bruise was there before it was taken to the hospital; I think the blow which caused the bruise was inflicted about' a week before the child was taken to the hospital—the photograph produced is of the Woodlands; it is correctly represented—there is a front and a side door—the side door opens into the kitchen—the residents of the house go in and out the front door—there is a little lobby as you enter the front door—there is a kind of passage before you get into the living part of the house beyond the lobby—there are two sitting-rooms, one on either side—on the right-hand side is the place where Patrick Staunton used to paint, as you go in at the front door and get into a sort of lobby—there had been another little door before you get into the regular passage, but that was taken down—directly you get through the doorway there is a door leading into the studio on the right-hand side, and on the left-hand side of the

passage is a small parlour—the passage leads into the kitchen—on the right-hand side of the kitchen there is the pantry and scullery leading out of it, so that if you went in at the side door (the kitchen door) you would walk through the kitchen and face the pantry and scullery doors—that is the whole of the ground floor of the house—I cannot tell the length of the biggest room of the two; I should think it might be about as long, perhaps, as the box where the jury are, or a little longer—the steps lead from the left-hand of the passage into the cellar—there is a flight of stairs before you get into the passage leading from the lobby to the upper rooms—there are only two upper rooms—I slept in the one which faced the staircase—I generally dined in the kitchen with the rest of the family—I generally breakfasted with them; we had all our meals together—Mrs. Harriett Staunton and the baby were the only ones who were upstairs, the rest of us dined together—we lived pretty well—I think Mrs. Patrick Staunton gave directions as to what was to be had in the house—Louis Staunton and Alice Rhodes used to come over on the Sunday and dine with us—latterly on those occasions when they were dining there Mrs. Harriett Staunton was generally upstairs and had her dinner sent up to her—we dined in the sitting-room or in the little parlour—when they came to visit, they did not always go up and see Mrs. Harriett Staunton—Alice Rhodes used to see her sometimes; I don't think Louis Staunton ever went up to see her, unless it has been upstairs in his brother's bed-room—he has seen her down-stairs—he saw her between Christmas and April when she was removed; it was during the early part of the year—I cannot tell when it was—I cannot recollect the last time he saw her before she was removed; it was about three weeks or a month, I think, because I remember her saying something to me about her not seeing him for a long time—I first noticed she was getting weaker and failing about six weeks or a month before she was taken away—I believe it was after that that Louis Staunton saw her—Alice Rhodes saw her on the Wednesday before she was taken away; she saw her in the kitchen—when Mrs. Harriett first of all came she was in the habit of going up to the meadow or round it, up to the meadow gate—she did not seem very fond of going out—I think she went out nearly every day—I recognise the photograph (produced); it is that of Mrs. Harriett Staunton—I think it is like her as she was when she first came—I have not seen her dressed like that—I have seen her in a black dress, but that had a body to it—I recognise that as being like what I recollect of her.

MR. KEENE (re-examined). I saw Mrs. Harriett Staunton the last time on the 23rd October, 1876, when she came to my office—she was then wearing a black bonnet and a black veil; I believe she was in mourning for Mr. Staunton, sen., her husband's father—I did not notice anything peculiar about her face that day—on the previous occasion (the 17th) I did—she was then wearing the same sort of dress; I noticed a discolouration under one of the eyes, it was just underneath the eye—I won't venture to say what it came from; I saw it.

By THE COURT. There was discolouration under the eye.

By MR. M. WILLIAMS. I am bound to say it might have been an ordinary discolouration such as you sometimes see in women; it might have arisen from that.

By THE COURT. I would not venture to give an opinion as to the cause; I simply saw a discolouration—I recognise this photograph (produced), it is very much like her, the face looks plumper to my mind than I ever saw her

—I don't know when this was taken; it seems to give a roundness to her features which 1 never saw—I became first acquainted with the lady, I think, in October, 1875—my first acquaintance was in consequence of the lunacy proceedings—it was about October, 1875.

By THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Louis Staunton never told me when his father died—I don't know when he died, it was only a supposition of my own; nothing was heard of the fact.

FREDERICK HENRY CAIGER . I made the plan of the Woodlands produced—it shows the ground floor and the bed-room floor, it also shows the block plan and where the stable is—it is an accurate plan to a quarter scale—I should think the house stands back from the road from about 80 to 100 yards, but I did not measure it—there is no carriage drive, up to the door; you have to cross a pasture to it—I have the Ordnance map here, that is the plan of the Ordnance sheet showing the Woodlands—it is a correct plan—I find the Woodlands marked there; at the back of the house the wood almost touches it at one corner—it is a large wood at the back and at each side; that also shows Little Gray's Farm—the distance by the way across the fields from the Woodlands to Little Gray's Farm is 1,500 yards; that way is through the fields; by the ordinary road it is 2,000 yards, 1,760 being a mile—the rooms are small, the big sitting-room is only 13 feet 2 inches by 12 feet 10 inches, and the smallest 13 feet 2 inches by 8 feet 2 inches, an irregular-shaped room; the passage has been taken off since it was first built—the kitchen is 16 feet 10 inches by 14 feet 6 inches; the side entrance does not open into the kitchen as stated by the last witness. (The witness pointed out where the entrance was, on the plan.) There has been a temporary partition very rough indeed to screen it off—the road up to the Woodlands is not shown here, as it is in another parish; it is close to it.

FRANK QUESTED . I am a police-constable in the Kent County Constabulary—I went on the 10th May last, with Alfred Hollands, another constable to the Woodlands—there was no one in the house—there are two bed-rooms upstairs—the front bed-room was properly furnished—the back bed-room was in a very dirty condition, the floor had no carpet; there was a piece of board laid upon three trestles, forming the bedstead, with a Mattress on that which was very dirty, and a pillow—there was no pillow-case and no bed clothes; no washstand—there was also a chair and a box, and a silk skirt or jacket hung up behind the partition—the floor was very dirty indeed, as if it had not been cleaned for months—I was present when Hollands, the other constable, found four letters in the front room—I saw hem found—they are the four (produced) found by him—they were in a rawer in the front bed-room—I have been stationed at that same station or seven years—I knew Mr. Patrick Staunton as living in that house—I had seen Mrs. Patrick about some pictures, after, not then—I saw Mrs. Patrick on the following Monday, 14th May—when I saw her on that date he was cleaning the house—she told me so; she said "You must excuse way being so dirty; we are busy cleaning out the bed-room"—she was very dirty—it was "bed-room" she said—I never knowed that Mrs. Harriett staunton was living in that house—I knew Louis Staunton as living at little Gray's Farm.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. The floor of the back-room appeared if it had not been cleaned for a month—I was there on the 10th May—that was exactly a month after Mrs. Staunton left, and it was the first time

I ever went into that room—we got in through the back window; it was open so that anybody could get in—the window was shut, but not fastened—that was not the first time I was ever in the house in my life, I was there before Mr. Staunton came, but it was the first time during his occupancy!

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. There was some from framework against the wall over where the trestles of the bed were, something like the top of a bedstead, but nothing on it—it was a kind of thing that curtains would go over—when repeating before the Magistrate the expression Mrs. Staunton made to me "You must excuse, &c," I said she said bed-room, and not bed-rooms—I said the same then as I do now—she seemed as if she had been blacking the grates from the appearance of her hands—I said this at Bromley.

Re-examined by THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL. I knew Louis Staunton—I have been over to his house to take some letters and papers there—I saw the prisoner Alice Rhodes there; she did not say who she was; I thought it was Mrs. Louis Staunton—she never said anything to me and I never asked her—I told her I had brought some letters for her husband—she said "Thank you," I think—I don't think she made any more answer.

ALFRED HOLLANDS . I am one of the Inspecting Constable in the Kent County Constabulary—I have known the Woodlands for some time, nearly four years—I know that Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton lived there, also Clara Brown and two children—I am not aware of anybody else—I remember in the Spring of this year some enquiry being made by Mrs. Butterfield—it was on the 5th March—I heard her say she was searching for her daughter—I had received some directions from my superintendent I did not see Mrs. Butterfield—I heard of it and received directions from Superintendent O'Kill, at Sevenoaks—in consequence of those directions I watched at the Woodlands—I watched about twenty times in all—I was in plain clothes only once—I was in the road and in the wood when watching—the wood is at the side of the Woodlands—on those twenty occasions I was watching at different times of the day; sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the afternoon—besides those times I have been in the habit of passing along the road—I never saw Mrs. Harriett Staunton or her child—I saw two children belonging to Mr. Patrick Staunton—I was not at all aware that Mrs. Harriett Staunton and her child were living at this house at that time—I was not aware at the time I was watching that she was living there—I went with the last witness inside the Woodlands on the 10th May—I went into the back bed-room—I found the floor in a very dirty condition. (The Judge's notes of Quested's evidence were read over to the witness, which he said were correct.) I went again with Sergeant Bateman on the 20th of May into the same bed-room and found it then properly furnished—the floor bad been scrubbed clean and carpeted—there were the usual appliances of the bed-room, including a dressing table and one chair—the bedding consisted of a flock bed, two blankets, two sheets, and a white counterpane, also some clean chintz hangings round the bed—the front bed-room was the same as before, quite clean.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. The front-room was about the same on my second visit, I said before the Coroner that I was not certain at first whether there was a bed in it—there was no bed, it was a spring mattress—the room appeared to be in the same state on both occasions.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I have said that the place stands in the

woods, about 100 yards from the place I was watching, and a little more than 100 yards from the road—I could see both doors.

Re-examined by THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL. I did not notice on the first occasion whether there was a bed or not, either a feather or flock one.

GEORGE TUCKER (examined). I am a Sergeant of the Kent County Constabularly—my attention was called to the Woodlands in the month of March this year—in consequence of some complaints by Mrs. Butterfield I watched the house—I knew that Hollands was watching too—I never saw Mrs. Harriett Staunton—I watched four different times, about two hours each time.

WILLIAM MARCHANT . I am a gamekeeper and live about three quarters of a mile from the Woodlands, adjoining Bombas Farm—I used to work in. the wood—the other Woodlands, that belong to Mr. Copestake—I recognise that photograph as the lady at the Woodlands—I have seen her nearly every week round the house and in the woods adjoining the Woodlands, from August, 1876, up to the end of October or the beginning of November—I remember leaving a wagonnette—I believe it was about the 19th of October—Patrick Staunton was with me, no one else—the wagonette was Mr. Louis Staunton's—the lady went away in the wagonette, I tucked her dress in at the side of the wheel—shortly after that I saw her again at Patrick Staunton's stable, the stable connected with the Woodlands—I was in the stable looking at Mr. Patrick's pony he was there too—I saw the lady come to the stable door without her bonnet—Mr. Patrick said to the lady "I have a policeman in here, if you ain't off I'll run you in"—she turned and went away towards the house—that was the last time I saw her—after that I continued to be about the wood as usual and passed by the road every day—I remember hearing about some enquiries that were made by Mrs. Butterfield—I did not know then what the lady's name was—inconsequence of what I heard I went intentionally round the Woodlands two or three times a day to see if I could see the lady—I continued to do so to almost the time that she was taken away, but never saw her—I knew the other inmates of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton their two children and Clara Brown—I never knew the third child—when I last saw the lady she appeared to be in good health and properly dressed.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. My business was to look after the game—I have seen the lady hanging out clothes—I remember giving my evidence before the Magistrate—I said then "The expression 'I have a policeman here and will run you in,' I put down as a joke," and I did think so at the time; it was said in that kind of way—I remember seeing Mrs. Patrick Staunton in the woods with a baby in arms—she said something to me, but I don't recollect what it was about—I will swear she did not tell me it was her sister-in-law's child—I had not had a tiff with Patrick Staunton; there was a little coolness shown about putting up a hedge, but there were no words; he wanted the pond fenced in to him, but it was not on his ground and I told him not to do it.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. After that difference about the pond I went in and by the house—we had friendly talk afterwards.

Re-examined by MR. POLAXD. The pond was Mr. Copestake's—it was some time before I fenced it in that I saw Mrs. Patrick Staunton with the baby, about November, 1876—I believe the baby was her own—when Patrick said that about the policeman running her in I took it as a joke—she went to the house directly; before that she was coming to the stable.

GEORGE DEWBERRY . I live about 300 yards from the Woodlands, at the Parsonage Farm, Cudlmm—some time in last year I began to serve the Woodlands people with corn, straw, and coals—it was in the beginning of the year, last February, when I began to serve them—they kept only one pony—I went about once a week—I knew Mrs. Patrick Staunton and Mr. Patrick very well—I have seen the children about there, but did not know anything of them—I was not aware that Mrs. Harriett Staunton was living there, I never saw her—I was always about home and about there—I remember once (it was on Sunday, 22nd October) hearing a female screaming, as though she were being roughly used, knocked about, or something of that sort—I was at home, but went up within 50 yards of the house—I stood there and watched for about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour, then, not hearing anything else, I went back again.

Cross-examined, by MR. M. WILLIAMS. It was about 3.30 in the afternoon.

JOHN STAPLES . I am a labourer, but was formerly a fishmonger and carried on business on my own account—I was in the habit of going to the Woodlands twice a week, about 10.30 in the morning, with fish, nuts, and oranges, and continued to do so till about a fortnight after Christmas—I knew Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton and Clara Brown—they had two children—on one occasion I saw a lady (looking at the photograph); that is the lady; I saw her on the Wednesday before Christmas; she was sitting in the kitchen as used to be—the house was being altered—she had got a child in her lap and looked as if she had been very ill, or else half starved—Clara Brown was in the kitchen—that was the only time I saw the lady.

ALFRED NICHOLLS . I am fifteen years of age and work with my father, a baker, at Cudham, in Kent—my father served the Woodlands with bread—we first began to go thereabout 21st March in this year and continued to do so down to 23rd April—we went from 1 o'clock up to 4 o'clock, three times a week—I knew Clara Brown, Mrs. Patrick Staunton, and I saw two children—I never saw Mrs. Harriett Staunton, or knew that she was in the house.

OWEN-DAVET. I was assistant to Mr. Dalton, a butcher, at Braisted—I was in the habit of going to the Woodlands—I went first somewhere in October last year—I used to call for orders about four times a week, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, generally, and continued to do so up to about the middle of April—it was sometimes between 9 and 10 o'clock, sometimes about 12 o'clock—I used to leave my cart in the road and walk up the footpath to the house—I remember seeing Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton, Clara Brown, and two children—I never saw Mrs. Harriett Staunton or another child—I never heard of such a person living in the house, or that there was a third child.

HENRY WEST . I am a baker at Braisted and served the Woodlands people with bread up to March in this year—at first I used to go every day, but latterly the bread was left at Portlands—I believe I began to serve them in November, 1875—I knew Mrs. Patrick Staunton and Clara Brown, I never saw Mrs. Harriett, or heard of her.

Saturday, September 22nd, 1877.

CLARA BROWN (re-examined). The was a fireplace in the back bed-room, where I used to sleep; I only recollect a fire being lighted once from Christmas to April.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. The curtains to the bed were hung

as shown in this drawing just before they were taken away; I think they were linen curtains—they were taken down to be washed.

By THE COURT. There curtains were over the bed in which I slept with the child, not over Mrs. Harriett's bed—I believe Alice Rhodes was at the Little Gray's all the while, from Christmas up to the time that Mrs. Harriett was removed—she and Louis used to come and dine sometimes on Sundays—sometimes I and sometimes Mrs. Patrick used to give the orders to the tradesmen.

MARY ANN WEATHERLEY . I live at Knockholt, and my father is a coal dealer, I know the Woodlands, and was in the habit of going there sometimes with new butter—I remember going there last Christmas Day, with a girl named Longridge—we were going to remain there all the evening with Clara Brown—Mr. and Mrs. Patrick were away at that time—Clara was in the small parlour—we heard footsteps cross the kitchen—I was standing on the doorstep—we were at the side of the house, at the parlour door—there is a small door which opens from the small parlour into the kitchen—when we heard the footsteps Clara was pulling open the door to go in for something, and she shut the door and turned the key, and said "Go back ma'am," no one came into the parlour—we went back on account of her having someone there; the person she spoke to—I went up once after Christmas—I never saw Mrs. Harriett Staunton, I did not know there was a lady living there with her child.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton were away from home, and Clara Brown was the only grown up person in the house, I believe, except the person who was told to go back.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I don't know how many times I have been to the Woodlands—I have often seen a child there in charge of Mrs. Patrick Stannton—I was told by Clara Brown that it was Mrs. Harriett Staunton's child, and when Mrs. Staunton brought it over to us she said it was Mrs. Harriett Staunton's child—I think that was about a month before Christmas—I have seen the baby several times, and seen Clara Brown nursing it.

Re-examined by MR. POLAND. I never saw the baby after Christmas—I believe it was brought to our house one day, and stayed there till late in the evening, as they had some visitors.

By THE COURT. Our house is about a quarter of a mile off.

MARY ANN LONGRIDGE . I live at Knockholt, with my parents, and am sixteen years of age—I remember going with the last witness to the Woodlands, on Christmas Day last, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon—we went to the parlour door at the side and saw Clara Brown—we heard someone in the kitchen walking across—Clara Brown locked the door and said "Go back ma'am"—I did not know who it was—that was the only time I had been to the house—we stayed about half an hour chatting—Clara Brown had the baby in the parlour, a little girl.

FREDERICK COLLINS COLEY . I was formerly house-physician at Guy's Hospital, and live at Morden Road, Blackheath—I was at the hospital on Sunday, the 8th April, when a child was brought there sometime in the afternoon—the man and woman who brought it saw me, but I should not recognise them again—they made a statement to me about it, and I ordered its admission—it was placed in the ward which is under the care of Dr. Wilkes—I believe the persons who brought it knew Sister Mary—I examined the child. (MR. STRAIGHT objected to any reference as to the condition of the

child; the question was not pressed.) The child died, I was told, the same day—I saw the body after death and made a post-mortem—I cannot speak with certainty of the age of the child—it was an infant in arms.

By THE COURT. I have no knowledge of Mr. Staunton being in the hospital for some complaint in 1876.

WILLIAM SMYTIIE RUSSELL . I am a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, and reside at Coldharbour Lane, Denmark Hill—on the 23rd of March last I was fetched to 8, Loughborough Park; the two male prisoners fetched me—I saw a lady there near her confinement—the photograph (produced) is that of the lady; it is a very fair representation of her—the lady was confined that night or early next morning, of a boy—I continued to attend her for about three weeks or a month; she then seemed pretty well, fairly nourished, and in good, fair condition—she was very weak after her confinement, but although weak she was in a healthy condition and well nourished—I left off attending her in about three weeks—she had a nurse named Denton—I should say the deceased weighed from 9 to 10 stone.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I think she was up when I first say her—I saw her several times after her confinement.

Re-examined by THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. I do not mean after I ceased to attend her professionally, I mean within the three weeks.

SUSANNA CROCKETT . I am known at Guy's Hospital as "Sister Mary"—I was there on Sunday afternoon the 8th of April last—I remember a child being brought in; it was brought by Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton between 5 and 6 o'clock—Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Stauuton were quite strangers to me—they came with the child to the ward—I asked Mrs. Patrick Staunton if she were the mother of the child, and she said no; she said the mother was unable to take care of it, and she had brought it from kindness—I told her the child would require certain articles of clothing, and they said they would bring it seme the next day—I don't remember anything more being said about the mother of the child—I asked what the child's father was, and she said a carpenter—I asked the name and address, and she gave me "Henry Stormton" as the name of the father, of Frith Cottage, Cudham—I am quite sure that the name given was "Henry Stormton"—I spelt it over and the address; I also wrote down at the time—the name has to be entered in the books of the hospital—the books are here and it is entered as "Henry Storraton"—I understood the name to be "Stormton" and I so wrote it and spelt it over—I spelt the name "Stormton" over aloud to them—nothing more was said than that I told them the child was rapidly sinking—I asked her if she would stay, but I do not remember any reply being made; they went away directly—I asked the age of the child, and Mrs. Staunton told me twelve months—it was not dressed as a child of that age should be; it was dressed as a child a month old would be—the clothes were to be sent the next day, on the Monday—they then left and the nurse took the child—I superintended it, it was under my care—I saw the child was very ill; it died at 9 o'clock the same night—it was in my ward under my care and received every attention—the doctors saw it; it gradually sank, it was not able to take any food, and it did not make any noise—it was a male child—I don't remember any tiling being said about how long the child had been ill—I remember what she said about the mother, she said the mother was unable to look after it, and that was why she had brought it; that was all that was said on that occasion—the child had been seen by Dr. Coley previously to being brought to me—I knew

that from the fact of his coming to inquire if I had a bed—I don't remember whether they said they had seen Dr. Coley when they brought the child into the ward—in the ordinary course they would see Dr. Coley first; they would see him at the same time—he would see whether it was a proper case for admission and sign a paper; inquiry would then be made about a vacant bed, and the persons bringing the child would come to me in the ward—I noticed the face of the child, it had a bruise on the left side on the cheek—when the conversation referred to took place, Mr. Patrick Staunton was in the ward where the child was going to be put—Mrs. Patrick carried the child to where I was to be found—Patrick Staunton was Dot near enough to hear what passed between me and his wife—I had a conversation with him the next day—they did not give any name—on Monday Patrick came to the hospital about 5 o'clock, and I saw him—he was brought to me by the nurse—he had a parcel with him which I supposed contained clothes for the child—I told him the child had died the night before, and I directed him to go to the superintendent's office to arrange about the removal of the body—he said he had done it from kindness, that the mother was a worthy woman; he did not say who the child was; he said it was nothing to do with him; that was all that passed—he took the bundle of what I supposed to be clothes away, and I left him to make arrangements about the removal of the body—I saw the child naked.

By THE COURT. We always get the name and address of the patient, but it is not usual to ask for the names and addresses of those bringing the patient—we took down the name and address of the child—we take it for granted that the friend's address in given with the child, but we don't say "Who are you or where do you come from?"

DR. COLER (re-examined). I put the child under the charge of Sister Mary, and had a conversation with the man and woman who brought it—they both gave me information—both were present, and each took part in the conversation—they told me that it was not their child, that the mother of it was very ill, and had been ill for some considerable time, and was therefore unable to attend to it—they told me with regard to the child that it bad only recently seemed ill—I do not think I recollect any more conversation that took place—when the child was brought to me it seemed very ill—I omitted to state that they told me that they lived at some considerable distance, I believe they told me that they lived at Penge, but I am not sure; I know it was some considerable distance—I should not have admitted the child but that it was very seriously ill, because it is not usual to admit a child so young—my reason for admitting it was that I believed if I did not it might die before they returned home.

ROBERT HOGG . I am an undertaker, of 30, St. George's Road, Southwark—on 10th April last, Louis Staunton came to me to make an arrangement for the burial of a child named Henry Staunton, lying dead at Guy's Hospital—he gave the name of John Harris—he said the child was to be buried inexpensively, as the father of the child was away in the country there would be no one to follow the child—he then asked if it could be removed from the hospital as soon as possible, as they wanted it removed—he said the father of the child was employed by the firm he (John Harris) represented—he did not give me the name of the firm—he then asked what the expense would be—I told him 30s., which he gave me, and I gave him a receipt for the amount in the name of Harris—the receipt produced is in my handwriting, and is the one I gave him. (Receipt read: "10th April,

1877. Received of Mr. John Harris 1/. 10s., for the interment of the late Henry Staunton, aged one year. Signed, Robert Hogg.") I told him if he called in a few days he could have a memorial card showing the cemetery and the date at which it was interred—some one called a few days afterwards and received the card—the child was buried on the 16th at the East London Cemetery, Plaistow—he gave me the name of the child as Staunton; Stormton" must be a mistake of the registrar of the hospital.

FRANK CHARLES JOSEPH . I am clerk in the superintendent's office at Guy's Hospital—it is my business to keep the books in which the entries of the names of the patients are made—I have the book with me—I entered the name of this child according to the instructions I received from the slip as "Henry Stormton"—I entered it from a slip—it was given to me by Sister Mary in her handwriting on the 9th April—I have an entry of the day of the death of a patient called Thomas Henry Staunton; he died on the 15th August—the whole of the entry connected with him is in two books—one entry is mine, and the other is the death with the medical certificate attached—mine is "Thomas Henry Staunton, aged 76, admitted to Guy's Hospital on the 26th June, 1876, under the care of Mr. Bryant, surgeon, in Job Ward, married man, an Irishman, died on the 15th August in the same year; fifty days resident in the house; cause of death, calculus'"—his address is entered as 287, Cold Harbour Lane, Camberwell—(A certificate of the birth of Thomas Henry Staunton, the child, was read: "Thomas Henry, son of Louis Adolphus Edmund Staunton, born on the 23rd March, 1876; name, Henry, the child of Louis Adolphus Edmund Staunton and Harriett Staunton, formerly Richardson.")

GEORGE WELLS . I live near Knockholt—I have a fly, and am a flyman—I remember on the 5th March last taking Mrs. Butterfield from Haktead Station to Little Gray's Farm—the drive is about 5 miles, and I believe that it is the nearest station to Little Gray's—I arrived there about 4 o'clock—I saw through the window Mr. Louis Staunton, Mrs. Patrick Staunton, Alice Rhodes, and two children, as I drove past the house—Mrs. Butterfield got out of the fly about 50 yards beyond the house and walked to the door—I turned my horse round and followed her up the road as far as the gate—Mrs. Butterfield knocked at the door, and I saw Mrs. Patrick Staunton let her in; the door was closed after her—I went and stood near the window, and I saw Mr. Louis Staunton take up a knife from the table and flourish it about in the air; when I saw that, I went nearer—the next thing I saw was Mrs. Butterfield being pulled away from the door when she made an attempt to go and seek for her daughter—she had asked to see her daughter—when she was pulled back from the door she said "Let me go and see her; let me hear her voice"—that request was not granted, they said she should not—then she said "Let me see her hand on the bannisters, I will be satisfied with that"—Louis Staunton was the person who said "You shall not"—Mrs. Patrick was there, and heard it—she afterwards said "If you won't let me go and see her, let me hear her voice"—Mr. Louis Staunton replied "You shall not; you shall never see her, not if you live for a thousand years, you d——old b——"—at that time the front door was opened—Louis Staunton then elbowed her out of the room into the passage, and Mrs. Patrick Staunton pushed her out of doors—after she had been pushed out she went to the window and made some remark—Mrs. Patrick Staunton came out, but I only remember one sentence of what she uttered: she called her a "drunken old faggot"—I did not see anything of

Alice Rhodes whilst Mrs. Butterfield was inside the house—I drove Mrs. Butterfield back to the station, and on the road I saw Dr. Creasy—I told Mrs. Butterfield who he was, and she spoke to him.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I was examined before the Coroner, but not before the Magistrate—on the 19th May, Sergeant Batemen came for me or sent for me—I had a letter from him—I remember saying that I could not tell distinctly the whole of what was said when they were inside the house—I noticed that Mrs. Butterfield was very nervous; she was crying and spoke rather loudly—they all spoke loudly—I did not hear Mrs. Butterfield make use of the expression that she was sure her daughter was in a lunatic asylum.

Re-examined by THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. I did not hear all that passed but I heard what I have told you—Mrs. Butterfield said "Let me see her hand on the bannisters I will be satisfied with that"—Mr. Louis Staunton said "You shall not, you shall never see her not if you live a thousand years you d——old b——" and she was elbowed out of the room into the passage by Mr. Louis Staunton—the front door was open—I gave the same account of this matter before the Coroner that I have given to-day to the best of my belief—when I saw Louis with the knife I was standing in the main road—after that I went on the premises and was much nearer and I could hear what was said—I thought my presence might be required.

By THE JURY. The door and window were closed when the conversation was going on—I heard all I have stated—the voices were raised—Mrs. Butterfield was the same distance off me as the others—they were inside and I was outside—I am not sure whether there were blinds at the bottom of the window or not, but they did not prevent my seeing.

JOSEPH BATEMAN (Police Sergeant P 16). I am stationed at Penge—on Saturday the 14th April Mr. Cassabianca saw me—he is brother-in-law of the deceased lady—in consequence of what he said to me I went to 34, "Forbes Road and saw Mrs. Chalklin—the same day as I saw Mr. Longrigg—the next day I went to Cudhain after having previously made enquiries at Bromley—I went to Little Gray's Farm—I went to the Woodlands first but there was nobody at home there—I saw Mr. Louis Staunton at Little Grays—the servant opened the door to me—I was in plain clothes and went in—I told him I was a police sergeant—no one else was then present—I told him I had come to speak to him with reference to his wife's death which had caused a little excitement in the neighbourhood—I said "I shall want you to tell me something about the lady," and he said "Yes"—I asked him several questions which he answered very readily—I said "I will go back to the time you were married, and will trace the lady down to the present time," and I took the answers from him as I went on—I cannot recollect the question I first put to him—I told him from what I heard I thought it ought to be brought under the notice of the Coroner—I asked him when he got married and where he went to reside after he got married, he said "I got married in June, 1875, and afterwards went to reside at No. 8, Loughborough Park"—I asked him when he left there, he said "I left about the end of May last and went to Gipsey Hill, Norwood"—I asked him if his wife resided with him there, he said "Yes, she did"—I asked him when he left there and came to Cudham, and he said "I think I left about Michaelmas last"—I asked him if his wife came with him, and he said "Yes", she came and stayed a few days "or" a few weeks, "I am not certain which he said, "but finding she was not able to manage my business I sent her to my

brother's and allowed him something for her maintenance"—I asked him if he had seen her since she went to his brother's, he said Yes, he had Been her several times—I asked if she visited at his house, and he said "Yes she visited me here and I visited her at my brother's"—I asked him if he had any family, he said "One child, a boy"—I asked if it was alive—he said "No, dead"—I asked him when the child died, and he said "Oh! it only lived a few days, it was very delicate when it was born and the doctor said it could not live"—I asked if a doctor attended her in her confinement and he said "Yes, a doctor in Coldbarbour Lane"—I asked him if the birth or the death of the child affected her mind or her health at all, and he said "No, not at all, she always had an affection of the brain"—I asked him how she was removed, and he said "I removed her in my own trap"—I asked if anyone accompanied him, and he said "Yes, my brother, his wife, and his sister-in-law in the trap to the station"—I asked him how she had been and he said there was nothing the matter with her until shortly before her removal—he said she had been rather poorly for a day or two—I asked him what she had had to eat a day or two before her removal, and he said "She had steak on Monday, fowl on Thursday, and she also had two slices of bread and butter, an egg, and a cup of milk on Thursday before her removal"—he said no medical man had attended her down there—I asked him who attended on her at his brother's place—and he said his sister-in-law Mrs. Staunton, and sometimes the servant—I asked him if she was a person likely to destroy her own life, and he said "No, she was not" I asked him if there was any means of getting at a chemist's shop and getting anything likely to destroy her life, and he said there was not—I asked him if Miss Rhodes had lived with him, and he said "Yes, she lived with me at Brixton and Norwood, she remained at Norwood for three weeks after I left and then she came here and managed my business for me"—I asked him if his wife knew she was there, and he said "She was perfectly agreeable to that, as she was not able to manage my business"—I told him that the information I had received I should have to lay before the Coroner and he would have to decide whether it was a case in which an inquest should be held—he answered my questions very readily; he hesitated at one or two, but very little—I asked him if any of the others could tell me anything about her and he referred me to the servant, Clara Brown, whom he called into the room, and I put questions to her—I asked her how long Mrs. Staunton had been at her master's place—I knew she was the servant of Patrick—she said she thought about four months—Louis was present—I asked her if she had got any friends in the neighbourhood and she said "No," she had not—I asked her if she had been in the service of Mr. Staunton before he came to Cudham and she said she had not, nor had she known the deceased before then—she said "Mrs. Staunton generally attended to her, sometimes I did"—she said the deceased's state of health was generally very good—I may hare asked her about what she ate, I almost forget—I asked her if she saw her removed and she said she did, and that she got into the trap with assistance—I asked her if she had heard anything further of her and she said she had not—I believe that is all I asked her—I said I should like to see Mr. Patrick Staunton and Louis called him into the room Louis remained—I asked Patrick how long he had known the deoeased and he said for a long time, several months, and she had been at his place about four months—I asked him if there had been anything the matter with her during the time she was there and he said "No, except that she had an

affection of the brain, or something of that sort"—he said "She ate very heartily"—I asked if she had anything else the matter with her and he said "No, there was nothing the matter with her"—I asked him how she was removed and he said "I removed her in my own trap"—he said she had been poorly a few days and had advised her removal—I asked him again how she ate generally, and he said "Well, I was not always there"—he gave me some very evasive answers, I could not get answers—when I asked him what she had to eat he said "I was not there, my wife would know better"—I asked him if he was generally in the house—he said "Yes," his business, of course, made him be indoors—I saw Mrs. Patrick afterwards—I asked him if she could tell me anything more about the deceased than he could and he referred to her and called her in; that was at my request—just before she came in he said he did not see the necessity for all this bother, as the doctor had given his certificate—when she came in I asked her how. long she had known the deceased—she said she had known her for a very long time—I asked how long she had been at her place—she said she could not tell—I repeated the question and she said she really could not tell how long she had been there—I asked her how her health was during the time she bad been there—she said "Very good"—I asked her if she ate well—she said "Yes, she ate, drank, and slept very well"—I asked her if there had been anything at all the matter with her during the time she was there—she said "No"—I asked her who attended upon her—she said "I did generally"—she said she had been poorly for a day or two before the removal, that her feet had swollen—I asked her if anything was done for her in consequence of her feet swelling—she said "Yes, they were frequently bathed "—she said her feet had swollen for the last week or fortnight, that was in answer to my question how long they had been so—I asked her if she saw her removed—she said "Yes, I accompanied her to Penge"—I asked her her state at the time she was removed—she said she walked very well and' got in herself—I asked her if the journey to Penge affected her in any way—she said "No"—I asked her if the deceased ever inquired for any of her friends—she said she did not—I asked her if any of the deceased's friends ever inquired for her down there—she said "No, never"—I asked her again if the journey to Penge affected her at all—she said "No, it did not seem to affect her at all in any way, we took her to the bed-room in Penge, sat heron a chair, and she helped to undress herself; we put her into bed, she seemed very pleased and thanked me for my kindness"—I asked her if she had anything to eat when she went to Penge—she said yes, she had some bread and butter and an egg—I asked her if there was any change at all—she said there was not until about midnight; that about midnight she-seemed to get worse, and continued getting worse until the morning—she said the doctor was sent for but he did not attend that night; he attended in the morning—I asked if she had anything to eat in the morning; she said she had some tea but would eat nothing—I think that was all that passed—she said she had a great dread of her mother coming after her to put her into a lunatic asylum; that was said down at Cudham when I asked whether any of her friends inquired for her down there—I asked her the same question I had asked the others, about her going to a chemist's shop, and she said no, there was no means whatever of her getting to a chemist's shop—I asked whether she was likely to take her own life; she said "No"—after asking these questions of the three, I asked Louis Staunton if Miss Rhodes could give me any more information than the others had given;

he said no, he did not think she could—I said in consequence of the condition she was in at that time, I could not see her—I did not see her—I did not think it right to do so, on account of the condition she was in,—which I had ascertained before I got to the house—from inquiries I had made in the neighbourhood, I was told that she was very near her confinement, and that it was expected daily—that was all that passed as far as I can recollect—this interview took place very near 2 o'clock on the Sunday—I reported to the Coroner the following morning the result of my inquiries—there was then an inquest held at Penge—the verdict was returned on 19th Max, and on that day I went with Mr. Keene's clerk to the Ludgate Hill Station—Mr. Keene had been the solicitor representing some of the prisoners, and had instructed counsel to attend the inquest on their behalf—I saw the two male prisoners near the station that was by appointment—Mr. Keene's clerk took me there on purpose to see them—I said to them "The Coroner's jury have returned a verdict of wilful murder against you, and on that charge I shall take you into custody"—they made no reply whatever to the charge—I then, in pursuance of an arrangement, went to London Bridge Partway Station, and there saw the two female prisoners—Mrs. Patrick Staunton came on foot to the station from Walworth, I believe, about 6.30, and soon after that Miss Rhodes came up by rail from Norwood, I believe—I told Mrs. Staunton I should take her in custody on the charge—she said "I am quite innocent of the charge"—I told Alice Rhodes the same; she made no reply whatever—that was on Saturday, the 19th—I might say that when they were taken to Penge they were charged, and the charge was read over to them, and they made no reply to the charge—on the next day, Sunday, the 20th, I went to Cudham—before I went I spoke to all the prisoners together.

By THE COURT. That was at the police-station; they were all in the reserve-room together—the two brothers had been put in one cell and the two sisters were put in another cell during the night, and next morning they were brought out to have breakfast and a wash—if they are males we frequently put them together in one cell; it depends upon the number of persons we have, and the convenience—there is no rule about keeping prisoners, arrested on a serious charge like this, separate.

By MR. POLAND. I told the prisoners that I was going down to Cudham to search their houses—Patrick Staunton said "There is a key behind the clock at Little Gray's, which belongs to a box at Mr. Bradford's; it was removed there for convenience, and was intended to be produced in Court, containing the clothes of the deceased person; but when we found how the case was going, we did not think it necessary"—that was all that was said—he did not say where it was removed from—I then went down to Cudham with Sergeant Philpot—Mr. Bradford met me at Little Gray's Farm; that was the same place I had been to before—I searched the house and found this draft letter (produced) in a little drawer of a chest of drawers on the landing—I found other letters there, the certificate of the birth of the child Thomas Henry Staunton, and a photograph of Louis Staunton and Alice Rhodes, in a group—I found the key referred to behind the clock where I was directed—these two papers containing the address of Mrs. Butterfield were found at Patrick Staunton's place—the letter of Alice Rhodes of 19th August, I found in the same drawer; I found it on that occasion—this is it, it is the one that was produced yesterday (the envelope bore the postmark of 1st August)—I beg pardon, that is the wrong envelope

—I don't think I found the letter in any envelope; it was the pencil letter that was found in the envelope, this was not—I afterwards went to the Woodlands that same day—I there found these two scraps of paper containing the addresses of Mrs. Butterfield and Mr. Hincksman—I found them in a drawer in Patrick's place—this pencil letter is what I found in this envelope in the same drawer as the letter of 19th August. (Letter read: "The Woodlands, Cudham, Tuesday. My dear Louis,—I was very sorry to see it rain so soon after you left here yesterday morning. I am afraid you got very wet. It rained here incessantly until about 5 o'clock, and then I went as far as Roberts' to try and get some jam pots, but I could not get them anywhere. I had a good walk with Florie this morning to get Tommy's milk. You cannot tell how I missed my dear old sweety, and I hope he was not in mischief last night. Not that I think you would do it intentionally, but feeling dull might call on——, and take strawberries and cream. I think myself it might be tempting. Come down as soon as you can, and then I shall have a great deal to tell you. Come down without Harriett if you can, when you take me home. The men have just come to take the hay here. Hoping I shall see my own darling soon, I remain his truly affectionate wife, Alice. I am not bad yet.) This is the draft letter found in the house at Mrs. Goodinge's. (" Mrs. Butterfield,—I really am astonished at your audacity and impertinence after your shameful and unnatural behaviour such as no mother in the whole world would have acted towards her own child. Rest assured I would cast myself into a lion's den to be devoured at once rather than come within arm's length of you, having come to the fullest determination to have nothing to do with you or your family. I have been again to my solicitor to-day, and we have given instructions for you to be taken into custody at once should you Continue to molest me. With regard to the ill-treatment you allude to its quite the reverse, having received the greatest kindness from Tom and fancy since I have been in their house, and I must protest against such assertions.") On Thursday. 24th May, I went to the Woodlands again, and found this letter, signed "Harriett"—it was in the large bed-room—it dropped from behind the wash-stand or dressing-table with some other papers when I moved it—I found some castor oil and other drugs—I afterwards went to Mr. Bradford's and got the box that has been referred to—he key referred to fitted the box—I made a list of the contents—I also lade a list of the clothing that I found at the Woodlands.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. The prisoners were surrendered by arrangement—I made notes of the statements which the different prisoners made, the same night when I returned; I have not got them here—I made a copy about two days afterwards; I destroyed the original note—Louis Staunton said that the child only lived a few days; he certainly did not say that it had only died a few days—I was present before the Coroner when Clara Brown gave her evidence; I heard her give it—I believe the Coroner cautioned her two or three times—I have had several conversations with her since the inquest—I put question to her, I think, on two occasions—I did not threaten her at any time, in no way whatever—I did not say that she would be imprisoned—I told her that I knew that the evidence she had given before the Coroner was wrong, and I told her that I had evidence to prove that what she had said was wrong, and she had better be careful, if she liked to persist in saying what she had said, she could do as she pleased I told her that for what she had already said she would be liable to

imprisoned—I said if she went on in the way she was going on she would be likely to get herself into trouble—I did not say she would, only that she would be likely to—she did not make any statement to me on 8th June; on 8th June we were at the Bromley Bench—to the best of my recollection I got no statement from her on 8th June—I think she made a statement there to Mr. Pollard—I remember Clara Brown saying "I made an untrue statement with reference to the bed-room of the deceased, and about the food she ate. I now say that the food was put before her, but whether she ate it or not I cannot say—what I have said, both to the Treasury and before the Coroner, I was told to say by the prisoners them selves"—I do not remember when that statement was made—I cannot tell you whether I told her of her liability to imprisonment, before or after she made that statement to me—I have no recollection of the date—I told her on two occasions of her liability to imprisonment if she' kept on in the way she was going, and stated what was natrue—the last occasion I told her so was 24th May; no, I cannot say whether that was the first or the last, but one occasion was on the 24th May, when she went to Cudham with me—I do not know the date when I took her to live at Penge, it was fourteen or fifteen weeks ago—I did not then have a conversation with her on the subject, but I expect I had a conversation with her in respect to this charge—I did not tell her on that occasion that she might get herself into trouble—I took her to Penge because it was arranged that she should go there to live—she came from her aunt's at Heygate Street—she had no relations at Penge—a number of witnesses come from Penge—the Treasury paid her expenses, and I took her where I pleased—I live at Penge, and I took her there to be under my eye—she has been there ever since, and she came from there to-day.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. It was after she was examined before the Magistrate that I took her to Penge—she came to Bromley by my instructions, and was there in attendance to be called as a witness—that was on 13th June, she had then made the statement which Mr. Williams has called my attention to—I did not write a statement out and forward it to the Treasury, headed "Bromley police-station, 8th June"—this is my signature to this document (produced), but none of the document is in my writing—it was written by Mr. Pollard, senior, but it is signed by me—Clara Brown was, I believe, in attendance at all the examinations before the Magistrate—I said before the Magistrate "I asked Mrs. Patrick Staunton how long she had known Mrs. Staunton, she said 'For a long time.' I asked her how long she had been at her place and she said 'Some months'"—I did say "I asked her how long she had been at Her place, she said 'Some months'"—I said that she had known her some time and she said "It is some months"—I asked Mrs. Patrick Staunton whether Mrs. Harriett had ever slept away from the house and she replied "No, not once"—that was referring to Mrs. Patrick's house—in addition to the answer she gave to my question whether she had sufficient to eat and drink, she said that she was very fond of a drop of spirits—that was in my original notes—I asked Mrs. Patrick whether it was possible for her to get to a chemist's shop, and she said that it was not—when I asked her about the state of health of the deceased lady the reply she made was "She has not been ill, but rather poorly for a few days, the last day or two before her removal she did not care to eat without being forced to do so"—I did not tell that in my examination in chief because I

did Dot think of it—I also said Mrs. Patrick said "She was generally in good health, on Tuesday she was poorly, and I gave her some castor oil, which was the only medicine she had"—Mrs. Judd, with whom I got lodgings for the girl, is not the wife of a policeman—I did not fetch her from there—she did not come up with me this morning—I saw her last night and saw her again this morning—I have read a very small portion of her evidence in this morning's paper, not a quarter of it—I read, or heard spoken of, the portion of it where it is said that I spoke about prison; I do not know which.

Re-examined by THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. It was a few days before 13th June, that I was examined before the Magistrate at Bromley—that was when we signed the depositions—I stated all I knew, and I was examined for a long time—after the Coroner's inquest, Clara Brown was taken to the Treasury—she went with Mr. Lewis' clerk on the first occasion, and I happened to be there at the same time—more than a day or two after she had been to the Treasury, she made a statement to me, and I gave information that she had made such a statement—the statement was that she had not told the truth—she said "I made an untrue statement with reference to the bed-room of the deceased and about the food she ate; I now say that food was put before her, but whether she ate it or not I cannot any, what I have said both to the Treasury, and before the Coroner I was told to say by the prisoners themselves"—after she told me that when Mr. Pollard the elder, was at Bromley, he asked me if she wished to make a statement, and he called her in to make a statement—I told him what she had said, but I cannot say when it was—I told him she had said "What I have said to the Treasury, and before the Coroner I was told to say by the prisoners themselves," and after that I was instructed to get her away from where she was living, and I got her lodgings at Penge, because I was stationed at Penge—since that time I have taken her two or three times to the solicitor to the Treasury at the Treasury; I knew from inquiries after she gave evidence before the Coroner, that she had not been stating what was true—when she was called upon to sign her depositions she said that what she had said was not true, and that who she came to give her evidence she I would have to correct it all—it was in consequence of what she said before the Coroner that I made the remark to her about getting into trouble—I have never endeavoured in any shape or way to get the girl to make any particular statement, or to say that which is not true.

ELIZABETH URIDGE . I am a widow, and live at Bromley—I am the owner of Gray's Farm, which consists of twenty-two acres—there its a farm house and buildings on the farm—the rent is 70l.—some time last year, that farm was advertised to be let, and Louis Staunton took it and entered on it some time in October—he was to be my tenant from Michaelmas, 1876—he was my tenant till Midsummer—he had a lease for three or seven years at his option—I never went over the farm when he was there—I saw Mrs. Butterfield in March, and found she was making some inquiries, in consequence of something I heard I telegraphed to her on Saturday, 15th April—on the day before that I was in a shop in Bromley, and Mr. Rose, the registrar of births and deaths for the district, came in and made a statement in consequence of which I sent the telegram—Mrs. Butterfield had left her address with me.

By THE COURT. When Louis Staunton took the farm of me, he said that he was an auctioneer carrying on business at Gipsy Hill, Norwood.

HARRIET DAV . I live at Wrotliam, in Kent—my husband is a gardener—we used to work on the farm at Little Gray's—after Mr. and Mrs. Staunton came there I stayed there for some little time—I do not know Alice Rhodes by that name; she lived with Louis Staunton as his wife—they had no servant—I worked for them occasionally—there were four bed rooms in the house at Little Gray's, only two were furnished, and only one occupied.

CHARLES JOSEPH CARTTAR . I am Coroner for the County of Kent—in consequence of information given to me I held an inquest on the death of Harriett Staunton—on Wednesday, 18th April last, the inquest commenced—Harriett Butterfield identified the body of the deceased—Clara Brown was asked two or three questions, then an adjournment took place to 25th April, on that day Mr. Gye appeared on behalf of Louis Staunton, and then the inquest was further adjourned to 10th May to allow of the analysis—on the 10th May Mr. Gye again appeared and continued until the end of the inquest—Counsel was also there representing the Crown—on 10th May, Louis Adolphus Edmund Staunton was sworn and examined—I took down his evidence in writing; I have it before me now—Alice Rhodes was examined on the same day after he had been examined; she was the next witness—I have before me the evidence which she gave on the same day Elizabeth Ann Staunton, the wife of Patrick Staunton was examined—I took down the evidence she so gave—then the inquest was adjourned to 11th May—on that day Patrick Llewellyn Staunton was called and examined; I have before me his evidence, which I took down in writing at the time—on the same day, after Mr. Patrick Staunton had been examined, Clara Brown was re-called—when all the evidence had been given the inquest was adjourned to the 14th—there were several adjournments, ten days, I think—after the adjournment I appointed a day for the completion of the depositions; on that day neither of the four prisoners attended to sign their depositions; they did not answer to their names; on inquiry I was informed they did not intend to be present—in the interval prior to that Mr. Douglas Straight appeared, representing one of the parties, Mr. Patrick Staunton, I think—Clara Brown did attend to sign her depositions.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. These documents are not in my own handwriting, they are copied from my own notes at my dictation and my examination; I have the original notes at home, but these depositions are got up for all and each of the witnesses to sign; they were not read over, because the prisoners did not attend, but the depositions on the various days on which Clara Brown attended were read over to her—the prisoners were not present—I asked the reason why—the learned Counsel said they were not present in consequence of the alarm existing in their minds as to whether the multitude would not attack them, and further, that if they were present they would refuse to sign, under the advise of Counsel—I have the original notes of the depositions, they are partly in shorthand—if I should read my notes it would be found they are word for word, but they are partly in shorthand, partly abbreviated, and partly longhand.

The depositions of the Prisoners were then put in and read as follows:—"Louis Adolphus Edmond Staunton, of Little Grays Farm, Cudham, Kent, farmer, sworn, says:—I have resided there since last November. From May to November, last year, I lived at No. 6, Corby Terrace, Upper Norwood. I was there an auctioneer. I married the deceased, Harriett Richardson, in June, 187"), at Clapham Church. There was no marriage

settlement. One boy was born on the 23rd March, 1876. He died 8th April, 1877, from convulsions.' He died in Guy's Hospital. My wife was quite well up to Monday, 10th April last; she then complained of her feet swelling. I reside at the farm alone with Alice Rhodes. I have no servant. I have been separated from my wife since November last, by private arrangement. She lived at my brother Patrick's, at Frith Cottage, Cudham, about a mile and a half from my farm. I supported her, and allowed my brother one pound a week. I saw my wife two or three times a week there. I was on very good terms with her. She was addicted to excessive drinking almost daily; she drank spirits. I saw her on Saturday, 8th April; I had tea there; she was quite well On Tuesday, 10th April, she was not so well, but she ate well; in fact, she was always craving for food. She was not allowed any spirits. Her face was swollen with a cold. I stopped there to tea and supper. On Wednesday I sent round some new laid eggs by Alice Rhodes, who brought word she was not so well. I immediately; went there; she was sitting over the fire, and appeared very drowsy. I asked her how she was; the only remark she made was 'Pretty well' I asked her what she was going to have for dinner, if she could not eat a steak. She said 'No, your brother has killed a fowl for me.' I then left. I went again in the evening and consulted as to what had better be done, as she did not appear to be getting any better. I suggested I should go up on Thursday morning and look for a place nearer London where we might get advice for her. On Thursday morning Mr. Patrick Staunton came with me to Penge. We drove to Bromley, and came on by train. I knew Penge very well to be a place where they let a good many apartments, and also where there are a great many medical men. I saw apartments to let in the window of a house in Forbes Road from the train. I went there and took the apartments at 15s. a week and extras. I told the landlady it was for an invalid lady, and I thought it was a sort of paralysis. I said I would bring her about half-past 9 that night. I paid a deposit of 5s. I did not say who she was. On Wednesday her memory appeared to fail her. My brother's household consists of himself and wife, two children (girls), 3 years and 15 months old, and the servant Clara Brown, and my wife, and nobody else. I am told by my brother that Clara Brown is related to his wife. Up to Monday, April 9th, my wife was in a perfect state of good health. Mr. Richard James Bradford visited at my brother's. The mother and sister of deceased did not visit her. My wife declined to see her relations, because, before the marriage, they tried to make her out insane, and put her into a lunatic asyium, and it gave such a hatred of them that she would never have anything to do with them since we were married; in fact, she had always quarrelled with her mother. I have seen Mrs. Butterfield at Brixton when she saw her daughter. She has not seen her since—I saw Mrs. Butterfield myself about two months ago at Cudham. Mrs. Patrick Staunton was there. I did not tell her where my wife was. My wife was not at my farm. Mrs. Butterfield asked to see her. I told her on no consideration would her daughter see her, nor would I allow her to do so. I heard that inquiries were being made indirectly as to where she was. She wrote twice to her mother, once when living at Brixton, requesting her never to call upon her again after her shameful conduct. My wife asked mo to write a letter and date it from 'Brighton,' and to post it there to make her mother believe she was down there. I wrote the letter, and I went to Brighton and posted it. In the same envelope there was a letter

from my wife to her. It was about 3 o'clock on Thursday, April 12th, that we returned from Penge. My wife said she would get herself ready as soon as possible. I said I would be round about half-past 6 with my trap, a small wagonette with one horse. Alice Rhodes went to Frith Cottage in the afternoon. When I got there they were not quite ready. Deceased was in the parlour, they had dressed her once, but she had to be re-dressed again. She had the run of the house there. She had a private bed-room to herself. When ready I assisted her on one side, and my brother on the other, to the trap. She was able to walk with support. She assisted herself up into the trap, put up one of her legs, and her hand out to catch hold of the rail. She sat on the front seat between me and Alice Rhodes. My brother and his wife went with us. it was dark. We drove to Bromley Station. It was my intention to drive right up, but I thought it would save trouble taking the train from Bromley. We had a first class compartment to ourselves. The train was just coming in. I asked them to stop the train as I had an invalid lady. The deceased was taken out of the trap and put into the train. We came to Penge. During the journey in the train she appeared very exhausted, was not able to speak. She got worse during the journey from Cudham to Bromley. At Penge a chair was got for her. Alice Rhodes and Mrs. Patrick Staunton went on to the lodgings to see that everything was ready. A cab was sent for and she was put into it by myself and brother. We could not get close to the house owing to the state of the road. The cabman assisted. She was not carried. The cabman did carry her from the gate up the steps into the house into the bed-room. The front door was open. Mrs. Patrick Staunton and Alice Rhodes came up for the purpose of stopping with her while she was ill, at least Alice Pthodes was to have stopped. My wife was on friendly terms with Alice Rhodes; very friendly. She had been with us since six months after our marriage. Whilst they were undressing her I went to Mr. Longngg's, he was not at home. I saw his assistant, and left word for Mr. Longrigg to come round at once, as my wife appeared so exhausted. I was told he would be in shortly. I then went back to the house. I did not seek any other medical man. I went again to Mr. Longrigg's and his assistant said he would leave a note for him to come in immediately be returned. I said 'I will sit up for him all night.' About half-past 11 o'clock I went to the train and returned to Cudham. After she was in bed she appeared rather better, and said 'I am tired,' that is all I heard her say. I took no advice as to removing her from Cudham, nor was she attended by any medical man there. Mr. Longrigg was a perfect stranger to me, I never said to Mrs. Chalklin or to any one that she had been attended by a medical man—I suggested on Wednesday to Mrs. Patrick Stauntou that she should see Dr. Creasy. She said 'He is no good, I have no faith in him, far better take her to London." I thought if any physician was wanted that I should sooner get him at Penge than I could at Cudham. Dr. Creasy lives at Brasted. I saw Mr. Longrigg the morning we took the apartments. I told him I wished him to attend her, and I did not exactly know what was the matter with her, her feet were swollen, and he seemed to understand the case, I did not tell him anything at all about the medical man having attended her, or that Dr. Creasy had seen her. I did not say that Dr. Creasy and other medical men had been attending her. I said the only doctor in the neighbourhood was Dr. Creasy, but he was so far off it would be better to bring her up—I told him I believed it was a sort of paralysis, that she had lost her memory and shook

a good deal. I returned on Friday, at 11 o'clock. My wife was then insensible. My brother came with me. I found the nurse there. I remained until she died. I was not present in the room at her death. Alice Rhodes had left, Mrs. Patrick Staunton was with me. Her death was announced to me by the nurse. It was the drink that caused the separation between us. The marriage was not with the full sanction of her family, I had some property with her. I had derived benefit to the amount of between two and three thousand pounds. She was entitled to some reversion, which I have sold. The deceased herself wished to be brought up near to London. By MR. POLAND. The child was brought up to Guy's Hospital, and died the same day. The child's name was Thomas Henry Staunton, aged one year. I paid the undertaker 35s. to bury it at Plaistow, in Essex. The child died on the 8th April last, and was buried on the 16th April. I did not attend the funeral My wife was told of his death. I did not inform my wife's family. I never went to Guy's Hospital myself. I am 26 years of age. My wife was 35 years. Alice Rhodes is 20 years of age. My wife was not of weak intellect; I never noticed it. I did not hear the police were in search of her, or that her mother had been to the Bromley Magistrates for their aid to find her. I know of no one who ever saw her outside my brother's house. I cannot name any one whoever saw her the worse for liquor. I never noticed her emaciation until the Wednesday, 11th April. She was not neglected. She was always clean in her person and dress, but she has always since her marriage had lice in, her hair, her false hair. There was nothing the matter with her but a cold. No box of clothes was brought with her, a hamper with some food. She dropped one of her slippers when carried from the trap to the railway carriage at Bromley Station. She did not speak of supper. She was not conscious when I left Penge. By MR. GYE. She would drink if she could get it. I have seen her outside my brother's house. She was a great eater. She was well clothed and had plenty of clothes. She never complained of not being comfortable. She wrote to her mother twice. Until the Monday she was not ill. In the trap a blanket was round her feet. She had her Ulster on, and a shawl, and a rug. Alice Rhodes passed as Mrs. Staunton all the time we have lived at Cudham, and as my wife. I am not aware that my wife knew it We left Norwood the last week in October. Deceased was at Cudham last summer for a short time. Alice Rhodes did not pass as Mrs. Staunton before we came to Cudham. I don't know whether Alice Rhodes is expecting to be confined. The deceased passed as 'a relative' at my brother's.""

Alice Rhodes, of Little Gray's Farm, Cudham, single woman, says:—I left Little Gray's Farm, about three weeks ago, and I went to No. 3, Park Villas, Lower Norwood, at Mr. Bradford's an auctioneer, where I am now staying. I have known him two years. I knew the deceased six years. I went to reside—at Loughborough Park with Mr. and Mrs. Louis Staunton about six months after they were married. Deceased. said she wished me to remain with her until she went to Norwood. About November she went to Cudham to Mr. Patrick Staunton's, and I went to Little Gray's Farm to keep house for Mr. Louis Staunton. I passed as Mrs. Louis Staunton there, but never before. I often saw the deceased. I did not know she was ill until Wednesday, the 11th April, and she was not very M then. Mr. Staunton sent me to see how she was. I accompanied her to Penge on Thursday. Mrs. Staunton asked me to go with her; she sat between us in an open conveyance. The cabinan carried her into the house,

but she was able to walk. She undressed herself and took out her own earrings, and was put to bed immediately. She took a little egg that night; In the morning she was a great deal worse. I did not remain until she died; I left about 1 o'clock. I do not know whether she knew about the death of her child. At Cudham she was not attended by any medical man; there was no occasion for it. She was in good health; her illness came on suddenly, I cannot account for it. She was not of weak intellect; she was a little nervous. I never heard of her friends seeking to find her. By MR. POLAND. I saw Mrs. Butterfield at London Bridge Station. She asked me how her daughter war, and where. I told her she was at Brighton with her child and husband, but I did not know her address. I did not tell her what name had been given to the child. I did not tell her I had not seen Mr. Louis Staunton for months. I knew the deceased was not at Brighton, but at Cudham; I said it for a blind; deceased asked me to tell her mother so. She said she had written to her mother to say she was at Brighton and advised me to say the same. I never saw the deceased at any shops at Cudham. She never cared to go out. Latterly she walked down Cudham, once or twice, not very long ago. I do not know of any visitors coming to Mrs. Patrick Staunton's house. I have seen her outside the meadow several times and generally alone. She did not want to see the tradespeople. I should not say she was of weak intellect, but she was particularly nervous. She disliked being alone. I went to her house, not to manage it for her, but to help her to manage it, to assist her. She was not under the influence of other persons, nor was she easily frightened when harshly spoken to. She appeared to be very fond of her child and nursed it herself. I do not know whether she grieved at its death. She was very weak the evening she left Cudham, but I daresay she could have walked alone had she tried. She was too ill to tell me why she was coming to Penge. She got worse on the journey. She was not able to converse with me freely; she was too ill She helped herself to bed and unfastened her things as quickly as she was able. I did not see that she was in a filthy state; I did not know that she was covered with lice; I did not notice the dirty state she was in. I have seen her the worse for drink, both at Loughborough Park and at Norwood, and 1 think once at Cudham. I never spoke to her of the death of her child, nor did she ever allude to it; I thought that strange. Mr. Louis Staunton took the child to the hospital. Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton were in the trap also. They came back to the farm and said they had left the child at the hospital. They stopped all night and went home on the Monday morning. I heard on the Monday night it was dead. The deceased was quite able to take the journey when we started from Cudham. We sat up all night, expecting the doctor. I intended while we stayed at that house to sleep with the invalid in the same bed."

"Elizabeth Ann Staunton, wife of Patrick Llewellyn Staunton, an artist of Woodlands, Cndham, sworn, says:—The deceased came to us in November last in a perfect state of health. She had a wish to stay with me. She has been in good health ever since until Monday, 9th April last On Sunday, 8th April, I took the child to Guy's Hospital. I gave there the name of 'Henry Staunton.' I believe the child had another name, bat I do not know it. The child was ill. My husband went with me. Louis Staunton waited at the hospital gate for us. We left the child about 4.30. On Monday night, 9th April, I heard of its death; my husband told me. He had been to take it sonic clothes, and found it was dead. It died on

the Sunday night soon after we left it in the hospital. I went with the deceased to Penge. She was sitting by the kitchen fire before we started. I helped her to dress. She put her own earrings in. Her hair was always done every morning before breakfast. She always appeared very nice and always had clean clothes. The cabman helped to carry her in. She sat up and began to undo her dress. She thanked me and appeared sensible then. I laid on the bed by the side of her after 3 o'clock a.m. We were expecting the doctor. I left the house about 5 o'clock p.m. I had previously told the landlady she was dead. The deceased requested me to come with her to Penge. Mr. Louis Staunton told the landlady and also the medical man that he was her husband. By MR. POLAND. It was first arranged that the deceased should go to Penge on the Thursday. She had never complained. She was always a thin person. She always had her meals at the same table with ourselves. She was constantly out. The doors were always open. I have seen her out six times at least. I saw her write one letter to her mother. Dr. Creasy once attended my little girl about September last. We took a wicker basket to Penge with us containing clothes for the deceased, and a small parcel containing eggs and butter. I saw Mrs. Butterfield at Little Gray's Farm making inquiries about her daughter. I did not hear her say If I could Only hear my daughter's voice I would be satisfied.' I do not know whether the child was ever christened. The deceased was not at all a woman of weak intellect. By MR. GYE. She always had meals at our table; plenty of food. She came down to breakfast daily and washed and dressed herself regularly. She did as she liked and wore what she pleased. She had plenty of clothes, was always well dressed, and clean and fit to be seen. She had several dresses and jewellery. She could go in and out as she liked. My husband was not satisfied with Dr. Creasy when he attended our little girl. We had to hurry away on Thursday. We had no visitors at Cudham. I told Mrs. Butterfield I had dined with the deceased not twenty minutes ago. She said it was a lie. I had directions from Mr. Louis Staunton not to give deceased any spirits. I have not paid Dr. Creasy's bill; I suppose my husband has. Mr. Louis Staunton did not mention Dr. Creasy's name to Mr. Longrigg when we called on him."

"Patrick Llewellyn Staunton, of Woodlands, Cudharn, artist, eworn, says:—I am brother to Mr. Louis Staunton. In November last I agreed to board and lodge the deceased and her child at 1l. a week. She came in perfect health. She partook of our meals at our table as a relation. My brother desired me to prohibit the deceased the use of spirits, as she had taken them too freely. I had twice seen her the worse for liquor at Brixton, soon after she was married, and many times since, indeed, constantly. I did not see any change in her health until Monday, the 9th April, and then only knew it from what she told me of her feet being swollen; her feet were put into hot water and she was then put to bed by my wife and my servant. My servant waited upon her constantly and regularly. I saw her as she was going up to bed and afterwards when she was in bed; the servant told me she was awake, and I went in to ask her how she was. She answered that she felt all right and the next morning she got up in the usual way. I went the next day to see my mother, at Brixton, and I told her the deceased was not well. I went to Guy's Hospital on Monday, the 9th April. I started at 10 o'clock, got back about 4. I drove to Bromley, then took the train. At Guy's I went into the office and saw

clerk I was told the child was dead. I called at my brother's and told him of the death. I stayed there about half an hour. I then went home. I told the deceased and she said 'I thought as much,' and she walked out of the room. I swear this positively. She asked no questions, but walked out of the room. Her husband came to see her in the afternoon. I was not present. On Wednesday morning her husband advised and I recommended her removal. She was consulted and consented to go to Penge. He and my wife went to take apartments, and on their return I assisted her in and out of the trap. She did not speak. I don't know that she was insensible. I don't know that she was carried into the train, as my brother was on one side of her and I on the other side, and she put her foot on the ground. She was carried on a chair from the train and put into a cab, and the cabman assisted me to carry her into the house and into the room. She seemed to be then more sensible. She did not speak. I remained until half-past 10, when I accompanied my brother to the doctor's. I left at about 11, and returned to Cudham. The next day I came up with my brother about 11, and was told she had had an epileptic seizure, but no information was given me that she was dying. I left about 2 o'clock and went to my mother's to tell her she was very ill. On my return I found every one had left, and a message for me, and I went to Bromley. There I met my brother at the station. Me had been to tell my mother. The child was born at Brixton; 8, Loughborough Park. I believe it was registered. Dr. Russell, of Coldharbour Lane, attended at the confinement, and recommended a nurse, who remained the usual time, the month. The child was named Thomas Henry. The child was brought to my house, at Cudham, some months before the deceased came in November. It slept in a cot in our room, and my wife attended to it assisted by the servant, Clara Brown. On Saturday, the 7th April, it had convulsions; it was always a thin child, almost all skin and bone. The deceased suggested that it should be carried to Guy's Hospital No medical advice was had. On Sunday it was worse, and I and my wife and my brother went up with it to Guy's. My brother waited outside the hospital and I and my wife went in and left the child with the doctor. I did not attend the funeral. I knew that Alice Rhodes was passing as my brother's wife, as Mrs. Staunton, but I did not know there was any criminal connection whatever. I cannot say whether she so passed for a deception or not. I took the Woodlands two years ago, leaving Brixton to go there on account of my profession. I was not assisted in taking the house in any way with money got from the marriage of my brother with the deceased. The child who died was the child of the deceased.

Cross-examined by MR. POLAND. Clara Brown was at Brixton, in March 1876, at the time of the confinement. In August, 1876, the deceased visited us at Cudham, and stayed a week with the child. She visited us four or five times; she was then living at Norwood. When with us she had perfect health; she was not a person of weak intellect and was perfectly capable of managing her household and her own affairs. We had no visitors, but Mr. Bradford. The deceased used to go out for—walks. We have seven acres of ground, she used to go in the wood and on the public road. I have seen my brother drive her out in a wagonette. I knew that Alice Rhodes passed as his wife; the deceased passed as a relation. My brother and Alice Rhodes came constantly to our house, three or four times a week, and deceased sat down at the same table with them and us, and partook of our

meals and made no objection and showed no jealously. Deceased was in perfect health till the Monday, 9th April, washed and dressed her child herself. Deceased knew Dr. Creasy had attended my child, when it had been ill, knew that he had called five or six times, but she did not suggest he should be sent for to attend on her own child. She suggested it should be sent to Guy's; she said when told of its death 'I thought as much. She never asked where it was buried, nor the name of the doctor, nor what ward it was in, nor express any wish to see the body of the child, nor as to wbrt members of her family should attend the funeral. Deceased was in perfect health. I saw no change in her till the Monday. I did not send for Dr. Creasy, as I have no faith in him. It would take twenty minutes to go to my brother's. He had a wagonette which could have fetched a medical man in half an hour, but no medical advice was sought.—Deceased had a slight impediment in her speech on the Tuesday, a slight stutter. Although I knew that the child died immediately subsequent, to removal it did not occur to me to take medical advice previous to removing the mother. I suggested taking her to Penge, so that a physician might be obtained, should the doctor there think it necessary, but I did not consider her so seriously ill as to require a physician. I did not call on Mrs. Hincksmau, on the Wednesday. The distance from my house to the station is about 8 miles, then there was the railway journey making it about 10 miles altogether. I do not know how long it took us to drive. It takes me about an hour to drive it. I met Mrs. Butterfield, at London Bridge, one day, and she enquired about the deceased. She abused me and got a great crowd round us. I had arrived from Cudham, by the train. I told her that her daughter was quite well. She said "No, she was not, she was confined in a asylum. I told her she was not in an asylum, and she swore at me and I walked away then. I did not say 'Damn your daughter.' I never used such a word. She said 'I am going to Cudham.' I never said 'If you do I'll blow your brains out, as I keep a loaded gun.' I did not use that expression, nor any similar expression. I said I did not see what she could gain by going to Cudham. I said she would not see her daughter, because I knew she would not be allowed to Bee her. I was at London Bridge Station the railway porters were there, and a crowd she collected round us. I did not knew that she had applied on the 9th April last, to the Magistrates at Bromley. I never heard of it. The removals of the deceased and the child were not in order to evade registering the deaths in the district, or to avoid inquiries. I made no inquiry as to what district Penge was in, nor did I know in what district it was. While in the trap the deceased made some remark about a dog, and she also spoke to her husband. She said nothing about the slipper that was dropped. I was not aware that she had lice upon her, and I was much surprised to hear it. When I first knew her she was a very cleanly person, and she dressed as a lady should. I was at Penge on Sunday, 15th April I then saw Mr. Lougrigg. I went to see him to ask why the funeral did not take place after his giving his certificate; we thought there must be some mistake. I id not go to the undertaker's. The undertaker and Sergeant Bateman came to Cudham to my brother's, and by chance I was there. I undertake to say that I saw the deceased the worse for drink at least three times while she was in my house; I do not know how she got the drink. By MR. GYE. The deceased looked after her child herself, washed and dressed it, looked

after it in every way until its illness and removal. The child had plenty of clothes; clothes were brought to my house for the child several times by my brother. The deceased bad plenty of clothes of very good description. She looked after her own clothes and the child's. My wife did not interfere, She was allowed to do just as she liked; she went out and about of her own free will; there was no sort of restraint put upon her, none whatever. The child had pretty good health, but was always thin, it had never had a lie attack before. I was much dissatisfied with Dr. Creasy and did not, there fore call him in. Deceased understood the child was ill and understood the purpose of its going to London. She was quite well up to the Monday. It was on the Wednesday she stammered, not on the Tuesday. She appreciated the suggestion that she should go to Penge, and was willing to go. I noticed nothing wrong with her, except the swelling of the feet, and she said her throat seemed a little sore, she said she thought she had a cold. She put one hand on my shoulder and the other on the rail of the trap and put her foot on the step to get into the vehicle. She had list slippers, because her feet were swollen, and she had a blanket to keep them warm. Clothes were taken with her in a lady's travelling basket, a wicker basket, lined inside. I did not pack it, but as far as I know, that basket was full of clothes. There were no appearances in the deceased which, in my judgment, rendered it unwise to take the journey, none whatever. It took us about an hour and a quarter to drive. I had not the slightest idea that her death was so near, or that her stace was in any way dangerous. She had no influence exercised over her to induce her to go. During the time she was in my house she was, in my opinion, capable of taking care of herself. I said Mrs. Butterfield would not be allowed to see her, not that she could not see her.

Re-examined. Alice Bhodes saw Mrs. Butterfield on a different occasion. There was no particular reason for having the door of the lodgings at Penge ready opened; the landlady could have opened it if we had rung the bell I contradict the statement of the lady that she did not know until an hour and a half after we arrived that we were in the house, she knew it under the hour. I do not know whether the child had any godfather or godmother. It is about a mile to my brother's farm from my house, in twenty minutesl can walk it, at an ordinary pace. The deceased was not kept secreted. I did not telegraph to my brother to warn him that Mrs. Butterfield was coming down. There were no precautions and no pains taken to keep her private. I never knew the inspector and sergeant on duty at Sevenoaks were about my place. I swear positively that 1 neither directly or indirectly bad information of any application to the Bromley Bench of Magistrates. I presume Penge is in the County of Surrey; I did not think about what district it was in. We talked of driving all the way, but we did not know the road, and I think that was the reason we took the train. When I took the deceased there I did not think anything at all about what county it was in. I did not tell the deceased on the Sunday night about the child. I stayed at mj brother's, as it was a pouring wet night. I told her nothing about it until I told her on the Monday night that it was dead. She was not restrained in any way, only with regard to the drink. I have not paid Dr. Creas's account, unless my wife has."

MR. CARTTAR (re-examined). Those statements were made by the prisoners as they are read—the statements contained in the depositions of Clara Brown are statements which she made, and they were read over to her and signed by her; there are three of them—she made an observation

upon the signing which appears on the depositions. (Clara Brown's depositions were here put in.)

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I examined the witnesses myself in the first instance—I always do so—then they were cross-examined by Mr. Poland—Mr. Gye appeared the first time that we went into the evidence at any length—he was not there the first day; a solicitor was there on the first day—I think Mr. Straight came in on the second day of the chief examination; the 14th of May, I think—he appeared as counsel for Patrick Staunton—I think an observation was made that Mr. Douglas Straight and Mr. Gye looked after the interests of the female prisoners—then when they did not appear to sign the depositions, both the learned Counsel said "It must be understood clearly that we only represent the male prisoners, the Stauntons; we are not answering for the ladies"—that observation was made, but that was later some four or five days on—I have conducted examinations of this kind for forty-six years; it is for others to judge whether I do it rightly—I invariably take care, when witnesses are under examination that there is no interference with a witness and no prompting allowed—Counsel or persons called for the witnesses are not actually entitled to take part in the proceeding—I have always said I considered they are there by courtesy—when Mr. Straight came in I thought he was taking up the interest of persons not at all in my mind appearing to be implicated—I questioned his right to appear at all, but yielded as a matter of courtesy—I questioned it not because his taking part in the proceedings would occupy time, it was as to the right of every witness who appeared there being represented by Counsel—I should object to that—afterwards I gave them full latitude to cross-examine, so long as any new light could be thrown upon the matter, and so long was the question as a proper one leading to the evidence.

MR. STRAIGHT submitted on behalf of Elizabeth Ann Staunton: first, that she was not to be held responsible, as she was acting under the control of her husband; secondly, that assuming she might not be protected on that ground, according to the evidence she had no—means of doing that, the wilful neglect of which was charged against her, he referred to the case of"Somerville, and Reg. v. Cruse," in Russell on Crimes, Vol. 1, page 33, 1865 Edition, in support of the first proposition, and the case of" Rex v. Squire," in Russell on Crimes, page 38, in support of the second. The Attorney-General referred to Sir James Stephens' "Digest of the Criminal Law," in which it was laid down that the presumption in favour of the wife may be rebutted if the circumstances of the case show that she was not coerced; and contended that there was ample evidence of means, such as the allowance of 1l. a week, a well-kept table, &c. Mr. Justice Hawkins was clearly of opinion that there was ample evidence to go to the Jury against all the prisoners.

Monday, September 24th, 1877.

CLARA BROWN (re-examined by MR. STRAIGHT). During the time I was at the Woodlands I have known Patrick Staunton strike his wife in anger.

By THE COURT. There are two shops in the village of Cudham about a mile from the Woodlands—there is a house between that and Portlands; I do not know who keeps that—Cudham is a mile off; it is a small village—I think the deceased finally came to stay at Cudham at the beginning of August—she never went to Little Gray's Farm to my knowledge, not even to see it—Mr. and Mrs. Patrick went to Cudham in November, 1875, before

the deceased came finally to stay there—she came down two or three time from Saturday to Monday; I should say four times altogether—I believes once she stayed a week—I think Alice Rhodes came down nearly every tin; with them—I believe she was there when the hat and cloak were locked up—I am not quite sure—the baby never left the Woodlands from the time is was first brought down until it was taken to the hospital; it never was back home—I saw the baby every day—I think Mrs. Patrick complained on the Thursday before it was taken away, of it not being well—I don't recollect hearing when Louis Staunton went first to Gipsy Hill—I don't know when it was.

ELLEN GOODING (re-examined by THE COURT). When I put the clean night-dress on the body, I got it from the foot of the bed—I do not know when it had been placed there—I saw it there and took it up, and saw that it was a night-shirt—I did not see it when I went into the room first—I saw no other wearing apparel on the bed, but there were some dirty petticoats on a chair, which had been taken off—excepting those I saw us other women's wearing apparel except the night-dress at the foot of the bed—I never saw the basket.

The following Witnesses were called for the Defence:

JOSEPH FRANK PATNE . I am a batchelor of medicine at the University of Oxford, a member of the Royal College of Physicians, assistant lecturer on pathology at St. Thomas' Hospital, examiner in pathology at the University of Edinburgh, and editor of Jones and Sieveking's "Manual of Pathological Anatomy"—I have had a large experience of post-mortem examinations, and have been engaged in the study of subjects relating thereto for several years—a summary of the depositions of the medical witnesses taken before the Magistrates, and copies of the notes of be post-mortem examination were submitted to me by letter by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis—I forget the precise date, about the end of July this year—it was before the last Sessions of this Court—I was anxious not to be called as a witness upon general grounds, but not with reference to this particular case—I have been in attendance during the trial except the first day—I was here on Thursday and heard all the medical evidence on that day; I heard Dr. Longrigg say that the symptoms he discovered were inconsistent with tubercular meningitis, and inconsistent with rigidity of the arm—if 1 understood rightly Mr. Longrigg was asked whether the symptoms observed by him would be consistent with a disease known as tubercular meningitis, and he answered that if the disease were sufficiently established the symptoms would correspond with one exception, that exception being rigidity of the arms—in my experience, rigidity of the limbs one or more, is very common—the rigidity of one or more limbs is a very common symptom of tubercular meningitis, the present case at all events—I believe that symptom is mentioned in most, if not all the books on the subject—the appearance in cases of tubercular meningitis of a flattening and bulging of the sides of the lobes of the brain depends on the amount of fluid contained in the brain, and if the amount of fluid is small that appearance is not produced—in my opinion the absence of it is consistent with the fact of death being caused by tubercular meningitis—with respect to the position of the tubercles found in the brain, they are found in different parts of the brain, in different situations—undoubtedly they vary very much in number and appearance as well as position—the symptoms spoken of, namely, the flattening and bulging of the lobes of the brain, and the effusion into the

ventricles vary very much—they are much more marked when the tubercles are found at the base of the brain—I think the fact of death from tubercular meningitis is consistent with the fact of no tubercles being found at the base of the brain—I should add to that, no tubercles visible to the naked eve—in the event of tubercles being found in the upper part of the brain, it is very likely, by microscopic examination, you would find that there were appearances which were not visible to the naked eye—it is probable that if you found tubercles in one part of the membrane of the brain, there exists the probability that on a microscopic examination you would find others in other parts which were not visible to the naked eye—if you found some tubercles which were visible to the naked eye, it is possible by microscopic examination you would find more in other parts of the surface of the brain—I heard the statement made by Dr. Longrigg in regard to the average weight of different portions of the body—of some of them I took a note, but I am not sure that I did of all—I heard Dr. Longrigg say that the average weight of a woman of 5 feet 5 1/4 inches high would be from 9 to 10 stone—I think a much lower—weight than 9 stone would be consistent with health—the weights of different organs of persons in health vary very considerably.

By THE COURT. In health if you get persons of the same weight and the same height, the organs of the body would vary considerably in weight; that is what I mean.

By MR. CLARKE. I think the weight of the heart as stated in this case to have been 7 3/4 ozs. is very much below the normal weight for a person in a healthy condition—I do not say below the average weight—I say below the weight consistent with ordinary health, bat only a little below it—I understood the liver to weigh 2 lbs. 2 oz.—whether that is correct I do not know—in my experience the average weight of the liver of a woman like the deceased as stated, viz. from 50 to 60 ozs. is somewhat too high—I should say probably 48 or 50 ozs. giving a rough estimate; about 3lbs.—it is very" difficult to say what the lowest weight would be, compatible with health—I think the weight of the liver was much below the average—with regard to the spleen which is said to have weighed 4 3/4 ozs., that is an organ—the weight of which is very variable, so that no very great importance can be attached to it—with regard to the kidneys the weights I took down were 3 3/4 and 4 ozs. respectively—those weights seem to me to be scarcely below the normal weights, a little below the normal but very little—I heard the statement that inflamation of the peritoneum was discovered on the post-mortem examination—I do not think that is a symptom which would arise from deprivation of food, taken alone—with regard to the congestion of the brain and stomach, and of the outlets of the body, I do not think deprivation of food, taken alone, would produce congestion of the brain or congestion of the stomach—with respect to the condition of the outlets that is mentioned in several books as occurring in people who are deprived of food—I understand by that that the orifices of the body which are exposed to the air and to irritation, such as the lips, the nose, the anus and so on become inflamed—I have never seen it, but I have heard it described, or rather read the description—the congestion of the brain I should attribute to the tubercular disease which is described as having been present there; the inflamation of the peritoneum I cannot explain, unless there were possibly tubercles present there also—in other words I regard the tubercles and the congestion, as a part of the same disease—this kind of tubercular disease in the brain, namely the small

milliary tubercles, accompanied by great congestion in most cases indicate) a general infection of the whole body which we call acute general tuberculosis—my judgment as to that was greatly confirmed by the presence of tubercles in the lungs—with regard to the inflamation of the peritoneum, that in my judgement might be produced by tubercles invisible to the naked eye—bronzing of the skin is nearly always present in Addison's disease, and there is some approach to it in diabetes—I do not know of any other certain indication of diabetes than sugar in the urine after death—in Addison's disease 1 know of no other invariable sympton except the condition of the super-renal capsules—I think the traces of intemperate habits are discoverable after death, if the intemperate habits have lasted a long time—if they have only lasted for a few months and had been discontinued I think the post-mortem appearances would be fallacious—we often have people in the hospitals who have formerly been intemperate—I have no doubt 1 have had post-mortem examinations under such circumstances, but 1 cannot recollect any particular one at the moment; after a few month's discontinuance there might be no trace—tubercular meningitis or tubercolis does not so much produce emaciation, as it is a fact accompanied by it, and sometimes produced by it; it would produce it if it lasted long—it is not so much a consequence as an accompaniment and sometimes a precursor; it is not so much produced by it as proceeded by it—he loss of flesh is sometimes the only premonitory symptom of tubercular meningitis—it is often the only premonitory symptom, which comes before the outbreak of other symptoms—when it does manifest itself it is a rapidly fatal disease—by rapidly, I mean from two days to a month perhaps—it is quite possible that up to the time the disease actually manifests itself, progressive emaciation is the only symptom—in my judgment I think if the post-mortem appearances are correctly described, of course I am not responsible for the description, but if they are correctly described I think they are consistent with death from tubercular disease—with regard to the symptoms during life which have been described, as coma, unequal dilitation of the pupils, rigidity of the arms, and stertorous breathing, I think they are quite consistent with death from this decease—I think starvation alone does not explain either all the symptoms before death or all the post-mortem appearances—in the course of my experience I have seen death result from that disease in a considerable number of children and a considerable number of adults—not from starvation, from this disease—I may say that I have had considerable experience of this disease at the hospital for children where I was formerly assistant physician—I have seen it chiefly in children, and also in adults, the disease being far less common in adults than in children—in the course of my practice I have seen emaciation to a very great extent; I could not however say to the same extent as in this case without having seen the thing myself—I am not prepared to express an opinion as to the degree without having seen it—I can quote a particular case from memory—it was the case of a child an out-patient at the hospital for children—I attended the child there and afterwards at it's own home—I made a post-mortem examination and found that it died of tubercular meningitis combined with some tubercles in the lungs, and it was so emaciated that I remember particularly a remark made by the mother who was extremely affectionate—she asked me to explain the death of the child, because she said the neighbours accused her of starving it—I was told that the condition of the child gave rise to the suspicion of starvation in the minds of

the neighbours—I have never seen a case in which, tubercles were present in the pia mater without producing some symptoms; more especially I should I say indicating disease in the head; head, symptoms—I have seen cases of tubercular meningitis in which there was not softening of the brain—they are not frequent or common—after that disease it is stated that in some cases the brain is found to be firm and not softened—the fact of the post-mortem being delayed until after the patient had been dead six days would Dot affect the possibility of drawing accurate and safe conclusions on most points—there are no points which have occurred to my mind in which the delay in the post-mortem would throw doubt on the accuracy of the conclusions; not on the material points which I have heard mentioned.

Cross-examined by THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. Taking the notes of the postmortem examination and the depositions as I have read them, I come to the opinion that death in this case was caused by tubercular meningitis—that opinion has been confirmed by the medical evidence that I have heard—when I speak of tubercular meningitis I mean the acute form of the disease—I am not prepared to say what is the average weight of a woman of 5 feet 5 1/4 inches, but, generally, I should say, about 9 stone—if this woman was 9 stone on the 23rd October, and on the 12th or 13th April she was 5 stone 4 pounds, I should, undoubtedly, call it a case of extreme wasting and emaciation—it was a case, from what I have heard, of extreme emaciation—I do not think the postmortem examination disclosed how long this acute tubercular meningitis had been going on—the acute stage could cot, from the evidence, have been more than a few days—the disease is more likely to make its appearance in an enfeebled condition of the body than in a person of good health—tuberculosis sometimes supervenes on emaciation caused by any wasting disease—it would be more likely than in a perfectly healthy patient, undoubtedly—it is a rare complaint—in treating the disease I should prescribe nourishment, tonic medicine, and so forth—warmth, of course, is necessary in all cases of illness—it would be bad treatment to keep such a patient in a room without a fire in winter—it would be exceedingly dangerous treatment—the necessity for such a patient having exercise in the fresh air would depend on circumstances which I do not know; it would depend on the state to be relieved—judging from the post-mortem appearances I should say the disease could not have been present more than a month at the outside—I cannot tell what caused the emaciation, without consideration of the history—we call the three coverings of the brain collectively, the meningitis, and in this disease the condition would be chiefly the deposit of tubercules, with more' or less inflammation—probably the deposit of tubercles would cause inflammation, but that is a question of opinion—the condition of the brain generally in this disease is in the majority of cases soft, and a deposit of tubercles is found at the base of the brain—I known Dr. Bristowe—he is physician at St. Thomas' Hospital, and I am assistant-physician; I know his work—in one passage he say "Meningitis, due to the presence of tubercles, nearly always commences at the base of the brain,—is often limited to the base and is generally most intense there"—I agree with nearly all of that—I do not know that starvation ever causes congestion of the brain—it is said in the last stages to be accompanied by convulsions—if a patient had congestion I should not necessarily expect convulsions to follow—I should not be surprised to find that condition if he had convulsions—if after death from convulsions I found congestion

of the brain I should rather presume that the congestion caused the convulsions, than that it was caused by the convulsions—I am not' prepared to say that congestion causes convulsions, it would be likely—you might find congestion after death, because the convulsions and the congestion might have arisen from the same cause—maniacal delirium, I think, would be rather caused by congestion, than be the cause of congestion—in the case of a ship-wrecked man in an open boat becoming delirious, the delirium would be caused by starvation and thirst, the man becomes mad; that is described here—I have no doubt that it is the result of deprivation from food and drink—I should not expect congestion of the stomach, from starvation—in the case of a person enfeebled from want of food and having a pretty substantial meal suddenly administered I should expect to find the stomach then as it is during digestion, that is, full of blood, or, as you say, congested—if the vessels are gorged they are congested—I do not know what to expect in such a case as you put—I never saw such a case—I should feed such a person gradually—I am not prepared to say what the precise harm of doing otherwise is, but it is a matter of experience that harm is done—I understood Mr. Longrigg to say that stiffness of the arms was inconsistent with meningitis; I did not understand him to say that it was not consistent with paralysis—paralysis does not produce stiffness of the limbs—it may produce stiffness of the limbs if it has lasted a long time, when the patient has not motive power, but has rested in the same position for a long time—I do not find from the evidence in what part of the peritoneum, that is the bag containing the stomach and intestines, the inflammation was found—it might be in the coating of the stomach or it might be in the walls of the abdomen; I have no information—I do not think the giving of food in a considerable quantity to a starved person would be likely to cause inflammation of the stomach, or of the coating of the stomach—I am not prepared to say whether the internal coating would be likely to be inflammed, I have had no experience—I have never seen a case of wilful starvation—I have seen a case of virtual starvation, where the patient could not take food for a considerable time—emaciation comes on in those cases steadily, not always rapidly, because you combat it, you administer as much food as you can, and if you cannot administer it by the throat you inject it—I have listened to the evidence and have heard the condition of the lady before she was removed from the" Woodlands, and the evidence of Clara Brown, and I think the removal from Cudham would be likely to accelerate her death.

Re-examined. DR. BRISTOWE'S is a work of considerable authority, and Dr. Bristowe himself is recognised as being a great authority in these diseases, especially in relation to morbid anatomy.

JOHN SYER BRISTOWE . I am a Doctor of Medicine and Fellow of the College of Physicians—I have not been consulted in any way in this matter before to-day—I sent you (Mr. Clarke) a private note in this matter—I am senior physician at St. Thomas's Hospital, and examiner in medicine at the College of Surgeons—I have heard the evidence that Dr. Payne has given, and I agree with it entirely—in cases of death from tubercular meningitis it is a frequent thing to find rigidity of the limbs—that disease is very various in its symptoms, it is not infrequent that the acute manifestation of the disease is preceded by a period of progressive gradual emaciation—it may be a long period of emaciation—emaciation is one of the recognised symptoms of tuberculosis—in its acute form emaciation is often the only sign of

the disease—the tubercles are often so minute as almost to defy detection; they sometimes require the microscope for their detection—I have never seen a case where there were tubercles in the pia-mater where there were no head symptoms during life—I have not looked up my experience for this examination as to there being capes of tubercular meningitis where there is do tubercle at the base of the brain, but I believe it does occur; I have seen cases where the tubercles have been limited to the upper part of the brain, but it is rare—there would in such a case be an absence of the flattening and bulging of the lobes of the brain and absence of effusion—I have necessarily a large experience of vermin on the body, at a hospital—it is a fact that where there are vermin at all on the hair they constantly spread immediately after death—they would spread over the body in a few hours; as the body cools the vermin spread over the whole body, over the trunk—in the case of a post-mortem, examination where the body had not been washed after death, the presence of vermin all over the body six days after death would not necessarily indicate any great amount of filth before death; it would depend on the condition of the patient before death—if the patient had been bed ridden or comatose before death, or had lain for several days or weeks before death, it is common to find even in a well ordered hospital, that the head is infested with vermin—I should expect then to find them in great numbers—in any case where there had been vermin in the head during life, and the body was left unwashed and intended during six days, the might vermin spread over the body, and I should expect to find them spreading.

Cross-examined by THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. I do not think vermin as a rule bite the skin, not ordinary lice; they rather live on the scurf of the hair, they are rather scavengers—I do not think that body lice bite, I am not prepared to say—I agree generally with Dr. Payne, in every essential particular—I have not talked this over with Dr. Payne; I only returned to London on Saturday, and have not had an opportunity—I enterain no doubt of this being a case of acute tuberculosis—as to the emaciation I have not gone into the early history of the case—I should say that 9 stone for a woman of 5 ft. 5 inches would be rather above the average; I do not speak positively, these are matters which require one to look into figures—I have read the evidence in the papers, that is all the knowledge I have of it—no doubt it was a case of considerable emaciation—I do not know that I can attribute that to anything without knowing more of the case—it is consistent with starvation, and with emaciation produced by tubercular disease—a patient may emaciate as rapidly as the deceased in less than a month, and to the same degree—I know nothing about the emaciation in this woman, and can give no opinion on the point—I do not suppose it took place in a month—I have undoubtedly known a case of acute tuberculosis which produced emaciation such as this—I cannot give you the particulars of any one case, but I have seen a good many cases, where it has been proved at the post-mortem examination that tubercles have been in progress for more than a month; but where the symptoms have not been apparent more than a month, and emaciation has preceded the acute symptoms, it is likely to happen in the case of a person who was very much emaciated, but who is not suffering from tuberculosis that you would have tuberculosis supervening—it would come on in the course of it, but not be produced by it—I do not know that it would be accelerated by it—I should not call tubercolosis the cause of the emaciation,

but the result of it—the emaciation has gone on and might have been caused by a variety of things, and then tuberculosis sets in—I should not, in that case, say that emaciation was necessarily caused by the tuberculosis; or, on the other hand, that the tuberculosis caused the emaciation—tuberculosis takes place not only with the enfeebled, but in the stout and comparatively well—tuberculosis might come on in a body in an impoverished state, but not as the result of previous emaciation or ill-health—where that has been the case we have found evidence that there has been tubercle beforehand, before the acute symptoms manifested themselves—I mean to say there is no necessary connection between tuberculosis and emaciation—tuberculosis may come on in a person who has been exhausted by disease, or it may come on in a healthy person, or it may not have manifested itself by acute symptoms in the way that Dr. Payne has described—it is impossible to say if tuberculosis had not assumed the acute form, how long it would take to produce such emaciation as 1 have heard of in this particular case—I have no means of saying whether emaciation, when caused in this way, may have been produced in a month, six weeks, or a year—I believe I have seen an entire absence of fat round the omentum, in the acute disease; lam not quite sure—I should not expect to find it after death from acute tuberculosis only—I still entertain the view contained in the passage from my work which you read to Dr. Payne—I should generally expect to find effusion about the seat of the tubercles—I do not know that there was none in this case—I only know what I have heard in Court.

Re-examined. The emaciation that existed in this case may have been produced by starvation, or by tubercular disease, or some other disease—I have seen the same amount of emaciation in a variety of diseases; diabetes and Addison's disease, and I have seen it in a person who has been simply hysterical—I have seen them reduced to the last degree of emaciation, in four or five weeks.

By MR. CLARKE. In the emaciation that precedes the acute development of tubercular disease, there may be no other sign of disease than the gradual emaciation; in the other case there would be symptoms of hysteria—the causes of tuberculosis are not at all understood—I should be very slow to say that tuberculosis was caused by starvation.

Tuesday and Wednesday, September 25th and 26th, 1877.

DR. WILLIAM SMITH GREENFIELD . I am an M. D. of the University of London, a Member of the Royal College of Physicians, and assistant-physician and lecturer on morbid anatomy, and demonstrator of morbid anatomy at St. Thomas's Hospital—I have not heard the medical evidence given on this trial; the depositions taken before the Magistrate and the notes of the post-mortem were submitted to me, and I have given a written opinion upon them.

By THE COURT. They were submitted to me about four weeks ago; the whole of the medical evidence, not the whole of the case—I believe I had Mr. Longrigg's notes of the post-mortem examination, also the whole of the medical evidence, with the cross-examination of the witnesses Dr. Wilkinson, Mr. Longrigg, Mr. Tickell, Mr. Lester, Dr. Bright, and Mr. Harman—I have not got with me what was handed to me—I believe it was a copy of Mr. Longrigg's notes that I had, not the original—this is a copy.

By MR. CLARKE. Q. Assuming that these notes accurately state the appearances that, were observed, have you formed an opinion as to the cause

of death? A. I formed the opinion that if the bodies which, were described in these notes in the membranes of the brain were the tubercles of the acute form, which I judged them from the description to be——(MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS here interposed, stating that such evidence could not be satisfactory, and MR. CLARKE withdrew the witness.)

JOSEPH BATEMAN (re-examined). On 30th May I showed a quantity of clothes, different articles of dress, to Clara Brown—they were got from 34, Forbes Road; Mrs. Chalklin gave them to me, as things belonging to the Stauntons—this is the list: "One blue stuff dress, an apron, one black silk skirt, two petticoats, one white and one coloured flannel; one crinoline, one black cloth jacket, one Ulster, two breast improvers, one dress improver, one chemise, one night-gown, one pair of stays, one pair of stockings, one blue scarf shawl, one scarf, one fall, one list slipper, one neck ribbon, one bonnet, a pair of gloves, a purse, a towel, a sheet, a table-cloth, a tooth-brush, a reel of cotton, and a pair of earrings."

ELLEN GOODING (re-examined by THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL). After the poor woman was dead I put a clean night-dress on her—she had a chemise on before her death; I sent that to be washed.

By THE JURY. There was no eruption on the body; I did not see any Bymptom of any skin disease—I did not examine the body, but I did not see anything of the kind.

By THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. I saw the chemise after it was washed; it was returned to me and I put it with the other things and gave to Sergeant Bateman—it is the one mentioned in the list; there was only one—I do not know who washed it; the person could be found—it was very dirty when I sent it to the wash, as things usually are after death—it went to a woman in East Grove, Penge; I don't know her name, but I could find her if it is wanted.

By THE COURT. When I took off her clothes after death she was wearing both a night-dress and chemise—I should suppose the chemise had been worn for a week or some days, not for a few weeks—it was very dirty; I think there were no vermin on it.

The Jury found all the Prisoners

GUILTY of murder, but recommended Elizabeth Ann Staunton and Alice Rhodes to mercy, the latter strongly—Sentence DEATH .

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

(Friday September 28th, 1877).

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-673
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

673. JOHN LYNCH (29), was indicted for the wilful murder of Bridget Lynch.

MESSRS. POLAND and STRAIGHT conducted the Prosecution; and MS. MONTAGU WILLIAMS the Defence.

ALICE CARMODY . I live at 2, Peabody Buildings, Islington—my husband is John Carmody—the prisoner was married to my husband's niece, Bridget, nine years ago come November—they resided in Russell Street, Brighton, and the prisoner was carrying on the business of a working tailor—they had four children; the youngest died in June last—the deceased was very much distressed at the loss of it—she came up from Brighton towards the end of July, and came to me about 2.30 with two children—I had had the oldest girl with me since Whitsuntide—she stayed with me till the Friday evening, when her uncle came, and he and she went to look after her husband—she came buck and stopped with me that night—on Monday, 30th July, I went

out with her for a walk, and when we returned we found the prisoner lying on the bed—my husband was then at home—that was about 5.20—the deceased went into the room where he was lying—the eldest child, who was staying at my place, went in with her—she did not remain there very long—the child came running out and said "Dadda is beating mamma"—my husband sent her back again—she ran out a second time, and my husband then went out and brought in a policeman—while my husband was out I went into the room, and the prisoner got up and struck his wife in my presence, at the side of the head—he then lay on the bed again—the deceased was crying, and she was in a great passion, because his father had beat her in the street—she went towards the prisoner as if to hit him, and he made a kick at her as he lay on his back on the bed—my husband came back with the policeman and he put the prisoner out of my place—while the constable was there the prisoner sat on a box putting on his boots; the deceased went over to speak to him and he—went to hit her, but the constable warded off the blow—when they went out the constable wanted to know if my husband would give him in charge—he said no, he only wanted him out of the place—in about ten minutes the prisoner came back—he came to the door and demanded her to go with him—she came out on the mat of my door to speak to him, and her uncle with her—she said she would not go with him till he had a home to go to, and with that he struck at my husband and my husband struck at him—he then went away—the deceased did not remain with us that night; ire had to send her away, the superintendent would not allow us to keep her—she went to Mrs. Prentice's, a widow, in Commercial Street—she afterwards came to me on the Thursday evening and stayed with me till Friday—on the Friday evening she went to meet my daughter coming from work, and they returned together—she was then crying very much, and her lip was cut and her mouth bleeding—her handkerchief was full of blood—she stayed with me that Friday night—on Saturday morning she went out about 10 o'clock—she came back about 2.30—she did not sleep at my place that night, she slept with a friend in South Street, a Mrs. Prentice—on Sunday the 5th she came to my place about 9 o'clock in the morning, and remained there during the day—about 5.30 in the afternoon a child came in with a message, and the deceased put on her things and went out—I went with her at her request—we went to the corner of Green Man Street, where we met the prisoner and the three of us walked together through Essex Road and down River Street to Marquess Road—during all that time we had been on the best of terms, no words were spoken in anger—at the comer of Marquess Road the prisoner asked us to come and have something, and we went with him into the public-house at the corner, the Myddleton, I think it is—he called for a quartern of Irish whiskey and some lemonade—I and Bridget sat on a seat outside the bar and he stood at the bar—I drank out of one glass and he drank out of the other with bis wife; he paid for it—we were there about ten minutes—we then went down the Canonbury Road—on the way Bridget turned to him and said "Is there anybody waiting for you?"—he said "Only Martin and Patsy; those are his two brothers, Martin and Patrick Lynch—I said "I won't go where they are, Bridget, I don't want to meet those Lynches again after their behaviour in my house"—the prisoner turned to me and said "Now, Mrs. Carmody, you must not be disagreeable, I warrant you there will not be a word of quarrelling, or a word of anger"—he whistled, and his brothers came up and

joined us—Martin said "We will go on back again to the public-house and have another treat"—so we all went back to the same public-house again and one of the brothers called for some whiskey and a pot of stout; some of us partook of one, and some of the other—we remained there about twenty minutes—Patsy said he was glad to see them together again—the prisoner said he had so many shops to work at that week that he had to give his brother Martin a quantity of it—after leaving the public-house we went down Canonbury Road again, and they then proposed to go into the Two Brewers at the top of King Street, we did so, and they called for some more drink there—we then came out and stood talking in the Essex Road about the three brothers going home together in a cab—I told the prisoner there was a cab rank in Rotherfield Street—they saw a Hansom coming, Patrick whistled to the driver, and he and Martin got in—the prisoner was waiting—I said to him "Come on, John, there's a good fellow, you get in, and I promise you she shall be up at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning;"' that was to meet him up at the West End, where the brothers lived—when Patsy had got into the cab Bridget turned round to me and said "Aunt, what do you think, Patsy says Johnny has a razor"—I can't say whether the prisoner heard that, he was only a little way off, he made no remark—I went up to the cab door and spoke to Patsy—I can't tell whether the prisoner heard what I said, he was about 2 or 3 yards off, he stood with his back to the kerb—I said "Patsy, you never would be so wicked as to say your brother has a razor"—he made some reply, and Martin jumped out of the cab and said to his brother Patrick "You b——so-and-so, now I shan't go with you"—Bridget then turned to the prisoner and said "Johnny, surely you never have got a razor about you, what should you want that for?"—he made no reply that I heard; she said "Let me try your pocket, Johnny, I have often tried your pockets, it is no harm "—I was quite close to her when she said those words—he wore his coat open—she went to put her hand in his left coat pocket, and as she did that I saw his right hand raised up—she was facing him—I thought he was going to catch her by the neck, and she then said to me "Aunt, I am killed"—I did not see what he did—she said those words at the moment, as soon as his hand was raised; she then wheeled round and ran like one wild, across the road, and when she got on the other side she dropped—I followed her quickly, I saw the blood pouring, and 1 could not go near her; she sat or fell on the kerb—I saw her head falling down as I went over—up to the moment when she said those words to him about the razor they, appeared to be on friendly terms, he was quite satisfied to let her come home with me and meet her on the Monday morning; there was not a word of anger, except between themselves; she had not quarrelled, or shown any violence, or temper—I turned into the road and cried "Murder!" and "Police!" and asked the people to fetch a doctor—I afterwards saw the prisoner in the custody of a policeman, by the side of the body; she was dead in a moment—I said to him "Oh, you villain, you have done it, you have killed her, you villain"—he said "Yes, and it is all your fault"—my niece was twenty-four years old on 19th August.

Cross-examined. The baby died in June—on the 30th, when the prisoner was there and lying on the bed, my husband thought he was drunk, I did not look at him much till he got up, he was not drunk, he was quite able to stand and walk, I suppose he had been drinking—between Monday, the 30th, and Sunday, the 5th—I suppose he was on the drink at different

times—I was not with him, I only saw him twice, on the Monday evening, and the Sunday night, when he brought his brothers to the house—on the Sunday evening he was tipsy, and the brothers too, they all seemed drunk: I do not mean on the day of this occurrence, I mean the first Sunday evening. ing, when he came back from Brighton, a fortnight before—he appeared sober when I met him at the corner of Green Man Street—on Sunday morning, the 5th, I first saw him about 8.45—I went out at 7.45 to church, to the 8 o'clock service at St. John's, Duncan Terrace, and as I came back I met the prisoner—it was about 8 o'clock in the evening when the deceased was killed, as the people were coming out of church—we had been together from about 5.40 until the deed was done, he did not appear to be at all the worse for drink at the public-house, for I poured him out some stout, and he evaded' the drink, and I saw his brother offer it to him, and he did not want it—he would not drink at all the last time—I could not tell whether the deceased had been in the habit of drinking; I did not see her till she came to my place—during the whole of the two hours there had not been any word of unkindness between them to my knowledge.

Re-examined. She was not at all the worse for drink when she came from Brighton—I know she used to go out with her husband drinking, but not unless he was with her.

GEOKGE DAVENPORT (Policeman N 298). I was called to Peabody Buildings, on Monday 30th July, the prisoner was removed by me, they declined to charge him—on Sunday night, 5th August, about 7.45, I was on duty on the New North Road, and heard a scream as if from a woman, just across the road, I saw the prisoner standing opposite me in Canonbury Road, and the deceased was sitting on the kerb—I seized him by the arm and took him across to where the woman lay, she was then falling on her right side—I sent for a doctor and handed the prisoner over to Butcher 234—before doing so, I said to the prisoner "Lynch you have done this"—he made no answer—he had been having a little, but he certainly was not drunk.

WILLIAM BUTCHER (Policeman N 234). On Sunday night, 5th August, I saw a crowd at the corner of Canonbury Road, I crossed over and saw the prisoner in the custody of Davenport, and the woman lying on the pavement—I went for Dr. Huggin, of Canonbury Road, as I started to run a man called to me holding up this razor (produced) in his hand, and said "I picked it up"—he gave it to me; it had wet blood upon it—the doctor came at once, the prisoner was handed over to me by Davenport—on the way to the station he asked me if his wife was dead—I said "Yes"—he said "Thank God, she has run away for three weeks and left me with three little children, it is jealousy has done this"—I searched him at the station and found this razor case in his left breast pocket; it was closed, with do razor in it—I found this notice and several papers on him, the envelope was open; I handed them to Inspector Jameson—I should think the prisoner had been having something to drink; still I think he knew perfectly well what he was about, he walked to the station.

JOHN ROWLAND JAMIESON (Police Inspector N). On the night of 5th August, I was at the station when the prisoner was brought there—these are the papers found upon him—as I was about to open this one, he said "You will find a notice in there from my wife to me, I tried to get her to settle it on Saturday night, but she would not"—he then sat down on a chair and said "I hope she is in Heaven"—he had undoubtedly been drinking—he

slept for about a quarter of an hour, when he woke he said "Is my wife dead, sir?" I replied "I am sorry to say she is;" he then began to sob and cry; he was then put in the dock and formally charged with the offence—at that time Mr. Carmody came in and sat down near the dock—the prisoner, in a very excited manner, said to him "Jack, I have bad my satisfaction, this will teach you to keep a man's wife and children from him for three weeks"—after the lapse of a few minutes, he again said to Carmody "I hope this will be a lesson to you, this is all through you, you dirty old wretch, I am glad she is dead"—I read over the charge to him, after taking it, it was charging him with the murder of his wife, Bridget Lynch—he said "I plead guilty"—this is the envelope, it contained this summons. (This was dated August, 4, 1877, and was a summons to appear at Guildhall, on 8th August, for an assault upon his wife.)

JOHN SELBY PERRY . I am assistant to. Mr. Davis, a cutler, of 69, Leadenhall Street, City—on Saturday afternoon, 4th August, about 4 o'clock, the prisoner came in and asked for a common razor—I showed him 1s. one, he said that would do; I put it in a case, wrapped it in paper, and gave it to him, and he paid me 1s. and took the razor with him—this is the razor, it has on it "J. C. Davis, 69, Leadenhall Street;" there is no name on the case—I had seen the prisoner before occasionally.

By THE COURT. This was not the only razor we had of that kind—I sold three that day—I won't say this is the razor I sold the prisoner, it was one like it.

SAMUEL TILCOT HUGGIN . I am a surgeon of 29, Canonbury Road—on 5th August, about 8 o'clock in the evening, I was called to the deceased in the street—I found her lying on the pavement on her back, with her head turned to the right side—I examined her throat, the left common caroted artery was cut, not quite through; that wound was the cause of death, it was a very deep gash.

JOHN ROWLAND JAMIESON re-examined by MR. M WILLIAMS. I went down to Brighton to make inquiries into the antecedents of these people—I was told by witnesses who are. here, that since the death of her child the woman had been given to drink, and that before that they had lived comfortably together.


THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, September 19th, 1877.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-674
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

674. CHARLES HILL (28), Pleaded Guilty to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Amelia Susanna Simme, with intent to steal— Nine Month' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-675
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

675. WILLIAM FENN (34) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to stealing a watch and chain and two rings, the goods of Charles Cook and another; also a jacket, of William Barnes Goddard and another; also to unlawfully attempting to steal a watch and other articles, the property of Louisa Mills— Fifteen Month' Imprisonment. And

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-676
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

676. FREDERICK ROBERT FRITH BANBURY (26) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to feloniously marrying Emma Hodges, his former wife being then alive; also to obtaining 3'. 10s., 5l., 2l. 10s. 6d., and other sums, by false pretences— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-677
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

677. STANLEY WILLIAM HARRIS Unlawfully obtaining from James Humphries 2l. and an order for the payment of 20l. by false pretences.

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


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-678
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

678. ERNEST MAXWELL (21) , Unlawfully conspiring with another person to obtain, by false pretences, from Jane Hardy, the sum of 121l., with intent to defraud.

MR. M. WILLIAMS and MR. C. MARSH DENISON conducted the Prosecution; and MR. A. B. KELLY the Defence.

JANE HARDY . I am the wife of Mr. Gathorne Hardy, of 17, Grosvenor Crescent, and am a customer of Madame Elise, a milliner, of 170, Regent Street—on 23rd July I received this letter "21st July, 1877. Madam,—We beg to enclose your account, and as we have some heavy accounts to remit to the Continent on Monday next, we should feel much obliged to be favoured with an open cheque on account through our Mia Rowe, who will have the pleasure of waiting on you for that purpose on Monday next, at 11 a.m. Yours respectfully,—Elise, p.p. F.W." (The paper was embossed 170, "Regent Street," and the envelope bore the monogram "E") A sum of money was due from me to Madame Elise—I received an account that morning, and I concluded from the note that it came in that envelope—I had requested Madame Elise to send in her account—a young woman called that morning at 11 o'clock when I was out, and in the afternoon, when I saw her—she said she had called for the account—I said I thought it very odd that Madame Elise should send her bill in to me so punctually—she said it was equally disagreeable for her to call, but that there was a pressure for money that morning and she had been all round the neighbourhood collecting bills—I could not find my keys and told her that if she would come in the evening I would have a cheque drawn and pay the bill, and she said she would call about 6.45—I have never seen her since—I subsequently went to Madame Elise and paid the cheque, when they said they had never sent, and I found out that it was a fraud—the girl who called on me was a common looking girl.

Cross-examined. I had been out of town previously to receiving the letter—my things were sent to the railway station and given up to me in my carriage, and on my way to Grosvenor Crescent I read some of my letters—my memory does not serve me as to the account coming in the same envelope with the letter, but I thought it probable from reading the note.

HARRIET COLLINS . At the time this account was sent to Mrs. Gathorne Hardy 1 was book-keeper to Madame Elise—I made out an account amounting to about 120l., which I put in an envelope and addressed it to 17, Grosvenor Crescent, on 21st July, Saturday—the prisoner was in the employ of Madame Elise as assistant clerk and I asked him to see that the letters were posted on the day in question, and he said he would do so; that was about 5.10, I should think—the envelope produced is not my writing; it has the monogram on it used by Madame Elise—I never saw this letter until it was brought back to me, it is written on paper that bears the address where Madame Elise carries on business—I have no idea whose writing it is.

Cross-examined. I keep the books in the counting-house—young ladies and others come in and out there—there were several at tea there that evening—any one in the house could go in.

FREDERICK ISAACSON . Madame Elise is my wife and the business is

carried on in her name—the prisoner was in my employ as assistant clerk, and had been about four mouths with us—he had access to the ledgers and the customers accounts—there was an account due from Mrs. Hardy of 121l. in July—she is a customer of ours—this letter was brought to me on 23rd July by Hardy—it was not written by my authority—we have no such person in our employ as Miss Rowe—it is written on such paper as we have in our establishment, with our business address upon it, and the envelope bears the same monogram as ours—I had not authorised anybody to call on Sirs. Hardy for the account, or to ask for an open cheque—subsequently to Mrs. Hardy bringing me the letter a letter came to my premises addressed to the prisoner—our chief clerk brought it to me, and seeing the similarity of writing I opened it and read it—I subsequently re-sealed it and gave it to the chief clerk to give it to the prisoner—these fragments comprise the letter. (Read: "As soon as you get this, meet me at once in Golden Square as I want to speak to you particularly you must come at once. F.") After the prisoner had received the letter I went to Golden Square where I saw a man and a young woman standing at the corner—the prisoner came up and spoke to them and remained in conversation about five minutes—I went up to the prisoner and asked him to come back to the office—I asked him to show me the letter he had just received and he said he had not got it, that he had torn it up and thrown it in the waste paper basket—I went to the basket and took out these fragments which I have pasted together—I asked him who the people were who he had met and he said the tall man was a friend of his father's, and the young woman he had no knowledge of—he could not give me their names or addresses.

Cross-examined. I had a character with the prisoner, which has turned out to be fictitious—while in our employ he wrote letters to French houses for goods—he had access to the room where the safe was—I thoroughly trusted him—he would draw bills and get my acceptance to them—we originally advertised for a boy; the prisoner applied for the situation, we offered 15s. a week—I mean to convey that the character was forged; it was in writing—I do not believe the person who wrote it ever employed him—he has not told me that he had not—some people who had employed him before called on us and showed us a character they had received with him—we cannot find the person from whom the character purported to come—when we came back from Golden Square I sent for a constable and asked the prisoner to give the name of the young person who spoke to him—I asked him why he had sent the letter and account to Mrs. Hardy, and he denied having done so—he made no attempt to escape but walked back with me.

By THE COURT. I have no F. W. in my establishment—but the prisoner was living with a woman named Fanny White, which I learnt from his landlady.

WILLIAM CHARLES HALES . I am a porter in the employ of Madame Elise—on Saturday, 21st July, the prisoner gave me a number of letters to post which I posted.

JAMES STEVENTON . I am a clerk in Madame Elise's counting-house—on Saturday, 21st July, I saw a number of letters put on one side by Miss Ckrkson for the purpose of being posted—the prisoner took them up and gave them to Hides—on Tuesday I asked the prisoner if he had touched those letters which were put on one side for post on Saturday night—he said "Yes" I said "What for?" he said "To sec if they were all stamped"—on

the following Thursday a letter addressed to the prisoner was brought to the passage of the counting-house in the afternoon by a young man—I took it to Mr. Isaacson who subsequently gave it back and I gave it to the prisoner.

Cross-examined. I said to him "Here is a letter for you Maxwell had came down from the second office and said that he must come, and be left—I saw Miss Clarkson place the letters on the sideboard or mantelshelf and up to the time that they were handed to Hales to post I was in that part of the establishment, for about a quarter of an hour during which time I had the prisoner in view.

ARTHUR SEELEY . I am a watchmaker of 46, Berwick Street—the prisoner lodged with me at 41, Windmill Street, Tottenham Court Road—down to November last a woman lived with him as "Mrs. Maxwell"—about December he called for a portmanteau which he had left and he said that the woman was not his wife, but her name was Frances White—I have frequently seen her write—the writing in this fragmentary letter is hers—it is signed F. only—this other letter signed F. W. is also in her writing.

Cross-examined. I have received letters from her, but have not any now—I cannot give you the dates of seeing her write—I am sure I have seen her write more than once—I stated at the police-court that I saw her write in November last to a man named Nish—I have seen her write a note or memorandum on another occasion, and have looked at the writing—my reasons for thinking these two letters are in the same writing are that the "F" is precisely the same," t-h-e," and "to"—I first saw these letters at Mr. Longstaffe's, the solicitor; he sent for me—after Maxwell left my house I received four or five letters from Mrs. Maxwell—I destroyed them about throe months since.

JANE SEELEY . I am the wife of the last witness—the prisoner, up to 17th November, lodged at our house with a woman who passed as Mrs. Maxwell—I have seen her write many times—I have seen this fragmentary letter, and believe it to be her writing, and this other letter the same—the prisoner never said anything about whether she was his wife or not until after she left, when he said she was not his wife and her name was Frances White.

Cross-examined. She wrote my letters for me when I was busy sometimes—I write very badly.

ERNEST SOHIEMAN . I am an M. D. of the University of Berlin—I was in Golden Lane on 25th July—I had known the prisoner by sight since March—I believe it was the 22nd—I have seen him at his mother's house, 35, Frith Street, Soho—I went there in March at about 10 o'clock at night with Detective Jones, about a robbery which had been committed in my house—I know a woman who passed under the name of Blanch Lister; she was one of my patients—I saw her on 25th July—in my presence she wrote this note making an appointment—I went with her to Golden Square, where I saw the prisoner keep the appointment—she sent the note by a boy, who returned and said "He cannot come"—I then sent the boy back a second time with a message and the prisoner came—he offered his hand to me, and I said "How dare you, sir!"—he said "You shall have all back if you will come to-night to my mother," or something to that effect—the prisoner said "Here comes my governor; don't prosecute me, because I am of a respectable family, and I shouldn't like him to know it," or something like that—Blanch Lister had given me the address, 35, Frith Street, when she first came, and I put it down in my pocket-book—she was not a servant of mine

but came to me as a consumptive patient at the end of February or the beginning of March.

Cross-examined. If I had my case-book here I could tell you the date—I was described at the police-court as the gentleman with the white hat—the prisoner came after my message to him; we had waited twenty minutes—I his present at the whole interview between him and the young woman; it had nothing to do with the letter written to Mrs. Hardy.

By THE COURT. I knew the woman as Blanch Lister only—she gave me a wrong address—she was not living with the prisoner then—I had not known her while she was living with the prisoner.


Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his small salary— Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-679
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

679. THOMAS HARRIS (43) , Stealing twenty pieces of soap, one towel, and certain medals, the goods of Frederick Balsir Chatterton, his master.

MR. MEAD conducted the Prosecution; and MESSES. W. SLEIGH and REED the Defence.

HARRY JACKSON . I am stage manager at the Princess's Theatre—Mr. Chatterton is the lessee—the prisoner was employed as dresser, and had charge of one of the dressing-rooms; he had to attend upon the actors in that room—Mr. Clarkson contracts for those rooms to supply wigs, towels, and soap—the prisoner was engaged by the housekeeper of the theatre—I believe I had been at the theatre twelve months, and the prisoner for a few weeks—Mr. Terriss brought him, I believe—the dressers have no right to take the soap, or any perquisites, to my. knowledge; nothing of the kind is recognised by the management—on 22nd August, about 11.30, Phelps the porter brought the prisoner to me. and said "This man, Harris, on leaving the theatre, had a bundle under his arm containing this quantity of soap, and I stopped him"—I told him he had better get a constable and give him in charge, as I had strict orders from Mr. Chatterton that any employed leaving the theatre with articles was to be searched.

Cross-examined. I am, at present, stage manager at the Princess's, and-have been so at several theatres in America and Australia, but not in London—I do not know the custom with reference to any other theatre in London—I remember being at Lillie Bridge at a fete some time before the prisoner was given into custody, and had an altercation with him—very likely I swore at him—I told him he should not return to the Princess's Theatre—I do not recollect his telling me he was in Mr. Terriss' employ and not mine—I know he apologised, and I took him back—I don't know anything about him—I simply know I told him he had done a wrong thing at Lillie Bridge, and he was in a state of liquor at the time—I was in such a passion that I cannot remember what I said—I did not give instructions to have him watched more than anybody else—he was accused of the robbery that had taken place on the night I discharged him—he was not charged with stealing the sovereigns and bank notes at the police-court, because they were not found on him; they were found at his house, I believe—I am prepared to sware that the sovereigns produced are very like those which are Mr. Chattertou's property—the notes are the property of the Princess's Theatre, because there is "Princess's" on them—they were used in the piece—I am not a valuer, and cannot say what the notes and sovereigns are worth—I will not swear that they are not Mr. Terriss' property—I won't swear whose property they are—they are used at the

theatre and paid for by Mr. Chatterton—the value of the coins would be about 25s., per 1,000, wholesale—the notes might cost 1d. or 1d. each by taking a quantity—these small things are very valuable in theatres—the soap produced was taken from him on the night in question—it was supplied by Mr. Clarkson at so much per week—I cannot say whether it belonged to Mr. Chatterton—I don't think I have sworn that it did—I have never heard that Mr. Clarkson refused to prosecute—Mr. Clarkson can take the soap away if he likes; it is his property—I have been in the theatre twelve months, and am entitled to one piece of soap a night, and if there are 365 nights I should be entitled to have a piece of soap and carry it away with me, but it would not be my property—he does not supply soap to clean the theatre—I said at the police-court that the small pieces of soap that were left might be used to wash the washstands or pieces of furniture in the theatre—I never saw Mr. Clarkson's contract.

Re-examined. I do not remember the date of the affair at Lillie Bridge; it was about two months ago—Mr. Terriss spoke to me about it at night—the man was in liquor and did not mean anything—I took no notice of it and said he was perfectly at liberty to stay in the theatre—the property manager provides the properties for the theatre—the bank notes and the coins would be provided by Mr. Chatterton in the ordinary way—they were used in "After Dark," and handed to Mr. Terriss every night since I have been there, and would probably be left in his clothes—the prisoner was given in custody at once and charged the next day, without communicating with Mr. Clarkson at all—Mr. Terriss was in Mr. Chatterton's employ there is no foundation fur saying that the prisoner was his servant—actors are allowed to bring their own dressers, and they would be put on the staff and paid by Mr. Chatterton.

JAMES PHELPS . I am door-keeper at the Princess's Theatre—on 22nd August I saw the prisoner leaving the theatre at about 11.30—he had a parcel under his arm—he delivered things to me, which he was in the habit of doing nightly—I asked him if that was all, and he said "Yes"—I said "What is that you have under your arm?"—he said "Soap"—I said "Soap? Let me look at it," and he gave me the parcel and I opened it and it contained sixteen pieces of soap—I told him I could not allow him to pass me, he must go back and see Mr. Jackson—he said "It is my perqs."—I took him up to Mr. Jackson's dressing-room and explained the circumstance to him, and the prisoner was given into custody.

Cross-examined. He had the parcel under his arm, outside his coat—there was no difficulty in seeing what it was—I have known him about three months—he had been at the Princess's some years ago—he had the care of Mr. Terriss' clothes—I have never heard that it is the custom in theatres for the dressers to have the soap after it has been used.

Re-examined. I never knew the other dressers to take away the soap.

WILLIAM CLARKSON . I am aperruqier, of Bow Street, and contract with Mr. Chatterton to supply the dressing rooms with soap, wigs, and towels only, and I go there nightly to see that the rooms are properly provided—I have soap already cut by the cwt.—the soap produced is the same as I supply—there are no new pieces here—I deliver it to Mr. Chatterton and he pays me for it—he does not actually buy it; it is simply that I keep up the supply—this towel is one of those which I supplied to the Princess's Theatre; it is marked.

Cross-examined. I should think on an average I supply 6 or 7 pounds

of soap a week there—I should be paid the same if I supplied 1 or 2 or 14 pounds—we expect the pieces to be used—I send nightly, as a rule, to take away the old pieces and put fresh ones in their place—I have a right to take away the old pieces; in fact they belong to me—if Mr. Jackson himself had taken away the pieces he would have been defrauding me—I am not the prosecutor, and have no desire to prosecute—the dressers take away the old pieces of soap at some theatres—if they do it I consider they are robbing me—I do not know Mr. Moss, of the Vaudeville—I know Mr. Sigo—the soap is not in the same shape as I gave it.

Re-examined. I should say it had had about one night's wear, judging from appearance—there were sixteen pieces.

By MR. SLEIGH. We sometimes get private towels amongst ours by mistake—we found one of Mr. Terriss' once; it was washed and returned—I have never said "Look here, Terriss, you have some of my towels and I have some of yours, and I shall keep them"—I heard it stated at the station that he kept back towels for towels I had of his.

ALFRED BROWN (Detective Officer E). On 23rd August I searched the prisoner's lodgings, at Kentish Town, and found this towel marked and doubled up in a drawer, four property notes and five medals, but no soap. John Spratling (Police Sergeant 21 C). On the morning of 28rd August I searched at the prisoner's lodgings and found these seventeen small pieces of soap, and a large piece in his room.

FREDERICK BALSIR CHATTERTON . I am the lessee of the Princess' Theatre the prisoner was in my employ as addresser—I have an arrangement—with. Clarkson to provide soap and other materials for the dressing-rooms—I have lad experience in the theatrical world for a very long time.—I never heard of the dressers being entitled to the soap as a perquisite.

Cross-examined. I have known Harris for many years connected with the, profession—he was employed at the Princess's before—I do not know whether it was at the time of the Keaus.

MR. SLEIGH contended that the soap was the property of Mr. Cliatterton and not Mr. Clarkson's, and that the notes and coins were valueless to anybody outside the theatre. THE COURT was of the same opinion.


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-680
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

680. THOMAS FOWLER (28) , Stealing four coats, the goods of the London and North-Western Railway Company.

MR. HUMPHREYS conducted the Prosecution.

JAMES GARDNER . I am yard foreman in the employ of the London and North-Western Railway Company at the Goods Station, Broad Street—on Saturday, 18th August, about 5.20, I was on duty at the High Level Goods Station, Broad Street, and saw the prisoner come up the steps from the low level—he spoke to one of my men first and then to me—he wanted a man named Sharpe—I told him there was no such man there, and asked him where he belonged to and where he came from—he said "I work over Pickford, up-side"—I told him I thought he had no business there and he went down the steps—he had a new coat on and was carrying an old coat on his arm, which was bulky, as though there was something inside it—I followed him down quickly—when he got to the bottom I noticed that he had not got the coat on his arm—I called to him to stop, which he did—I said "What have you done with that coat you had on your arm?"—I received

no answer, but on looking round I saw it lying under the stairs—I went and picked it up and I found a new coat inside the old one—they both had tickets on—I asked him where he got them from—he made me no answer at the time, but I took him towards the police office, which was closed, and he told me he had them given him—I told him he would have to explain to me who they were given to him by, or he would have to explain to somebody else—he offered no explanation, and I gave him in custody.

HARRF GARDNER . I am a warehouseman in the employ of Pursell and Company, Bishopsgate Street, wholesale clothiers—on 17th August I selected seven coats for packing, which were to be sent to Mr. Heslop, of Spinneymore near Darlington, which I handed to our packer—the two coats produced are two of them; the value is 19s. 3d. each.

FREDERICK VALE . On 17th August I received from the last witness seven coats to pack and forward to Mr. Heslop, they were folded when handed to me, I could not swear to them; I packed seven; this parcel (produced) is like the one I packed.

WILLIAM DENBEIGH . I am a checker in the employ of the London and North-Western Railway Company, Broad Street—I produce a way-bill of 17th August, on which day I checked a parcel, addressed to Mr. Healop, Spinneymore; it was in sound condition; I placed it on the truck with more parcels and sent it down No. 2 run—the No. 168 in red pencil on the parcel corresponds with the number on the way-bill.

ALFRED FUDGE . I am a watchman in the employ of the London and North-Western Railway Company, Broad Street—on Monday morning, 20th August, at about 5.30, I found three coats lying in what is called No. 7 run—this is the paper that was there—the parcel was broken open.

AMOS SPRIGGS . I live at 20, College Street, Camden Town, and am a goods porter in the service of the London and North-Western Railway Company, Broad Street—I work down No. 2 Arch—I was there on Saturday, 18th August, and saw the prisoner there, at about 4.50 p.m.—he was standing from eight to ten minutes where the parcels were waiting to be loaded—I thought he was a carman.

The Prisoner, in his Statement before the Magistrate, mid that the coats were given him by a man.


He was further charged with having being convicted of felony, at Clerkenwell, in November, 1874, in the name of Thomas Judd , to which he

PLEADED GUILTY Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-681
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment > other institution

Related Material

681. GEORGE EDWARDS (13) , Stealing a watch, the goods of John Addison Russell.

MR. A. B. KELLY conducted the Prosecution.

ALFRED WILLIAM LAIT . I am assistant to Mr. Russell—on Saturday, 11th August, at about 1 o'clock, I was in the shop when the prisoner came in with another boy to look at at a set of studs, which I showed to the other boy—the prisoner put his hand in the window, took out a gold watch worth 3l. 10s., and ran out, I ran after him and caught him in Maidenhead Court—I saw him in the act of throwing—I then picked up this ticket, which was attached to the watch—I did not find the watch—I took the prisoner to the station—I did not lose sight of him from the time he took the watch to the time I came up to him—I left the other boy in the shop and he ran in an opposite direction—I cannot account for what became of the watch—the railway runs at the side of Moorgate Street and I am afraid it went over there—the ticket, being light, stopped behind.

By THE JURY. The ticket was attached to the watch and entered in our book—there is a number on the watch which refers to it.

WILLIAM YOUNG (City Policeman 168). On Saturday afternoon the prisoner was brought to the station by Lait, and charged with stealing a watch—he said he did not take it—I searched him, but found no watch on him—he gave his correct address.

Prisoner. I did not take the watch.

GUILTY *— One Month's Imprisonment and Five Years' in a Reformatory.

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, September 20th, 1877

Before Mr. Common Sergeant.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-682
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown

Related Material

682. WILLIAM CHAPMAN (18) , Stealing a watch, chain, and other articles of Edward Thomas Hawkins, his master, and HENRY GEE (20) , receiving part of the same; to which


MR. HARRIS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. W. SLEIGH defended gee.

EDWARD THOMAS HAWKINS . I live at 138, Upper Park Road, Hampstead—Chapman was in my service nine months up to the time of his being taken in custody—Gee had been my groom and left about eighteen months ago—he lodged near our place at the time of the robbery—I left home about 5th or 6th August, and on the 27th, in consequence of some information I returned home—before going away I hid locked my billiard-room, and put the key in my bureau and locked it—I found that in the same condition as when I left with the exception of the things taken from the bureau mentioned in the indictment—I found my billiard-room had been opened and four pieces of carpet, a piece of Chinese matting, a leather bag, a pair of mittens, a silk hat, a pair of trousers, and other articles had been token from it—I also found that a silver watch, a gold pin, a locket, a pair of sleeve links, a signet ring, two blankets, and various other articles of clothing to the value of 20l. had been taken from my place—I went with a detective to Gee's place—on leading us to his room I observed my carpets on the floor, and I said "These are my carpets," and then I said "Now I want two blankets belonging to me"—he immediately turned up his bed and gave them to me—they were between the mattrass and the iron part of the bedstead—they were nearly new—the policeman asked him if there was anything else, and Gee said "These are all the things I have belonging to Mr. Hawkins"—on further searching the room we found the four pieces of carpet, the piece of Chinese matting, a leather bag, a pair of mittens, a silk hut, a shaving brush, &c.—he said he had bought the things to help Chapman, on the road to Hamburg—the trousers were found on the prisoner—they were a pair belonging to my groom that he left, and which had never before been in Chapman's possession; they had been abstracted from the billiard-room—I had not given any of the things away—I bad last year a gold ring, which Gee admitted-at the police-court, at Hampstead, he had lost.

Cross-examined. I mentioned the ring at the Hampstead police-court, and he admitted to Mallett, 270s., losing the ring—I cannot say whether that was taken down in the deposition—I believe it was read over to me as part of my evidence—I cannot swear that the policeman told me he admitted losing the ring—I believe he did—I have never given my groom any of my clothes—I did not say at the police-court "I have occasionally given my groom old clothes"—this is my signature—I do not think I said

that, I may have—if I have done so it was an—the pair of trousers not those mentioned—I don't call those clothes—I was told that Gee was in Mr. Wilson's service—he did not come from there into my service, or from mine into his—I did not know that he was living on Mr. Wilson's premises at this time—I have since heard from Mr. Wilson, that it is so—I have not seen him here to-day—I saw him yesterday; the carpet was laid down on the floor of the room in which Gee was living, that is it (produced')—Gee said "I am very sorry if I have any of Mr. Hawkins' things"—he handed me the blankets without any difficulty—he is living at Mr. Miles' now; not Mr. Wilson's—he is here; I believe Chapman had taken a passage on board ship for which he had paid 29s.

Re-examined. I did not know anything about his going to Hamburgh—he was prepared to go without giving notice—I once gave an old pair of trousers to Chapman—that is what I mean by occasionally—no solicitor appeared for me at first—my name was marked in my hat.

By THE COURT. Chapman lived in my house—he is a single man and so is Gee.

HANNAH SEABROOK . I am cook at the prosecutor's—I remember his going away in the early part of August—about a week afterwards I saw the two prisoners in the billiard-room—I went upstairs to bed.

Cross-examined. I have not been called as a witness before—I was asked to come here on Monday morning last—Gee had often been in the house—I did not know him very well—he was on very friendly terms with Chapman and me—there were no other servants at home—I knew Chapman was going to Germany—I was at the door of the billiard-room—I might have spoken to them, I daresay—Gee did not take me to Mr. Miles' stables where he was living and show me the carpet in the room that he had bought off Chapman—I was never in Gee's room—Mr. Hawkins has two more female servants—they did not come home before Gee was given into custody—I did not know that Chapman had sold some things to Gee—Chapman did not tell me where he got the money for his passage—he told me he was going to leave Mr. Hawkins'—he might have spoken about it to Gee in my presence—I don't remember his doing so—he did not say why he was going—I knew he was going without notice before his master came home—I do not know Mr. Miles' servants—I think Chapman was rather dissatisfied—Mr. Hawkim never made him presents of things that I know of—I had heard Gee in the billiard-room on other occasions but had not seen him—I do not know what he was doing—I have not heard the balls going when he and Chapman have been there—I do not know that Chapman was in the habit of taking Gee there to play.

Re-examined. It was in consequence of what I knew was taking place that I communicated with Mr. Hawkins while he was at Worthing—something had come to ray knowledge about Chapman and a cheque.

ALBERT MALLETT (Policeman S 270). I went to Gee's house with Mr. Hawkins—I asked him if there was anything in the room he could identify—he said "Yes, this carpet is mine and I want a pair of blankets"—Gee said "Very well," and he undone the bed and threw them out—Mr. Hawkins said "There's something else here belonging to me; those trousers you have got on are mine"—he said "Yes"—I then found the articles that have been mentioned—I told him he would have to go to the Hampstead police station and be charged with receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen—he said "I bought them of Chapman to help him on the road to

Hamburgh"—he said at Hampstead "I lost the ring out riding with Chapman one morning"—I mentioned that to the Magistrate in the presence of Mr. Ricketts' representative.

Cross-examined. I cannot swear that anything about the ring appeared in the depositions—I first saw Gee in the open air and asked him where, he lived—he told me immediately and took us to his room—he said "I am very sorry, and if I have got anything belonging to Mr. Hawkins he can have it"—that was on the way to the station.

GEE received a good character. NOT GUILTY .

CHAPMAN— Fifteen Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-683
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

683. ROBERT CANNETT, (25) , Robbery on Mary Anne James, and stealing from her person a purse and 5l., of Robert James.

MR. FULTON conducted the Prosecution; and MR. THORNE COLE the Defence.

MARY ANNE JAMES . I am the wife of Robert James, and live at 65, Oxford Road—on the morning of 18th August, between 10.30 and 11 o'clock, I was in the Essex Road, Islington, when the prisoner came up to me; I thought he was going to ask me a question; he pushed away one of my hands and caught hold of the other and wrenched it round (describing); he broke my parasol and got the purse away, flung me down on the road and ran away—I saw his face, and am sure the prisoner was the man—I had nearly 5l. in the purse; this is the purse (produced)—a young man ran after him—I am now suffering from the effects of the violence—I was taken home by a constable.

Cross-examined. It was on a Saturday morning at a few minutes to. 11 o'clock—it was very quickly done; I was not at all agitated, but calmer than I am now—I next saw the prisoner at the Clerkenwell police-court.

WILLIAM WILLIAMS . I live at 152, Shepherdess Walk—on 18th August, at about 10.45, I was in the Essex Road, when I saw the prisoner go up to the last witness and give her a shove in the breast with his hand and run away—I was 20 or 30 yards from him, and I ran across to Mrs. James—she had fallen on her back in the road—she said "I have lost my purse," and I then gave him chase—after running about 1 1/4 miles, I ran him down in Norfolk Street—I said "If you will give me the purse, I will let you go"—he said he had been out of work four or five weeks—he gave me the purse and I let him go—I nest saw him on the next Monday, at about 9.15, when I was with Detective Billinghurst; he was standing near the Blue-coat Boy, Islington—I gave him into custody—the purse produced is the one.

Cross-examined. I heard the officer examined at the police-court—I omitted to mention at the police-court that when I asked him for the purse he made the statement about being four or five weeks out of work—I did not mention it till the second time—I requested the clerk to add those words, which he did not do, I believe.

WILLIAM READER . I live at 182, Essex Road, and am a draper—on the Saturday morning in question I was dressing my window outside—I saw the prisoner standing at the opposite corner by the corn shop—I missed him and then saw him again at the corner, and then I heard a scream—I turned round; the lady was down, and I saw him run away—I gave an alarm to Williams, who was running after him—I thought they were both together—I picked the lady up—I have no doubt as to the prisoner; I had been observing him about half an hour.

Cross-examined. I said at the police-court that I saw him for half or

three-quarters of an hour before the occurrence; it was from about 10.15 to 10.30 that I saw the prisoner—on Monday night I saw him in custody—I picked him out at the police-station in a room amongst ten or twelve prisoners; I was fetched by the detective, who waited outside—there were several police about.

JEREMIAH BILLINGHURST (Detective Officer A). My attention was called to the prosecutrix; I put her into a cab and took her home—on Monday, 20th, I was with Williams, who pointed the prisoner out to me—I took him into custody—he said "I have been out of work for four or five weeks, and I can prove where I was"—he was subsequently picked out by Mr. Reader.

Cross-examined. I know the spot well where the prosecutrix was attacked—I heard evidence given by two members of the prisoner's family—I know where they live; near Judd Street, Euston Road—the distance from his house, 23, Peace Cottages, to where the prosecutrix was attacked would be, I should think, 1 1/4 miles.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I am innocent. I was at home at the time."

Witnesses for the Defence.

SOPHIA CANNETT . I am the prisoner's sister, and live at 23, Peace Cottages, Judd Street, Euston Road—I was examined at the police-court on Tuesday, 28th August—I first heard of his being in custody on the Tuesday night before, and there was a remand before I gave my evidence—he was at home on Saturday, 18th—we got up about 7.30 and never went out till 3 o'clock in the afternoon—he mended my boots—I don't know the time he did it—I went opposite to borrow a hobbing-iron for mending them—Mrs. Bartlett gave it to me and I brought it in—I think it must have been between 10 and 11 o'clock—I was at home at work.

Cross-examined. I do mother's housework—ours is a two-roomed house, a bed-room and sitting-room—I think we breakfasted about 8 o'clock—he lives in the same house with us—we finished breakfast about 8.30—I should then clear away, dress my sister, and begin my work downstairs, which I begin about 10 o'clock—my father goes to work, and I do my work upstairs soon after I have done my other—it takes me about an hour to clean the downstairs room and about a quarter of an hour to dress my sister—I might go upstairs about 9.15 sometimes, when I hurried—we have no clocks in the house—I know the time because I go to the bottom of the court to see it—I went twice—I don't do that every day—I might be upstairs three-quarters of an hour, and my brother was downstairs.

Re-examined. The clock I went to see is at the Midland Railway, it would take me about a minute to go—I am certain my brother did not leave the house that morning—he went out at 3 o'clock.

By THE COURT. I heard that he was locked up for robbery—I was told it took place about 10.45 on Saturday morning, somewhere about the Essex Road—my sister, who had been to the beer-shop, told us—my mother asked me the same night to go before the Magistrate—she said "You can go up and prove he was at home."

ALFRED CANNETT . I am eleven years old, and am the prisoner's brother—on Saturday morning, the 18th August, I was at home—two or three days after I heard my brother was taken up by the police—my brother was mending my sister's boots on the Saturday morning—I did not go out till after my brother did, at 3 o'clock—I don't know what time I got up in the morning—we had breakfast about 9.30.

Cross-examined. I know the clock—it is 12.30 by that clock—it is a court we live in, with a lot of other houses in it, and little boys and girls—I was not at school on this Saturday morning, it is a holiday—after breakfast I generally go out and play in the court, and often run about outside the court—I know my brother went out at 3 o'clock on this Saturday, because I stopped in all day—we have a clock upstairs hanging over the bed—my sister could see it—it was going—I don't know why she was obliged to look at the time by the Midland Railway—I went up to see time when my brother went out.

Re-examined. I quite understand the question about the clock upstairs—it has weights hanging down—I sometimes run out to look at the Midland clock—I did not go out the morning my brother was mending tie boots; I looked on—he is a marble polisher by trade.

By THE COURT. I go to school about 9 o'clock, and we generally have breakfast about 8 o'clock or 8.30—my brother wanted me to go upstairs to get some more boots; I wouldn't do it, and that is why he wouldn't let me go out—he made my sister go up and fetch them—I went before the police Magistrate without anybody telling me—that is true.

ELLEN MARIA SMITH . I live at 4, Peace Cottages, opposite 22—23 is the prisoner's—I heard on the Wednesday that he was in custody—I was at home all day Saturday—I saw him through the window between 10 and 11 o'clock—I was at the street door—I cannot see the clock of the Midland Railway from my street door, but hare to go to the bottom of the court—I saw him three or four times I daresay.

Cross-examined. He was at the window of his own house—I fix the time because we were not up till 9.20, and then we had had our, breakfast—we lave a clock—the prisoner was putting something on the lines that were in the room for hanging things out—I thought he was hanging towels or something—he had his face to the window—I first mentioned that I had seen him when I heard he was arrested—I was not at the police-court—a person who keeps a shop at the bottom told me of it and I saw it in the paper—I saw the time mentioned, about 10.45.

By THE COURT. I daresay the prisoner had been out of work three or four weeks—I had seen him a good deal at home and could hear him every day—he was at home a good deal on the Friday—I don't know what time he went out then—I heard him call to the children—I cannot remember about the Thursday or Wednesday—his mother was in the habit of going out to work, and I saw him hanging the clothes on the line, and I thought he could turn his hand to anything, like a young man next door—those thoughts didn't pass through my mind on the Friday—his mother asked me to come up, and I asked my husband, and he said "It would be a shocking thing, knowing what you do, if you didn't go up and say so."

SARAH BARTLETT . I live at 3, Peace Cottages, nearly opposite the prisoner's house—I remember lending a hobbing iron on the morning of the 18th August, at about 11.30, to Sophia Cannett—when she came and asked me for it I said "I don't know what you mean," and she said "It is in iron foot to mend boots"—! said "I can lend you that," and I gave it to her—I think I heard the prisoner was in custody either on Tuesday or Wednesday morning—a neighbour brought me a daily paper, and I said within myself "That is the morning he borrowed the hobbing-iron"—I didn't see the prisoner that morning.

Cross-examined. It might be a little later than 11.30—I had reason to

go down the court, and the Midland clock is opposite to me, and I couldn't help seeing the clock, and I could see it was just over the half hour; a minute or half a minute—it could not be more.


The prisoner received a good character— Nine Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-684
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

684. URBAN RACK (38) , Feloniously uttering two forged requests for the payment of money.

MR. DOUGLAS METCALFE conducted the Prosecution.

HENRY WRAGG . I live at 22, Prospect Place, Cambridge Heath—I have known the prisoner for some time—he was a teacher in the Children's Home—he came to me on the 27th June last and asked me to cash this cheque for him (produced), which I did, and then paid the cheque away—I asked him no question about it—it was subsequently returned marked "No account"—I next saw him on the 5th July when I told him the cheque had come back—he said he would see about it—he had taken it of a man he had cured of the gout. (Cheque read: "London and Yorkshire Bank, Limited, Halifax. Pay Urban Rack, or order, 45l. R. B. Huntley." Endorsed "Urban Rack." He said he did not know who the man was or where he lived.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You came to my house afterwards, to see if the cheque was good.

By THE COURT. I saw the prisoner the next day at my house—he said he would pay me a few pounds—I said I would not take a few pounds"—I must have it all"—then he went to the Home; I did not see him again about it—I went to Worship Street, the following morning and gave information—I know the prisoner's handwriting—that is it on the cheque.

JOHN IMRAY . I am manager of the London and Yorkshire Bank, Limited, at Halifax—an account was opened in the name of Henry James and Son, before I took the management—I have examined the books and we have no customer of the name of R. B. Huntley, nor do I find that there ever has been such, on going through our signature book—that book (produced) was issued to Henry James and Son, before I came to the bank—it was a very small account—they are not customers now, they left in June, 1876.

The Prisoner. I was never in Halifax.

The prisoner in his defence made a very protracted rambling statement, said that the cheque was given him by a Mr. Huntley, for curing him of the gout, that he had been made a dupe of by others during some years, and had been confined in various lunatic asylums.


There was another indictment upon which no evidence was offered.


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-685
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

685. BERTHOLD HENRY HUCHTING (32) , Forging and uttering 2 promissory note for 200,000 Rupees, of the Empire of India, with intent to defraud Edward Rushton, and others.

MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE and MR. J. P. GRAIN conducted the Prosecution; and MR. BESLEY the Defence.

ROBERT THOMAS LATTEY . I am a member of the firm of Lattey and Hart, solicitors, of 142, Gresham House, Old Broad Street—we are agents to the official assignee of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, Calcutta—on the 11th August, we received from the official assignee of the Court in Calcutta, a letter containing: this first, exhibit A. (Read: "Rs. 200,000. On demand we promise to pay the official assignee in Calcutta or order, the sum of Rupees 200,000

with interest from 1st July. 1877, at the rate of 4 percent, per annum for value received.—Rushton Brothers.") Also exhibit B. (Read:' 23rd November, 1876, Rushton Brothers. Dear Sirs,—Oar Calcutta firm having failed to forward you," &c., signed, Ruston Brothers.") Also exhibit C. (Read: "8th June, 1877. From Rushton Brothers, to the official assignee Calcutta. Dear Sirs,—Enclosed, I beg to hand-you First promissory note from Messrs. Rushton Brothers, for 200,000 Rs. Second:! letter of theirs addressed tome. (This letter represented that Rushton Brothers had made arrangements to give the prisoner a quarter share of all Rushton Brothers' European, American, and Egyptian business, with certain exceptions, and was signed "B. R. Huchting") Upon this we communicated with Mr. Edward Kushton, a member of the firm of Rushton Brothers, 13, Lime Street, and showed him these documents, and we received certain instructions and information from him.

Cross-examined. We have never acted as solicitors for Messrs. Rushton Brothers—the documents were sent to us as solicitors for the official assignee, at Bengal—Dignam, and Robinson, were the Calcutta firm—this paper is endorsed in the name of their office, I have no doubt, I do not know the handwriting—I recognise the handwriting of a clerk on this document; I am not familiar with the prisoner's career in Calcutta, in 1875, before he came to London—the papers reached our hands by post on Saturday, 11th August, and would be given to us the first thing in the morning—at the time we received them I was not aware that Messrs. Rushton had given the prisoner into custody on the previous day for stealing a telegraphic code—I learnt it afterwards.

EDMUND RUSHTON . I am a merchant in partnership with three others in Calcutta—we commenced the partnership in 1860—I knew the prisoner while I was in Calcutta—he was a merchant, I heard in England of his having failed—I came over to England in February, 1875, for the purpose of establishing a branch—I took premises in Lime Street—I had no personal communication with the prisoner till January, 1876—I had received a communication from my brothers, after which I saw the prisoner—I did not refer to that communication to him nor he to me—I said "Take a seat in the office and go on with the business"—I knew he was coming, by the communication from my firm in Calcutta, and by that only—I arranged with him to pay him 25l. a month, which was to be debited to the account—his duties were Continental correspondence and Continental business in general and to bring in some of his old constituents to our business—he was to have 25 percent, on business he brought in—he remained in our employ until the morning of the 27th June, 1877—he brought in some business, not to a very large extent, perhaps 7,000l. or 8,000l. the gross amount of value of the goods; the transactions resulted in a loss—I have not, under my arrangement, to pay him on those—two or three telegraphic codes were started about March 1876, and May or June, 1877, by the prisoner—he was to make them for our business—some time subsequently to January I increased his salary to 30l. a month—I entered into no agreement with him whatever beyond what I have stated—I was never indebted to him beyond the 25l. or 30l. a month excepting any profit he might have brought in—as a matter of fact there' was no profit—I certainly never at any time made an arrangement with him which would entitle him to claim 10,000l. or 20,000l.—I repeatedly gave him my blank signature upon letters and memoranda—he was not authorised to draw bills or promissory notes on our account—the signature

on the promissory note A is mine—the handwriting is the prisoner's—I gave him no authority whatever to write that—I had no idea of any such communication as that being made to the official assignee in Calcutta—he made a remark one day about paying his creditors, in the presence of two or three people—a broker came in and said "What are you at that again," referring to the code, and he said "Yes, as soon as this is finished, Rushton Brothers will pay my creditors," at which we all laughed and thought it a very good joke—we never undertook to pay him anything for the code—there is no truth in it—this letter of the 23rd November, 1876, bears my signature—it is written on our office paper Limp Street; and the body is in the prisoner's handwriting—I did not authorise him to write it and knew nothing about it—the first I heard of it was at the Mansion House, and I then looked at the letter-book—it is the original of the press copy—this letter of the 1st May 1876, headed "Memorandum to B. H. Hirsch, from Rushton Brothers, Lime Street" is signed by me—the body is in the prisoner's handwriting—this paper was delivered in my office about the 19th August, following the May it purports to be written on—I never used memorandum sheets similar to that before August—I can speak to that solemnly—the body is an entire fabrication—I never heard of the contents, I certainly never gave the prisoner authority to draw for 200,000 Rupees—it is a question whether I could draw it myself—the business has improved since the prisoner came to us, because we started in London and had his services as a clerk in the office with four or five others, and naturally the business would increase—it has not increased through any introductions of his.

Cross-examined. I was born in the Province of Bengal—I left India for the purpose of going into business about January or February, 1875—I had previously been in England—I left the prisoner in Calcutta—he was at that time a merchant; he had only just started, about a year—I knew him for some time before that—he had been in a large firm, and so made friends with a number of commercial people; that is what I mean by his constituents—I first saw him in London about the beginning of January, 1876—I left my brother Hayward in Calcutta—I did not know anything about the document proved by Mr. Lattey to come from Dignam and Robinson; they were solicitors to our firm, and may be now—I do not remember hearing of the powers of Attorney—I had a communication from my firm in Calcutta with the text of the agreement which had been come to; I think it was about August, 1875—the business of Rushton Brothers in London was principally a jute business, direct through me—this list of forty-six names comprises principally names of constituents we had before our dealings with the prisoner—there do not seem to be any jute men, except one—I should say the whole business, including the jute, would be about 200,000l. or 300,000l. a year—the jute would represent, perhaps, half—the agreement I was advised of from Calcutta was never signed, I believe—I believe the prisoner wrote to my brother in Calcutta in February, 1876, the month after his arrival in England—my brother is here—these are specimen sheets of the telegraphic code (produced)—I was not aware that the prisoner had been five years completing the code until he said so—I paid Messrs. Straker as much as 600l. or 700l. for printing with reference to the perfection of this very code—the copying work was the work of the prisoner's—it is copied from other codes and put into this shape—it is not a very difficult thing to make a code—the sheets were supplied to Straker for a period of more than two years—I never supplied any of the copy for the printing—I did not know that the prisoner

laboured until midnight and 1 o'clock in the morning for the purpose of perfecting the code, I have heard it so said—I think it was the 29th June, 1870, that I gave him into custody for stealing the code—I was not there purposely—it was not my brother, but my clerk, Mr. E. J. Short, gave him into custody, by my instructions—I had consulted Mr. Thomas Beard about arresting him—I did not in the meantime go to the prisoner's lodgings with a detective without a warrant and get access to them—I have no recollection of twenty copies of the code being carried off from his lodgings; I did not know that twenty copies had been made—I have had five copies made since he was given into custody—I gave an order that if the prisoner delivered up the code they were not to press the charge, but if it were not given up he was to be kept in custody for stealing the code—five copies have been given up and ten more—the first telegram I had from Calcutta after I arrested the prisoner was on 30th June, 1876, the day after, and the day after he was at liberty—I did not go to his place then, nor he to mine—as to this document being a copy of that in the book, it may be a miraculous thing, but I should say it is a copy; not having seen the actual operation of copying, I cannot swear to it—it is not a fact that I expressed a desire in the presence of Mr. Von Kalin to break up the whole business of Rushton's; I should be very sorry to—I have two brothers in England and one in America—I have never expressed feelings antagonistic to them, I could not do such a thing—I never made any agreement at all with the prisoner that the amount of his claim upon us should be paid to the official assignee.

Re-examined. These codes are very much used in mercantile firms now—a cipher or letter will represent a word, and in that way we save expense—the telegraph companies recognise it to the extent of ten letters to the word—this code consisted of copies from many houses, improved upon as time went on, not an original idea—I paid part for the materials and am liable for the balance—the prisoner is not liable for a farthing—he left our employ on the morning of 27th June—when my brother and I arrived at the office, after staying there a few minutes, the prisoner walked in and said, with his back to me and facing my brother "Oh, I see you are not going to carry on that second agreement, I am discharged, and am off," and he put on his hat and walked out, and I never saw him again until I had him arrested—that was the first mention he had made of the second agreement, and I looked up in astonishment—after he had gone I found some of these telegraphic things had gone also—I wanted to have him arrested at once, but my brother said "No, don't do so, you may find them at the printer's"—I ascertained the fact at the printer's that they were gone—I never gave him. authority to take them—I consulted a solicitor and acted under his advice—our names are printed at the top of every page of the code—the prisoner never made the slightest claim to them—I learnt from the officer who took him into custody that he had given them up and had been released—I afterwards heard that he had only given up a very small portion; some are missing now; the police have them, but we cannot trace one or two; they got the others since this prosecution—the prisoner said nothing more when he put on his hat and walked out of the office.

HAYWARD PRICHARD RUSHTON . I am brother of the last witness, and' am a member of the firm of Rushton Brothers—these two draft agreements J and K were drawn up as a proposed agreement between the prisoner and ourselves, the latter amending the first—one of the proposed clauses in J, Mo. 4, is, that we should have power to dismiss the prisoner

at a moment's notice—I came to London about the 30th May, 1877 and remained here, going to the office up to the 27th or 30th June, when I went away—I never heard about a promissory note for 20,000l., or anything of the sort.

Cross-examined. I was born in India—I first came to London for the purpose of carrying on business on the 30th May this year; I also came on a private matter—I left Calcutta on the 19th April—I had received repeated requests from the prisoner up to the beginning of 1876 with reference to having this agreement signed—it was never signed—on my arrival in England I may have had a few words of discussion with the prisoner.

Re-examined. I never heard of any arrangement except this agreement, the terms of which were carried out, though it was never executed.

Witness for the Defence.

GUSTAVUS KALAN VON HOFE . I was employed by Rushton Brothers in their Londonhouse, 13, Lime Street, and have known the prisoner since 1866 or 1861—I knew of his being engaged on this code for a long time—the completion of it would take him an immense time—it would be of immense value in a business like Eushton'sbe a great saving—the prisoner has not been very well in health for some months, and I advised him to take a holiday—he told me he had come to an arrangement with Mr. Edward Rushton after Christmas—I think as far as I can recollect he was not in good health in November.

Cross-examined. I don't call that being "off his head."

GUILTY . Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his having worked hard for his employers on the telegraphic code— Twelve Months Imprisonment.

OLD COURT.—Monday and Tuesday, September 17th and 18th, and

NEW COURT.—Wednesday and Thursday, September 19th and 20th, 1877.

Before Mr. Recorder.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-686
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

686. WILLIAM NORTH (44), was indicted for not fully discovering to his trustees his property, he having been adjudged a bankrupt, and EDWARD WILLIAM JOHN THOMPSON (32), ALFRED JAMES THOMPSON (29), and WALTER HENRY THOMPSON (30) , for aiding assisting, and abetting him. Other Counts—for conspiracy.


SIR FITZJAMES STEPHEN , Q. C., with MR. BESLEY, and MR. HARMSWORTE conducted the Prosecution; MR. STRAIGHT appeared for E. W. J. Thompson, MR. METCALFE, Q. C., for W. H. Thompson, and MR. MONTAGE WILLIAMS for A. J. Thompson.

CHARLES GROSJEAN RENE L'ENFANT . I produce a file of the proceedings in liquidation by E. W. J. Thompson and Walter H. Thompson, filed on 19th August, 1874, described as drapers, of 125, Newington Causeway, and 1, 2, and 3, Rockingham Street, Newington Causeway—here is a statement of affairs filed on 30th September, 1874—those proceedings were abandoned and I produce another file of liquidation by the same parties on 24th September, 1874, on which there is a statement of affairs dated 14th October, giving the liabilities at 23,725l., and the assets at 6,564l. 19s. 2d.—the proceedings were completed by the registry of a resolution of the creditors, on 24th October, to accept 9s. in the pound—in the list of creditors there are several wholesale houses, including Bagallay and Co.,

Kynaston and Sons, Tapttins, and Williams and Co.—I have also the file of proceedings in the bankrubtcy of William North, of High Street, Hoddesdon, draper; Cook and Sons are the petitioning creditors—their petition is dated the 24th August, 1876, and Mr. Lovering was appointed trustee on 7th October; the date of the adjudication is 9th September, 1876—a statement of affairs was filed on 7th October, by which the unsecured creditors are 2,638l. 19s. 9d.; stock-in-trade, nothing; total assets 78l. 7s. 2d.—in the list of creditors I find H. Hurst, 4, Cripplegate Buildings, E. C., 300l.; Alfred Thompson, West Green House, Tottenham, 30l.; H. Buck, of Bracknell, 14l.; Edwin Thompson, 78l.; E. C. Hawk, Cheapside, 30l.; E. Challoner, Walworth, S. E., 125l.; E. Bass, 14, Queen Street, Cheapside, 48l. 15s.; A. Onslow, 18, Victoria Street, Cheltenham, 65l., and there are the ordinary book debts and small amounts and different addresses—the 78l. of book debts are made up of small amounts, 1l. and 2l., from people in different parts of the country.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. The liabilities under the first petition filed by Edward and Walter were 23,708l., which was afterwards reduced by 3,000l.—there was about 20l. difference between the accounts of the first and second petition—there is a resolution on the second file that a composition of 9s. in the pound should be accepted, to be paid in three instalments, at four, eight, and twelve months, to be secured by promissory notes—that appears to have been paid, by its being registered.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. Alfred Thompson's name is not connected with those proceedings.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Here is a list of the debtors, on page 18—conderable costs would be incurred for accountants and so on, which I fancy would be 3s. in the pound more, but I know nothing about it.

Re-examined. I find among the list of creditors for 23,000l., Mrs. Thompson, of Tottenham, for 3,000l., and Alfred Thompson for 175l.—one petition was in August, and one in September.

WILLIAM HAMPTON WYMAN . I am a clerk in the County Court at Hertford, and produce the proceedings in the liquidation of William North, draper, of High Street, Hoddesden—the petition is dated August 2nd, 1876, and it was filed on the 3rd, with a statement of affairs—on 2nd September a second statement was filed, in which the unsecured creditors amount to 2,616l. 19s. 9d. and the assets are 300l. 10s., which is made up of book debts 300l. and cash in hand 10s.—a list of creditors owing the 300l. is attached to the statement, among which are H. Hunt, of Cripplegate Buildings, 480l.; A. Thompson, West Green House, Tottenham, 30l.; EL W. Buck, of Bracknell, 48l.; Edward William Thompson, 78l.; E. Challoner, 125l., and others—the resolution come to is "That the affairs be wound up in bankruptcy."

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. No furniture is shown.

NATHANIEL JOHN BROWN . I am clerk to the Registrar of the County Court, Greenwich—I produce the petition for the liquidation of the affairs of Thompson and Co., filed on 16th September, 1875; there were seventy creditors, I think—the debts amounted to 7,387l. 16s. 9d., and the assets 472l. 12s., consisting of book debts, among which is the name of William North, of Hoddesden, for 240l.—the result of those proceedings was a resolution for a composition of 2s. in the pound to be paid in three and six months—it is not on the file—I do not know whether it was paid; there is no Order of Court for its payment.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I do not produce the file of proceedings in Benton's case—I have not been told to do so.

RICHARD RAVAGE . I am an accountant, of King Street, Cheapside—I assisted the Receiver in the liquidation proceedings of Edward and Walter Thompson, in 1874—I do not know that there were two petitions; I speak to the one which was settled by 9s. in the pound, which was, I believe, paid to the creditors—I became acquainted with Walter Thompson's writing and, to the best of my belief, these papers marked 1, 4, 5, and 6 are in Walter's writing, but there is a word or two in a different writing—No. 71 know nothing of—No. 8 has three lines at the bottom in Walter's writing Nos. 10 and 11 are also his—in this day-book marked "Smith, 8," page 2 is in Walter's writing, and I occasionally find his writing in the same boot—I do not know any of the other writing in it—the document, 3. L. is Walter Thompson's, except a few figures at the bottom.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. The composition was to be secured by bills at four, eight, and twelve months; bills for the amounts were signed in my office, and Mrs. Thompson, the prisoners' mother, became security—she is a creditor under the liquidation—an objection was raised by the debtor as to Wilson and Son, of Birmingham, and Wm. Wilson, of Hatton Garden, whose accounts amounted to, I think, over 100l.—Mr. Mason, a solicitor, was then acting for the creditors—the accountant received 100l.; I do not know what the solicitor had.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I acted as assistant to the accountant—the chief item, 6,000l., consisted of stock-in-trade; I do not know whether the cost price of it was nearly 12,000l.; 20l. per cent. was taken off the selling price.

Re-examined. I made the entry of the stock-in-trade at 20 per cent. from the selling price, 5,936l.; the selling price from which I made that estimate would be about 4,500l.—there being no cost marked, we took the estimated cost of the stock, the price at which it was marked to sell in the shop—5,936l. is my calculation based on their statement of the selling price—I have no belief as to by whom the 9s. in the pound was paid—Mrs. Thompson and Mr. Hands were the sureties—I do not know whether the mother paid it—there is an item in the solicitor's charges for the services of a detective.

By MR. METCALFE. The detective was employed on the instructions of a committee of creditors whom Mr. Mason represented—Mr. Mason is the same gentleman who is instructing the Counsel for the prosecution.

JOHN EDWIN HARLEY . I am an agent and surveyor, of 31, Ludgate Hill—I was agent for the owner of 29, Paternoster Square—I produce an agreement dated 1st April, 1876, and marked "Harley 1," between Alfred Thompson and myself—it was executed in my presence and my clerk's, by Alfred Thompson, that is the prisoner furthest off from me—I have seen him write repeatedly—it is for the letting of a shop in Paternoster Square—he gave his business address as 61, Paternoster Row, and his private residence Horsford Row, Brixton Rise—I received part of the first quarter's rent; I think he paid it himself—I never got any more—I saw him repeatedly at the premises, but I do not remember seeing any of the other prisoners—the premises were closed a little before the 29th of September—I did not enter till a little after Christmas, when I found a a few fixtures but no stock—I never saw him afterwards until I saw him in Court.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I received 30l. 19s. 3d. rent—that covered the occupation up to June 24th.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. Alfred Thompson is the man who signed the agreement—I never saw Edward Thompson as far as I know.

PHILLIP HENRY WOOLLARD . I am an agent, at 15, Monkwell Street—in April, 1876, I let my first floor to Alfred Thompson—he signed this agreement in my presence—I identify him—he continued in possession till 30th April, 1877.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. He paid his rent under a distraint.

WILLIAM NORTH (the Prisoner). I have pleaded guilty to this indictment—I have been a travelling draper nine years—I purchased the business of Mr. Hands—I have known Walter Thompson fourteen or fifteen years, and the others nine or ten years—I saw them at the time the composition deed was proved in 1874—I bought for Edward Thompson, first in October and November, 1874, and went on doing so till March and April, 1875—they were fancy goods and heavy goods—I bought them from Walker and Johnson, of Manchester, and Rotheram, and Caldecotts, and other houses—Edward was then carrying on business in Newington Causeway—I recollect his liquidation in 1875—after that I bought things for Walter—that commenced about May, 1875—I bought silks, calico sheetings, and kid gloves, and went on buying for Walter till September, 1875—he had the goods sent to my place at Hoddesden, and I sent them up to him by Stanningford and by Mace, carriers—they were sent to the booking office—I sometimes sent them by carrier, sometimes by Page, and sometimes I took them myself—goods were sent in my name to the Liverpool Street booking office—Walter used to go with me and fetch them away himself—Edward has also done so, but not for goods ordered by Walter, only for those ordered by himself—on 18th February, 1876, I bought some silks from Rotheram's, and on the 19th February some silks from Hitchcock and Williams, and on 19th and 21st of February some other things from Caldecott's—I got invoices from Rotheram and sent them to Walter Thompson—I do not know whether by post or with the goods—I bought some goods at the London Warehouse Company on 15th February for Walter Thompson—he gave me orders to buy all the goods I have mentioned and also for some which I bought of Taplin and some of Kynaston and Son, on 18th February, and some of Hitchcock and Williams on 21st February—all those goods were sent to Walter Thompson; some by Page and some I took myself—those which Page took were packed, but what I took were unpacked—I took them in my four-wheel van—I took them the next day after I received them—I always did so as quick as I could—Walter's address was West House, West Green, Tottenham—that was his private house—his place of business was 61, Paternoster Row—he and Alfred lived together at West Green—I do not know whether it is their mother's house—this invoice (produced) represents part of some goods I boug it from the London Warehouse Company in February—this other invoice, marked T 1, is a similar invoice as regards Taplin, and here is another as regards Kynaston, another of Rotheram's, two of Caldecott's, and two of Hitchcock and Williams—all those goods were forwarded to Walter Thompson—I afterwards asked him about them—he said he had got them all right, and they suited very well—he did not pay me for them, but I paid Dent and Allcroft—I made out no invoice to Thompson, nor did I charge him in any

way as my debtor—I knew a man named Caro—I had a transaction with him at Edward Thompson's suggestion—I forget the date—he sells lithsgraphs and oleographs, and Edward wanted me to go and buy pictures for him—he told me the subjects to buy—I was to say that Seof had sent me—there were two sea views and a landscape—I believe Mr. Seof was present during the whole conversation between me and Edward—I went to Caro's place in Finsbury—Seof introduced me and said that I wanted to look at some pictures—he showed some to me and I and Seof picked out the subjects—this is my invoice of the pictures chosen by me under Seofs advice; an arrangement was made and about a fortnight afterwards they were framed and fetched away by Bass to Edward Thompson's place—Caro had suggested that I should tear a card in half and give him half and Edward Thompson the other half—I afterwards saw the pictures at his warehoused Paternoster Square—he said he should sell them, and he did sell both of them—I had four of them—I last saw them about six or seven weeks before he closed the warehouse hanging on the wall—I know a man named Downing—Edward Thompson suggested that I should buy some cigar cases of him, from 150 to 200 dozen—I bought them for him and had ten dozen of them myself—he told me what commission to pay—they were sent to my place and I sent them to Edward Thompson by Standiford—this is the invoice of them—here is Edward Thompson's writing on the back of it—in May I bought some goods for Walter Thompson, of the London Ware-house Company—this is the invoice of them—I sent them to him by Macer, the carrier, who succeeded Standiford—I did not pay for them nor did Walter pay me—here is an invoice, of May 8th, of goods bought of Kynaston—I bought them for Walter and sent them by Page the carrier, I believe directly afterwards—here is another invoice of goods bought of Baggallay on 8th May—I bought them for Walter and sent them by the carrier, Page I think—Walter gave me orders to buy them—his orders were sometimes in writing—this is one of the orders he gave me (produced)—here is another invoice of goods bought of Baggallays on May 10th by me—I sent them to Walter by carrier—he had not given me the money to pay for them and I did not pay for them—here is another invoice of goods I bought at Kynaaton's on 22nd May for Walter—they were sent to me by carrier and I do not know whether I took them to Walter or whether I sent them by Page—I bought other goods of Taplin on 22nd May for Walter—they were sent to me by carrier and I sent them to him by Page—I also bought for Walter the goods represented in these two invoices (produced)—they were sent to me by Mason—Walter never paid me for any of these goods or gave me money with which to pay for them and I never paid for them—I asked for the money to pay with but I never claimed anything as a debt to myself—I did not mention who I was buying for at these various houses—I had been in the habit of dealing there on my own account and had given a reference to Cook, Sons, and Co. of St. Paul's—the cigar cases and the pictures and some jewellery went to Paternoster Square—the other goods went to Tottenham and to Paternoster Row—the prisoner said that when the bills came they would find the money for them, and they would all be paid—Alfred Thompson took some of the drapery goods—they came down in a cart from West Green two or three times in November—he did not come for any of these goods in February or May—I think they were all sent—I presented a petition in liquidation on 3rd August at the Hertford County Court at Edward and Walter Thompson's suggestion—I asked them what I was to do—they said

"You bad better file a petition and we will find the money and get you out"—that was because persons had distrained; they went with me to Mr. Benton, Mr. Pary's managing clerk, and said that I was in difficulties, they had brought me there, and the best thing that I could do was to file a petition in bankruptcy—I consented to do so, and they said they would see me out of it—we all went together to Benton's—they suggested that I should pay 3s. in the pound—I said "What is the use of that as I have no money"—they both said, "We will find it for you"—I made a statement of my affairs for the purpose of my petition—they told me to get all the creditors I possibly could—they said I must get a majority of the creditors in my favour to oarry the composition that would be offered—I left myself entirely in their hands—they said that that was the best thing I could do—this paper (produced) was drawn up about the same time, at Mr. Benton's—I believe Walter Thompson was present—I do not know whose writing it is—it is a statement of the names and addresses of my creditors—some of those are persons to whom I did not owe money—Herbert Hunt is one of the false names—it is untrue that I owed him 340l.; I did not owe him a halfpenny—I did not put his name down—I owed Alfred Thompson about 5l. for horse hire—that amount is exaggerated into 30l.—I did not put down Butt 48l., or Edward Thompson 78l.—I did not owe them anything—this little slip of paper marked N 15 was written by Edward Thompson one day when I was at the warehouse talking about the cigar cases and pictures—he reckoned them up and said "I will find the money, you put that in your pocket," and when I got home I found he had put down anything but the right prices—the total is 58l.—the cigar cases came to 72l.—here is Gage 35l., Iowed that, but this Challoner 125l., I did not owe—I put that down myself—I borrowed the money in my wife's presence and gave it back—neither of the prisoners were there, but they told me to get all the creditors I possibly could—Mrs. Challoner gave me this money; I pat it on the table and she took it up again, and, I gave her 2s. 6d. for interest—that was Dot my invention, it was both of the Thompsons—they told me to get all the creditors I could, and I thought of Mrs. Challoner—they said "Never mind who they are so long as we can put their names down"—they said that they had a large majority in my favour, but they did not tell me who they made creditors—when I told the prisoners what I had done with Mrs. Challoner, they were very pleased—they said everything would be right and we had a majority in our favour—here is Baggallay, 48l. 18s.; I did not owe him anything, I did not authorise that—here is Onslow, 65l.; I did not owe him anything, or authorise anybody to put him down—on the day of the meeting of the creditors, I saw all three of the prisoners at Mr. Parry's office, and Walter and Alfred were present at the meeting—I made an offer of 3s. in the pound, which was not accepted—Mr. Levering wanted me to give a statement of sixteen creditors of over 20l. each, and I went into a private room where Alfred and Walter were and told them so, and Walter suggested that I should put down anybody, and I think I put down four; I cannot say now who they were—I said that 3s. was not likely to be accepted, and Walter said "offer 5s."—I did offer 5s., but it was not accepted—Alfred was in the private room, the next room to where the meeting was; he did not attend the meeting—this was at 28, Basinghall Street—this letter is in Walter Thompson's writing, "Messrs. Kynaston and Co. Gentlemen,—I only returned home this evening, and am very sorry I forgot to make a note of your bill. I shall be up on Monday to pay it. William North"

—a copy of that letter was sent to me at Romford by Walter for me to write to Kynaston's; it was a sort of form for me to copy—this other letter is in Walter's writing; it is to W. Hitchcock and Co. to the same effect—I copied it and sent the letter—Walter knew where I was, because he had lists where I should be from one time to another—this other letter is in Edward's writing; this is a request to the picture dealer to frame six pictures as soon as possible, when they would be sent for—I did not serf for any more pictures; I told Edward he had better pay for the others first—I made up my statement of debts to 2,300l., but I owe nothing to anybody except the wholesale houses, and 5l. to Walter Thompson—out of this 219l. 4s. 9d. to Hitchcock and Co. there might be 30l. for myself, or not so much, and the rest is Walter Thompson's—I do not think I owe any of Taplin's account, or of Caldecott's 110l.; that is all for the Thompsons—30l. out of the 153l. due to Parsons may be mine, the rest is Walter Thompson's—out of the 250l. to Cook and Son 50l. may be mine. (The writer went through the list, pointing out the false credits.) Bills were signed in blank to Walter Thompson; he drew up three, and I signed them and gave them to him in Edward's presence—out of this 240l. to the Wood Street Ware-house Company 40l. may be mine—Sidwell 23l. is all mine, and West 22l. is mine—350l. is the amount which I really owed, apart from the things I got for Thompsons, or not so much; 250l. I should say—I will swear I do not owe more than 300l. for these transactions—neither of them told me what had become of the goods I bought for Walter and Edward, and I never knew—this I O U is in Edward Thompson's writing. (This was dated 19th June, 1876, for 31l. 10s., signed Edward Thompson, at the bottom of which was, in pencil, I O U 10l.) I did owe him that, but I paid him 30l. back—I had lent him 41l. 10s., and he owes me 11l. on that account—I was made bankrupt in August, 1876, and the adjudication was on 9th September—I told Mr. Lovering's clerk after the meeting what I have told you here—that was in February or March this year—before I made out those documental never told Mr. Lovering, or anybody on his account, about my getting goods from these warehouses and sending them to the Thompsons—I wrote Walter Thompson a letter on the subject and another to Edward; that was in November, because they would not come and see me; I sent them by post; these are copies of them, but I never saw Walter or Edward until they were in custody. (The first letter was dated November 13th, 1876, from the witness to Edward Thompson, stating that he was confined to his bed, but had written to Walter Thompson about the trouble they had brought upon him, and stating that his friends had advised him to tell the truth to Mr. Lovering. and that they had not paid him for the jewellery, pictures, and cigars. The next letter was from Walter Thompson, dated November 13th, 1876, stating that he had made up his mind to tell the whole truth to Mr. Lovering.) That alludes to 31l. worth of jewellery I bought for Edward, of Miles and Spring—the first execution put into my house was for the first lot of goods Edward Thompson bought in October, after their failure in 1874—the next execution was on some bonds for them—the Manchester execution was about May or Jane, 1875—the next was put in by the butcher, and the next by Dent and Alcroft last November—I signed these bills in blank, but I do not know what Edward Thompson did with them; this acceptance is my signature, and the body of the bill is in Edward Thompson's writing—I believe the body of the bill was not written when I gave it to him—the bill is dated November 24th—it was August or September, just before the meeting, when I gave him

several blank acceptances, I do not know how many—I owed him no money at that time—I do not know Alfred's writing, and cannot say whether this bill signed Alfred Thompson is his—the acceptance is mine—I owe Alfred about 5l.—Walter and Edward asked me to give the bills.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. Previous to commencing my business I had been travelling draper to Mr. Hands fifteen years—he did not supply me with the goods I started with, I got them from Cook's, and Hitchcock's—Mr. Hands introduced me to them, and I bought 1,000l. worth of stuff of them—Mr. Hands is the father-in-law of Walter Thompson—I do not know whether he assisted them to go on with their business after their second petition—I know that they went on after the first petition; I bought goods for Edward Thompson after the failure, the only transactions with him were the pictures, jewellery, calico, cigar-cases, and some carpets—I dare say the whole amount would be about 160l.—it may have been about March, this year, that I first had any communication with Mr. Mason, the solicitor to the trustees; I will swear it was after Christmas—my examination took place in his office by Mr. Saxelby, on March 3rd and 6th—I told every word of the truth, and a shorthand writer took it down—it was the same as I have told you to-day—I do not think I said that Hunt's was a good debt—I had in my pocket copies of the two letters which have been read, and took them to Mr. Saxelby—the letter dated November, 1876, I sent to Edward Thompson, I directed it to Paternoster Square, I did not know that he had left there on 29th September—I did not go there between September and November; I used to go to Monkwell Street—I had never dealt with him before, he lives, in Monkwell Street—the 10 dozen cigar-cases which I had I sold about the country in Essex and Hertfordshire, some singly and some in half-dozens—Edward Thompson introduced Miles, the traveller to me, of whom I bought them—I had known Seof for a year or two, he went with me and saw Mr. Caro, in March, 1876—I did not swear before Mr. Saxelby "Seof, I do not know the man, I have not the slightest idea who he is"—I do not remember Seof saying at 27, Paternoster Bow, "Is North good for the money"—I was in the dock at the police-court, and heard Mr. Seof examined—I will not swear that he did not say to Edward Thompson "Is he good?" referring to me—Edward Thompson did say "Yes, he is, but I had better have my reference from North"—I gave a reference to Cook and Son—I saw the pictures hanging up at 27, Paternoster Row—I kept six small ones myself, and made 4l. by them—Edward Thompson was to make up the difference when the bill become due, but I should have made it up if I had got the balance—I sold Edward Thompson a parcel of calico and he paid for it—that was in 1876—I have Been Edward Thompson buy job lots, but not at Burton's, the drapers' auctioneers—I did not say that for a time he always met his obligations, and that I would find the money; I never had 1/2 d. of him in my life only for the carpets and calico—he had the carpets of me in June, 1876, I think—I got the patterns for him and left them at his office—I have paid 20l. for the carpets—I did not receive three 10l. notes—I told Mr. Saxelby that it was 20l.—I told Mr. Saxelby about the transaction with Challoner—. I believe I stated to him the conversation with the Thompsons in reference to that—I told him that I had the 135l. on the table, I told him it was for money lent; I gave her a bill, it was lent two or three years ago; I have paid interest upon it up to more than a year ago"—I told Mr. Saxelby the next time I was there that that was wrong—I know I did not owe it;

it was not a deliberate false statement, I had the memorandum and put it on the table, and he took it up—I knew Vass as being in Edward Thompson's empoly—I am not aware that he lived at 8, Noble Street Cheapside, or that he appears as a creditor in the list—I knew Sidwell he was a jeweller's assistant, at Islington, when I kept the Earl of Durham at Hoxton, eight, nine, or ten years ago—I told Mr. Saxelby I might have seen Sidwell, I never bought anything of him—I had forgetten the name I did owe him something—I was taken to Mr. Benton's by Edward and Walter—I did not go there alone in the first instance and see him privately—I had seen him before several times, I knew he was a solicitor's clerk he acted for me in this case—I don't know that at the time of the liquidation proceedings against the two Thompsons, in 1874, 6,000l. worth of debts were held over from the first liquidation—I don't know that there were three debts amounting in all to about 400l. to which Walter and Edward took exception—when I signed my statement of creditors Benton did not caution me; he said "Are these the wholesale houses, are these all right and I said "Yes"—that was the first list of the wholesale houses—I think I remember the list that was shown to me at the examination by Mr. Saxel by it had got some of the names, Vass and others, that have been referred to to-day—I only saw the wholesale list, not the others.

Cross-examined by MR. M. WILLIAMS. I was indebted to Alfred Thompson, 5l. for the horse, 30s. a week, he charged me three weeks—I did not buy the horse—I was to have it on trial, the price was 28l. if it suited me, but it did not—I said when examined at 7, Gresham Street, "I hired a horse of him for some weeks, but I think he has put it down a little more"—I did not say I had it eight or nine weeks at 30s. a week—I was not sworn at Gresham Street, I have not been examined on oath at all—no objection was made to my returning the horse, it was a jibber; I told him it would not suit me and he said "Send it back, I can get a customer for it"—I sent it back at the end of the three weeks, and he said he sold it directly to a market gardener.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I gave up no stock-in-trade, I had none—I had no furniture to give up, it was taken under a bill of sale—I furnished a small house of three rooms about three years ago, there was not enough to cover the bill of sale—I can't say when the bill of sale was, it might be in June or July—a friend paid the debt and took the bill of sale, that was a Mr. Phipps, a broker of Hereford; the furniture was left until the bankruptcy—I had nothing to give up but two or three book debts which I estimated at 78l.—the furniture has not been removed—I sold the horse, and cart to Mr. Low, of Dunmow, in February or March, I had hired the horse of him; I was obliged to sell it, I wanted the money—I have no business now—the horse was not there when I filed my petition on 3rd August, I swear that—it was not removed the day before, the van was taken away by Dent and Allcroft—before I went into business, nine years ago, I managed a public house; before that I had not been groom to Mr. Handsel I travelled with him for fifteen years—I was an assistant, I did not drive him he drove himself—I had money to take over this business, I don't know how much, I paid 226l. 14s. 7d. for it, after I had had it some little time; I paid nothing at the time, I was not asked for it, that was the agreement—I can't tell when I paid the first money, I think it was in the following Spring, as soon as I had turned over a little—I did not pay it out of the produce of the business, I had it lent me—I had not much capital of my own just then—I had paid away what I had—Walter Thompson was the son-in-law of

Hands, Hands had had the business a long time, no doubt he made a good thing of it—I made a very bad one—it was not agreed that if I took the business he and the Thompsons would support me—it was agreed that I should have credit at Newington Causeway; I was taken there by Mr. Hands; I had credit there for some considerable time until their failure—I should not think I owed them as much as 500l. at one time, I don't know what I did owe them, I am not prepared to swear that it was not as much as 500l.; I don't know what I owed them at the time of their failure—I have no books, I lost my books some time ago, I either left them in a cab or at the station, I don't know where it was, it was last year, it might be in September or October; Mr. Lovering had had them, he could not make them out, and I was going to take them home and lost them—there was no ledger, only two little travelling-books, two little day-books, one for one journey for Bedfordshire, and the other for Essex—there were no books showing the goods I received and the goods I sent out—I made no entries of the goods I bought for the Thompsons, I always sent them on to them—I had no banking account, I never kept any account of the 500l. I owed the Thompsons—I did not in November, 1876, apply to Mr. De Chastelaine for an advance of money, I always used to meet Walter and De Chastelaine together—I applied to Walter—if any money was to be paid away I went there for it—I don't remember applying to him for 300l. as an advance from De Chastelaine in November, 1875, I won't swear I did not; I won't swear anything about it—I did not see Mr. De Chastelaine's brother—I swear I did not apply for money—I was to pay their debts, I don't know the amounts; I don't know what I have had; I have had several sums to pay for their goods that I bought for them—I did not receive 250l. from De Chastelaine for myself; I never applied for such a thing—I did not send 300l. worth of goods as a deposit for the money—I did not give a bill of exchange to De Chastelaine for the 300l., I swear that; I never owed him anything—they always paid for the goods, except this last lot, that was left owing to the Thompsons, and remained when Mr. Hands took the business, he took the debt and I paid it to him—I bought the goods for the Thompsons; I was debited by the wholesale houses, they looked to me and Hooked. to the Thompsons; I say that I owe about 300l. and they owe the rest of the 2,000l. odd; they always promised to pay—I did not deposit the goods with them for advances of money—Walter sent me a copy of a letter to write fur Alfred to get money; I wrote it and sent it, this is it (produced); it was their own proposition, the money was not for me, it was for them to pay their debts—I speak in that letter of De Chastelaine owing me money for goods I had sent to him; I never had sent him any, it was a lie, Walter asked me to do it; I did it because they promised to get me out of the difficulties they had got me in—I said in one of my letters that my wife was going to the trustee, that was because they would not come near me to assist me in any way; it was not a threat to get money out of them, merely for them to come and see me and arrange matters, because they promised to pay—I said I should tell Mr. Loveriug the whole truth, where the goods had gone to and where the money was—I could not file a debtor and creditor account—I did not borrow 100l. from Walter; I never borrowed 1l. of him—I got one of his brother's cheques from him for 90l.—I did not apply to him for an advance of 300l., and he did not give me a cheque for 90l., deducting interest—there were three bills to meet, and he gave me a cheque and I got the money and gave it to him—I paid 30l., I think, to Hitchcocks—I don't

know where I paid the other—the money was to pay for goods they had had—I think this (produced) is the cheque—it was not an advance to enable me to get goods—I did not receive the cash on the cheque for 308l., that came from Davis, of Hull—I know nothing about Hull—I did not get the cheque changed at Copestakes for an open cheque of theirs on Fullers—I never was in the house in ray life—I did not receive 140l., or 150l. out of the 308l. cheque—I paid a lot of notes into Cooks, I don't know whether this (produced) is one of them—I paid 160l.—I believe some of it was in notes—I don't know where they came from—I have paid Cook's plenty of notes—I don't know anything about this note—I did not pay any notes to De Chastelaine that I know of; I had nothing to pay him for—I never owed him anything and never sold him anything—I swear I never bought, sold, or borrowed of him—I never paid him anything—I don't know when I paid Caldecotts, they used to give me the money to go and pay with—I don't owe anything to Hunt; I never had anything of Hunt—I don't know Maguire, of Lewisham—I dealt with no one of that name that I know of—I never had a farthing from Hunt or any dealings with him in any way; that I swear—when I was examined I was asked whether I did owe Hunt 300l., and I said "Yes, I think I owe him something, I don't know how much"—I also said I had borrowed money of him but I did not know how much—I told Mr. Saxelby the next day I was wrong, and I would write and Jet him know, and I wrote and said I never had any dealings with him; it was untrue though I did say so—I had a list of the wholesale houses to whom I owed money; I had not the amounts, I don't know what I have done with it; it may be at my house now—I was solvent in August 1874, and could have paid 30s. in the pound; that I swear—I believe I was sworn to my petition—I applied to have a petition in liquidation—it was done through the Thompsons after the failure of two of them—I was going to petition because they said their creditors would come upon me for what I owed them, and I could not have paid it down then—I don't know the amount—I have had not a great deal of education—I was not helped by the Thompson's to prepare my circular when I first went into business; they did it themselves unbeknown to me—I did not ask them for it—they said Mr. Hands had the circulars brought out; I never knew they were coming out till I saw them—Walter and Edward from time to time assisted me in preparing documents, when it answered their purpose; I was capable of doing it myself—the circular was merely returning thanks for past favours when Mr. Hands left the business.—it is ten years ago—between the date of that circular and the failure in Newington Causeway no documents were drawn up for me in the way of business either by Walter or Edward—I wrote my own letters; this letter of August 23rd is my writing—I did not receive a letter to which that is an answer; it was written in Mr. Perry's office by Walter Thompson's dictation—I did it with a promise that he would see everything paid—it is dated Hoddesden; that was untrue, because it was done in Mr. Perry's office—I don't know for what purpose it was concocted—I told him I should go to Mr. Lovering, I should expose him if he did not assist me to get out of this trouble—he said "If you will do this for me I will see you out of all your difficulties, and I will see you in business again after the affair is all settled, but if you don't do this, I shall leave you in the cold as you are now—it was with that understanding that I wrote this letter from his dictation—I don't know what good that could do him.

Re-examined. When I say I was solvent in 1874, that does not include the liabilities incurred in respect of the Thompsons—I was under no liability to them then—I had given an acceptance in order to pay off monies due from me to them; at Edward Thompson's second failure he made me a debtor, but I did not owe him anything—I believe bills were out to the amount of over 300l. upon which I was liable—I could not pay all; I paid part, and they would make a smaller bill—I did not owe them any money except that for which I had given those bills; those bills had nothing to do with the stock I took over from Mr. Hands; this (produced) is an invoice of the stock I took from him, amounting to 230l. 18s. 10d.—this is my statement in the bankruptcy proceedings; it consists of three or four sheets pinned together; the first sheet represents debts due to the wholesale houses—that was the only one I saw; I did not see the others—the two books I lost contained credits for drapery; credit I used to give different houses in travelling—I only kept a day-book in which I entered each transaction day by day; I explain in my statement that, having lost the books, I could not make a complete account of my book debts.

Tuesday, September 18th, 1877.

WILLIAM NORTH (re-examination continued). I did not see Mr. Hands at Newington Causeway at the time of the bankruptcy and tell him 1 had taken about 500l. of my best book debts out of the books; I never had 500l.; I did not tell him that I did not intend to give any account of them, that I had put some goods into the chaff-bin which the ostler had covered over with sacks, and that when they came to my house to search they found nothing but the old van—I did not say I had sent goods away to Royston; I had sent goods belonging to the Thompsons at the time of their failure—I did not say that I thought I should clear about 700l. by the stock, and 500l. by the book debts—I did not say I only wanted about 1,000l., and I should take a public-house.

HENRY DERRITT . I am a warehouseman, in the employment of Kynaston and Sons, of 4, Gresham Street—North was a customer of our firm—this is one of our invoices (K. 1); the amount is 22l.17s. 8d.; the goods there mentioned were sold to him on 18th February, 1875—this invoice (K 2) is for 52l. 16s. 1d., for goods sold to him on 8ch May, 1876—I sold all those goods, except the first five and the last two items, amounting to 10l. 4s. 3d.—the amount of this (K 3) is 20l. 15s. 9d., dated 22nd May, 1876, all sold by me to North.

WILLIAM RITSCN WILSON *. I am a warehouseman, in the employment of Kynaston and Sons, of Gresham Street—on 8th May I sold to North 43 yards of Brussels carpet for about 9l.

JOHN JONES . I am foreman porter at Kynastons—I produce my parcels book, containing an entry of a truss of goods sent to North on 18th February, 1876, by Sandeford, the carrier at The Fountain; on 19th May, two trusses; and on 22nd, one truss.

FREDERICK WILLIAM MERTON . I am cashier to Kynaston and Sons—North is indebted to the firm 115l. 16s. 1d.; he had not paid for the goods in invoices K 1, 2, and 3, except 16l. which he paid on account on 3rd July—we should not have opened an account with Walter or Edward Thompson after the failure in Newington Causeway; we were creditors in that case.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Edward Thompson never applied to me—we should not think of opening an account with persons who have

paid 9s. in the pound, unless we had very good references—North gave bills for goods. Mr. Lovering has them—it is not my duty to present bills for payment.

ALEXANDER RUDDOCK . I was employed by the London Warehouse Company, Wood Street—on 15th February, 1876, I sold to North the goods described in L W 1; on 14th March those described in L W 2; and on 8th May, some in L W 3.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. Prices in the drapery trade fluctuate a great deal, so much so, that goods that are worth 1s. one day may be sold in job lots a few days afterwards at 8d. or 9d.; fancy goods especially.

Re-examined. That only applies to fancy goods, not to plain goods—these were plain goods.

GEORGE LUSCOMBE . I am salesman to the London Warehouse Company—on 8th May, 1876, I sold North goods amounting to 28l. 16s. 6d. Salesmen from other wholesale houses proved the said of a variety of good to North; on behalf of the prisoners the sale was not disputed, but it was contended that the goods were purchased by North on his own account and not for the Thompsons.

WILLIAM HENRY SIMMONDS . I am manager to Suttons, the carriers, of 5, Foster Lane, known as The Fountain—on 15th February, 1876, I received a truss from the London Warehouse Company, for North, of Hoddesden, to be forwarded by Stanniford, the carrier—on 18th February, I received a truss from Kynaston's and a truss from Taplin's—on 21st, two trusses and box from Hitchcock's and two trusses from Caldecott's—on 15th March, one truss from Caldecott's and one from the London Warehouse Company, all for North, to go by the same carrier—on 8th May, a box from Baggalay, Spence, and Co.—on 9th May, two trusses from the London Warehonse Company, and two trusses from Kynaston's; and on the 22nd May, one truss from Kynaston's and two from Taplin's, all for North, to go by Macer the carrier—the men employed by these carriers receive the goods and sign for them.

BARZILLIA PAGE . I am a farmer, at Hoddesden—I sometimes do work with a horse and cart—I knew Walter and Edward Thompson, living at West Green House, Tottenham—in 1876 I took goods from North's house, at Hoddesden, to West Green House, about three or four different times—on one occasion I was accompanied by North, who took his own van; he also had goods in his van—I saw Walter and Alfred Thompson at West Green House, the goods were unloaded, from the cart and put in the chaise-house—on one occasion I saw Thompson's man there, who helped to load some, goods into Thompson's cart—it is about 15 miles from Hoddesden to West Green House—I mostly began to move the goods from Hoddesden about 4 o'clock in the morning—I took some goods from North's to 61, Paternoster Row, I believe in the spring of the same year in a pony cart, they were large bales or trusses, directed to W. Thompson; they were left in the passage—on another occasion I was present when my man, Rowley, took a load of goods for North; neither of the Thompsons were present at that time; he took them to the Catherine Wheel—two or three bales were from North, and the remainder from the carrier's cart on the road—I was not present when he took the goods; that was what he told me—I charged 15s. for taking the goods to Tottenham, and 1l. and 25s. for taking them to London, but I never had the last money, North told me that Walter Thompson would pay me—the weight of the load would be from a quarter to half a ton, as near as I could guess.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. North paid me for the other journeys, but no one paid me the last 25s.—the goods were done up in canvas as they came from the warehouse; they did not appear to have been undone—I took, one load to the Causeway, not latterly, that was about 10th May, 1875.

HENRY ROWLEY . I am a labourer in the employ of Mr. Page—in the Spring of 1876 I went with him in a cart to North's house, at Hoddesden—some trusses were put into the cart—North gave me a note, and on my road to London, I met Stanniford, the carrier—I gave the note to his man, and two trusses were taken out of his cart and put on to mine—I took the load to the Old Catherine Wheel, Bishopsgate Street, and left them there by Mr. North's orders—I don't know for whom they were left, or where they went to.

WILLIAM DEARMAN . I am a carman in the employ of Mr. Stanniford, of Enfield Highway—I used to be carrier between Hoddesden and London—on 15th February, 1876 I signed for a truss from North, and on 18th I took a variety of trusses at different times from Sutton's to North's, and delivered them there—I remember once giving some trusses out of my cart to Rowley, addressed to North—I have delivered goods from North at Cripplegate Buildings five or six times, and at Paternoster Square three or four times—North paid me I believe.

CHARLES STANNIFORD . I have been a carrier—I have carried some scores of things from North's to Cripplegate Buildings.

FRANCIS CHALLIS . I am ostler at the Bull, at Hoddesden, I have known the Thompsons for some time—on 21st March, North came to take some large packages from Hoddesden to the Four Swans at Waltham Cross—I drove the cart, and North drove his wagonette, it was from about 8 to 9 o'clock in the evening, dark—after we got to the Four Swans, two of the Thompson's came there, I could not say which—I think it was the two first, I don't know their names; it was dark in the yard—I would not swear to them, they arrived in a large spring cart, the goods were put into their cart and they went away with it—I was at the Bull on Saturday morning, when two of the Thompsons came there in a wagonette or phaeton and a pair of cobs, they put the horses up—after they had been there some little time I went to North's house and brought a parcel from there, it was not a very large one, I carried it easily, I gave it to the Thompsons and I believe they went away with it—I did not see what the goods were that I took to the Four Swans, they were covered up in packages, rolls of calico or anything of that—some were small things and some heavy things, drapery goods.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I saw no one at North's but himself when I fetched the parcel—I have not fetched parcels on any other occasion—his vau used to stand at one place, but no goods were brought there—his house was about 100 yards off—I know Mr. Norris the schoolmaster, I don't know that I saw him on that occasion, he might have been in the hotel and I might have seen him.

CHARLES BATES . I am ostler at the Four Swans, Waltham Cross—in the Spring of 1876, I remember Challis coming with a van and cart late one evening—I saw some parcels in the cart—I don't know what they contained—North was there—two gentlemen came and took the goods away in a cart, I could not recognise them it was dark.

JAMES SAGERS . I am a coal dealer at Hoddesden—in 1876 I took some trusses or bales of goods from North's six or seven times, perhaps more—I

took some to the Broxbourne Station of the Great Eastern and some to the Hertford Station of the Great Northern.

THOMAS WARREN . In 1876 I was clerk at the Great Eastern Station, Broxbourne—on 17th February, 1876, two boxes were sent from there by North to Thompson, of Wood Street, weighing 3 qrs. 24 lbs., carriage It on 28th March, 1876, a truss weighing 1 cwt. 24 lbs. from North to Scott, care of Hawkins, Cripplegate Buildings, carriage 1s. 3d.—on 16th May, 1875 one box weighing 16 lbs. from North to Thompson, of Fore Street—on 13th June, 1876 a truss 2 cwt. 22lbs. from North to Vass, of Paternoster Square, carriage 2s. 3d.—on 26th June a truss 2 qrs. 20lbs. from North to Davis and Co., of Hull—I have seen Sagers bringing goods consigned by North—goods have also been sent to Tottenham by our line.

GEORGE PORTER . I am chief clerk of the inward department, Brick Lane—I produce the sheets of goods showing the traffic from Broxbourne of 17th February, 1876; it contains articles of goods from North, of Hoddesden, to Thompson, of Wood Street, two boxes weighing 3 qrs. 24 lbs.—on 28th March, a truss from North to Scott, of Wood Street—on 17th May, a box from North to Thompson, of Fore Street, 18 lbs., all signed by J. Luke and en 19th June, a truss 2 cwt., from North to Bass, 29, Paternoster Row, signed D. Bass.

DANIEL VASS . This signature "D. Bass" is not mine, I don't know whose it is.

JOSIAH LUKE . I live at 11, Windsor Road, Holloway—I was formerly in employ of Mr. Hunt, of 4a, Cripplegate Buildings, Wood Street—he was the was then agent to Lister and Co.—there three signatures are mine—I must have received the goods mentioned here at 4a, Cripplegate Buildings, I see that I signed for goods which were consigned to Scott—I did so because previous to that letters had come for Mr. Scott, and I had taken them in—I believe Mr. Hunt told me about taking them in that name—I know the three prisoners; I have seen them all at Mr. Hunt's office frequently—Walter and Edward I have seen there every day, sometimes once and sometimes two or three times a day, Alfred not quite so often—I recollect goods coming for the Thompsons, I took them in and sent for them—I don't know whether it was a truss or a box, but North spoke about some-goods he had sent from Hoddesden for Thompsons—I remained in Hunt's employ up to the 22nd of March last—I was in Lister's employ after that—Hunt was taken on the 21st March—I remained with Lister a month after that—I owe some money to Walter Thompson, I believe about 5l.—sometime after in the course of these proceedings I saw him in New gate Street—he said "You are a witness"—I said "Yes, but I have not been called at present"—he said "You will be called, what has Mr. Smith been asking you," meaning Sergeant Smith—I said "He asked me if I knew you, and how many times you had come into the office"—he said "Should they ask you how many times, say on business once or twice a week as any ordinary gentleman would"—I told him I must speak the truth, or I should get myself into trouble—he asked me if I remembered taking some goods round to Mr. De Chastelaine, and De Chastelaine paying for them—I said "Yes, I remember that"—he said "If they ask you where those goods went, say they all went round to De Chastelaine's"—while I was with Hunt, Walter Thompson told me that he expected goods from Hoddesden, would I take them in for him—I believe Stanningford's man brought some goods for Thompson—I often paid the carriage for goods that

came to Hunt, and I was repaid either by Hunt or Walter Thompson—I have taken some of those goods away in a cab to 18, Monk well Street—the name of Alfred Thompson is over the door there; and I believe at 39, Patercoster Row, it is Alfred Thompson and Co., but I am not certain.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. The name of Edwin De Chastelaine, is on a brass-plate on the door at Patenoster Row—sometimes De Chastelaine's boy came to Hunt's for the goods with a truck—I believe I was examined three times at the police-court—on the second occasion I believe 1 stated that Walter Thompson had not told me to say that the goods were sent round to De Chastelaine—I made a mistake and got confused—I did not quite understand Mr. Besley's question—I believe his question was "Did Mr. Thompson tell you to say that all the goods went round to De Chastelaine's," and I believe I said "No, that was the only time"—Walter Thompson did not speak to me about the money I owed him—I said he did at the police-court—I say now that he did ask me—I went to the office of the solicitor for the prosecution next morning—I had been round there once or twice before the case came on—I then got into the witness-box again of my own accord, and said that he had spoken to me about it—Hunt has been convicted—I was subpoenaed as a witness in that case, but not called—I do not know a person named Tyler—some person called at my office to see Mr. Walter, and he was present at this conversation.

WILLIAM SELL . I was employed for two years and a half as groom by Walter and Alfred Thompson—they lived together at West Green House, Tottenham—in the Summer of 1876 I drove a horse and cart to North's house at Hoddesden and brought some goods from there to West Green House—on a second occasion Mr. Alfred went with me and fetched some goods away—they were taken to West Green House. and left in the coach-house—those are the only two occasions on which I have been there—I went there by Walter Thompson's directions; I afterwards took some goods to Mr. De Chastelaine's at Paternoster Row—I had a note from North to say that they were to go there—no one went with me—I went there once with Mr. Alfred to see him about buying a horse; he carried on his business at 15, Monkwell Street—I have not been there with anything, only in the light dog-cart—I sometimes drove him there of a morning.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. North has been once or twice in Mr. Thompson's absence with some goods, and asked Mr. Walter to send them on to London, as his horse was not well—they were to go to Mr. De Chastelaine's in Paternoster Row—when Mr. Thompson has not been at home I have put the things in the coach-house, and he has said "I wish Mr. North would not bring them here; I wish he would take them straight up to London"—the distance from Heddesden to Tottenham is between 11 and 12 miles I think—I believe everything that was brought to Tottenham went to De Chastelaine's, as far as I know.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. Alfred was living with his mother at West Green House—he carried on the business of a horse-dealer while I was with him and I believe before that—he had the use of the stables, the field, and the yard; I remember his selling a horse to North—it went on a week's trial—if it was not returned it was to be considered as sold—it was not returned at the end of the week—I believe the price was to be 30l.—when Alfred sold a horse he usually gave me 5s.—I had the 5s. at the end of the week when the horse was not returned—North kept it for a considerable time and returned it when Alfred was out—I took it in; he was a good

deal annoyed at my doing so—he said I ought to have sent it back again—it came back broken-winded and was sold for 20l. I think—Alfred and his mother had a separate establishment to Walter, at West Green House.

Re-examined. I think the horse was absent for nearly three months—I do not know whether Alfred had the money for it when it was sold—he was the master—I don't know where Walter carried on business—I know Mr. De Chastelaine—I have seen him at De Chastelaine's—I have never seen him do anything—I don't know whether he was acting as manager—I believe the last time I saw De Chastelaine was when I took some things there—I cannot recollect when.

JULIUS CARO . I carry on business at 8, King Street, Finsbury, as a general agent—I only know Edward Thompson—at the end of 1875 or the beginning of 1876; he came with a man named Seof to buy some oleographs—I told him I would only sell to him for cash, and I should not show him any goods unless the cash was paid on the delivery—he agreed to that—he looked some goods out and ordered them to be delivered at his shop in Newington Causeway—I did deliver them, but did not get paid—Seof afterwards introduced North to me—I asked him directly whether he was a customer like Mr. Thompson, if so I would not have anything to do with him—some oleographs were looked out to the amount of 15l. 14s. 6d.; they were to be left to be framed—I did frame them—they came to 54l. 16s. 9d.; they came for them and gave me this acceptance—they gave me half of a card, and told me that the man—who brought the other half, was to have the goods, which he did—when I parted with those goods I had no knowledge whatever that the Thompsons were interested in them—if I had I should not have parted with them—the man who brought the half card, came with Mr. North's own carriage—I have since seen some of my oleographs—Sergeant Smith called and took me to Edward Thompson's ware-house and there I found sixteen out of thirty-two—the bill was dishonoured, and I had no money.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I know Seof well, he is a commission agent; he has now and then introduced customers to me—of course I paid him a commission—he has done business before for me in this way—I obtained references with North, to Cook and Sons, and to the Fore Street Warehouse Company.

CHARLES SEOF . I live at 11, Devonshire Place, Brighton—I have known the three Thompsons for some years and North about two years—he was introduced to me by Edward Thompson, if you call it introducing—I have seen him at their place in the Causeway—Edward Thompson carried on business at 29, Paternoster Square—I know 61, Paternoster Row—I have seen the name of De Chastelaine on the door there—I think I have seen Walter there once—I did not know that he was manager for De Chastelaine—Alfred carried on business at 15, Monkwell Street; his name was on the door—Listers carried on business at 4a, Cripplegate Buildings—Hunt was their London representative—I have seen the Thompsons at all those addresses, Edward and Arthur more or less—I have only seen Alfred at Mr. Hunt's place and at his own place Monkwell Street—in March, 1876, Edward spoke to me about buying some oleographs—North was present—Edward said that North could buy some, he did not say for what purpose—North said he had a horse and van and he was going round the country and might sell them to hotel-keepers where ho was staying—I offered to take North on to Mr. Caro's to introduce him and select them—I had been with Edward

Thompson to select pictures at Mr. Caro's along while before that, I should think ft must have been twelve months; they were not delivered—I went with North to Caro's and selected pictures; they were similar subjects to those I had previously selected for Edward Thompson—an arrangement was made that they were to be framed—I think he went and saw them when they were framed, but I am not certain—I do not know where they were taken to—I have been to Edward's private house at Brixton and seen some of them there, and also at 29, Paternoster Square—I went with North to Miles and Spurling's, where some jewellery was selected to the value of 25l.—I did not learn till afterwards where that jewellery had been sent to—I had a place of business at 18, Noble Street—North did not owe me any money on 3rd August, 1876—I did not make any proof as a creditor in the liquidation—I believe I first heard from Mr. Walter that I had been put down as a creditor—Mr. Benton married my wife's sister, he is clerk to Mr. Perry, the solicitor—I was asked to prove as a creditor and I said the man did not owe me anything; Mr. Walter asked me to make my proof—I have seen De Chastelaine; the last time I saw him was shortly before he absconded, I do not know long ago that is.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I had no transaction with North in the Autumn of 1875; I did not buy any silk or tablecloths of him—I was with Edward Thompson when the order for the oleographs was given—I cannot confine myself to dates—I have not troubled myself about it, because I thought Mr. Caro bad it on his books—North did not pay me a commission for buying the oleographs—I had a commission from Mr. Caro, not from North as well; I am positive of that; I did not expect it from him.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I have frequently been to Hunfs place—Alfred had nothing whatever to do with the business there—I have been three or four times to Monk well Street—I have sold things to Walter there for which I have been paid—I have seen Alfred almost as many times as I have been there.

DANIEL VASS . I am clerk to Bilton and Powell, in Great Russell Street—in March, 1876, I was out of employment, and whilst so I got employment from Edward Thompson to look after the warehouse at 29, Paternoster Square—the name of "A. Thompson and Co." was on the facia—Alfred Thompson used to come there, and Edward, and Walter sometimes, not regularly—I saw Walter there, perhaps once or twice a week, and Edward every day; Alfred not so often, perhaps once or twice a week—whilst I was there I recollect the house at Monkwell Street being opened—I used not to be there, but I have, called there frequently—I saw Alfred and Walter there; the name of A. Thompson was up there, I believe—I believe I have sent there for goods that were delivered at Paternoster Square—I believe there was a parcel came in the name of Bass and I think I have an idea of sending it back again; there was no such name there; I did not sign for it to my recollection; I know nothing about it, except what I have been told; I was not told anything about it by either of the three prisoners—there was no one named Bass at the place—I recollect a piece of card being given to me in March or April, 1876, either by Edward or North, I do not know which—I hired a cart or van and the goods were brought to Paternoster Square—they were pictures from Caro's, thirty-two I think, like those produced—they stayed there some time, and they were hung up round the warehouse—after that some Mr. North had, and some Mr. Edward had at his private house, I think North had four; twelve were sold by Mr. Edward—I was in charge of

the place at Paternoster Square for some time; I saw bills with headings like those produced used there; I have seen them used by Edward Thompson—I never saw any others.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I do not know the date at which Edward Thompson took the premises in Paternoster Square, or when I entered his service, it might be about April—I never saw any writs issued against Edward there—I have told you all I know about the pictures—I do not recollect North coming there and saying he had purchased some pictures which he had been unable to sell, and asking permission to leave them there—I went with him to Liverpool Street Station with four of the pictures—he did not tell me he had been unable to sell them and that he had asked Edward to sell them for him—I know nothing about the purchase of the pictures; I fetched them, and that is all I know about them—I took this piece of card with me to Caro's—North did not go with me, that I swear—either he or Edward gave me the card—I remained in the employ till September—sometimes I saw Walter there once or twice a day, and sometimes not for three or four days, and sometimes once in a week; he came occasionally; and Alfred about the same—it was an office and warehouse—I knew that Edward advertised in the newspapers to sell job lots for cash—I have known persons come there on business—North used to buy some lots—I don't know whether he ever paid for them.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. While I was at Paternostor Square, Edward employed me and paid me.

HENRY HUTCHINSON . I am a draper's stocktaker and draper's valuer—I have been in the habit of buying drapery stock for the last nine years—I reside at 26, Park Street, Cainberwell—I know the three Thompsons—in 1874 I was in possession of the premises and stock of Walter and Edward, at Newington Causeway—I could not say the exact date at which I saw Walter Thompson in reference to some goods; I have seen him so many times in reference to goods—I think I bought a stock of him about February, 1876; at least I bought a stock of De Chastelaine about that time—that was at the time I was with De Chastelaine—he showed me some stock—that was at Paternoster Row—it was in the early part of 1876, I could not say whether in February or March—they were new goods, but they were out of the wrappers and in a very confused state—Walter asked me to make an offer for the stock—I said I must make an abstract of it and see what it consisted of, and divide it into compartments—I made out a stock sheet and he called it over—this (produced) is my writing, with the exception of the blue ink writing at the top and the pencil marks in the body—I took an account of the stock—I gave my prices and I made him an offer for the whole—I almost forget what it was; I think it was something like 38l. or 40l.—he refused; my offer was not good enough—I saw him a few days afterwards and he said he sold it at a better price to Roberts, of Islington—at that time the silk market was in a very uncertain state—you could buy goods at all sorts of prices—these were plain goods, most of them—I cannot say that two or three days would make much difference in the price—it is the difference of a man's opinion upon them—in June, 1876, I again saw Walter Thompson about some stock—I buy for Davis, of Hull—I do not know that I bought any goods of him on account of Davis, in June—I think I bought of Edward a parcel, but I am not quite positive as to the dates unless I see the documents—this (produced) refers to a parcel I bought from Edward at Paternoster Row, in Juno, I

think—I saw the goods at his warehouse in Paternoster Square—this stock list is his handwriting, I believe, with the exception of the last page, that is mine; a recapitulation of the stock—I bought these goods—I think it was left in abeyance for two or three days—I made him an offer of 49 off—I ultimately submitted it to Davis, of Hull, at 47 1/2 off, and I think I ultimately bought at that price, and I think I paid Edward about 346l. for it—Davis sent me the money to pay it, which I did—at that time I had this cheque of David Evans—that was the first instalment—that was paid before the goods came down—Thompson had not a banking account, and I changed that cheque in order to give him hard cash—this other cheque I received from Davis, and I exchanged that with David Evans, and he gave me an open cheque for it—I cashed it and gave the notes to Thompson—that was 280l.—the two together made 351l.—there might be 2l. or 3l. commission for myself—I had the goods packed at Copestake's and forwarded to Davis under my orders.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I was aware that Edward Thompson was carrying on business at Paternoster Square—about February or March I remember going and seeing the stock there—previously to buying the stock I sent portions of the samples to Davis of Hull—taking it as a whole I should call it a very job lot—there was a small bit of calico amongst it, 12l. or 13l. worth—all sorts of odds and ends—there was some good stuff as well as some rubbish—I had to take 75 off—there is nothing unusual in purchasing a job lot with good calico amongst it, or something of the sort—it is a thing very often done to give it a respectable appearance; to give you something that you can sell—that was the only transaction I ever had with Edward, except buying some umbrellas once for Watts, of Liverpool, for about 40l.—I believe he had bought them at a public auction; at least, he told me they were bought at Burton's, at Ludgate Hill—they could not have come from a wholesale house, because they were damaged goods—I think it was in July that I bought them—there is nothing unnsual in the sale of job lots of drapery to a large extent—we know that wholesale houses offer goods at extra discounts off—I took 20 per cent, discount off the calicoes—if you bought them in the ordinary way you would have five months' credit—this was ready money—there are a variety of discounts; the average is from about 47 to 49 1/2.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I did business with De Chastelaine in 1874 before I saw Walter Thompson there, and from time to time up to the time I have been speaking of, at various intervals—I always bought them at Paternoster Row; sometimes at a discount and sometimes at a price all round—I saw De Chastelaine, and he has called upon me—at the latter end of 1875 he drove up to my place, and after that I used to see him three or four times a week—he has often asked me to call and see goods when he had them—I almost forget when the last transaction was made—I saw him there up to June, I think—he was a great deal out—I have bought on occasions; I. cannot say whether I did so during April and June—during those months Mr. Thompson had the principal management of the affair—I should imagine he was the first who saw the goods that were ultimately sold to Roherts—I don't know whether they had been submitted to Fisk and Co:, of Ipswich; I never heard of them—no doubt several parcels might have been submitted to half-a-dozen persons before I saw them—of course I bought them at the best price I could; I suppose my price was the best; I think I gave a fair price for them, considering it was a cash transaction—

when I, say they were in a confused state, I mean that it was a very small warehouse, and it was a large amount of goods piled one on the top of the other; it was impossible to look at them.

EDWARD DOWNING . I am warehouseman to George Downing, of 28, Monk well Street, foreign importer and agent—on 5th May, 1876, North came and bought 150 dozen cigar-cases amounting to 71l. 5s., for which he gave me this acceptance; it was not met, bankruptcy intervened—this (produced) is one of the same description as I sold.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I had never had a transaction with North before—Seof did not come with him; I knew him before—he did not introduce North—I had 1,000 dozen of these cigar-cases; I did not tell North they were a clearance lot, and he must take 150 dozen as I could not sell less—I had had them about two months; they do not depreciate quickly in value.

GEORGE JAMES TOBY . I am a shoe manufacturer, of 19 and 20, Borough—I know the three defendants; I knew Walter and Edward when they carried on business as drapers in Newington Causeway, and before in Monk-well Street—about January, 1876, Walter requested the use of my basement to sort some drapers' stock—he did so—I had lent him money on different dates, and in January, 1876, he repaid me 77.; on 28th January, 1876, I lent him 125l.; on 2nd February, 50l.; on 5th March, 30l.; and on 16th May, 43l. 10s.—those sums are still owing to me, with the exception of 12l. 12s. for twenty-four dozen cigar-cases which I purchased of him on 25th May—this is one of them; I bought them in Monkwell Street; that was Alfred's place of business, but the transaction was with Walter—this invoice came with the goods; it is "Bought of Alfred," but Walter sold them to me.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I had bought two dozen of Edward two or three weeks previously; that was the only transaction I ever had with him—they were the same sort; that was the cause of my buying the others.

THOMAS EVANS . I am a silk-buyer, in the employment of Mr. Roberts, of Upper Street, Islington—I produce a stock-sheet marked R J I—I saw the goods mentioned in that, bought, but I did not finally close for them—I saw them about a day or so after this was made out—Walter Thompson came up and said he had got a stock for sale—I saw them at Mr. Toby's boot shop in the Borough; Walter and Alfred Thompson were with me—I went through the goods; a list was given to me, I think, by Walter—I believe this is it (produced).

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I am quite sure I saw two persons there; I was not asked that before the Magistrate—I never saw Alfred except on that one occasion.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. It was a very mixed lot that I saw—some of the lengths were short; there were a lot of cut pieces and coloured velvets that I should consider dear at 75 off, odds and ends—some of the goods were very unsaleable—I gave a very good price.

Re-examined. Plain goods are not considered bad, as a rule—this page refers to calicoes and sheeting; they were middling goods; they might have been better—the discount for those was 20 off—it was to be a cash transaction—some were what I should call cut lengths, half pieces, not remnants; over 20 yards I should not call a remnant—there are some things in this list that would require quite 50 off, and some over; we bought the stock

altogether at about 30 off—the amount of the cloths was very small compared with the other goods—there was no lace, there were lace curtains; it would be quite necessary to take from 30 to 40 off them at the rate we buy our stuffs.

BURBELL PAGE . I am a buyer of fancy goods in the employment of Mr. Roberts of Islington—I went to Mr. Toby's and there saw some goods refered to in this invoice, I can't remember the date—my deposition states all the goods were perfectly new, but when it was read over I corrected it—I can't swear that everything was perfectly new—I did not complete the purchase, I made an offer, T never offered 30 per cent.; I think that was the discount off offered by Walter Thompson; 500l. was offered for the lot—I have principally to do with the ribbons, so that I should not probably see the other goods after they came to my employer—the clothes were new.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I cannot remember whether some of them were short lengths or whether there was any old stock among them, it is such a time ago—I deducted a small percentage from some, and a large per centage from others and made an average; I really can't tell now what the average was or what sum I offered, I lumped it—I did not buy the goods.

THOMAS REYNOLDS ROBERTS . I am a draper at Islington—I saw Walter Thompson on the date these goods were bought; it is put here by my chief clerk as 23rd February, 1876—he came to our house—I don't know whether he wished me or some of my buyers to see a stock that he had for sale—I think I referred him to Mr. Evans my silk buyer—he went first and saw the goods, and Mr. Page afterwards; there was some difference of opinion between them as to their value and it was referred to me for decision—I think Walter came, up to our place afterwards—I think this list was brought to me by Mr. Page, when I first saw it it had no heading to it—I told Walter that I should prefer an invoice or printed heading, and he at once took out his pencil and wrote on it "Thompson and Co."—I signed this cheque for 373l. it has been returned through my bankers as having been paid—I paid part by this cheque and part in cash—500l. 18s. was the total amount.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I did not know De Chastelaine—I think Walter came up in the afternoon after the goods had been seen, and it was there he wrote this "Messrs. Thompson"—I refused to do business with him again in consequence of the doubtful aspect of the transaction; that was because there was no proper invoice sent with the goods; the goods had been delivered at that time, they were on the premises and I had agreed to buy them—I might have sent them back and I blamed myself very much for not doing it—I did not observe that the name was not properly spelt; I swear that Walter wrote it—I can't tell whether anybody else saw him write it.

Re-examined. It may have been a month subsequent to this transaction' that Walter wanted to do business with me again—he had some goods that he wished us to buy and as respectfully as I could I declined to have anything to do with them, and I had previously instructed our buyers to withdraw from him altogether; our clerk took the receipt for the money.

JOHN BALLS . I am cashier to Mr. Roberts—on 23rd February, 1876, I gave this cheque for 373l. 15s. in payment for goods to a Mr. Thompson—I cannot recognise him, at the same time I gave him 125l. in cash and obtained a receipt which I gave to Mr. Roberts and he gave it with other papers to Sergeant Smith—I received the invoice of the goods—I can't remember who from—I do not remember whether I was present when Mr.

Roberts was speaking to the person who bought it—I cannot say whether the name of Thomson and Co. was on it when I first saw it; I don't, know the writing—the receipt was stamped, it was in the name of Thompson and not of De Chastelaine; I am quite sure.

FREDERICK HYLAND . I am a draper, of Ashford, Kent—I know the three Thompsons—I had business with W. Thompson about November, 1875—he represented himself as commercial traveller for Mr. De Chastelaine, of Paternoster Row—about 27th April I bought some goods of him most likely at Monkwell Street—I gave him this cheque for 115l. 12s. deducting two and a half percent.; it is dated 17th May, 1876, payable to A. Thompson, or order, and it came back endorsed A. Thompson—the invoice is headed "Bought of Alfred Thompson"—I bought alt the goods in the invoice except the hose which were sent on approbation—I selected them at Monkwell Street; Walter Thompson was present—I have been there occasionally and seen Alfred there—the goods in this invoice marked "5 L" I bought in March of Walter Thompson at 61, Paternoster Row, in the name of De Chastelaine—I may have seen De Chastelaine about it, but Thompson was the man I did business with—these are some of the invoices sent to me from Paternoster Row, they are all in De Chastelaine's name—he never explained his being at Paternoster Row and also at Monkwell Street, he hardly commenced at Monkwell Street till De Chastelaine called in 1876, and then Thompson appeared—De Chastelaine's transactions were all in March; I paid for them by this cheque for 135l., it is payable to Edward De Chastelaine—Alfred Thomson came to Ashford once after some money for some goods sold by Walter—this cheque does not correspond with any particular invoice—I do not know whether it takes in several—it is endorsed by De Chastelaine.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. De Chastelaine came down once with Walter I believe—I think there was a discussion about the price on one occasion, and De Chastelaine was referred to—that was the only occasion on which he came down; when 1 made North an offer, he did not always accept it at once—he appeared in most cases to act for himself) but on the occasion that De Chastelaine was down at our place, he did not decide at once but referred to him—the last transaction I had with him at Monkwell Street, was I think in December, 1876—you will find plenty of Thompson's transactions in May—this one cheque is payable to De Chastelaine.

Cross-examined by MR. A. METCALFE. When I knew Walter first he was travelling for De Chastelaine—later on I saw him at Monkwell Street—my transactions there were with Walter; when Alfred came to Ashford, it was to get money for goods sold to Walter, the bill-heads are made out in Alfred's name.

DAVID BAMFATHER . I am cashier to Davis and Co.—I sent this cheque for 280l. (produced) to my buyer Hunt, to pay for some sacks contained in the invoice bought by him of me from Thompson's, it has been paid—here is another cheque for 71l. which balances the account.

HERBERT HUNT (in custody). I was formerly London agent of Lister and Co., silk manufacturers of Bradford, and 4A, Cripplegate Buildings, London—Edward Thompson asked me to let him have some goods delivered at my place, and two trusses and a case were delivered, but not unpacked to my knowledge—I recollect North failing and there being a meeting of creditors; just before that I had an interview with Edward Thompson, he asked me if I would hold some bills and prove on Mr. North's estate—North did not owe me any money—I am down in the list of creditors for

350l.—on the morning of the meeting I believe, I went to Mr. Parrys office and there were present Edward and Walter Thompson, Mr. North. Mr. Benton, I fancy, and myself—the bills that I was to sign and prove for were lying on the desk and I believe I signed them—I cannot positively state how many there were—they remained on the desk; I believe they were taken charge of by Mr. Benton and I saw them torn up some time afterwards and thrown into the waste paper basket—I believe there were four of them, I cannot give the amounts—I told Benton and afterwards Edward Thompson that I did not wish to proceed in the matter, and wished my name taken out, and then they were destroyed with North's consent and I believe he was present—I believe Edward Thompson produced the form before they were executed, I did not draw them, I simply signed them—the Thompsons are cousins of mine—they were daily at my office.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I was tried on April 9th, this year—I pleaded guilty to a fraud on Messrs. Lister, and you defended me—the amount of goods missing was something like 1,300l.—I had been nine years in their employ—I was twenty years in business and never had a charge made against me—I had had business transactions with the Thompsons before, when they were in the Causeway; I had sold them silks—I had known Benton before this, he had acted for me in a legal capacity—he was bankrupt, and I was a creditor under his liquidation, that was for money lent—there were some bills—I believe I had not documents to verify the full amount that he alleged he owed me, I cannot state positively, it happened some time ago, and my own troubles have been sufficient to drive it out of my head—I was a creditor in one other matter in which Benton had been the solicitor—that was not Seof's—it was to a very small amount—I was not chairman of a meeting of Seof's creditors held at his office; I was not present—Benton visited me in Newgate twice, prior to my trial here—nobody was acting for me at that time, and Mr. Benton came to consult with me on my own matters—I know nothing of the liquidation of Sidwell or Caro—I know Onslow; I was not a creditor of his—the bills which I signed may have been handed back to me by Bentoo, at the time they were destroyed, but I did not see them from the time I signed them till the time they were destroyed—he did not give them back into my hands in April, 1877, I was in prison then—they were destroyed in February or March—they may have been handed to me before they were destroyed and handed back, but I do not believe they were.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I believe Walter was present at the meeting at Fenton's office, but I am not sure—I cannot say whether I said a word before the Magistrate about Walter being present.

JOHN WHEELDON BENTON . I have been managing clerk to Mr. Parry, of Basinghall Street, up to the last few days—North was introduced to the office by Walter and Edward Thompson, at the end of 1874, or the beginning of 1875—I attended to the proceedings in North's bankruptcy, he consulted me in July—I think Edward Thompson was present the first tune—North had an execution in his house, I believe it was by Dent and Alcroft, and we were at that time seeing him for Mr. Bult, on two bills of exchange—if I recollect rightly he had heard something about a private meeting of his creditors, and he did not know what to do; I suggested that he should call a meeting of his creditors—I think Edward Thompson was present—I then went down to Hertford and filed a petition—on this list of creditors on the first page, nearly all the figures are in my writing, and No. 10, 11,

and 12 are names of creditors Caro, Blunt, and Downing—the rest is written by Mr. James Walham—I got the information to write down, from a list; I cannot say who gave it to me, though I have thought a good deal about it for the last three months—I am quite certain Mr. Alfred did not give it to me, but I will not say whether Edward, Walter, or North did, it is utterly impossible; I was very much engaged at the time with the two Thompsons in a Chancery suit, and it was done in a hurry—nobody but the Thompsons took an interest in North's affairs—before the. first meeting of creditors there was a conference between us as to what offer would be likely to be accepted, and what offer North could make, he told us that he had 300l. or 400l. of book debts good and bad, and no stock or other effects or furniture—Edward and Walter Thompson promised to assist him in paying the first composition proposed, 3s. in the pound; 2s. was first talked of, but they said they did not think it likely to be accepted, and that they endeavours to get Mr. Hands, who they had just made friends with to secure the other—this proof of Alfred Thompson's is my writing, it was sworn before Mr. Parry at his office—I understood that it was partly for horse hire, and 10l. damage to a horse by hard work, and 1l. or 30s. for some goods—four bills were given to me, but not as Hunt describes—before the first meeting of creditors Hunt came with Edward Thompson, the meeting was at 11 o'clock: Walter and North were in the office at the same time, and I think I prepared Alfred's proof—I cannot say at this length of time who produced Hunt's bills, but I know they were all complete when they came into my possession—I looked at them casually and gave them to Mr. Walham, who made out Hunt's proof, and had the four bills, and the proxy for Mr. Parry, but I did not produce them, because Mr. Lovering and Mr. Mason held a large amount of proxies and any I held would have had no effect—Mr. Hunt was in very great trouble, bankruptcy proceedings were taken out against him, and he was in hot water till the time of his conviction, he was afraid he would have to make a clear breast of it; he consulted me, and I advised him that all unnecessary papers should be destroyed, and they were torn up by him in my office and by nobody else—at that time I was not aware of what was taking place—there was no dividend and nothing to receive—it is not my habit as a solicitor to consider bills and things of that sort as unnecessary documents, but Hunt told me that the money was not owing to him—I thought he had better tear up the bills, and the less said about the transactions the better.

Q. You, knowing that it was a fraudulent transaction, recommended Hunt to destroy the evidence of it? A. You must not take it in that way—I had known him a long time, he was in very great trouble, and I did not think it necessary for him to get into further trouble; I did not advise him to destroy the evidence of a fraud, he had never proved, and he said that the money was not owing—as far as I can remember, there were three 80l. bills and one 100l.—this first item, Herbert Hunt, 340l., was, I think, 240l. originally and has been altered; that was made out in liquidation; I cannot throw any light upon it, as the three bills only amounted to 240l.—the four bills were not all together when the proof was made out, the list was filed on 3rd August and the meeting was not till the 29th—Hunt is the drawer of the bills, and I understand that they are in his writing—North is the acceptor—we went into a private room and North was asked to put down the names of six debtors to his estate owing over 15l.—the offer of 3s. in the pound was refused at a moment's notice and he went into a little room at

the back of my private room with Walter Thompson to put down the creditors, and when they came out North had six names down, one of which was Dr. Hodson, and the offer was then increased to 5s.—I considered that Walter was really going to assist North to pay the composition of 5s. and that he was going to get Mr. Hands to pay the 2s., and I have a letter from Mr. Mason to that effect—Walter Thompson showed me this letter of 23rd August at, I think, 15, Monkwell Street, on, I believe, the day it is dated—Mr. Parry was acting for Walter and Edward all the time in several matters, but not in North's matter—I told Walter Thompson that North stated that he owed him a lot of money which had got him into trouble; he said that it was all false; he, North, had paid for everything he had—later in the day I saw Walter again and he showed me this letter and said that North would not be able to tell any more lies about him—I never saw this letter till some mornings ago, it is written on paper very similar to what I use in the office, it appears to be the same and the paper of this receipt came, I should say, out of the same packet—the August letter appears to be on a half sheet of draft paper; it is different to the other.

Cross-examined by MR. STRAIGHT. I am not a solicitor—I have been managing clerk to Mr. Parry since April, 1874—I was articled to Mr. Holt, of Quality Court, in 1861—I have been in business as an accountant—I built some houses at West Ham and failed there—in 1861 I bought the business of a picture frame maker, but I did not understand it, and failed—I paid all my creditors—I knew the Thompsons when they lived in the Causeway, they then paid 9s. in the pound—the creditors were Mr. Hunt, Mrs. Thompson, and Alfred Thompson; those debts, I believe, amounted to 6,000l.—those persons were creditors again under the second petition for a larger amount—a considerable part of the composition was paid by Mr. Hands, and some by the mother; two of the debts against Edward and Walter jointly were recovered by Mr. Mason at the Croydon August Summer Assizes; that was prior to Edward's liquidation in 1875—I think his liquidation was in consequence of it, or partly so—since then I have paid 70l. for them off one action of Mr. Wilkinson's, and other considerable sums—I heard of North being an auctioneer at the Causeway—at the time of the liquidation I understood from the bills that Edward Thompson alleged that North owed him money, I think Hands held the bills, unless I am very much mistaken—I have known Hunt five or sis years and his father twenty years, and have done business for them—he was a creditor to my knowledge in four or five bankruptcies and liquidations—I filed a petition at Greenwich; I was pressed for an old debt in September, 1875, and was compelled to file a petition—I do not think Mr. Onslow was a creditor, or Mr. Bult; Mr. Bult may have held a bill—Sidwell. and Edward Parry were creditors—Seof was a trustee—Hunt was a creditor for 103l. 7s.; I put him there and he lent me money—he had one or two bills.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. I was clerk to Mr. Parry till within the last two days, I am not suspended; I met him last night and he said that he would like to come and blacken my character—I am not discharged or suspended—there are certain matters in account between us, and he appointed a meeting to go into them, but I was not able to attend last Wednesday or Friday—I should like to be told whether I am in his employment or not, I do not claim to be; I am not ambitious.

Re-examined. In 1874 I understood North had accepted bills which were held by Hunt—I acted in that liquidation, and also in 1875—North's name

is down for 240l. against Edward, not against Walter—I had very little to do with De Chastelaine, but I think this is his writing as I prepared the proofs—I believe these letters signed E. D. C. are his writing, but should not like to swear it, this is rather a different D, he put a capital instead of a small "d"—the list of creditors from which I prepared the proofs was not furnished by Alfred, because I had no dealings with him, I must have had it either from Walter or Edward.

Wednesday and Thursday, September 19th and 20th 1877.

WILLIAM SMITH (City Detective Sergeant). On 30th April I had a warrant to apprehend three of the prisoners—I have known them for some time, and—have seen them in company with Hunt—I have. seen them all at Cripplegate Buildings, and I have seen Edward and Alfred at 29, Paternoster Square, and the whole of them at Monkwell Street frequently—Alfred was very frequently there—Edward's private house was at 2, Mervin Road, Brixton, one address; his other address, was 9, Hosford Road, Brixton—on 1st May, Edward Thompson was brought to the Old Jewry Office by Detective Underwood; I read the warrant to him—he said "I am glad I know the charge; I know nothing about any silk, and I have an answer to the charge"—I took him to Moor Lane station, where he was charged on the warrant—I searched him and found on him a florin and two cheques—on the next day I took North, at Hoddesden, on the same warrant—I received some keys from Underwood and Trafford after Walter and Alfred had been arrested—those keys opened the counting-house at 15, Monkwell Street, and one key on the bunch which was found on Walter, opened the safe in which I found these books (produced) and some duplicates and deposit notes and envelopes—this envelope initialled E D. C. I found in a drawer in the counting-house, it contained a letter signed E. D. Chambers—I also found these two pocket-books in a desk in the counting-house, one of—which contains a letter of De Chastelaine and some cards of Edward De Chastelaine—there weresome acceptances and cheques in the pocket-book and other papers and cheques in the counting-house—in this other pocket-book I found a cheque for 2l. signed Alfred Thompson, a deposit note and some bill-heads with Alfred Thompson on them—on June 7th I went with Caro to Mervin Road, Brixton, where I found the oleographs, which have been produced; that is Edward Thompson's residence—I also found the inventory headed "Smith 14" at North's residence.

J. W. BENTON (re-examined). I believe this letter with E. D. C. on the back of it to be Walter Thompson's writing. (One letter was dated August 4th, 1876, signed E. D. Chambers, from the Hotel de Lemonaie". Dear Walter,—Just a line to tell you of the necessity of sending me some money. The landlord has told me to-day that if I do not pay the money on Monday, at the latest, I shall have to go," &c., "If you do not send I do not know where I shall go, and no doubt inquiries will be made which will lead to my being discovered. P.s. I have written to Edward; it is no easy job to keep up one's spirits under this necessity, and no money. You might telegraph to roe in the name of Scott.") Another letter was dated August 3rd, addressed "Dear Walter," and signed E. D. Chambers, requesting money to be forwarded, and another dated 5th August, 1876, commencing "Dear Walter," and signed E. D. Chambers, urgently pressing for money; and another without date stated "Dear Walter,—For God's sake send me some money; I do not knew where to put up to-night. Send

telegram directly you get this. What is the cause of all this? E. D. Chambers. I have not heard from Benton yet." (The letter book was also put in in which there were several letters signed "Alfred Thompson")

JOHN POLLARD LOVERING . I am a public accountant, of 35, Gresham Street—I have acted as trustee in a great many liquidations and bankruptcy cases with wholesale warehousemen of London—I was concerned in the liquidation of the Thompson's—I know De Chastelaine, I am a trustee under his bankruptcy, but I have not the date with me when he stopped payment—he did not attend the appointment for his examination, he absconded—I have not the date with me—I acted for the wholesale house in the liquidation proceedings of North; I attended the first meeting of creditors at Mr. Parry's office—a list of creditors who I represented was taken down at that meeting—it included the names' of Seof, Hunt, and others; I had a copy of the list, it was produced to the meeting by Mr. Benton—this on the file is either the original' or a copy of it; it sets out the amount of book debts without giving any names; there is no other list of debtors—there was no explanation at the time the books were lost, and I requested North to give me the names of the debtors to his estate—there were no assets whatever—at the liquidation he stated that he had lost his books and could not give any account—I asked him to give me a list of some of the persons to whom he owed 5l. or 10l., and he gave me about half a dozen—the debts were estimated to amount to 400l. or 500l., and the cash in hand was 10s.—no disclaimer was made at the time of the liquidation, on 28th August, of Walter and Edward Thompson being indebted to North—no discovery was made of the dealings with North of Edward, Walter, or Alfred Thompson—I was made acquainted by North, or by the Thompsons, of the disposition of goods obtained from wholesale houses in February, March, and May, 1876—I have attended the preliminary inquiries before the Magistrate, and have been present during this trial, having in my hands the exhibits from the wholesale houses, and also the sheets marked R, Islington, R 1, 3l.; and 5l.; I find goods bought of the London Warehouse Company on 15th February, 19l. 17s. 11d., and sold to Roberts, Islington, on 23rd February, for 13l. 6s., being a loss of 6l. 11s. 11d., and that is excluding the loss for carriage from the London Warehouse Company to Tottenham, Hoddesden, and Islington, which is a loss as well—I give the loss without the cost of travelling, without the working expenses—by Exhibit T, I find goods bought of Tucker and Co., on 18th February, 17l. 8s., and sold, on 25th February, to Roberts, of Islington, for 12l. 6s. 6d.—by K 1, I find goods bought of Kynaston and Son, in February for 22l. 16s. 2d. and sold to Roberts, of Islington, for 16l. 9s. 7 1/2 d.—by this invoice of Rotherham and Co., I find goods sold by them, on 18th February, for 31l. 13s. 10d., disposed of to Roberts, on the 24rd, for 22l. 13s. 10d., being a loss of 9l.—I also find goods sold by Caldecott, on 14th February, for 13l. 11s. 2d., disposed of to Roberts, on 23rd February, for 9l. 14s. 11d., being a loss of 3l. 16s. 3d.,' and goods bought of Hitchcock, Williams, and Co., on 21st February, for 26l. 5s. 1d., are sold, on 23rd February, to Roberts, for 19l. 0s. 10 1/2 d., being a loss of 7l. 4s. 2 1/2 d., irrespective of carriage. (The witness went through the whole of the list, showing that the whole of the goods were disposed of at a loss, within a few days of being purchased.) Those are all the goods that have been traced—we cannot trace anything sold by North, but goods were bought by North and sold by Thompson—this pencil memorandum marked N 5, corresponds with goods sold to North by the London

Warehouse Company, on 8th May, marked B 2—N 6 is another list of goods—I have examined the day-book marked Smith 8, entries in it commence on 7th April, 1876—a leaf has been abstracted; there is nothing to show that that leaf related to these transactions—this appears to be the commencement—it might have been an old book—with two pages used; the last entry is on 6th March, 1877—the entries fill pages 1 to 48 inclusive—I find at folio 2 a copy identical with the invoice for goods sold to, Lewis and Hyland, on 13th May, and an entry of sales to Davis and Co., of Hull, in May, 1876; there is no entry of what those goods are—I have' been through the ledger and find that the sales amount to 4,420l., and the purchases to 1,262l. only, but I have not taken the shillings and pence, I have just gone roughly through it—there is no entry in the books showing indebtedness by Thompson to North—in this pocket-book, marked Smith 13, I find notes of the places on several days at which North would be, and also notes of North's acceptances to wholesale houses and the dates of their falling due—here is a memorandum W. N. several times, and where he is to be found, and acceptances coming due.

Cross-examined by MR. H. AVORY. I cannot tell you from the sold notes how much of these goods went Edward Thompson—I have no material to trace them—all the goods which I have traced bought by North were sold by the Thompsons—there are goods in the invoice which we have not traced—I sold the stock for Mr. Hands last year, I think at something like 33 or 34 discount off—I cannot say whether the fancy part was not sold at 78 per cent. off—I think it sold remarkably well—there is sure to be in a stock like that many remnants.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. No invoices found at Monkwell Street were shown to me—Smith did not give the papers to me, but to the solicitor—I know nothing about their trading but what I see in the books.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. A quantity of goods have not been traced—I have traced no goods dealt with by North apart from Thompsons—I have not traced any goods said to be obtained from West and Co.—that name is new to me—I have never seen this document, W B 1, before—I have not endeavoured to ascertain whether North sold these goods to Davis and Co'.—I heard the evidence about some goods from North being sent to the Hertford Station—I have not tried to trace where they went to—I have not heard that some goods were sent to Broxbourne Station some of which went to the Manchester and Sheffield line, or tried to trace them—I do not know whether they were for West and Co.—we had a letter from West and Co. to say that they had had no dealings with the prisoners. (MR. HUTCHINSON here produced invoices of some goods which he purchased of North, for Davis and Co., of Hull, for 16l. less discount, which he stated went straight to Hull.) I am trustee as well as accountant—I do not know from North that he sent goods to the Hertford Station—I have made no enquiries about them—I wrote to Davis of Hull to know if they owed North any money and they said no—I have not heard of North having a relation at Royston—I have made many enquiries as to where the goods went to, but never could get any information—North brought me two small books—I never saw any others—I never saw anything showing me the incomings or the outgoings—I made enquiry at the meeting about the goods estimated at 400l. or 500l., only producing 300l.—we know that the goods obtained from the wholesale houses had never been disposed of by North in his business—we cannot trace where the rest of the goods went to, part of which were sold to Lewis and Co. for

71l. 17s. 0d.—it is only 2l.14s.; 3d. worth which are accounted for, and I have no doubt that they remained with North—upon invoice T 2, 38l. 2s. 2d. worth of goods out of 41l. worth went to Davis and Co., of Hull—we cannot trace others making up the deficiency of 23l. 4s. 11d., nor can we trace the deficiency of 23l. 13s. 4d. upon invoice K 2, part of which went to Lewis and Co.—I cannot ascertain from North where they vent to—he has been examined about it—in K 3, 13s. 6d. remains a distinct item; we cannot trace those goods—invoice R. S 1, is for 68l. 16s. 9d., out of which 32l. worth went to Roberts of Islington, we cannot trace the rest—C 4, is for 57l. 10s. 7d. Of which 28l. 10s. 11d. went to Lewis, leaving 28l. 19s. 8d. unaccounted for—B 1, is for 32l. 10s. 10d., 11l. 1s. 8d. of which went to Lewis, leaving 20l. 19s. 2d. unaccounted for—I cannot trace that—B 2, is for 25l. 7s. 2d. of which 19l. odd goes to Lewis, leaving 1l. 18s. 6d. 'untraced—the traced goods amounted to 490l. 17s. 7d., and the untraced to 108l. 9d.—I have traced 500l. out of a little more than 600l.—I know nothing of De Chaste-lame, I have not been into his matters at all—I have seen the leaves of a book stitched together before—I do not find any leaves torn out after the business commenced—I find these transactions entered from the very first with all the particulars of the goods sent out—the goods are specified—some goods are sold to Tarn and Co., of Newington Causeway and to Tiller-wood—several respectable business houses are entered—it is a very fair book and very fairly kept—it shows 4,300l. turned over, and a good deal of it with respectable houses, but it is principally done for ready money—the large entries are with some of the best houses in London—the largest transactions are all cash—in the fancy trade goods are sold at 40, 50, or 60 per cent, discount, directly they get out of condition—I cannot say directly they get out of fashion—they are sold at the end of the season—then is the time for people who are dealing with ready money, to buy—I have made enquiries about De Chastelaine's business—he was made bankrupt—I think he filed a petition before—I am a trustee under his bankruptcy—there has been no statement of affairs as he absconded—the petitioning creditor I think is Charles Wilson—he is the London representative of a Lyons house and was being pressed by the Lyons people—the liabilities are about 7,000l., and the whole assets were 41 or 42 pieces which sold for about 60l.—the goods purchased by North amounted to 2,300l. including all the fancy claims, but I think you will find the correct liabilities are 1,600l. or 1,700l.—1,000l. worth of goods has not been traced at all—I do not know of my own knowledge that a search has been made to trace the cheques and notes—Mr. Mason has done that.

Re-examined. The cheques paid by Davis, Hunt, Lewis, and Rylands are all endorsed by the defendants—I had no object in seeing what they did with the money—the only means of identifying the goods are by the numbers and the lengths; where there were round dozens and round lengths we could not attempt to trace them—invoice B 1 is, as near as possible, for the same articles as are ordered in invoice N 6—here is 6s. 3d. instead of 6s. 7d., and 7s. 6d. is carried out 9s. 6d. and 10s. 6d.—with the exception of two sizes being 3d. cheaper, they correspond exactly—this 6 gnineas forms a portion of the untraced goods—although I have got "Walter's writing for them they do not correspond, and therefore I do not include them as traced; I have rejected anything that there is the least doubt about—calicoes sold on one day would not be of less value three days afterwards—all plain goods retain their value; they are not subject to fluctuation of 30

per sent. if they are sent out unpacked—these large cash transactions are with very large people—here is Lewis and Rylands, 118l.; they are first-class people—the sales amount to 3,000l. over the purchases—there is nothing in the Monkwell Street ledger which enables me to trace where they got the goods—with regard to De Chastelaine, here is one entry on 8th May and another on 17th May for 7l. 18s. and 5l. 8s.; Whiteley, 15l.; and other names, 13l. 2s. 11d.—those sales appear to be for cash—until the prosecution was instituted I was not aware of Walter Thompson selling furniture and goods to De Chastelaine in the name of Lewis and Rylands.

By MR. METCALFE. I have not seen a large number of invoices from Monkwell Street showing purchases from other people; I do not knew whether the solicitor has, I can only give you what was extracted from the ledger—there is nothing to show the bought account, the purchased account, 1,262l.; those figures are from the books of the Thompsons, not from North's books—I was aware before the prosecution that Walter Thompson had sold goods, but I did not know that it was for De Chastelaine.

JAMES WALTON . I am clerk to Mr. Edward Parry, of Basingball Street—he acted as solicitor under North's petition—this draft marked "Walton 1" is the request for calling a meeting—I find in it the name of Hitchcock, Williams, and Co., Thomas Fiffer and Co., Prowse and Co., Cook and Co, Gunter and Co., Coleway and Co., Morley and Co., Rawlings and Co., and Parry—those nine names were given to me by North on 1st August, 1876, and no others—the amounts of indebtedness were put in the next day, or the day after; Mr. Benton wrote them—at the time he wrote them the list only consisted of the two first sheets of paper; the ordinary endorsement was on the back of the second sheet—the names in the second sheet are in Mr. Benton's writing, with the exception of Mr. Parry's name for 27l., which is in my writing—that was put down on 3rd August—I know nothing about who supplied the information for the insertion of the names—the names "Onslow and Sidwell" on the third sheet are in my writing; I do not know who gave me instructions to write Onslow's name, but I had instructions from Sidwell himself—I cannot tell you when the third sheet was added—I attended the first meeting of creditors at Mr. Parry's office on 29th August; it was at 3 o'clock, I think—on that morning North came to the office at 9 o'clock to prepare a statement of affairs, and Walter and Alfred Thompson came about an hour afterwards—I handed their names in, and they went into Mr. Parry's room to Mr. Benton, and shortly afterwards Edward Thompson came but did not remain long; the other two and North remained—at the meeting at 3 o'clock, Alfred and Walter Thompson were there in Mr. Benton's room—I do not remember North coming out while the meeting was proceeding; I was present at the meeting—Edward and Alfred Thompson produced proofs at the meeting of the debts which have been alleged to be fictitious—I prepared Alfred Thompson's proof marked "Walton 3 "; it is my writing—I think Edward Thompson gave me three bills of exchange for 95l.; the two bills marked four and five are two of the bills in proof—they are in Edward Thompson's writing; he is the drawer—I know Edward Thompson's writing; I have seen him write, but not the others—I recollect seeing Walter draw a cheque at his bankers one day—I was not in the office when Hunt destroyed bills of exchange representing 340l., but I drew the proof and Hunt gave me the bills on the morning of the meeting; I believe they were drawn by himself in his own writing and signed by himself—I did not see him put his signature—I did not see the

stamped paper before it was written on—the proof was prepared in reference to the bills—Mr. Benton came out and gave me the four bills, and I prepared the proof—I noticed that in the first paper it was 240l. only—those are Mr. Benton's figures, and I fancy this is my alteration—when I got the four bills I wrote the amount—I do not know where the stamped paper came from—when first I saw the bills they were perfect—I do not think this proof was used at the meeting or in the bankruptcy—Mr. Parry acted for North—I cannot say whether Hunt continued to be inserted as a creditor for 340l.

Cross-examined by MR. H. AVORY. Edward Thompson may have been there half an hour—both Walter and Edward had business with Mr. Parry, who was conducting a Chancery suit for them, and Edward was constantly coming to the office for that purpose.

Cross-examined by MR. METCALFE. The other brother came with him and sometimes alone, on business matters—Alfred Thompson was not a client of Mr. Parry's, but he came upon messages for his brother sometimes—Mr. Parry has been in practice four or five years—if I had known that they were fictitious claims I should not have lent myself to them—I simply followed instructions, and assumed they were genuine proofs—some of the names are in my writing—they came to me from Mr. Benton—Sidwell instructed me himself—this first sheet is partially in my writing, and the other two are partially mine and partially Mr. Benton's—Sidwell came owing to have seen a notice hi the "Gazette," and said that North owed him 25l.', he had not received any notice—neither Sidwell nor any of the other people came with North—I cannot tell you whether they were friends of his—I did not. see Mrs. Challoner till they came up for examination at Guildhall police-court—it is not true that she came in in my presence, and put down some money and received a few shillings for interest and took it up again—no such thing took place in my office.

Re-examined. I never saw Edward Thompson with Mrs. Challoner—I remember Mr. Pitman, a Commissioner, going to Mrs. Challoner to take her proof, Edward Thompson went with him—that was on the day of the meeting—Edward said that he was going.

CROWN BASS . I am a general agent, at 91, Watling Street—my name appears as a creditor of North's, but he never owed me any money—I do not think I knew him till May this year—I did not give authority to anybody to insert my name in the list of creditors,.

WILLIAM HENRY TRAFFORD (Detective Officer). On 2nd May, I went to Tottenham, and saw Walter Thompson on the way to the railway station about 10 o'clock—I told him I was a detective officer, and should have to take him into custody on a charge of conspiracy between him and his' brothers and other persons to. defraud various persons in the City—he asked me for my warrant—I showed him my card as a detective, and explained that I had not a warrant—he asked to be allowed to go home—I told him he could not—I took him to the Moor Lane station where the warrant was read to him—he said at the railway station that he thought a summons might have answered the purpose—I searched and found on him two duplicates for 2l. 10s. and 3l., two deposit notes for 15l. and 35l.

BAXTER HUNT (City Detective). On 7th May, I took Alfred Thompson in High Street, Stoke Newington—I told him the charge—he said—"I 'have not the slightest fear of anybody proving anything" against me, I

have had nothing that I have not paid for"—I took him to Moor Lane station, and the charge was read over to him—I found on him four cheques, three duplicates, the counterfoils of a cheque-book, a post-office book, various letters, and a bunch of keys, which were given to Sergeant Smith.

WILLIAM SMITH (re-examined). I have been in charge of all these papers which have been produced—they have been in a room at Messrs. Mason's office—the three Thompsons have had access to them, and taken copies from them—they saw as much as they liked.

JULIUS CARO (re-examined). I did not ask Seof when he came to choose the oleographs whether they were for the Thompson—I asked him whether this was another customer like the Thompsons—the oleographs were selected on the 7th March, and I had fourteen days to get the frames made, which were done by the 21st, and on the 23rd they were received by him and paid for by a bill which was dishonoured—the invoice is a copy of the book.

JOHN POLLARD LOVERING (re-examined.) I examined these papers—the receipts and invoices in the names of Alfred and Walter Thompson come to about 2,300l.—it is rather difficult to divide them because those marked Thompson" come to 1,231l., and those marked "Messrs. Thompson, Mr. Thompson, and W. Thompson," come to 1,072l.—they commenced in May, 1876, and one goes up to November, 1877, but it must mean 1876—they go considerably beyond the time at which North stopped—out of the 1,260l., 158l. is included in the invoices given separately to W. and A. Thompson—nearly all are paid, very few are marked unpaid—the largest part are bought by auction of Burton's, of Debenham's, and of Dymond's—about 700l. of the 2,300l. appear to have been purchased before North's failure before August, and of that 178l. is included in the 1,300l.—the purchases altogether are 3,408l., and the sales are 4,427l., and the ledger does not include the sales to Davis, of Hull, or Roberts, of Islington—L. those amount to 800l. or 900l.—those two make a difference of 1,500l. to 2,000l. over-rated.

By MR. METCALFE. That is assuming that I have all the receipts here—the amount from Debenham's is about 200l. roughly, from Burton's 267l., and from Johnson & Dymond, 200l. odd—those are very good firms—these files have never been shown to me before—there are four items of about 60l., and that is all.

Witnesses for the Defence.

ELLIOT STOCK . I am a bookseller and proprietor of 61, Paternoster Bow—I let the first and second floor to Edward De Chastelaine as a yearly tenant from the 30th June, 1874—I only know him by sight; Mr. Perrin was never in this office—I think he had No. 13.

Cross-examined. De Chastelaine left the premises at Midsummer of last year—he paid his rent to Midsummer, 1876—I had great trouble in getting it; I took some goods which were in the office for the last quarter's rent—he paid 30l. a year for the one room, but he subsequently took two rooms, I forget the date and the rent.

GEORGE DE CHASTELAINE . I live at Merton College, Merton. Surrey—I am the principal; I am the brother of Mr. De Chastelaine, who had his premises in Paternoster Row—he applied to me for money in the Autumn of 1875, and I lent him in August 3rd, 70l., September 7th, 20l., 11th, 75l., 16th, 120l., and on November 15th, two sums of 40l. and 50l.—I went to his premises several times and received a bill of exchange on a Mr. North as security—the bill was at first returned as dishonoured, but was paid a few

days afterwards—some goods were also sent to my place from Paternoster Row from my brother—I have seen goods at his place in Paternoster Row, but not the goods connected with this transaction.

Cross-examined. I did not see my brother after the 27th of May—before that I saw him in Paternoster Row; I know nothing of his affairs, except that he used to come to me for loans—I never saw the prisoners before—I know my brother's handwriting in the letters produced—I know nothing of North.

EDWIN YOUNG . I was in the service of Mr. De Chastelaine, at 61, Paternoster Row, from June, 1873, until he went away in May, 1876—he carried on business for himself in silk, and velvet, and satin—before that I served Mr. Perrin—I saw Walter Thompson there about two months before Christmas last, I think he used to travel for him—the room was over a bookstall, it was only an office and a place for goods, not a residence—Mr. De Chasteleine gave orders to Walter Thompson as well as to myself—I have heard him—I never knew any goods go out of the warehouse without Mr. De Chastelaine's orders—I have seen North there but not more than three or four times—I did not speak to De Chastelaine much—I have received cheques from De Chastelaine when North was there—I took them to the City Bank, Ludgate Hill, to be cashed and gave the cash to De Chastelaine—I never saw De Chastelaine pay North, but North has been in the office, when I went to the bank and when I came back—we used to take goods in every day from different people—I never fetched any goods from North—I have fetched goods from Cripplegate Buildings, Mr. De Chastelaine sent me I do not know William Sell; a man once brought goods from Hodgsons—I do not know Luke—the room was a small one—I do not remember goods being sent off for want of room, but I have taken parcels to Newington Causeway—I know Toby's shop but not the warehouse—I had nothing to do with his goods.

Cross-examined. I was office boy, I am twenty years of age—I cannot give you the date when I saw North; I know Mr. Rooke's office, a solicitor—I have been there once or twice—I do not know Alfied Thompson, I have sworn an affidavit at Mr. Rooke's office—I recollect De Chastelaine absconding—there were several pieces of cloth left in the office, but no silk—there was silk there the week previous—about 100l. worth I should think—I do not know of Walter Thompson doing anything with it, or what became of it; I do not remember his going away in a cab about that time—I saw him in the office in the morning, the day before De Chastelaine absconded—he asked if De Chastelaine was in, and—walked away again—Walter Thompson used to take goods away—I do not think I told anybody that—I had a conversation with Mr. Rooke's clerk about what took place, but I do not remember mentioning that, I may have said so—I knew a Mr. Wilson, in Paternoster Row; I do not think any silk came from him—he may have taken satin and silk away too—I do not think Walter Thompson came to the office after De Chastelaine had absconded—I stayed there three—or four days—there was a man in possession—I cannot give you the date of De Chastelaine leaving.

Re-examined. I do not recollect Walter Thompson taking away silk the De Cbastelaine absonded—some cloth came in that day which was taken possession of—I was there about two years.

EDWIN JAMES PAYNE . I was formerly employed by Walter Thompson, in Newington Causeway, and remained till the failure; I was there about

five years—North came frequently and did a very fair trade—I cannot say what North knew about the trade—I do not know if he made out his own list and letters—I have seen Walter Thompson write letters for him—I cannot say what they were, North took them away with him—I did not see North copy them.

GEORGE TENNISWOOD . I am a draper of 47, Blackman Street, Borough, I have known Walter Thompson, about six years—I supplied him with goods about eighteen months ago; I do not recollect the date—the amount was over 100l.

FREDERICK TYLER , I was a clerk to Messrs. Thompsons, at Newington Causeway, for about four years till May—I have seen North there—he asked Mr. Walter Thompson several questions about different things—he could not write—that was in 1871—business documents were made out by Mr. Walter and others for North, such as letters to his customers, because he could not write as a lawyer would, and also draw out a bill—I cannot say if North improved latterly, I have met Walter since this charge was made—I knew Luke by sight; I went once to ask Luke for money which he owed to Walter, and as he said he could not pay, I asked him to come and see Walter, which he did—I was present, Walter said "How are you going to settle what you owe me"—Luke said "I hope you wont be hard on one, I cannot pay it all at once"—Walter said "I do not expect it all at once, but you have owed it for some time, and you ought to have paid it before now, how do you propose to pay it?"—Luke said he would pay it as soon as he possibly could—I did not hear anything said about the goods, but he asked me what I would have to drink, and said "I shall have half a pint of bitter."

Cross-examined. We only talked about the money and the drink, not about the goods—the conversation lasted about three minutes—I left Walter there, Luke went away first, he had half a pint of bitter, I had half a pint of stout, and Mr. Walter had "Two of gin cold"—I went before the Magistrates once, but was not called—I saw Luke examined once; he was not asked to point me out—I met Mr. Walter in the street—not in a public.

EDWARD BARHAM . I am a clerk to Messrs. Copestakes—the cheque produced was presented to us and a cheque upon Hanbury and Co., given in exchange for it—the endorsement is "H. Hutchinson."

HENRY STOCKET . I am a clerk to Messrs. Hanbury and Co.—on the 31st January, in payment of a cheque, I issued two notes from our bank, one of 17th April, No. 97410 for 100l., and one of 26th November, No. 16592 for 5l.; also the notes No. from 98041 to 28050, and 94158 and 9, amounting in all to 300l.—I also gave eight other 5l. notes, and 10l.

Cross-examined. I cannot tell to whom I paid it.

RICHARD WARNER . I am clerk to Messrs. Glynn, Mills, and Co.—I produce my bank-book, showing the receipt of note from Cook and Sod, numbered 98042 and note from Caldecott and Co., numbered 98045 for 20l.

CHARLES HOARE . The person endorsing "W. North" on the note produced was in the employment of Messrs. Caldecott, it was paid on the first of February, 1876; he would put his name there according to the custom of that firm on receiving the note. (This was the note paid into Caldecoth by North.)

Cross-examined. The clerk is now dead—I do not know North—I do not know that the other man did—on anybody saying it was to be paid to Norths account "North" would be put upon it.

WILLIAM SELF WEEKS . I am in the employment of the City Bank—I received the notes numbered 98047, 94158, 94159, 67505, 67506, 484950, 58158, and 58159; they were paid in by E. De Chastelaine on 1st February, 1876—his name would be written on the back by the clerk.

Cross-examined. I cannot swear to the date when the account was closed, it was about twelve months ago.

JOSEPH CARPENTER . I am a clerk to the London and County Bank—I changed the cheque produced on 24th February (a cheque on Messrs. Roberts and Co., of Islington)—I gave three notes for it, numbered 84219, 07413, and 71052, for 100l., 100l., and 20l.

Cross-examined. They were paid over the counter—I received the notes the same day from Newton and Co., our notaries.

CHARLES DODGE . I am employed by Messrs. Newton and Co.—I received some notes from Edward De Chastelaine on 24th February to make up a bill—I paid the notes into Glynn's Bank—I did not take the numbers—the bill was drawn in Lyons and payable at the City Bank, Aldgate.

Cross-examined. I do not know Walter Thompson—the bill was dishonoured, and was sent by Messrs. Glynn, Mills, and Co. to be noted.

FRANCIS GEORGE BOOT . I am clerk to the National Provincial Bank—I gave four notes numbered 77820 to 77823 for a cheque for 90l. on May 5th, but I brought my book to the Court yesterday and I cannot find it—the notes came in from the London Warehouse Company the next day, 6th of May.

CHARLES HUNT . I am clerk to the London and County Bank—on 6th of May I received the note numbered 77820 for 120l., it was paid in to Mr. Baggallay's account.

WILLIAM HARLEY . I was called at the police-court by the prosecution—North was formerly in my service as groom—he also travelled with me and got out parcels as I required them—at the time he took over the business he knew very little about it—he was uneducated and could scarcely write his own name—the prisoner Walter is my son-in-law—when Walter and Edward were at Newington Causeway I assisted North by giving references to some houses for him—he then had no means of his own—he went to the house in Newington Causeway and Walter used to make out his lists and write his letters, I have frequently seen that done—I should have been pleased to have given the Thompsons credit to the extent of 1,000l., even after failure, if they had chosen to go into business—I only supported North by taking his bills—I am fifty-eight years of age, and have been in the trade since 1 was twelve—North said if I pressed him he should have to become bankrupt; that was in 1874, I think—I had a conversation some time after his bankruptcy when I met him in Paternoster Square—he said I need not trouble myself, I should be paid—he said he had 400l. or 500l. in cash and 400l. or 500l. in book debts for which he should not account at all—he also said that when they came down they only found a van standing in Mr. Tucker's barn, and he was sorry he did not take it away, and that he wondered Tucker had not put a rent on it—he said he concealed goods in the chaff bin and covered them with corn and sent some to Royston—his father-in-law and his wife live at Royston, and I think also his wife's sister's husband—he also said he thought he had made it all right and that he only wanted what he got, about 1,000l., and that he took a public-house with it, as he could do no good travelling, so he made up his mind not to travel for a long time—I said "You had better keep those things quiet, they are perfectly safe with me," and I should never mention it.

By MR. STRAIGHT. I assisted Edward Thompson when he was in Paternoster Square with money—I was ready to assist him to any reasonable amount and give him credit—he used to buy job lots and sell them at a profit in the name of Alfred Thompson and Co.—he was at that time pressed by judgments at the instance of Mason in respect of old debts under the liquidation in the Causeway.

Cross-examined by SIR FITZ JAMES STEPHEN. I was a creditor under the bankruptcy in 1874—I cannot say the amount; about 2,000l. or 3,000l.—I did not press for it—I had been a partner; we had a dissolution of partnership some time before—Edward owed me about 1,000l.—I do not know whether I proved or not—that is my proof for 153l. 10s.—I do not know why I did not prove for more, or if I proved at all—I am pretty well off, and cannot speak to a 1,000l. one way or another—I did not mean to mention North's conversation with me, because I did not want to do him any harm—I was examined twice before the Magistrate; I did not mention North's statements—I may have first mentioned it to Mr. Lovering some time ago, I cannot say when; I do not remember whether I did or not—we went to Ludgate Hill Dining Rooms—in 1876 I was paid 80l. cash by the Thompsons—I made out an invoice when North took over the drapery concerns—he took four or five years to pay—I took it in bills just as he could give it me—this is the inventory—I would have given Thompsons credit down to 1876—I gave 2,000l. for the lease of the premises—I lent 1,000l. on some property at Tottenham, to which they were entitled after the decease of their mother, that is Edward's and Walter's interest only—I am now a a partly secured creditor for 2,000l.

Re-examined. I held no securities whatever, except the lease in 1874, which I took after the failure of Edward—in addition to that I was father-in-law to Walter—I was trying to get a favourable composition for them—I proposed to hold myself over on the chance of being ultimately being settled with—when Edward failed, I proved for a part only; by so doing I became entitled to take a share and interest in the proceeds.

By MR. GILL. Alfred never owed me any money.

By THE COURT. I was aware of North and my son-in-law being in business together after the conversation, because North told me everything he did—then I sued him, and we were not very friendly—I said to Walter "If I were you 1 would nave nothing to do with North"—I did not tell him a word of what North told me—that was a long time before he became a bankrupt—I know very little of their business except what North told me.

HENRY HUTCHINSON (re-examined by MR. BESLEY). The cheque marked D 5, for 308l. 1s. 6d., was sent to me on 31st January, 1876, by my prncipals, Edwin Davis and Co., and was changed for one of Copestake's cheques, and was in payment of goods mentioned in D 4, from Edward De Chastelaine—I saw the goods at 61, Paternoster Row—on 14th February, 1876, I also got a cheque from Copestakes in exchange for one from my principals for 315l. in payment for goods as described in D 6, bought of De Chastelaine—the goods were bought on 8th February.



NORTH was sentenced to Three Months' Imprisonment.

NEW COURT.—Monday, September 17th,1877.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-687
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

687. HENRY LOOKS (56), PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-688
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

688. JOHN ANDER SON (20) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] ., to a like offence— Nine Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-689
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

689. CHARLES KING (23) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to feloniously forging an endorsement on and uttering an order for the payment of 49l. 7s. 6d., with intent to defraud— Four Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-690
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

690. TOM TINGLE (30) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to stealing 100 yards silk of Charles Forsdick and others, his masters— Eighteen Months Imprisonment. And

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-691
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

691. WILLIAM JONES (22) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Cowan, and stealing therein one box, his property— Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-692
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

692. ELLEN COLLINS (27) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. CRAUFURD and DE MICHELE conducted the Prosecution.

SOPHIA EVERNDEN . I keep a shop at 15, Randall's Market—on 18th. August the prisoner bought some bird seed which came to 2 1/2 d.—she tendered a 5s. piece—I gave it to a little girl who gave it to Mr. Spink, who asked the prisoner if she knew it was bad—the prisoner said "No"—I gave the coin back to the prisoner; I did not disfigure it.

JANET COLLIER . I live at 5, Randall's Market—Mrs. Evernden gave me the 5s. piece and I gave it to Mr. Spink.

HENRY SPINK . I live at 47, Randall's Market—the last witness gave me a bad 5s. piece—in consequence of what she said I went to Mrs. Evernden's shop, and in the prisoner's presence said "Did this lady give you this 5s. piece?"—she said "Yes"—the prisoner said she did not know it was bad—I put it down on the counter and saw Mrs. Evernden give it back to the prisoner—I spoke to my son; he followed the prisoner.

HENRY SPINK . I am the son of the last witness—I watched the prisoner into a fishmonger's and then into a butchers—a man then came to her and they walked away as far as Canton Street, when another man and woman joined them—I afterwards saw the prisoner go into Mr. Carter's shop and come out again—I spoke to a policeman, and the prisoner was taken back to Mr. Carter's shop.

MATILDA CARTER . I am the wife of Henry Carter, a grocer, of 25, Canton Street, Poplar—on 18th August, about 10.30, the prisoner came to my shop and bought some wood and matches, which would come to 3 1/2 d.—she tendered a 5s. piece—I put it in the till and gave her the change—there was do similar coin there—the prisoner was brought back—I afterwards found it was bad—I gave it to the policeman—the prisoner said she did not know it was bad; she was given into custody.

TIMOTHY CRONIN (Policeman K 49). On 18th August I saw the prisoner leave Mrs. Carter's shop—she tried to avoid me—Mr. Spink, junior, came up with her and I charged her—Mrs. Carter gave me the 5s. piece—I found on the prisoner 4s. 6d. in silver and 2 1/2 d. in bronze.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am the son of the Inspector of Coin to the Mint—the coin produced is bad.

Prisoner's Defence. I did not know it was bad.


she was further charged with a previous conviction in September, 1874, of lettering, to which she PLEADED GUILTY Eighteen Month' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-693
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

693. HENRY GREY (24), and ROSINA GREY (19) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. CRAUFURD and DE MICHELE conducted the Prosecution.

GEORGE GERISH . I live at 10, Duncan Terrace, Islington—I am money taker at the Grecian Theatre—on 3rd September in the evening, the male prisoner asked me for one pit ticket which would be 6d.—he tendered a bad florin, I broke it, gave him a portion and kept one portion myself—he said he got it in change at the Green Gate Tavern opposite—he then paid with a good 6d.—he went out and came back again, I pointed him out to the officer.

GEORGE ROFFEY . I am a door keeper at the Grecian Theatre—in consequence of what Gerish said to me I watched the male prisoner into the theatre alone—I had previously spoken to the barmaid Dynes—I then saw the female prisoner behind the male prisoner, Dynes said in both prisoner's presence "This man tried to pass a 2s. piece"—I took hold of his hand, and he dropped this florin—a man picked it up for me—the barmaid said that be represented the female prisoner as his wife—the male prisoner said "No, only a girl I picked up in the theatre"—I assisted in taking the prisoners they were taken into a room and searched.

EDWARD DYNES . I am barman at the Grecian Theatre—after speaking to the barmaid, Matilda Hutton, I saw the prisoner's about 9 o'clock, on 3rd September, the male called for two threes of cold brandy and tendered a florin—Matilda Hutton served them, she tried the florin and gave it to me—I told the prisoner it was bad—he said he took it in change in the City—he paid with a good 6d.—I asked him to look and see if he had any more—I saw a florin among some coppers—he refused to let me look at it—he said he was a respectable working man, and that the female was his wife—I sent for a constable and Sanity came and took them into custody—I saw the prisoner drop a florin which a man picked up and gave to Roffey—I did not lose sight of it.

CHARLES ROACH . I am a walking-stick maker of 4, Durham Street, Hackney Road—on 3rd September I saw the male prisoner outside the Green Gate Tavern—he gave me a florin for some ale, I put it on the counter—the barmaid returned it saying it was bad, and he put it in his pocket and paid with a shilling—I went with the landlord to look for him and saw him at the police-station.

WILLIAM HURRAN . I keep the Green Gate Tavern—I saw that the florin was bad—Emma Giles, the barmaid, bent it—I turned to look at another bad florin and was turning back to lay hold of the prisoner but he had gone—I went out with Roach and found him prisoner in the Kingsland Road—this bad shilling was found in the till.

EMMA GILES . I am a barmaid at the Green Gate Tavern, the male, prisoner and Roach were together; Roach called for a pint of beer and gave a bad florin; I bent it and returned it to Roach—the male prisoner took it up and said "I must chance it"—he then paid with a shilling which I put in the till—Mr. Hurran looked at the shilling and said it was bad, and said "Where is that man?" but the prisoner had gone, leaving Roach behind.

CHARLES SAINTY (Detective Officer N). On 3rd September I was called to the bar of the Grecian Theatre—I saw Roffey holding the male prisoner; Dynes gave me a bad florin and said, in the male prisoner's presence, that he had tendered it, I took him into custody—he said he had not got any bad money—he had his left hand in his pocket, I tried to withdraw it but he kept it there—he denied any knowledge of the female prisoner—the prisoner's

were taken to a room, I found on the male prisoner 3s. 11 1/2 d. in bronze, seven sixpences and a 4d. piece good money, and two bad florins—I took the female prisoner's purse and found 4d. in bronze and two counterfeit shillings wrapped separately in tissue paper, and in the outside pocket of her jacket a bad florin—as I took the male prisoner I heard a coin drop, it was given to me—Roffery and Dynes also each gave me a bad florin, Hixrran and Roach came to the station—Hurran gave me a shilling and a florin both bad—the male prisoner said he got the bad money in change for a sovereign—I received altogether seven florins and three shillings all counterfeit.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These six florins and this fragment of one produced are all bad, as well as these three shillings—the shillings are of the same mould, the florins of different moulds.

Henry Gray's Defence. I sold some pigeons to a costermonger, and received the money in change. I gave the woman 2s. 4d. at the Grecian Theatre to get something to eat and drink, and the man said it was bad.

HENRY GREY— GUILTY He was further charged with having been convicted December 1874 at this Court, to which he

PLEADED GUILTY Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.

ROSINA GREY— GUILTY Four Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-694
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

694. HENRY COLES (30) , Feloniously cutting and wounding Edwin Pratt, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

MR. PURCELL conducted the Prosecution.

EDWIIT PRATT . I belong to the barque Queen of the Fleet—the prisoner was a seaman on board—on 27th July about 1.15 I was on the main hatch when the man named George Frank ran by me, crying "Murder, murder, help"—I was then struck from behind on my left side two or three times by the prisoner, who ran after Porthouse, another seaman, who was too smart for him and got away on the poop—I also ran on to the poop and the chief officer ran into the pilot-house and shut both doors, so I was left alone on deck with the prisoner—I went down from the poop and took this knife from him (produced)—I threw him down and when I got up I was weak from loss of blood and was taken down into the cabin—the prisoner had been in the crew about four months, there had been no ill-feeling between us, and up to that time he had been a quiet man—he had been kept from liquor about twenty-five days; I received altogether six—wounds in my left side—they are pretty near together—I was taken to the hospital, and afterwards brought to London—this happened about twelve hours from Antwerp—my wounds are healed but I feel pain internally and also suffer from shortness of breath.

CHARLES LONG . I was a seaman on board this vessel—on 27th July, I heard a cry of help—I went on deck, I saw the prisoner threaten Porthouse with a knife—Porthouse ran away; my watch was below—I went on deck again—the prisoner had a knife in his fist, and was going up to Pratt's side—he struck Pratt two or three times with a knife—he was afterwards knocked down and the knife taken from him—he made no complaints—I undressed Pratt, his wounds were nearly together—there were two large ones, the others were lightly touched—this occurred about 1.30, or 1.45 in the night.

DAVID PORTHOUSE . I was a seaman on board this vessel—I was on deck on 27th July—I heard George Frank cry "Oh! oh! help! help!"—I went to see what was the matter and the prisoner ran at me—I ran away—I saw

Pratt on the poop—I next saw the prisoner in irons—he said when on deck he wished the captain had shot him—there had been no quarrel; the prisoner had not been punished by the captain—I cannot account for his conduct.

EDWIN MOY (Thames Police Inspector). I took the prisoner on his arrival on the charge of cutting and wounding—after the charge was taken he said "Do you think I shall get twelve months, or more," or similar words, and that he would be lucky if he only got twelve months.

Prisoner's Defence. I know very little about it. I have no witnesses, and can give no explanation. I do not know why it occurred.

GUILTY Eighteen Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-695
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

695. JOHN BURLEY (21) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Cheek, with intent to steal.

MR. COLE conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM CHEEK . I am a confectioner, at 247, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green—about 1.50 on the morning of 23rd August I was in bed, and heard a noise like a pressing at my front door—I listened, and beard the front door burst open—I went down and saw the prisoner in the passage in a constable's hands—I examined the lock, it was damaged—I do not know whether the prisoner was drunk or not.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I closed my shop about 10.30; I did not miss anything—nothing was disturbed.

HENRY MONK (Policeman K 385). I first saw the prisoner about 1.40 on this morning in Parliament Street, trying shop doors; I concealed myself in a doorway and saw him go to the prosecutor's shop and burst open the door—I went and apprehended him in the shop—he shammed being drunk, but when he got to the station he was perfectly sober.

Cross-examined. I have not made inquiries of the other shopkeepers—3s. 3d. was found on you.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: It is all false. I was tired and sat down, and as I got up the door came open. The constable came up and said 'You come out of the house,' and took me in charge. I never went into the shop at all. I had been drinking."

Prisoner's Defence. I am a shoemaker. I left off work at 7.30 and went out with my other shop-mates. One of them met his young woman and I met mine. We went into several—public-houses. Coming home along the Cambridge Road I fell down or sat down, I don't know what became of me. When I got up the door was ajar, and the constable said be saw me come out of the shop and took me back and asked the prosecutor to give me in custody, and said "If I will take him, will you come?" Why should I want to go out breaking into shops when I can earn 26s. a week at my trade.

Witnesses for the Defence.

JOHN KIRK . I am a shoe finisher—I have known the prisoner six months—I was with him on this evening; we drank 3 quarts of ale at several public-houses—I left him at 11.45 at a public-house—he had been with me all the evening—he was worse for drink than I was.

ELIZA RICHARDSON . The prisoner is courting me—he took a walk with me on this night—we went to several public-houses—I left him at 12.45at the corner of Sussex Street, near the Cambridge Road—he was very much in liquor—I have known him six or eight months.

The prisoner received a good character.


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-666
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

666. ANNIE BATCHELOR (35) , Feloniously marrying William Blackmore, her husband being alive.

MR. CHARLES MATHEWS conducted, the Prosecution.

WILLIAM BLACKMORE . I am a cabman, living at Linton—I went through the form of marriage with the prisoner in the Parish Church of Linton, on 6th April, 1875—she described herself as a widow; this is the certificate—I had known her four or five months previously—she came to Linton about October, 1874—when I found she had a husband living I gave her in custody for bigamy—she never told me after our marriage that she had heard that her first husband was alive—I found it out at Kilburo, where her husband worked, and where I went from Pontypool, in Wales—I did not go away and leave her to live with another woman—she could not make herself contented and she tried to ruin me—she spent her money—I had been a, widower twelve months.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I went to Wales on business—I was not overwhelmed in debt—I had a good business, several cabs, and 20 acres of good land and two or three horses—it was not mortgaged—I received a telegram to say that the prisoner had brain fever, I inquired of the police,. and there was no brain fever—I do not keep a woman in Linton—my eight children are grown up—a child was not sworn to me three months after our marriage—I never had a child sworn to me.

CHARLES KIERNAN (Policeman, B 107). Blackmore gave the prisoner into my custody on 4th September, in Lyle Street, Pimlico—she said she had been expecting it a long, time, and she wished she could get free from both husbands—I produce a marriage certificate, dated in 1857, between Richard Batchelor and Annie Jane Mc Vicar—the prosecutor and the prisoner are the parties referred to—she was charged with unlawfully marrying during the life time of Richard Batchelor, and said at the police-station "I am guilty," and that she had married both men.

The Prisoner, in her Statement before the Magistrate, and also in her Defence,. detailed a series of cruelties on the part of both husbands, and stated that at the time of the second marriage she believed her first husband was dead.

GUILTY Recommended to mercy by the Jury— One Day's Imprisonment.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, September 18th, 1877.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-697
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

697. JOHN BESLING (21), PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously breaking and entering the warehouse of James Aldous, and stealing therein fourteen pairs of trousers, six waistcoats, four coats, and other goods— Six Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-698
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

698. EDWARD EDSELL (28) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of James John Barnard, and stealing 3s. 6d., his money— Nine Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-699
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

699. DOLBY YOUNG (29) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to feloniously forging and uttering orders for the payment of 17l. 16s., 14l. 12s., and other sums with intent to defraud— Five Years Penal Servitude. And

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-700
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

700. JOHN RIDLEY BAKER (21) [Pleaded guilty: see original trial image] , to stealing twelve scrip certificates, value of 149l. 6s. 6d., of the Rio Tinto Company, Limited, his masters— Fifteen Months' Imprisonment.

THIRD COURT.—Friday, September 21st, 1877.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-701
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

701. HENRY SMITH (24) , Unlawfully attempting to steal a watch of James Edward Britten, from his person.

MR. FRITH conducted the Prosecution; and MR. THORNE COLE the Defence.

JAMES EDWARD BRITTEN . I live at 117, Tredegar Road, Bow, and am out of business—on the night of the 29th August, about 11.45, I was near the Royal Exchange with my wife, waiting for the Bow omnibus, I assisted my wife into the omnibus—there was a crowd trying to get in, and in order to enable my wife to get in; I held her hand, and with the other hand I held the conductor's strap, and presently I felt something resting on my arm—I looked down and saw the prisoner's hand with my watch in it—I never let go of him, and I called "Police!" and gave him into custody—this is the watch (produced)—when he was going to the station he said "You have got your watch; what more do you want with me? What's the use of locking up a poor devil?"—I said "It's no thanks to you, I have got my watch," or something to that effect.

Cross-examined. The silver watch was attached to this gold chain—the chain was not hanging down—he had the watch in his hand—I did not notice whether the prisoner had been drinking.

Re-examined. The crowd did not prevent me seeing who it was who had my watch.

JAMES OLIFFE (City Policeman 591). I—was on duty at the Royal Exchange, at about 11.45, on the night of the 29th August, by the Wellington Statue—I heard a call of "Police," and I went up to the back of the omnibus where I heard the cry, and saw the prosecutor who had hold of the prisoner with his left hand, and was holding his watch with his right hand.

GUILTY Four Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-702
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

702. THOMAS HETHERINGTON (31), Was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. RODGERS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. BESLEY the Defence.

WILLIAM JOHN WELLER . I am a clerk in the Exchequer Division of the High Court of Justice—I produce an affidavit made in the suit of Humphrey Field against Edwards and Hetherington; also another made by Thomas Hetherington, of the 8th June.

GEORGE MONK . I am a clerk in Mr. Swain's office, the defendant's solicitor—this is the signature of Thomas Hetherington; I saw him sign it—I accompanied him to Mr. Parkinson's room to have the oath administered—Mr. Swain has been solicitor to Messrs. Edwards and Hetherington for two years—they have been carrying on the business of commission agents and warehousemen, 21 and 22, Gutter Lane, Cheapside—they placed all their papers in the hands of Mr. John Finney, of the firm of Collinson and Finney, the accountants—I do not know whether it was the month of May or April Mr. Field commenced his action—after Messrs. Edwards and Hetheriugton had called their creditors together, an assignment of assets was made at a meeting to Mr. Finney by the advice of the largest creditor—an offer was first made of 5s. in the pound—every creditor signed the assignment by which Mr. John Finney was to get in the assets and distribute them, except Mr. Humphrey Field—the estate is now in the hands of Mr. John Finney for the purpose of distribution—on the writ being issued, Mr. John Edwards (not the defendant in the action) came to our office and brought with him a quantity of letters and correspondence from Humphrey Field to the firm of Edwards and Hetherington, and a copy of the writ—this is the original writ of 16th May (produced)—I don't know whether these are all the papers—they may have brought another letter afterwards

—a disputed account as to commission is shown in the correspondence—Mr. Edwards told me on that occasion that Mr. Field had appointed the firm of Edwards and Hetherington in the month of February their London agents on Yorkshire terms, which means 2 1/2 per cent commission, not only on orders personally transmitted, but all orders in London, either directly or indirectly sent to Field—he called my attention specifically to letters showing an order from James and Pike for 1,000l. worth of woollen cloths—this is one of the letters: "February 26th. Gentlemen,—Humphrey Field to Edwards and Hetherington. Yours of the 24th enclosing order for twenty pieces at 4s. 2d."—that refers to James and Pike's order—this is another, 10th March, 1877—this is a copy of the order 10/3/77; 1,000 pieces at 4s. 3d.—this is another: "28th March, 1877. Gentlemen,—Humphrey Field to Edwards and Hetherington. I have six patterns in work for James and Pike which can be sent next week. I hope you will get some orders for Winter goods to go on with."—this is a telegram also of the same date: "Harry Field to Edmunds and Hetherington" that is the son when he was in London "sixteen pieces get to send James and Pike in work; deliver next Thursday," meaning that they were going on—this memorandum from Pike was brought to me by Edwards: "April 5th. Humphrey Field to James and Pike. Gentlemen,—I enclose a copy of order I received from Edwards and Hetherington on the 10th March. You will find that the delivery was up to the 10th of this month. I have sixteen pieces now ready to send to you, but if order given as enclosed copy you are in honour bound to take them "This is "Humphrey Field to Messrs. Edwards and Hetherington April 6th. Gentlemen,—You should not have taken the pieces in. I shall return the invoice by the post to James and Pike. All goods were passed when I was in London. The pieces in dispute were the sixteen which I have here"—on the same date there is another one to Mr. Edwards, personally, blaming Messrs. Edwards and Hetherington for allowing James and Pike to leave the goods on their premises: "Humphrey Field to Edwards and Hetherington Sir,—You must send back the sixteen pieces to Messrs. James and Pike as I shall see them," &c., Mr. Edwards claimed the full commission on the order of 1.000l. worth, of 25l. Mr. Edwards explained to my firm on what the commission was due and I then advised him that he was entitled to commission having regard to the correspondence; they accepted the order for 100 pieces and say they will supply them according to order"—March 22nd refers to another, Chappell and Humphreys; then there—is another letter which Chappell and Humphreys appear to have given to Mr. Edwards, addressed to Chappell and Humphreys by Mr. Field—I don't know that this is a copy letter that was with the correspondence; it is a copy, I imagine, sent to Messrs. Chappell and Humphreys—it may have been in duplicate: "Gentlemen,—I beg to return you enclosed invoice as I shall return you the goods and not take them in. When you received my invoice you said nothing about their being too late," &c.—then a letter of May, I think, refers to issuing a writ against James and Pike for the amount—I prepared the draft affidavit afterwards sworn by Mr. Hetherington—there was also a. letter saying the commission due must be left until James and Pike's account is settled—Mr. Edwards said to me that he had made several applications for the commission, I also heard reference made to Mr. Devas' order—this affidavit I dictated to a shorthand clerk and he afterwards drew it out, and I considering the draft was not exactly as

wished it, altered it as interlined—throughout this matter Mr. Edwards, the gentleman who communicated with me, was Mr. Hetherington's partner—the affidavit was engrossed for Mr. Edwards to swear—the explanation why Mr. Hetherington came to swear the affidavit that Mr. Edwards was intended to swear is, that there was a peremptory judgment—we went before the master four or five times, Sir Frederick Pollock, at Chambers, and there was an adjournment for a week, or two; and there was on the second occasion an adjournment of the summons peremptory and I sent round to Mr. Edwards on that occasion to say he must come and see me at once—I saw him afterwards and then told him he would have to attend at 10.30 the following morning to make an affidavit—it was a peremptory order which must be disposed of on the 8th June—adjourned peremptorily for an affidavit—when I attended Mr. Edwards was out about 10 to 11 o'clock, and I explained to Mr. Hetherington that I had been through the whole of the matter with Mr. Edwards—Mr. Hetherington said that Mr. Edwards had better make the affidavit as he attended to all the business of the counting-house and arranged with Mr. Field—I said "It must be made and if Mr. Edwards was not in you can make it just as well"—it—was 10.50 and the summons was returnable at 11 o'clock—I said "Mr. Edwards has seen it and says it is all right"—and he said "All right if Mr. Edwards has seen it," and then I made the alteration and struck out the name of Edwards and put in Hetherington—there were meetings of the creditors in June—I did not attend any, this letter of the 4th July, threatening proceedings unless the accounts were paid in full, was given to me by Mr. Edwards afterwards—it is from Humphrey Field on the same form as the other letters: "July 4th, Gentlemen,—The matter is in the hands of my solicitor, and I have instructed him to take out a summons against you for perjury, as you have sworn to a false document &c."—this postcard of 21st August, 1877, was after the adjournment at Bow Street, Mr. Humphrey Field to Mr. Jones, Huddersfield: August 21st, 1877—Sir, "I instructed my lawyer here to telegraph my agent in London last Tuesday, to make out the account and be prepared to settle with Mr. Hetherington, as from your letter I expect he wants to settle, my lawyer says here to-day that he has never been and proposes to settle up, the case comes on to-morrow (Wednesday). I am surprised at this after what he said; if he wished to settle and pay expenses he can do so now"—we instructed Counsel.

Cross-examined. MR. SWAIN has acted as solicitor for Messrs. Edwards and Hetherington for about two years, it might be eighteen months—they have been in business about eighteen months—Mr. Edwards has been at our office for about that time—I cannot say whether they were clients; I imagine so—I have been in Mr. Swain's employ two years next November—the firm of Edwards and Hetherington has not been in existence the whole time I have been there, but for more than one year, certainly—I will not swear that they have been in business for one year—I said they had been clients about two years—one meeting of creditors was called in May—I was not present; Mr. Hetherington told me of it—one meeting was on 10th or 14th June, I think, shortly after the affidavit was made—the writ in the action was issued on May 16th—a meeting may have taken place before; I don't know of any—at the meetings with Mr. Edwards he did not show me any document to satisfy me that he had been making frequent applications for a statement of commissions—he made a statement to me that he had made requent applications to Mr. Field himself and to his son when he was in

London, and then, of course, I took that letter that says "Any commission which you may want from me cannot be settled until James and Pike's account is paid"—I prepared the affidavit for Mr. Edwards, and thought it justifiable for Mr. Hetherington to swear it in this way: "That the above named plaintiff was and is "(reading the. affidavit in which it was stated that he had made frequent application for his commission)—he was unable to ascertain it in consequence of Mr. Humphrey Field refusing to supply him with the account—he was a partner and the fact was within the knowledge of both—this affidavit was produced in the suit of Edwards and Hetherington before the Master, and he said it was no answer at all because it was not strong enough in any way, and therefore we should have to bring the money into Court, and under the Judicature Act, Order 14, you can show cause by offering to bring the money into Court, or show you have a good defence—I asked for time, and got a week to bring the money into Court—I told Mr. Hetherington the necessity for the affidavit, and that Mr. Field had made an affidavit which I read before I prepared this one—I took instructions from Mr. Edwards, not Mr. Hetherington—Mr. Edwards explained this letter to me in the affidavit; he said I have written a letter saying "I will settle the amount, but have not settled the account because it will be subject to commission"—he said "Of course I meant to settle the account, but that is subject to whatever we are entitled to for commission"—Mr. Edwards also said that he wanted an account from. Mr. Humphrey Field for the goods supplied to them on the usual Yorkshire terms.

THE COURT intimated that the allegation of perjury did not appear to be substantiated, it appearing to have arisen merely from a dispute as to an amount of commission due, and if a man in making an affidavit in support of his claim, said "I verily believe," so and so, and it afterwards turned out not to be accurate, it could not he said that that was perjury.

THE JURY said they had quite agreed on a verdict of

NOT GUILTY , there not being a tittle of evidence, and considered it a vindictive prosecution.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-703
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

703. ELIZA BAKER (21), and THOMAS DARVIL (28) , Robbery with violence on John White, and stealing from him a watch and chain.

MR. CARR conducted the Prosecution.

JOHN WHITE . I live at 97, East Laue, and am a lighterman—between 12 and 1 o'clock on the night of the 14th August, I was in Turner Street, Whitechapel, when Baker came up to me two or three times and wanted to get into conversation—I told her to go away as I didn't want to have anything to do with her—she went away for a little while and just as I was going along, I felt an arm put to my neck to stop me, and, the other hand dragged my watch from my pocket and snapped my watch guard; no sooner was the chain snapped than I felt a blow between my shoulders and I was knocked into the road—the blow could not have been done by the woman; she was in front of me—she ran across the road and a man sprang past me and they both ran away together—I did not lose sight of either of them—I did not recognise him at that time—he ran from behind—I called to the police "Stop thief," and a policeman came up and stopped them in the same street, and I pointed them out—I never saw another soul in the street until I saw the policeman.

Cross-examined by Baker. There were not two women with me, cuddling me and pulling me about.

Cross-examined by Darvil. I said you were the man that struck me in the back—you went down to the station with the constable—there were not two other young men and a young woman near at the time not a soul.

GEORGE RAPLEY (Policeman K 280). I was on duty in Rutland Street, and beard a cry of "Police!" and saw the prosecutor at the corner of Turner Street—I ran up to him and asked him what was the matter, and he said "I have been robbed of my watch"—I said "Who robbed you of it"—he said "A woman just gone up there; Rutland Street"—I gave chase and run up Rutland Street and saw the prisoners together—I passed nobody whatever—I took them into custody and took' them back to the prosecutor—I searched the man on the spot, he had nothing about him—I said "You had better come down to the station as well," not meaning to lose sight of him—he said "Very well, I will go down"—he said he knew nothing about it, he was quite willing to be searched—the female prisoner said she knew nothing about it—I afterwards returned to the outside of 7, Rutland Street, and found a watch behind the door scraper, where I stopped the prisoners—when I got the prisoners back to the prosecutor two young men and a young women came up from behind me—they could not by any possibility have been between where the prosecutor was robbed and where I took the prisoners into custody.

Cross-examined by Darvil. You were not half a yard in front of the woman when I touched her on the shoulder and said "You have robbed a gentleman of his watch, and I must take you back"—I said at the station that the prosecutor was drunk—the prosecutor said he had been pushed down by a man and could not say whether it was you or not—he couldn't see your face—you where as close to Baker as two persons could walk together—the prosecutor could scarcely stand, he was drunk.

Darvil's Defence, I never saw the woman nor the prosecutor before that night. The prosecutor was drunk and incapable, and could scarcely stand. It is the first time I have ever been in trouble.

Baker further PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction in April, 1871.— GUILTY . Nine Months' Imprisonment each.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-704
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

704. WILLIAM STARMORE (29), PLEADED GUILTY to receiving a quantity of wines, spirits and other articles of Joseph Glennie.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-705
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

705. WILLIAM STARMORE was again indicted for stealing a sewing machine of the goods of John Frederick Blake.

MR. COOK conducted the Prosecution; and MR. AUSTIN METCALFE the Defence.

JOHN FREDERICK BLAKE . I live at Ealing; I know the prisoner—on the 19th July, 1876, I bought three sewing machines of Messrs. Thomas, I am an agent for them—the numbers were 3,355, 3,584, and 3,578—I last saw No. 3,355 on my premises on the 6th May, and I missed it on the 8th—I did not sell it to anybody, or authorise anybody to take it away—I next saw it at Brentford police-court.

Cross-examined. I did not see it between the 8th January, and the 31st of last month—I cannot say the date I saw it at Brentford police-court—supposing it had been in use for eight months it would not reduce its value much—I should say 2l. would be a fair price for a second-hand machine.

Re-examined. I did not sell the machine to anybody for 2l.

EDWARD WYNNE (Policeman K 15). I searched the prisoner's premises

and found the sewing machines, Nos. 3,355 and 18,666, the former being the one identified by the last witness—I found twenty-sir keys, a cigar tube and case, a quantity of railway tickets, a quantity of pawnbroker's tickets, two cigar boxes, a jar of gin, and a pair of India-rubber gloves, &c.,

Cross-examined. The prisoner has been in the police probably about six or eight years—he has only been with me about ten months.

By THE COURT. The prisoner lives about two miles from Mr. Blake, of Ealing—I did not say anything to the prisoner about this machine.

THE COURT considered having regard to the length of time that had elapsed between the loss of the machine and its discovery, and the consequent possibility of its having passed through various hands, that the prisoner was entitled to a verdict of

NOT GUILTY on this charge, which was accordingly taken.

MR. METCALFE produced a receipt (which he could not prove) for the sewing machine dated the 18th Map, signed by a Mrs. Wilmott, of whom the prisoner said he bought the machine, but did not know where she now was.

There were two other indictments against the prisoner, one for stealing a quantity of railway tickets (blank cards), the property of the Great Western Railway Company, and the other for stealing a carpet, upon which the prosecution did not proceed.

Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-706
VerdictNot Guilty > no prosecutor

Related Material

706. JOHN SMITH (21) , Unlawfully attempting to steal a watch from the person of Thomas Edmund Davies.

The prosecutor not appearing the prisoner was acquitted.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-707
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

707. ROBERT JOHN WILLIAMS (19) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Arthur Wellington Penty, and stealing a pair of boots, and other articles.

MR. RAVEN conducted the Prosecution; and MR. WARNER SLEIGH the Defence.

ARTHUR WELLINGTON PENTY . I live at 21, Hackney Grove, which, house was broken into on the early morning of the 25th July, on the night of the 24th—the doors and windows were fastened when I went to bed, with the exception of my front dining-room window—I saw all the shutters, that will fasten, closed—I am not certain about the front dining-room window—a little before daylight I was disturbed by a noise and went downstairs after a little while—it would be between 3 o'clock and 3.30—I moved about a little while first—T thought it was a door that was standing open, so I left my room and shut the door and then went downstairs, and I saw my dining-room door was open—I had shut it over night, and I saw that a long horizontal bar had been removed from the shutters opposite the end of the front dining-room, and the shutters were partially open, and the first thing I then noticed was that a pair of very old boots not' belonging to me, were placed on the carpet—then I noticed that two desks had been forced open, and the contents of one of them removed—I saw a plated top claret jug placed near, and a case that had contained a dozen knives and forks thrown on a chair, and the contents gone—I had left that the night before on the dinner waggon—a cigar case of mine had been taken from the mantelpiece and the cigars taken away—there was one of the knives left—I saw the empty scabbard of a sword of mine (I was formerly in the Artillery Company), and the drawn sword was placed near the door—a cupboard was forced open and a pair of boots taken from the hall—I was quite undressed, and I went upstairs and searched the house inside to see if there was anyone concealed—afterwards I went to the front and gave a constable an account of what had happened—I examined the house and found distinct marks of an entry having been made at the dining-room window—my

servant had been neglectful and I cannot positively say whether it was fastened—I went out of town, and was in town again on the 10th August and I inquired at the police-station whether anything had been heard of my property, and the answer was "No," but moved by a certain idea, I visited the Clerkenwell police-station and I asked to see three persons who were confined there—I had made no charge at that time in reference to anyone, and no one had been apprehended in reference to the burglary—the prisoner was one of the three persons—I asked that the boots he was wearing should be taken from his feet—that was done; they were handed to me—I examined them and found them to be my boots, the pair that was stolen on the night of the burglary—these are the boots (produced), I positively identify them.

Cross-examined. I was first at the police-court on the 10th August—I made a charge and gave evidence there and then—I had not seen the prisoner and two other men in the dock on another charge; I know they had not been in the dock—the bootmaker who made the boots has been examined—I did not say on identifying them that one was bigger than the other—I was asked in July, whether 1 identified them by any particular mark—I said I did not place any particular mark on my boots, but I identified them by their general appearance—I gave every direction about them, and I found them exactly correspond in every particular—then I said to the inspector, I think it was, that he would find if I put one of them on my foot that it would be tighter in one place than the other—it is the left which is tighter than the right—I heard the prisoner was taken into custody on the 3rd August, and this (the 10th) was his first remand.

RICHAKD BARTON . I am a bootmaker, of 17, Pinter Street—I made these boots for Mr. Penty.

Cross-examined. They were made by one of my workmen, made to order for Mr. Penty—I take the order for them and execute them by other men's work—I suppose I take about thirty orders a week, I make all my boots on a particular principle according to order—I don't turn out one pair in two months on this principle.

Re-examined. I have no doubt at all as to the identity of these boots.

RICHARD GENTRY (Policeman N 409). On the morning of the 25th July, I was on duty in the Aberdeen Park Road, about four minutes' walk from the prosecutor's house, when I saw the prisoner with another man coming from the direction of the prosecutor's house—it was about 3.30 or 3.45—I took particular notice of them—they had nothing with them, and I did not stop them—when I was at the police-court I heard the prisoner say something about buying the boots somewhere, but he didn't finish the sentence, or I didn't catch anything more.

Cross-examined. The prisoner was taken into custody with two other men and placed in the dock on the 3rd August as being a suspected person; I assisted in apprehending him—I spoke to Inspector Jensen on the 10th August about the boots—I first gave evidence at the police-court on the 23rd August—Mr. Barstow, the Magistrate, was going to discharge the three prisoners on 3rd August for want of evidence, but on the application of the police, through the gaoler, they were put back and remanded for a week, to the 10th—the other two men had three months on the 23rd—I did not say that he was one of the men and one of the other men who had three months was the other concerned in the burglary, until one of the men had had three months for something entirely different—there was no appearance about the two men of anything bulky, they were talking and I heard something mentioned

about the river Len—I made a verbal report to my acting sergeant—I first heard of the burgulary from Mr. Peaty about 4.30 that same morning.

Re-examined. I was not called previously to the conviction of the two men.

EDWIN BULLARD (Policeman N 558). On Wednesday, the 25th July, I saw the prisoner and another man with him in Fordship Road, about three-quarter of a mile from Mr. Penty's house at about 5.30 a.m., I did not give evidence at the police-court—the prisoner came up to me and asked if I would light a cigar of his—I said "I think my lamp is out, but I will see;" he held his face and hand to the lamp and lit the cigar and went away.

Cross-examined. I heard there had been a burglary up at Islington three days after I came back—I went away for seven days' leave, I think on the 4th August—I saw him I believe on the 3rd August, I did not know of the burglary before—I heard the next day by information published to us all at the police-station that there had been a burglary the night before—it was not on my beat, about three-quarters of a mile off; names or addresses of gentlemen's houses which have been broken into are not given us—I was not in court on the 10th August—I did not know a burglary had been committed at Mr. Penty's until I saw the prisoner in the dock at the Clerkenwell police-court—I was not in Court on the 23rd August to give evidence—the 3rd August was the first time they were brought up when I was asked to give evidence—I informed Inspector Dunman at Kingsland station, long before the 3rd August that I had seen the prisoner on the 25th July, the night after, 26th—I have had no conversation with Gentry of the N division about this matter.

JOHN KAVANAGH (Policeman N 442). I took the prisoner on 3rd August for loitering.

Cross-examined. He was not in custody on 26th July.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I god the boots out of pledge, and gave a shilling for the ticket. The boots were pledged for 5s.".


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-708
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown

Related Material

708. FRANK HEAD (18), and GEORGE LEWIS (20) , burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Ann Amy Spinks, with intent to steal.

MR. BEBNIE conducted the Prosecution; and MR. AUSTIN METCALFE defended Head.

ROBERT STANLEY FREEMAN . I am in the employ of Mrs. Spinks, landlady of the Duke of Clarence public-house, Clapton—I closed the window of the, public parlour on Tuesday evening, 2nd September—before that I had a communication made to me by Warrender the pot boy on the 26th August, and I communicated with the police.

JOSEPH WARRENDER . I am potman in the service of Mrs. Spinks—on. Saturday, 25th August, Lewis came to me and asked me to become a third person to attempt to break into the house of Mrs. Spinks—I saw him outside—I said "How is it to be done?"—he said that a certain amount of money was taken during the week, Saturday's and Sunday's takings altogether would amount to between 30l. or 40l., and that was put in a black bag and was then put in the small bar parlour previous to banking on Monday morning—I asked him "How is this ever to be done?"—he said "We will arrange to get over the wall, you and I, and over the stable and drop into the yard; you must arrange to have the shutter of the window so "as we

can get in"—I led him to understand I would agree to it, and asked him previous to making any further arrangement, when I should see him again on the subject, and we arranged for the Wednesday following, that would be the 29th August—in the mean time I made a communication to Freeman, Mrs. Spinks, and the barmaid—I saw Lewis again on the Wednesday—I was going to deliver some beer, but previous to my going out with the beer, Lewis, Head, and another came into the parlour—I said "Come outside; Well," I said. "What about this affair you were speaking to me on Saturday night about?"—"Oh," Lewis said, "that is all right;" and putting his hands up so to his face in a thinking mood, he said "I have been thinking, we won't do it the way I was telling you about on Saturday, there is another way to do it which will be better"—I asked him which way it was—he said "You know the window at the comer in Clarence Road! Do you know that window don't fasten right up to the top?"—I said "No"—"Well," he said next Sunday morning when you are about to leave, I shall want you to pull that window down a little more, and a day or two before we commence operations I want you to break a globe in the window, so that it will not cause any suspicion afterwards, because the globe will be in our way in getting in"—of course I promised to break that, but I merely removed it—I was to leave the door open as well, the near parlour door leading to the bar—then I asked him "What about this third person, who is he? it is not the boy," meaning Head—he said "No, another person"—I went into the bar and saw the manager and told him what had happened, and I pointed out the one who was to make the third party, to the barman—he is not here—the day was fixed for Monday morning, at 12.30 Sunday night—I met Lewis with Head—we went from there across Hackney Downs up a passage, till we got into Kingsland Road—I took them to a coffee stall and we had some coffee together—we came back by Hachney Downs, and we got to a blank wall, and he said "You meet me at the Pool," and we separated—we met again at the Pool, Clapton Road, and he gave me one tool and put the other in his pocket—this is the one he gave me (producing it) and this other he left behind on account of the policeman coming up—we met at the Duke of Clarence; Lewis and I went up to the window; Lewis pulled the window down first, Head was round the corner—after Lewis pulled down the window we stepped into the middle of the road; we went back again to the window; he put his hand against the window, and when we pulled it down, out came the detective, and Lewis ran away—I did not see whether Head ran away; he was round the corner.

Cross-examined. I was close to the window when Lewis pulled it down; I cannot say whether it was partially open then, I am almost sure it was shut—it was when it was pulled down a second time that it came right down with a bang—head had nothing to do with the tools—none of the conversation I have related took place in Head's presence.

Cross-examined by LEWIS. You pulled the window down first; I did not tell you first when the money was in the house or about the house being sold—I might have told you that I would pretend to lock the door; that has nothing to do with it; you were to go in first and I would follow—you gave me a bottle cf oil to grease the window.

GEORGE STONOR (Policeman N 123). I was concealed in a garden on the night of 2nd September, in Clarence Road, about 300 yards from the house in question—Lewis passed down the road; after he passed me a short

distance he gave a whistle, as I presume, for a signal—I watched him as far as the Duke of Clarence; I then lost sight of him, and shortly afterwards I heard the ratling of a window followed by a scrambling on the pavement, something like people running, that was followed by cries of "Stop thief"—I proceeded to the spot as quickly as possible, when I saw Head walking from the direction of the public-house—he asked me before I had time to speak to him "What is the matter?"—I told him to wait and I would tell him what was the matter; I asked him where he came from—he said he came from Bow—I asked him where he was going and he said he said he was going home to Peartree Place, Clapham—I took him in charge and handed him over to another constable to take to the station—he cried and said he bad been dragged into the job at the corner—I asked him "What corner?" and he said "The Clarence public-house."

Cross-examined. He spoke to me first and told me he had come from Bow—I did not make any inquiry whether he had been to Bow that day.

GEORGE CHAPMAN (Detective N). I was concealed in the Duke of Clarence public-house on the night of 2nd September—in the front of the bar—at about 2.30 a.m., I saw the two prisoners with Warrender—I saw Head round the corner—Lewis was going up towards the window, I believe—there was a noise and they ran away—they did not run away. at first, there was a second noise—I heard a scampering in the street and went out and saw them running up the road and saw the window right down—the next morning I took Lewis in charge for being concerned in attempting to break into the Duke of Clarence—he was given into my charge by the next witness—Warrender made a communication to me about a chisel, which I found downstairs in one of the rooms.

ARCHIBALD COLTMAN (Policeman N 263). On the morning of 3rd September, I saw Lewis leave his house about 9.30 a.m., and I told him I was a constable, he said "I know you are; I know what you want me for; I have been dragged into it"—I asked him what he had done with the jemmy; he said he had thrown it away—he also stated that when the police were in chase of him, soon after the occurence, he rushed into a garden and concealed himself under a hedge till he found all was right, and then he went home again.

Lewis Defence. I was at the Duke of Clarence last Christmas and this young barman (Warrender) was going out with a young girl at the time, and I went out with this young girl, and I suppose he was a bit jealous, and I believe he has got up the case for me. This potman dragged me fairly into it. I said I wouldn't do it He said he would tell the police of it; he would get me locked up some. ow.

Head's employer gave him a good character.


LEWIS— GUILTY Six Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-709
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

709. THOMAS BOWLING (54) , Attempting, by false pretences, to obtain from Frederick Lucas, 1s. The false pretence not being made out, the Jury found the prisoner


Before Mr. Recorder.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-710
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

710. JOSEPH RODRIQUEZ (19) , Feloniously wounding Ramon Meelor. No evidence was offered. NOT GUILTY .

NEW COURT.—Friday, September 21st 1877. Before Mr. Recorder.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-711
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment; Imprisonment > other institution

Related Material

711. HUGH DALY (23), WILLIAM NEWSHAM (14) , burglariously, breaking and entering in the dwelling-house of William Williams, and stealing therein five coats and other articles, his property; to which

DALY PLEADED GUILTY Eighteen Months' Imprisonment each.

MR. AUSTIN METCALFE conducted the Prosecution.

WILLIAM WILLIAMS . I am a dairyman of 94, Devonshire Street, Liaon Grove, on the night of 20th August I was the last person up—I examined the doors and windows at 12 o'clock, they were all safe—I got up at a few minutes after 5 o'clock and found the back parlour window open and a ladder against the house—all the drawers and boxes had been opened, and I missed clothes and other things value 15l.

JOHN ROBINSON (Policeman D 123). On 21st August, about 1 a.m., I was on duty near the prosecutor's house, and saw the two prisoners together loitering about—I am certain that Newsham was one of the two—on 24th August I met Newsham in New Street, Salisbury Street, and told him I should take him for being concerned with Daly, who was in custody, for committing a burlary in Lisson Grove—he said "Daly got in first and opened the window, and I got in after him"—on the way to the station he said that he had done four other jobs, but only two with Daly.

Cross-examined by Newsham. You did not say that you were with Daly when he had the things in the sack, you said that you followed him in at window and that you fell down in the room—I did not say "If you want to go to sea, say that you were concerned in the case."

Newsham's Statement before the Magistrate: "I told the officer I was concerned in two other jobs besides Mr. Williams'."

Newsham's Defence. I wish Daly to be called.

HUGH DALY . I have pleaded guilty to this charge, I did it alone, nobody was with me, it was between 1 and 2 a.m.—I had not seen Newsham that day till I had the things—I took them to a place in Marylebone till I was caught taking them from there, Newsham had nothing to do with it—I told him I had a little business on and parted from him—that was after I did it—I used to be about there all day long—I do not remember seeing the prisoner before I did it—Newsham was not concerned with me in the case in Harrow Road, I simply asked him to mind some pawn tickets.

NEWSHAM— GUILTY Two Months' Imprisonment and Three Years'is a Reformatory.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-712
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

712. EDWARD GALLAGHER (26), and WILLIAM THOMAS GALLAGHER (26) , Unlawfully conspiring to obtain a musical box, two suits of clothes, and other articles, by false pretences.

MR. GILL conducted the Prosecution.

MARGARET SPRATT . I am a widow and live at 10, Silver Street, Golden Square—on 16th May the prisoner took my shop and two parlours at 1l. a week, and they sold butter, cheese, hams, and things of that kind there—William attended most to the shop, and Edward generally come on Saturdays—I don't know whether they lived there, they left on 16th July without notice, owing me five weeks' rent—on Sunday the 15th I passed and noticed that the articles were marked very cheap.

RICHARD SPARK DISTIN . I am in the employ of William Bryan Jones, who carries on the business of Keith Prowse, and Co., music sellers, 48, Cheapside—on 14th July, the priscner Edward camo about a musical box

for bis brother—I called Mr. Jones and introduced him not knowing his name then—Mr. Jones asked me to bring down the musical box—I was then at the bottom of the stairs—while the label was being put on we had a conversation, in which he said his brother was a queer sort of fellow, and he did not care about paying anything for him in gold, and he took out a lot of money from his pocket about 30l. in gold—he said his brother would pay by cheque—he said I have my cart outside if you send your porter with me to the other end you shall have a cheque—I called Mr. Smith who is our collector and told him to go in our dog-cart with the box to Silver Street, and to bring a cheque for 14l.—the box was placed in the dog cart under the seat, and they drove away.

WILLIAM BRYAN JONES . I carry on business as Keith, Prowse, and Co., at 48, Cheapside—I remember the prisoner Edward calling about a fortnight before 14th July, and I had some conversation with him about a musical box—he said he would call again next day, but did not until 14th July when Mr. Distin called me and I showed the prisoner up into our show-room he selected this musical box (produced) which was brought down and prepared to go away—the price was to be 14l.—after we came downstairs and while the label was being put on I asked him how he wanted to pay—he put his land in his pocket and pulled out a handful of gold, and said my brother does not allow me to pay with the money I receive, he will give you a cheque when the box comes up—it was arranged that one of our men should go up with the box and bring back a cheque—Smith our collector went with him—the box was put into the dog cart—I told Smith he might take a cheque for it—when Smith returned he handed me this cheque for 14l.; I endorsed it and paid it into the Bank of England—it was afterwards returned to me with N. S. on it—I have never been paid for the box.

ALFRED JOHN SMITH . I live at 11, Marlborongh Road, Buckingham Street, and am collector for Mr. Jones—on 14th July, Mr. Jones gave me a musical box and told me to take it in a dog-cart with Edward Gallagher, to Silver Street, and get a cheque for 14l., I went there and saw the other prisoner in the shop—to the best of my knowledge he is the man—who banded me this cheque, I understood from Edward, that it was his brother—he gave me this cheque and I brought it back.

MARY ANN LYONS . I live at 87, Whitechapel Road, and am employed by Hytnan Charrick, a tailor—on 5th July, the prisoner William came and ordered a suit of clothes, and a white waistcoat—the suit came to 3 guineas—he paid half a crown deposit when he gave the order and left a card like this: "W. T. Gallagher, wholesale and retail provision merchant, 10, Silver Street"—on Friday 13th, he called to see if the clothes were ready, but they were not—he called again on the Saturday, and offered me a cross cheque—I refused to take it as we do not take cheques at all—on the Monday morning, he brought this open cheque (produced)—I paid it into the bank, and it was returned marked "No Funds." (The cheque was 3l. 13s. on the London and South Western Bank, signed W. T. Gallagher). He was wearing the clothes when he was taken into custody—he carelessly took some money out of his pocket on the Friday, but did not say anything.

RICHARD BENJAMIN GRIFFITHS . I am salesman to Moses and Son, of Tottenham Court Road, I know the prisoners—William called there on 6th July, and left an order for a overcoat, price 38s., he selected a hat price, 12s. 6d., for which he paid by cheque for 12s. 6d., which was paid—on 7th July, the prisoner Edward called and gave me this order, "Messrs. Moses

and son. Please give bearer hrt, 12s. 6d. Yours truly, W. T. G." Edward selected a pair of boots, price 23s., but did not take them with him—on 11th July, William called and ordered a white waistcoat and trousers price 3l. 10s.—they were to be ready on the 14th, and the overcoat was to be taken at the same time—on 12th or 13th, Edward called and asked for an invoice which I gave him the price of—all the goods would have been 6l. 11s.—on 14th, Edward called to see if they were ready and took them away—he handed me this cheque for 6l. 11s., on the London and South Western Bank—it was paid into the bank on the following Monday and returned marked "N. S."—I accepted it because the previous cheque had been paid and I believed it was genuine—I have had to pay the money myself as I took it on my own responsibility—I went to Silver Street on the Monday evening, and found the shop was closed.

CHARLES MORRIS WOLFE . I am a tailor of 272, Pentonville Road on 14th July, the prisoner Edward called for two suits of clothes, and two white waistcoats, price 7l. 7s. 6d. which had been ordered a fortnight before—he handed me this cheque on the London and South Western Bank, for 7l. and 7s. 6d. in silver—I accepted the cheque thinking it was genuine—he had been hanging about the place some weeks talking to my men and getting into their confidence, and that induced me to take it—it was paid into my bank, and returned marked "Account closed"—I have never been paid—Sergeant Mitchell showed me the clothes and I identified them.

HENRY ALFRED BARBER . I am traveller to Charles Bound, provision merchant, of Hammersmith—on 13th July, the prisoner William called and ordered eight American cheeses, six end of bacon, six cheeses, and twenty-four hams, which came to 34l. 7s. 2d.—he gave me this card "W. T. Gallagher, wholesale and retail cheesemonger, 10, Silver Street, Golden Square"—he said if I would send them up in the morning he would pay the carman cash—I gave the carman instructions to bring back the cash and take discount off, and he bought back this cheque for 31l. 12s., which was paid into my bank on the following Monday, and returned on Wednesday, marked "Refer to drawer"—I have never been paid—I saw the same hams and cheeses at the police-court.

THOMAS BARKY . I am a carman in Mr. Bound's employ—on 13th August, I took eight American cheeses, six ends of bacon, and twenty-four hams to Silver Street, and delivered them to the prisoner Edward, who gave me this cheque for 31l. 12s.—I gave it to Mr. Barber.

MARY MORGAN . I am the wife of Thomas Morgan, of 144, Stamford Street, Blackfriars—on 6th July, I let a room, on third floor to the two prisoners in the name of Burgess—I afterwards showed the room to Sergeant Mitchell.

MICHAEL JOHN MCCARTHY . I live at 9, Charlotte Street, Blackfriars on 16th July the prisoner Edward took a shop and parlour of me at 12s. a week, in the name of John Kelly—he said he wanted them as a store for goods, but intended to open a shop there afterwards; I did not see any goods brought in—Sergeant Mitchell and a policeman afterwards came and took away some clothing, and some cheeses and hams—I received a fort-eight rent only.

JAMES ALLEN FINDLAY . I am accountant to the London and South-Western Bank, Limited—I know the prisoner William; he opened an account thereon on 12th June, which was closed on the 18th July—during that time he only paid in four amounts; the account was opened with 11l.,

the total amount paid in was 47l.—on the morning of 14th July there was 8l. 12s. to his credit—on 16th he drew out 8 guineas, leaving 4s. which we took for ourselves—these five cheques (produced) were afterwards presented. (These were all dated 14th July, amounting altogether to 62l. 16s.) The cheque for 8 guineas was in favour of Ratchell; it was drawn on Saturday, and would, probably, not reach us till Monday—if paid on Monday it would, probably, reach us on Tuesday morning—the 8 guineas was paid on the Monday morning.

JOHN MITCHELL (City Detective Sergeant). On 27th July I received a warrant for the arrest of W. T. Gallagher, Edward Gallagher, and A. Gallagher—on 4th August I saw Edward at Bow Lane station, I said "I am a detective sergeant and hold a warrant for your arrest," which I read to him, and asked him if he was the person referred to in it as "A. Gallagher"—he said "Yes" he said that he ordered the musical box for his brother to be sent to 10, Silver Street, Golden Square—he was detained in custody, and on Sunday morning I examined his coat and found on the loop the name of Charrick—I asked him to account for where he got the clothes; he declined to do so—I searched him and found on him 9l., a key, 19s., and some memoranda—I afterwards took William Gallagher; I told him I had a warrant for his arrest, I read it to him, and when I got to the words "Cheat and defraud," he said "I did not intend to defraud"—I found on him 1l. 7d. 10 1/2 d., a Bank of Ireland note for 1l., a silver watch, and a gold chain—he gave his address 17, Princes Street, but I found he was not known there; I went with Trafford to make inquiries—I then went to Stanford Street, and saw Mrs. Morgan, who showed me a room on the third floor, where I found the musical box under the bed—I then went to Charlotte Street and saw McCarthy; I opened the shop with the key found on Edward Gallagher, and found in it these hams, cheeses, and a firkin of butter, which were afterwards identified.

WILLIAM HENRY TRAFFORD (City Detective). I accompanied Mitchell to 144, Stamford Street, and found a pair of trowsers which have been identified by Lyons, in the pockets of which was 27l. 10s. in gold, and 2l. 2l. in loose money—I then went to Charlotte Street, and found a quantity of clothing which has been identified by Wolfe, Griffiths, and Lyons—I produce the clothes which the prisoners were wearing when they were taken; also a pair of boots found on William—we found on them a great many memoranda and bill-heads.

Edward Gallagher's Defence. I had nothing to do with my brother; I was only doing a little business for him, for which he gave me a few shillings a week. I did not know what money he had in the bank.

William Gallagher's Defence. I do not deny that I gave the cheques.


EDWARD GALLAGHER— Twelve Months'Imprisonment.

W. T. GALLAGHER— Fifteen Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-713
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

713. THOMAS MARSHALL (20), GEORGE HEFFORD (19), and GEORGE STANNARD (18) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Luke William Nettleton with intent to steal.

MR. HARMSWORTH conducted the Prosecution; MR. FRITH appeared for Marshall, MR. MEAD for Hefford, and MR. RAVEN for Stannard.

EDWIN GOULD (Policeman Y 16). I was on duty on 12th August about 4.30 in Barnsbury Road—I saw Marshall in front of No. 53, looking towards

me, and Stannard leaning on some railings looking in an opposite direction—I was turning from Copenhagen Street with Sergeant Gorr—Marshall scraped the footway: Stanuard then looked towards us and then into a doorway, and immediately Hefford sprang from the doorway on to the foot way—they all came towards us—I asked them what they were doing there—Hefford said "I saw a key in the lock and went to see what it was. I tried to get it out"—we took them back to No. 53 and found a key in the lock—we roused the inmates and enquired of the lodgers in each room; the prisoners were there and could hear what passed—first Mr. Nettleton asked his wife, and she said she had not left a key in the door—Nettleton searched his pocket and found his own key—then we went to the lodgers in each room and they said they had not left their keys in the lock—this is the key (produced); it is too large, and I had some difficulty in getting it out of the lock, and when I did it was scraped as if it did not fit—Marshall was 4 or 5 yards from the door when I first saw him on the same side of the way, and Stannard about 1 1/2 yards—we took them in custody; they said they were out walking and were going to Highgate—it was quite daylight—they were taken to the Caledonian Road police-station—Hefford refused his address—I went to the address Marshall gave and saw his mother.

Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. We walked towards the prisoners and they towards us; they were at first 60 or 70 yards off—we were in uniform; it was broad daylight.

Cross-examnied by MR. RAVEN. The houses have areas in front of them and steps up to the door, which is out flush with the frontage of the house—there is no porch—I cannot speak as to the other houses; I only noticed this one—the door is, of course on a different level to the shop doors in the street.

Cross-examined by MR. MEAD. There are four floors in the house; I went to the top—only one of the prisoners went up, and he did not go all the way; the others remained in the passage—we spoke loud enough fur any one to hear in the house.

Re-examined. I distinctly saw Hefford come out of the house.

HENRY GORR (Policeman Y 54). On Sunday morning, 12th August, I was turning the corner of Barnsbury Road—I saw Marshall and Stannard on the footway in front of No. 53—I went towards them and saw Hefford come out of the doorway and spring on to the footway—he joined the other prisoners and came towards us—I and the other constable met them and asked them what they were doing there—Hefford said that he saw the key in the door of No. 53 and he was trying to get it out—we took them back to the house and found the door standing open and the key produced in the lock—we went into the passage and I heard Sergeant Gould make inquiries about the key; I was then in the passage, Stannard and Hefford were with me; Marshall went part of the way upstairs.

Cross-examined by MR. RAVEN. The house is let off in apartments.

SAMUEL EASEMAN (Policeman Y 19). Barnsbury Road was part of my beat—I was opposite No. 53 a few minutes before 4.30; the door was then shut and secured—I am sure of that, because I examined it—before that I had met the prisoners near the corner of Wentworth Road; they were going I n the direction of No. 53 at a brisk pace.

Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I said before the Magistrate that I tried the door of No. 52—Barnsbury Road is the way to Highgate.

LUKE WILLIAM NETTLETON . I am landlord of No. 53, Barnsbury Road—I was aroused about 4.30 on 12th August by a knocking—I slept on the same floor as the passage—I got up and saw the constables in the passage—the key produced is the key of the house; this other larger one was shewn to me by the constable—it appears to have been filed—I enquired of the lodgers, in the prisoners' hearing whether they had lost their keys or left any one of them in the door—they said they had not, after they had searched for them.

Cross-examined. I hare two families of lodgers in addition to my own family, making six lodgers; my own family would make seven more—each family has a key and I keep three—all five keys were not produced; the lodgers simply answered after searching, that they had found their keys, and I took their word—there are nine or ten similar houses in the Row—my children are all girls; the keys were all similar.

CLARA MURRAY . I live at 153, Barnsbury Road—I was the last person who came home on the night of the 11th; it was then about 12.30—I am sure I fastened the door.

Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I am single; I live with my two sisters—I had been to a place of amusement which I left about 12 o'clock; and judging from the distance I walked, it would be about 12.30—I opened the door with a key; the latch sticks rather.

Cross-examined by MR. MEAD. One of my sisters also has a key—we occupy one room—our keys are different, but mine opens the door as well.

Marshall's Statement before the Magistrate. "I was in Barnsbury Road at this time but did not know the door was open. I know nothing about it; I was 40 yards away from the door."


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-714
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Corporal > whipping

Related Material

714. ARTHUR SMITH (17) , Robbery on Louisa Davis, and stealing from her person 10s. 6d., her money.

MR. DENNISON conducted the—Prosecution.

LOUISA DAVIS . I live at 16, Prospect Terrace, Gray's Inn Road—on Sunday morning 16th September, at 1.45 I went to a refreshment stall, at the corner of Seymour Street, Euston Square—I had 10s. 6d. tied up in my pocket-handkerchief which I put in my breast—the prisoner was at the stall—I paid for my refreshment and walked away—the prisoner followed me and shoved against me—I said "I beg pardon, what are you doing that for?"—he said "Who are you talking to," knocked me down, kicked me on the mouth, knocking out a tooth, put his hand in my bosom, took the money and ran away—no one else was near me; a policeman brought him back two or three minutes afterwards and I identified him—there were other people at the refreshment stall, but I do not suppose they were with him.

FREDERICK RICHARD LEWIS (Policeman S 235). I was on duty on this morning about 1.45, and heard screams of murder and police—I saw the prisoner and prosecutrix struggling on the ground—before I could reach them I saw the prisoner strike her somewhere on the head and she fell in the road—he then kicked her in the mouth, and three or four of his companions who stood round, told him the police were coming—he ran away—I pursued him, brought him back and found the prosecutrix in a fainting condition on the pavement leaning against the railings—she said, the prisoner had assualted her and stolen 10s. 6d. from her bosom—her dress

and aporn were saturated with blood—he made no reply to the charge—I took him to the station and found 2s. in silver, and 12d. on him, but not the handkerchief or the money.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. This was 50 yards from the refreshment stall, right opposite the lamp-post—I could see you actions quite well.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I beg pardon, I was coming up Euston Road at 1.45 on Sunday morning; the prosecutrix came and asked me if I had any money. I said 'No'—she made use of bad language and said 'What is the good of you;' she shoved me and I shoved her, and struck her back again, and knocked her down and kicked her, but as to taking the money from her I know nothing about it."

Prisoner's Defence. The young woman stopped me and asked me if I had any money. I said "No, only 4d." She said "You may take liberties with me if you give me the id., and when she got it she struck me and I struck her back again. As to the 10s. 6d. I know nothing about it.

FREDERICK RICHARD LEWIS (re-examined). I saw them struggling together; it was after that that he struck her and kicked her—I could not. see whether he took anything from her, I was not near enough—I was 30 yards from them when he knocked her down, and kicked her—when he kicked her he stooped down over her.

GUILTY **— Twelve Months' Imprisonment and 12 strokes with the Cat.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-715
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

715. EMMA MANLEY (37), PLEADED GUILTY to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Wood, and stealing therein a chemise and other articles, his property— Nine Months' Imprisonment. (See next case.)

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-716
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown

Related Material

716. The said EMMA MANLEY was again indicted with MINNIE MONZONA (21) , for burglariously breaking, and entering the house of Thomas Charles Woods, and stealing therein a shirt and three towels, his property.

MR. RAVEN conducted the prosecution.

CATHERINE WOODS . I am the wife of Thomas Charles Woods, of Lichfield Street, Soho—on 31st August, I went to bed, leaving the kitchen door locked' and the window bolted—the kitchen was nearly half full of wet clothes, which I had hung up to dry—I slept upstairs over the kitchen next morning, about 7 o'clock, I sent my daughter down, and she came back, and told me something, and I went down and missed a blanket and shirt—I do not know what else was missing—I was going out to give information at Bow Street, and met the prisoner Monzona in the street, with a bundle under her arm—I said "I want to see what is in that bundle"—she made me an answer which I did not understand—I said "I should like to know what it is, as I feel confident that is what I am in search of"—I saw a blanket, and I said "I feel confident that is mine; I shall wait till a constable comes, and have it examined"—she said "Don't make a bother in the street, wait till my friend comes back," and she pointed to Manley who was on the other side of the street, and who went on without looking across the road—Monzona had a towel on her arm containing some bread—I noticed that the towel was marked, and joined in the middle—I could see that it was mine—I pulled the things away and said I would lock her up—she said "I have not done it myself, the other person was with me, and I do not know why I should suffer alone"—I told her to follow Manley, and pushed her by the arm—Manley had the other things—I examined them—

she went to an empty house, and could not get out—I waited fur a constable, still holding Mouzona—the policeman brought Manley out of the house—a lot of boys pulled the clothes from her, and brought them to me—this blanket is mine—I found ray window unbolted, and open about half an inch—one pane of glass was broken when I hung up the clothes, not large enough for anybody to get in, but there was a high place for them to stand on, and they could put their arm through and unbolt the window.

THOMAS BIRD (Policeman 409). On the morning of 31st August, Mrs. Woods gave the prisoner into my custody—they asked me what was the matter—I told them they were given in custody for stealing the articles, and they must go to the station—I fetched Manley out of the court—I am not aware that she had any of the goods.


MONZONA— GUILTY Six Months' Imprisonment

NEW COURT.—Saturday, September 22nd, 1877.

Before Mr. Recorder.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-717
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > no evidence
SentencesImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

717. HENRY RACKHAM (40), SAMUEL LAMBERT (63) , Stealing 144 yards of calico and other articles, of Robert Parnell and. another, and

ELIZA LAMBERT (63), feloniously receiving the same.


RACKHAM—Strongly recommended to mercy by the prosecutor— Four Months Imprisonment.

SAMUEL LAMBERT —Nine, Months' Imprisonment.

MR. STRAIGHT, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence against Eliza Lambert


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-718
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

718. WILLIAM FRANK DORRINGTON (28) , Unlawfully obtaining 2l. 10s. and 2l., by false pretences, with intent to defraud.

MR. MEAD conducted the Prosecution; and MR. WARNER SLEIGH the Defence.

HENRY GILHAM . I keep the Queen Elizabeth public-house, 61, Asylum Road, Peckham—the prisoner was a customer of mine; between the 19th or 30th May he brought me this cheque on the Birkbeck Bank, dated 19th May, for 2l. 10s., payable to Henry Gilham, and signed Frank Dorrington—he asked me to change it—I said "Is it all right?"—he said "Yes"—I had previously changed a cheque of his wife's—I changed this for him, and paid it into the London and Westminster Bank; it was returned unpaid on 30th May—I wrote to the prisoner and he wrote back this letter. (This was signed by the prisoner, stating that he would call on the prosecutor on Monday.) I afterwards saw him; he said he was sorry, and asked me to wait a little while, I consented to do so, and I afterwards received this letter from him. (This was from the prisoner, stating that he had paid some momey in and. requesting the prosecutor to present the cheque again.) I paid it into my bankers again, and it was again returned unpaid—I then received this letter, dated 2nd July, making excuses, and a week or two afterwards I took out a warrant—I saw the prisoner again, he still promised to pay; he told me his child had been buried—I afterwards heard that there were more of his cheques about.

Cross-examined. The cheque be brought before was not drawn in his wife's name, but he represented it as a cheque of her trustee—he told me he had a separate income from her, and I have no reason to doubt it—he came in occasionally to see me about the cheque—I don't know whether he had any beer; very likely—I should not have taken these proceedings

unless somebody had spoken to me—I do not know that he carried on the business of a house agent, in Asylum Road, Peckham—he lived in furnished apartments, in Clifton Crescent—he did not write the cheque in my presence—it was inconvenient to me to present it before—I should have paid it in next day if I had gone to the bank—he told me once or twice that his wife's trustees would advance him some money, but that was not until after I presented the cheque—he asked me to wait because his wife's trustees might advance her some money—I cannot say that he did not say there had been a disagreement between his wife and the solicitor—I did not wait believing that the trustees would advance money, as they had done occasionally before—he may have told me his wife's money became due on 29th September—I did not promise to hold the cheque over until his wife's income was paid—he asked me to wait a few days and I told him I would—I have seen his wife's sister, Mrs. Bailey, in Court.

Re-examined. He said he had money in the bauk, and had drawn it out because his child was dead—he withdrew it to pay the funeral expenses.

THOMAS BENJAMIN WOODFALL . I am a grocer, of 781, Old Kent Road the prisoner has been in my shop once or twice—he came on 20th June and asked me to oblige him with two sovereigns in exchange for this cheque. (The cheque was dated June 20th, on the Birkbech Bank, for 2l., signed F Dorrington.) I paid it into the London and County Bank, on 25th June, and it was returned unpaid—I communicated with the prisoner, and afterwards saw him and told him the cheque had been returned, and asked what he was going to do—he assured me that if I paid it in again it would be met—I paid it in again on 2nd July, and it was returned unpaid—I then wrote to him and received these letters (produced) in reply—I have not been paid.

Cross-examined. I have not known him for more than two months—I knew where he lived; I had supplied goods to his house on one occasion before this—my porter knew where he lived—when he brought the cheque he said "You know where I live, 31, Clifton Terrace, and my City address is London Wall"—I was going to call upon him afterwards, but met him—I never heard anything about his wife's trustees—I do not know anything about illness in his house.

JOHN KERB . I keep the Cripplegate Tavern and know the prisoner as a customer—on 30th June, he came in and asked me if I could oblige him with change for a small cheque, as he had been very poorly and had not been able to get out to get to the bank before closing hours—I said I did not mind obliging him under the circumstances—he asked for a pen and ink, took his cheque-book out and drewthis cheque. (This was dated June 30th, on the Birkbech Bank; pay self 21., F. Dorrington.) I paid that into the London and County Bank, and it was returned unpaid—I wrote to the prisoner telling him so, and that unless I had the cash for it very shortly I should take some preceedings—he wrote this answer produced. (This stated that he thought he had sufficient money to meet the cheque, and that if it was paid in again on Tuesday morning there would be twenty times the amount to meet it.) I paid it in again on Tuesday, and it was again returned to me—I waited in expectation of seeing him, and in the mean time this letter came. (This was from the prisoner, stating that he was going to pay in a country cheque, but it would be two or three days before it would be placed to his credit, and that he would call on the prosecutor.) I did not see him after that—I have never been paid.

JAMES BANKS . I am manager to Thomas Bolton, an undertaker in the Old Kent Road—on 8th June I conducted a funeral for the prisoner—I have not been paid.

Cross-examined. Mr. Bolton also receives money—he is not here.

FREDERICK MAULEY HILL . I am accountant to the Birkbeck Bank—the prisoner opened an account there in April with 39l. 7s. 6d.—it went on until 19th May, when there was only a balance of 1s. 8d.—it has never been increased in any way—nothing more was paid in—this cheque of 19th May was presented to me on 30th May, and this is my note on it, "Not sufficient"—it was presented again on 7th June—this other cheque of 20th June was presented on 26th June and again on 3rd July, and returned marked "N. S."—this third cheque dated 30'th June for 2l. was presented on 4th July, and again on 10th August and marked "N. S."—there is also a cheque dated 21st June which is signed by the prisoner—that—was presented on 25th June and 3rd July, and returned marked "N. S."—it is payable to self—I have the return draft book here, but it is not in my writing except as to one cheque—I see the book from day to day—the first date after 15th May is May 30th, a cheque payable to Gilham—the next is 5l. on 2nd June, payable to self and there have been about 30 others presented—the amounts are 2l. 10s., 5l. 10s., 2l. 10s., 1l. 10s., and 5l.,—we did not allow him to overdraw—he did overdraw 1l. by accident which we have had to take out of his expenses account.

Cross-examined. It is not necessary to keep any balance at the Birkbeck—I do not think I ever gave him notice that his account was overdrawn.

CHARLEY VINEY (Detective Officer). I took the prisoner on a warrant on 27th July, at the Marquis of Granby, New Cross, for obtaining 2l. 10s. from Mr. Gilham—he said "Can I see Mr. Gilham?"—I said "Wait till you get to the station"—he said "If I saw him he would not prosecute me"—I said "The warrant will have to take its course, and the Magistrate" will not allow that to be done, because there are 10 or 12 other cheques"—he said "I don't think there are so many as that"—he gave me these two cheques on the Birkbeck Bank (produced) at the station—they are both for 2l. 10s.

Witness for the Defence.

ELIZA BAILEY . I am a widow, and the prisoner's wife's sister—she and I are joint legatees to the amount of 150l. a year each—I have been present at the advance of money by the trustees to my sister on different occasions—I know that she has applied to them to make advances when she has been in need of money—the solicitors to the trust are Messrs. Wilton and Reddeford, of Gloucester—they have made advances up to the present time—I saw this letter, dated 12th April, in my sister's possession, and saw a cheque for 5l. enclosed in it—her annuity is payable on 29th September—that amount was in advance of the quarterly payment—I know that my sister was applying to them for an advance in May and June.

Cross-examined. The cheque was not given to me to change.

GUILTYRecommended—to mercy by the Jury— Six Month' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-719
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

719. JOHN TODD (28) , was indited for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. CRISP conducted the Prosecution; and MR. WARNER SLEIGH the Defence.

JAMES BATSOX . I am clerk to the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and am duly authorised to administer oaths—I produce an affidavit filed in the cause of Hall v. Todd—John Toddisthe deponent—

he swore it on 1st July, 1867—this is my signature at the end of the jurat—I cannot identify the prisoner.

EDMUND ROBERT MILLER . I am a clerk to Mr. Lubbock, solicitor to the defendant in the action of Hall v. Todd—the deponent's signature to this affidavit is the prisoner's—there was an oversight in filing it, but directly I had an intimation I placed it on the file—the action has been discontinued and the defendant's costs taxed—they amounted to 5l. 10d.—the defendant's wife was a material witness—I drew up this affidavit myself; the defendant's statement was made to me in an ordinary and proper manner, and I then drew it up and immediately I received the summons I wrote to him to call at the office—he called the following day; I dotted down his answers in pencil and asked him to call the next day when I would have it engrossed, and he could swear it—the effect of the affidavit is not to prevent the plaintiff from recovering his money but to enable the defendant to put before a jury the real version of the story.

JOSEPH TRAVERS . I have been book-keeper to Mr. Hall, the prosecutor, nearly six years—I produce his day-book and ledger—the prisoner has dealt with Mr. Hall since 18th July, 1871—on 26th May, 1874, the prisoner gave me this acceptance for 18l. 6s.—it is his writing; it is entered to the prisoner's account as a payment on 26th May in the ledger—it next appears in the books on 29th September, 1874, when it was dishonoured—this (produced) is the delivery-book, by which I find that seven hides were received by the prisoner on 17th August, price 42s., and on 18th August, five hides and six dozen of straps 167. 16s. and on 25th August, five brown hides and five enamel hides 46l. 11s.—they are all signed by Todd—on 28th August, here is "J. Todd, nine dozen straps 3l. 7s. 6d., and on 29th one shoulder 10s., signed J. Todd—on 31st, one gross of straps 17s. 6d.—on September 9th, four hides 9l. 4s. signed J. Todd—I had prepared the previous accounts before August 17th, and sent a statement of them to the prisoner, ending 14th and loth August, 1874, which show a balance—I did not post the accounts myself. (The account showed a balance of 61l. 4s. 3d. up to 28th September, 1874). Acting on Mr. Hall's instructions I drafted out this bill of exchange produced—this is his signature as the drawer, and Todd's as acceptor—the bills when I received them were generally paid into the banking account—this bill was paid in with three or four others—I afterwards received it back from the bank dishonoured—it came by post—it was drawn on 7th December, the letter contained nothing but the bill—after that further goods were supplied to Todd—I never knew of an execution being put into Mr. Hall's house.

WILLIAM HALL . I am the prosecutor, and am a leather dealer at 29, Langham Road, Bermondsey—I think the first business transaction I had with the prisoner was on 18th July, 1871—I used to sell him enamel hides and straps—he generallj' paid once a week in cash; that continued for a time and afterwards I gave him credit—he gave me this bill (produced) for 18l. 6s. for goods supplied to him—I do not know whether it was met; I left everything to my book-keeper—I applied to Todd for the amount due to me in September, 1874, 64l. 4s. 3d.—I had a long talk with him respecting what he owed—he said he could not do anything for me at present as his landlord had been so kind to him as to let him come back to that place, that he must pay him first, but he would do something for me—I said I must have a bill or money, I must have it somehow or other; he would not give me a bill then—I subsequently received this letter from him, it is in

his writing. (This was signed by tlie prisoner, stating that he had better not give a bill, but would pay Mr. Hall as soon as he had paid his landlord.) I then went to the prisoner directly—he seemed frighteued to accept a bill lest he should be called upon when it was due, and I gave him this memorandum that if he could not take it up I would. ("I, William Hall, do agree to take up bill for 64l. 4s. 3d. when due.") he would not accept it unless I did that—I then received the bill and paid it into my bank in the usual way to be put to my account; I believe I took it to the bank myself; it was not met when it became due, it was returned to me, and my account was debited with the amount; I cannot find the debit here—I am in the habit of looking over my banker's book and every book, but I am no scholar, I never had any education—I find here in my book "Acceptance" withdrawn, 64s. 4s. 3d."—I bad had dealings with Mr. Todd before that bill became due and I gave instructions to Mr. Mogg, an accountant, to collect this 8l. 13s. 8d.—when the bill was drawn I gave it to Mr. Mogg to collect for me—the bill for 64l. 4s. 3d. was not an accommdation bill—I never offered to sell it to Mr. Matthews for 9l.—when I called upon Mr. Todd before the bill was given I did not state that a man was in possession of my goods under an execution—I did not ask him to give it to me for my accommodation, but for goods delivered, that I can swear—I am certain that he was indebted to me in that amount—I never had an execution or a distress for rent in my house, and never told Todd that I had.

Cross-examined. If I had said such a thing it would have been a sad mistake—I was in the service of a gentleman named Matthews, of 87 and 88, Great Russell Street, Berraondsey, before I went into business for myself—I left his service six years ago, I should think; I cannot tell you whether it was about November, 1870—I gave him notice because he ran from his word which he had promised me, that was the only cause that I know of my leaving, that I swear—I do not remember anything about six hides delivered to Warne—I used to have a delivery-book when in his service, a receipt-book with the goods in it—Mr. Matthews did not discharge me, decidedly not, I swear that—I saw that one of my receipt-books had a page torn out, that was shortly before I left the service, when I was pressing Mr. Matthews to carry out his agreement; he showed me the leaf, but what has that to do with me—he had several interviews with me on the matter, and we went to find it out, even to the printer, who made the book—Mr. Matthews made some remarks, but I cannot say that he complained, what nonsense?—Mr. Matthews complained that I had not accounted for six hides, which were delivered to Warne, and I went, I should think, twenty times to Warne to settle it, and got a paper from Mr. Warne to prove that the hides were never delivered to him—Air. Matthews did not point out to me a piece of the leaf remaining in this book—I cannot say whether this is the book (produced); I cannot say from the entries, as there were so, many of these books in use when I was there; I should not like to swear this is the book this is the first I have heard of it since I left Mr. Matthews, and I thought it was cleared up—I told Mr. Matthews that the hides had been delivered to Warne—Mr. Matthews never discharged me; I know he is here—I fancy I took the bill for 61l. 4s. 3d. to Mr. Todd when I went to see him after receiving the letter, and f left him the memorandum—I went to see him, I believe, in November about the small bill of 18l. odd which had been overdue some months—I will swear to anything I know—I may have asked him to pay the bill of 18l.—we say always that we must have some money—I

said that I had some very heavy bills to meet and must have the money—sometimes you cannot get money unless you press—I did not say that I had a writ against me and must have some, for I never had and I hope I never shall—I wanted to close his account as I was so disgusted with with the way he treated me—I thought if I had his name I had some chance to get the money—I did not say to him that I had need of money and must have it some way or other; I never used the words—I told the Magistrate the same as I have now, that I am always wanting money—we want to close accounts especially where they are so doubtful—when I gave him this memorandum I intended to help him to take the bill up if he wanted help, and I would have done so—I intended to take up part of the bill—I promised to take it all up if he could not, and I intended to take it all up—I did not want to pay a large sum of money into my bank it being Christmas, but when accounts are due I collect them—Mr. Todd did not tell me when I asked him to accept the bill for 61l. 4s. 3d., that he did not owe me anything, but that I had overcharged him upon all the hides I had sold him—I never said that I was obliged to charge 5s. extra where I ran a risk of not getting my money—I have seen a man Blackstaffe, in Mr. Todd's employ—he has been once or twice, he was not present when I went to get Mr. Todd to sign this bill, or at any interview when I spoke about the accounts; I am sure of that—I went to Mr. Todd at his office, and in his works, but I never spoke to him before Blackstaffe or his wife—Blackstaffe used to work in the shop—he did not remonstrate with me when I spoke about the 5s.; for doing business on such a principle—he was not constantly complaining to me of my charges to Mr. Todd, for the hides I supplied—I did not on one occasion call with my van and take away some hides from Mr. Todd's which 1 had supplied—I do not recollect sending my van to take away hides—Blackstaffe did not complain that some hides were undersized, and I did not send my van to take them away—I have no recollection of such a transaction, but it is not the first place where I have had to take away my hides—Todd never said that he did not owe the 61l. 4s. 3d.—he said that he did not think he should be able to sign the bill because he should not be able to meet it—I never told him that I had been accommodated by others in the same way, nor have I been so in Mr. Todd's case—I have not received bills from other persons for accommodation and given undertakings to pay them when they became due—I have given bills if I have borrowed money, but I do not do anything like that, especially at that time because I did not hardly know what the accommadation bill was, as you make out—I do not recollect whether his wife was present at the interview about the bill—he had an office and workshop—his wife was not present when I told him I wanted money and must have it—I called him aside and told him quietly that 1 must have the bill accepted, but it was not because I wanted money, but because I wanted to close the account—I have not been told that his wife will be called to-day—I have seen her—I do not know whether she can be called—I have come not to answer these questions, but to defend my reputation—I gave the bill to Mogg, two or three days afterwards—I did not went to press him, but he had acted very shabbily to me—the bill has been with Mogg ever sinee, but I have seen it several times and waited on him respecting it—he always kept the bill—I have not personally waited upon Todd respecting the bill, the accountant has done that, he is the proper man—I think Mogg mentioned that he had spoken to Mr. Matthews about the bill-Mogg never told me that he had endeavoured

to get Mr. Matthews to take up the bill, nothing of the kind—I had never heard of it before—I do not remember hearing it at the police-court—Mogg did not tell me that he had endeavoured to sell the bill to Matthews for 9l.—he did not tell me that he had told Matthews that it was an accommodation bill, but the third party could recover upon it—I think the only conversation I heard about the bill was that Matthews was there one day, and they took up this bill in the way of a joke and some remark passed about accommodation, and then Mr. Mogg said "Oh, I know better than that," because he audited my books and collected my debts—Mogg never bought any of my bills—Mogg said something to me about Mr. Matthews saying "Oh, it is only accommodation"—I do not know how long that was after the became due—it is no use to ask me questions like that—I think the conversation was at the time I mentioned, I paid a visit into Mr. Todd.

Re-examined. Mogg only acts as my accountant—he acted for Matthews too—I pay him for what he does—he audits my books, as I am no bookkeeper—no charge was ever made against me for dealing with hides improperly—when I pressed Todd for the money at Christmas, I had about 1,600l. to my account at my banker's excluding 500l. for the bills paid over the 19th (looking at his book)—I know I had nearly 2,000l. balance when the book was made up—it is not my custom to charge 5s. extra on hides.

THOMAS MOGG . I am an accountant of the Hackney Road—I collect accounts for the prosecutor, Mr. Hall, and audit his books—in March, 1875, I received instructions to collect a debt 8l. 13s. 8d. from Mr. Todd, and saw him on 27th March—he then paid 20s., and arranged to pay me 10s. weekly till the debt was paid—on 19th April, Mr. Hall handed me the prisoner's acceptance for 61l. 4s. 3d., requesting me to see Mr. Todd and make some arrangment for its payment, I saw Mr. Todd on 20th April, and said "I have called respecting Mr. Hall's account—you promised to pay me 10s. a week three weeks ago, and I have seen nothing of you since"—he said. "I understood that you would send for it"—I said "Not likely, it would never pay me to send here every week for 10s., you must send it to my office?"—he said "I will do so"—I then replied "There are three instalments due now, will you pay me those?"—he replied "I cannot"—I said "Will you pay any of them?—he said "I have just been across the water and have laid out all my money"—I said "I cannot take that excuse, besides there is your acceptance what are you going to do about that?"—he replied "When I accepted the bill, Mr. Hall gave me the undertaking, if I could not meet it he would take it up"—I said "Well he has taken it up, and here it is (showing it him), and you must make some arrangement about its payment?"—he said "Well, I cannot pay more than 1 am paying"—I said "As a matter of fact you are paying nothing, but if you were to keep up your engagement, it would be three years at this rate before that bill would get paid, that won't do!"—he replied "I cannot do impossibilities"—I said "I don't suppose you can, but—you must make some better offer then that?"—after considering a minute he said "Well, look up on Saturday, and see me on Saturday and I will pay you 2l. then, and I will see what arrangement I can make about the bill"—I said "Very well, I will call up between 1 and 2 o'clock"—I called at his place of business about 1 o'clock on Saturday; he was not there, I waited there three hours for him, but he did not come back, and I left my card with one of the men—on the following Monday, 26th April, he sent me 10s., reducing the amount to 7l. 13s. 8d.—I called about three weeks afterwards and Mr. Todd had then gone away and

left the place—the place was closed altogether, the shutters were up—about March or April, 1876, I heard that Mr. Todd was carrying on business in Wilderness Row, and I then took the bill down to Messrs. Milner and Clarke's office and saw Mr. Clarke, Mr. Hall's solicitor—I gave him certain instructions—the prisoner was summoned in the County Court for the smaller sum, and the 7l. 13s. 8d. was recovered by execution—I lost sight of the prisoner after that and have not seen him since, till these proceedings were taken—I found he was carrying on business in Goswell Road at the beginning of this year, and I then went to Mr. Clarke and gave him certain instructions—I have read the affidavit, which forms the subject of these proceeding?, in which it is stated the plaintiff offered to endorse the bill of exchange to one Mr. John Matthews—I know Mr. Matthews and collect his accounts in the same way as Mr. Hull's—the bill was in my hands from 19th April, 1875; to the time I gave it to Mr. Clarke in the present year—I had not made any reference to Mr. Matthews that this was an accommodation bill—T did offer to sell the bill to Mr. Matthews for 9l.—I have not said that it was an accommodation bill, and if sued for by a third party the full amount could be recovered—I never brought bills from Mr. Hall—Todd never made any representations to me as to an overcharge in his account, and never disputed the amount of 61l. 4s. 3d., on the ground that it was an accommodation bill.

Cross-examined. I knew that this action was proceeding against Mr. Todd in the Civil Court, and that while it was proceeding, and before Mr. Todd's costs were paid, a summons was taken out at the police-court against him—I was present at the pulice-court on the first hearing, and saw Mr. Fulton there—I instructed the solicitors in regard to the civil proceedings; the same solicitors are acting in the criminal proceedings—at the first hearing at the police-court Mr. Fulton objected that the summons could not be gone into while the civil action was pending—it was after that that the solicitors paid Mr. Todd's costs, and discontinued the action—I have never seen Mr. Matthews about the bill—I have seen Mr. Matthews, and conversed with him about the bill, about a fortnight after the writ was issued—I never had a conversation with Mr. Matthews about the bill before the civil proceedings commenced—I saw Mr. Matthews scores of times after the bill was in my hands, before the civil proceedings were issued—I collected Mr. Matthews' accounts, or attend to any bankruptcy matters for him—Mr. Matthews said he knew it was an accommodation bill—he did not use the words "It is worthless"—he said Mr. Hall would not dare go into Court with it because it was an accommodation bill—I did not offer to sell the bill at all—I have had other bills of Mr. Hall's left in my hands for eighteen months at the time; I have several at this time in my office—I believe it was taken down in ray depositions that Todd said he would pay me 2l. in cash, and he would see what he could do about the bill—they were read over to me—I cannot say whether anything was read over to me about what he said about seeing about the bill—I have not a copy of the depositions.

Re-examined. I have not seen the depositions since.

Witnesses for the Defence.

JOHN MATTHEWS . I am a leather merchant, of 45 and 46, Russell Street, Bermondsey—Mr. Hall was in my service about seven years ago—I have not seen the bill accepted by the prisoner for 61l. odd—I had a conversation with Mogg with rcference to a case he had in hand for me, and after wards asked

if I would speculate or not—I said "It all depends what is on"—he said it was on a bill—I said a bill was a very peculiar thing to speculate on, and I would not do so without I knew the parties—he said "You know the parties well"—I said "If that be so I can tell you who it is; Mr. Hall is the drawer and Mr. Todd the acceptor"—I told him I would not give a glass of ale for it, as it was an accommodation bill—he said it was not—I said I had seen what had satisfied me it was—he said an accommodation bill was as good as any other bill, if it went into a third party's hands, and asked me if I would not speculate 9l. on it—I said I would not be the third party.

Cross-examined by MR. CRISPE. No other sum beyond 9l. was mentioned—we were not chaffing, or laughing—I have a warm interest in Mr. Todd—I took a bill of sale on Mr. Todd's goods—the bill of sale was given about two days after the writ, I think.

Re-examined. I think 1 advanced about 8l. more than he was indebted to me before on the bill of sale—I have not the account of how much he was indebted to rue, but it was about 100l., odd altogether—I took a bill of sale for that and the money I lent him, 8l.—I think it was 8l., not 2l.

GEOKGE FREDERICK CACKSTAFF . In 1874 I was in Mr. Todd's employ—on one occasion I was instructed to communicate with Mr. Hall about some bides he had left and did so—the hides were afterwards taken away, I believe, by Mr. Hall in a van—I recollect a conversation about the charges for some hides—Mr. Todd complained to Mr. Hall of the excessive charge and said he could not carry on business if he paid such a heavy price for his goods—Mr. Hall said he was obliged to charge heavily for being behind hand; I do not exactly remember the words—I told Mr. Hall from what I understood of the price of hide I thought it was a very excessive charge—I have heard Mr. Todd complain to Mr. Hall on more than one occasion.

Cross-examined. I know just a little about hides, but not so far as to constitute me a judge of their value—the price would depend upon the quality—I think the conversation I have spoken of was in July, 1874—after the hides were taken away others were supplied by Mr. Hall, but in the meantime Mr. Todd purchased one at Mr. Franklyn's to go on with—I do not know whether they were supplied at the same price—prices varied according to the size—I do not think complaints of overcharges were made so much after that.

Re-examined. When the hides were taken away Mr. Todd did not have any to go on with his work, and sooner than stop his busines, he was obliged to send out for other hides.

JOHN OSBORNE . I live at 40, Charlotte Street, Barnsbury—I was formerly in Mr. Todd's employment—I recollect a conversation between him and the prosecutor which was recalled to my memory by hearing Mr. Hall say at Bow Street police-court that Mr. Todd owed him 61l.—the conversation took place at the latter end of 1874—I heard Mr. Hall ask Mr. Todd to accept a bill of 61l., and Mr. Todd refused him—Mr. Hall said he wanted the money and could not he accept that bill—Mr. Todd said "No, I do not owe the money"—Mr. Hall said "I know you don't, but I have a writ in the office and shall be sold up"—Mr. Todd accepted the bill on the ground that Mr. Hull gave him an 1 0 U for the amount—I fetched the paper but did not see what was written on it—I heard nothing said at any time as to the price of the hides.

Cross-examined. I was an apprentice with Mr. Todd—I have seen hides

come in and generally used to fetch them from Mr. Hall's—I made no payments on. behalf of Mr. Todd—I cannot say in which month in 1874 the conversation took place between Mr. Todd and Mr. Hall—Mr. Hall used to come once a week for the money—I do not know if receipts used to be given—I will swear that Mr. Hall said he had a writ in his place, and if he did not get some money he should be sold up in a few days—I have been in Mr. Todd's employment ever since; I do not know about any application about the bill for 61l. from Mr. Mogg.

By THE COURT. Todd was carrying on business in Parkfield Street in 1874—he remained there eighteen months—he then went to Leicester, where he stopped twelve weeks—he then came back and carried on business in Newington Green Road three or four months—he then went to Park Street, and is now in Goswell Road—we had no place of business in Wilderness Row.

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY Nine Months' Imprisonment.

THIRD COURT. Saturday, September 22nd, 1877

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-720
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

720. THOMAS CLEARY (24), and ELIZABETH SULLIVAN (22) , Feloniously stealing a purse and 9l. 16s., the goods of a person whose name is unknown.

MR. GILL conducted the Prosecution; and MR. FRITH defended Cleary and MR. PURCELL Sullivan.

EDWARD WILLIAMS (City Policeman 786). On the night of the 22nd of August, about 9.30, I was in Jury Street, Aldgate—I saw Sullivan with a drunken man and Cleary about 10 yards away—I watched and saw Sullivan with her arm round the drunken man's neck—she took him into a dark doorway where they stood a little while—I saw Sullivan with something in her hand, and she put it into her dress pocket—she said something and ran away—I ran and caught her—she said "I have done nothing"—Clearl then came up, and she took the purse from her pocket, and was in the act of passing it to Cleary—I caught hold of her hand with the purse in it and caught Cleary with the other hand—they struggled, and I was obliged to let Cleary go—I still held Sullivan—I asked the bystanders to assist me—the purse contained 7l. 10s. in gold and 2l. 6s. in silver—police constable Dixon brought Cleary back—he said "I don't know that woman."

Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I passed Cleary once or twice; a crowd collected—he stood about 100 yards off, and then came up and asked what was the matter—I might have said "She has stolen a purse"—Cleary did not say that he had done nothing, and that if he was to be accused he would go and find a policeman—he came up after I caught the woman—Cleary had a piece of rag round his finger—his arm was not in a sling.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I did not speak to the woman about the purse.

JOHN DIXOX (City Policeman 826). I took the prisoner Cleary into custody in the Minories—he said "It is a nice thing; I was passing along the street. I went to assist the detective, and he sends a man after me to stop me"—I took him back—he said "I do not know that woman, I never saw her in my life before"—I took him to the station and charged him.

Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. Cleary was walking with another man

in front of me—he had an umbrella in one hand, and a small piece of rag on the other.

Re-examined. The man the prisoner was walking with gave him into custody.


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-721
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

721. SAMUEL AYRES (23) , Robbery on Robert Thompson, and stealing 3l., his money.

MR. FOSTER READ, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-722
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

722. JOHN DILLON (20) , Robbery with violence on Hugh Paxton, and stealing his watch.

MR. DOUGLAS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. GILL the Defence.

HUGH PAXTON . I am an engineer and live at No. 9, Newill Street, Commercial Road—on the 2nd September I was in the Commercial Road about 7.30 p.m., not quite sober—I had a coat on my arm—there was a crowd; I was struck on the right side of the head and punched in the side and knocked down—I got up and was knocked down again—a man named Atkinson said "Look after your watch"—when I got up there was about 3 inches of guard left, and the watch was gone—the prisoner is the man who struggled with me—a crowd got round, and when a policeman came I gave him into custody.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. It was dark—I had met some old acquaintances whom I had not seen for sixteen years, and I had been out since 11 o'clock—I left the last public-house, the Britannia, about shutting up time, 11 p.m.—this affair occurred about a minute's walk from the Britannia—I did not push against the prisoner, nor swing my coat—the prisoner did not square up to me, nor I to him—oh, yes, I did swing my coat round and he did square up to me after I got up, both times—about twenty people got round—I am quite sure I had my watch before I fell—I do not know the prisoner except that being connected with engineering I know that his father is a respectable man.

EAGLE ATKINSON . I live at 62, Dixon Street, Limehouse, and am a miller—I was at the corner of Salmon's Lane, in the Commercial Road, on this night—I saw a crowd and the prosecutor and prisoner—I saw the prisoner knock the prosecutor's hat off—the prosecutor said "Go about jour business"—the prosecutor had a coat which he swung round as if to avoid being struck—the prisoner pulled the coat from his arm and knocked him down—the prosecutor got up, they struggled, and both fell—I advised the prisoner to go away—he said "What has it to do with you?" and then got in front of the prosecutor again and knocked him down and fell on him and hit him with his right hand and kicked him with his left foot—I said "Mind your watch, I believe he is after your watch"—they got up; I saw the chain hanging—a female called out "You scamp you have got his watch"—the prisoner ran after her and said "I'll smash your brains in if you talk to me in that manner"—he came back after his cap—a constable came up, I gave information of what had occurred, and the prisoner was taken into custody—I did not see anyone else meddle with the prosecutor; I saw the whole affair—I did not see the prosecutor push against the prisoner or assault anyone—he was walking on the pavement as if he had had a glass—he then had a chain; I saw it.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I was within 2 yards of the prosecutor all the time, and nearer when he was down—a crowd formed round me—I

heard the prisoner say to the prosecutor "Why do you insult me?"—the affair lasted about ten minutes.

WILLIAM THOMPSON . I was at Salmon's Corner on this night, about 8.30—I saw the prisoner try to trip the prosecutor up—they fell and got up again—the prisoner said "You deserve all you got, why do you interfere with me?" and they struggled and fell again, the prisoner on the prosecutor and the prisoner punched his left side, and I think be kicked him, but I won't be sure—they got up, the prisoner walked a little way backwards with his hands behind him—in two or three minutes a constable came up.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I saw Mr. Atkinson there—the prisoner knelt on the prosecutor's chest—I did not stand very near because I was afraid of being knocked.

JANE SEARLE . I am the wife of Charles Searle, and live at, Jamaica Place, I saw a crowd on this Sunday night—I saw the prisoner knock the prosecutor down—he got up again and fell on the top of him and punched him, and felt in his waistcoat pocket—they both got up and the prisoner stepped back and passed something to two other men who went in the direction of the church.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I was going home at this hour—I did not know anybody amongst the crowd, I spoke to the constable—I went to the police-station on the same Sunday evening, and told the inspector what I have just stated—I went to the police-court, but was not called, I went again on the Tuesday week, and gave my evidence, I did not speak to the constable in the meantime—my evidence was read over to me; I did say then that the prisoner passed something to two men behind him.

Re-examined. I saw something pass—I could not say it was the watch—I saw the chain hanging and said "He has lost his watch"—the prosecutor did not speak to me that night.

JAMES WILTON . I live at 144, Crosby Street, Poplar, I was the prosecutor swinging his coat, the prisoner knocked him down twice and took his watch and passed it to another chap—there was a crowd—I did not see the commencement of it.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. Mr. Atkinson was there, and about four dozen others; I saw the watch in the prisoner's hand—he stood there two or three minutes—I am a labourer; I was going to work—I did not know anyone in the crowd.

WILLIAM LIDDY (Policeman K 436). I took the prisoner into custody and charged him with stealing a watch—he said "I was going home with a girl," and when asked what more, he said "I'm not b——well going to tell you any more."

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. He complained that the prosecutor knocked against him—there were more than 100 people there when I got there—the last witness followed me to the station—he give his evidence after the prisoner was remanded: I have made inquiries about the prisoner and find that his father is a respectable man—the lad has been employed by a Mr. Fletcher—I have a letter from the foreman.

Re-examined. He was employed from 1872 to 1875; I cannot ascertain what he has been doing during the last four months, or anything about his associates.

GUILTY Fifteen Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-723
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

723. GEORGE ARTHUR (25) , Stealing a barrow, seventy plates, and other goods of Arthur Lyon.

MR. J. P. GRAIN for the prosecution offered no evidence.


17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-724
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

724. CHARLES VERE (38) , Unlawfully obtaining by false pretences 100l. from Robert Walter Feast, with intent to defraud. Another Count—making a false declaration on the 7th May, 1877.

MR. THORNE COLE and MR. DOUGLAS METCALFE conducted the Prosecution; and MESSRS. RIBTON and HORACE AVORY the Defence.

ROBERT WALTER FEAST . I am an auctioneer carrying on business at 71, Coleman Streeet, City—on 7th May last, I saw the prisoner at my office—he wanted 125l. of me—I said "I shall want a bill of sale on your furniture, and a declaration that the goods are free and unincumbered and that you are solvent"—that was supposing the goods to be of sufficient value—I showed him the form of declaration—he said he was perfectly solvent, he could make that declaration—he wanted the money to complete the lease of a house that was finishing at Wood Green—I went to see the furniture at his house in Ambler's Road, which articles are enumerated in the sehedule of the first bill of sale—the declaration was prepared—he read it at my office and signed it—its provisions were fully explained to him by me. (The declaration stated that the prisoner liad no other name, that he resided at 25, Ambler's Road, the goods were his sole and absolute property, and there was no other right or title to them, that they were not charged or incumbered in any way, and not on hire; that he made such declaration fully cognizant of the pains and penalties of making false declarations, that he was in a state of solvency, and all his liabilities exclusive of the bill of sale just given did not exceed 70l. It was signed, "Charles Vere," and declared at 25. Coleman Street.) I saw the prisoner sign it—with reference to his not owing more than 70l., I said you had better say 20l. above that—he said that was more than he owed—I then lent 105l. clear, reserving 20l. for my charges and interest—this was paid in different sums by cheque, as he said he was settling accounts for which he wanted the money to clear him—I found the furniture sufficient and the bill of sale was executed on the 7th May—it was not registered—it was part of the agreement that it should not be—it is a common thing not to register bill of sale for the purpose of keeping the name out of the trade circular—a second bill of sale, a duplicate of the first, was afterwards given which was registered—I believed the statement that the prisoner was solvent, and that he did not owe more than 70l. on which faith I parted with my money—I think it was on the 11th June that I heard of an execution on the prisoner's goods and that the Sheriff of Middlesex was in possession—the prisoner came to me and told me that he had got the Sheriff in—I said "What the dickens does this mean? I thought you didn't owe more than 70l. in the world"—he said he was very sorry; he did not think it would come to this—then. I said perhaps the best thing I could do would be to pay the Sheriff out if I got any more security, and he offered me his stock-in-trade in Jewin Street, and a bill of sale was prepared for 40l., and I was to pay the expenses and the amount of the execution by the Sheriff, 52l. 9s. if he would not withdraw—the stock was valued at 23l. by a clerk of mine—I did not see it then, I subsequently sold it and it realised 22l., I think, which money I retain at the present time—I have received notice from the bankruptcy people not to dispose of that money—I cannot use it—three or four days after the 11th June I heard of the prisoner-filing a Petition in the Court of Bankruptcy for liquidation—before 1 could deal with anything or do anything I was restrained by an order from the Court in consequence of the petition, and was prevented handing over the 52l. odd—I dare say the petition was filed on the 18th June, it was before I could

convert any security for my money—I was present at the meeting of creditors—Mr. Bordman the defendant's solicitor was there—I saw the defendant sign his statement of liabilities—the creditors came to no resolution. (the proceedings in Bankruptcy were put in.) There was an interpleader issue between the Sheriff of Middlesex and myself, which was to come on for trial at the Hertford Assizes—we did not go on with the action because the resolution under the bankruptcy proceedings failed, and if I went against the Sheriff I should have lost against the trustee, so a stet processus was entered—the sum total which the prisoner gives as his liabilities is 1,320l.—the furniture at Ambler's Road on which I advanced formed part of the assets, and passed to the different creditors—this is the prisoner's signature to his statement of affairs.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTOX. I have been well acquainted with lending on bills of sale for twelve years—I have forms of bills of sale and declarations regularly prepared and drawn up by the dozen, printed, which can be filled up with any name and amount—I have no doubt I said the same before the Magistrate that I have said here—I heard the case dismissed to the astonishment of everybody in Court—all the witnesses who are here to-day were not examined before the Magistrate—I cannot say how many were examined—my clerk was not examined—the prisoner when he asked me for the money was introduced by a Mr. Casey, not a friend or acquaintance of mine—he is a manager in a solicitor's office—I don't know that he is not a solicitor—I have known him for six or seven years—he was not in the habit of introducing people to me—he never introduced anybody to me before, he has been doing business during the six or seven years—I knew him by his being managing clerk to Messrs. Buchanan and Rogers, and I have come across him—I should have registered the bill of sale but for his being a clerk there—it was part of the understanding that it should not be, and it was to be reniewed every twentyone days—the prisoner first asked me for 120l. I did not ask for 35l. for myself—Mr. Casey was present when he came to apply for it, he was not acting for me—he saw the declaration and the bill of sale—I read them over and explained them thoroughly; I am in the habit of doing that—I found the furniture was unincumbered, and it would have been a sufficient security if the piano had not been on hire—I said before the Magistrate "The furniture after paying the Sheriff and the stock might, with care, have been sufficient to pay my debt;" which it might, with the security I then had—he did not say he wanted the money to pay pressing debts, but to pay the tradespeople engaged in finishing a house at Wood Green, because the lease would not be granted until the terms of the agreement had been complied with—I did not hear the Magistrate say that no jury would convict on the evidence—I was out of Court then; I gave the prisoner cheques for 35l., 45l., and 9l. 10s.—I gave him several small cheques—I cannot say whether the lease was in the possession of Casey—I did not ask him—he is clerk to the solicitors conducting this prosecution—the prisoner did not tell me that his pressing liabilities did not amount to more than 70l. I swear—I don't know what was asked before the Magistrate—the declaration of solvency was signed by the prisoner on the 29th May—my clerk Jones attested it—I cannot tell you the time of day it was signed—Casey had come the day before and said he would come the next day—the second bill of sale was signed in my office on the 29th May—I heard on the 11th June of the Sheriff taking possession for 50l.—my claim by interpleader issue was found on the second bill of sale, we went down to the Hertford Assizes to

try the issue, but it was not tried—my clerk went down with me; I dare say to swear he saw the prisoner sign the bill of sale on the 29th—I went down to prove that I paid the money on the 7th May—I was not present when the bill of sale was signed on the 29th May, my clerk told me that he was—I saw Mr. Ribton down there in Court, and I was told that the bankruptcy resolution was rejected and Mr. Kemp advised us that if we went against the Sheriff we should lose against the trustee—I did hear before I withdrew from the action that several witnesses were in the town from Boston, to prove that the defendant was in Boston on the 29th and could not have signed the document on that day, and that if my clerk got into the box he would be indicted for perjury and I for subornation—I think the debtor's solicitor said something of the kind; it was not on that account that I withdrew from the action—we instructed Counsel and paid the costs, 80l.—we could not get our costs—we were really fighting for the trustee—it was 100l. instead of 50l.—we were perfectly good as against the Sheriff—there is a third bill of sale, dated about the 11th or 12th June—I did not say before I got the third bill of sale that I was in a very awkward position with Vere—I told you what I said—I said "What the dickens does this mean?"—I told the prisoner at one interview that he had made a false declaration, and he said he was very sorry that he had done it—I certainly did not say "I cannot be the loser, if I can't have a pocket of meal I will have a pocket of malt;" that is an invention—he did not say "I cannot help it, you yourself misled me by asking me what I wanted the money for, and also as to my pressing liabilities,"or" Why did not you ask me what I owed altogether if that is what you meant"—I got the third bill of sale for 40l.—the prisoner's place of business was somewhere in Jewin Street—I didn't go myself—the business was that of women's underclothing—my clerk valued it at 23l.; that was after I got the order from the Court of Bankruptcy—I received a summons two or three times, but did not attend—I had an order from the Bankruptcy Court not to sell the stock; I sold notwithstanding—I told Jones not to attend the summons—Casey introduced the prisoner to me—I did not hear Casey ask the prisoner to read the paper over or the prisoner say to Casey "Must I sign it?" or Casey say "Sign anything he wants you to, only 1 must not be present"—Casey is here—I did not ask the prisoner whether he could not get some goods on credit, so that I might seize them, I could not seize what was not in my bill of sale—I believe there is an erasure in the second bill of sale, the "27th" being altered to the "29th"—I do not know when that was done—the 29th would not be late—it does not matter so long as you renew before the Sheriff seizes—it is good against the Sheriff—I don't think I ever had an interpleader issue directed before; one case of false pretences before, three years ago, I stood in the dock myself fourteen or fifteen years ago, 1863, with Henry Feast, my brother; we were both charged in 1865 with conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences; I don't see that that has got anything to do with this—I have been fourteen years in Coleman Street—my brother and I pleaded guilty and were sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment—I was well aware this was going to be asked, it was held as a threat over me I have been ever since that in the same ward and the same parish of the City of London—since that I have not had even a County Court summons or anything against me, and it is hard to bring this against me and make me lose this money, my client's money—I have lost 2,000l. in the last few months, simply because when anything happens this question is to be asked

—I did not start in the money-lending business at all—I went to a gentleman and learnt my business—my principal business is not lending money on bills of sale—I came back to London after the affair at Hertford—two months did not elapse before I summonsed the prisoner on this charge—I charged him before the Magistrate, I think, three days after the costs were taxed, perhaps a fortnight after the Hertford business, I think it was the 25th July—I got myself bound over to prosecute—the summons in bankruptcy was about a month ago.

Re-examined. So far as I know, Buchanan and Rogers knew nothing of Casey introducing the prisoner to me—the pianoforte was included amongst the furniture at Ambler's Road in the first bill of sale, it was, in fact, somebody else's—there was no fee offered me to go to the Court of Bankruptcy—I was advised not to go.

By THE JURY. Mr. Baron Huddleston made an order at Chambers for us to give up the piano—the Judge said it was not the prisoner's property—I signed an order for it to be given up, I was bound to—it had been on hire for about six months.

FREDERICK WILLIAM DENSE . I am a solicitor of 55, Coleman Street—I am also a Commissioner to Administer Oaths—this declaration was made before me on 7th May.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. A great many are made before me—I took a good deal of notice of this one—one or two clerks came from Mr. Feast's office with the prisoner—I have nothing to do with the contents of a declaration—I ask if it is his name and handwriting, and he says "Yes" I then ask him if the contents of the declaration be true.

JOSEPH PARKINS TRAOEY . I reside at 12, High Street, Colchester, and am a corn factor—I am one of the trustees under the marriage settlement of the prisoner's wife—on the 7th May the prisoner was indebted to me and my co trustee in a sum of 550l., which he had in December last—he had that at 5 per cent., and that interest, I think, added to the 550l., made it come to about 560l.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. It was lent to him by myself and co-trustee—the prisoner has no family; he has not long been married—it was for the benefit of himself and wife—I lent it to him on his responsibility; we did not intend to press him.

EDWARD AUSTIN . I am an upholsterer, of 14, Finsbury Pavement—on the 7th May last the prisoner was indebted to me in a sum of 33l. 10s. on a bill of exchange.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. That was not an accommodation bill—we do not deal in such things—it was an endorsement of one bill over to us—we supplied the prisoner with goods to the amount of 100l. odd, and he paid us with bills of his own and another bill of Mr. Wood, all of which are still dishonoured.

HENRY REVELL . I am master of the Leather Market Tavern, Bermoudsey, and am brother-in-law of the prisoner—oa the 7th May last the prisoner owed me for money lent, for goods, and so on, 127l. odd.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. I was not pressing him.

Re-examined. I proved my debt in the Court of Bankruptcy.

JOHN GAIN . I carry on business at 53, Coleman Street, and am one of the executors of Mr. Sturges—the defendant, on the 7th May, was indebted to him in a sum of 114l. 10s. 8d.

CHARLES SAMUEL DAKIN . I am secretary of a loan company, 3, Chancery

Lane—on the 7th May the prisoner was indebted to that company in a sum of 30l. 15s.

MR. DANGERFIELD. I am clerk to Mr. Shoolbred, 32, Nicholas Lane, bill broker—on the 7th May last the prisoner owed him 127l.

Cross-examined by MR. TIBTON. The money has not been paid; it is on three bills—here they are (produced): "Richard Morton Bell," accepted by Vere.

Re-examined. We have had many dealings with Bell.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I reside at 43, Gray's Inn Road, and am a costume maker—on the 7th May last the prisoner was indebted to me in a sum of 57l. 18s. 18d. for costumes.

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. A 50l. bill was given, accepted by Vere, drawn by me upon him—I was not pressing him—I should have let him have twice the quantity if he had applied for them.

MR. LOVE. I produce the bill of proceedings in the prisoner's liquidation on the 18th June—the prisoner's statement shows an indebtedness of 1,095l. 14s. 3d.

JOHN MOSS (City Detective Sergeant). I obtained a warrant at the Guildhall for the arrest of the prisoner—I arrested him on the 23rd August—I told him I was a police officer and had a warrant to arrest him for fraud—I read the warrant to him and he said "Yes, it's the usual form. I have been expecting something of this kind."

Cross-examined by MR. RIBTON. He was charged with fraud only—I read the warrant to him—I know nothing of any declaration—I said nothing about a false declaration—he said "It's the usual form;" I understood by that, the warrant.

Monday, 24th September, 1877.

ROBERT WALTON FEAST (further Cross-examined). Casey got nothing from me—I believe the prisoner gave him something for the introduction; 5l. 10s. he owed him—I drew a cheque for 5l. 10s. which was given to Casey—it was out of the money I lent the prisoner—I was cross-examined before the Magistrate; I did not say "The defendant said he wanted 125l. to pay pressing emergencies."

By THE COURT. The furniture on which the bill of sale was given was quite new furniture.

Witnesses for the Defence.

THOMAS JOSEPH C. BORDMAN . I am a solicitor of the firm of Parker and Boardman, and have been the prisoner's solicitor for some time—I was managing the affairs of the bankruptcy at the time of the liquidation proceedings—his trade liabilities on the 7th May were: to Messrs. Foster and. Co.,2l. 14s.; the Boswell Mills, 10l.; Messrs. Harris and Co., of Nottingham, 3l. 18s. 18d.; W. Webber, 57l. 18s. 2d.—there is a liability of 550l. to Blyth and Tracey, the wife's trustees, and there is a liability to his brother-in-law of 30l.—the trade debts only on the 7th May would be under 70l.—Mr. Feast applied at the first meeting of creditors with Mr. Casey—I went down to the pending trial of the interpleader acton; I spoke to Mr. Barnett, a solicitor, and he brought Mr. Feast to me and I told Mr. Feast that Mr. Bell and a number of other witnesses were in attendance to state that on the 29th May, the date of the bill of sale, Mr. Vere was not in London, and that he had not been in London until close upon the 11th June, and that if Mr. Feast persisted with that interpleader action, Jones, the attestingng

witness of the bill of sale, would undoubtedly be convicted of purjury—Mr. Feast said he did not believe that that was so—I told him he had better go to Mr. Casey, because I had been told that Mr. Casey knew all about that; that he knew Mr. Vere was at Boston and when he returned from Boston—I saw him in conversation with Mr. Casey, and shortly afterwards they withdrew the case—I have a distinct recollection cf it; so distinct a recollection of it that I offered to explain it before Alderman Nottage on the summons when Mr. Barnett, who was instructing Mr. Cole, said "No, Mr. Cole wished me to explain it," but Mr. Burnett said "No, don't; there are the assets on the 7th May"—as a matter of fact I know he had money in the bank; between 40l. and 50l.—it does not say so here—this is a statement of affairs which states his position on the filing of the petition—it does not relate back—on the 7th May the prisoner's stock-in-trade would be worth at lean 160l. to 170l.

The prisoner received, a good character.

GUILTYRecommended to mercy— Four Months' Imprisonment.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-725
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

725. THOMAS RAPHAEL BUTLIN (24) , Stealing a diamond ring and other articles of Frank Flower, his master.

MR. ROBERT WILLIAMS conducted the Prosecution; and MR. BESLEY the Defence.

FRANK FLOWER . I am a jeweller and silversmith, of 3, Piccadilly, and was formerly for ten years salesman to Messrs. Streeter, during five years of which time the prisoner was also salesman there—these are a couple of agreements made between the prisoner and myself produced and dated 21st and 25th August, 1876, respectively; one is an agreement employing his services for three years and the other as to a loan by which the prisoner engaged to repay to me and his mother 200l. each which had been advanced to him. (The agreement engaging the prisoners services stipulated that he should receive a salary of 100l. per annum, payable monthly, and a commission of 5 per cent, on sales, to have use of rooms on upper floor, dec.) The prisoner entered into my service as my salesman in pursuance of that agreement and had my confidence—his commission for six months, from 1st October, 1876, to 31st March, 1877, amounted to 240l.—there is a matter of 80l. owing to me of the advance—I take stock of my own goods every six months, and those on sale or return I check every six or eight weeks—I keep a small book of each man's stock—when I was last stock taking I missed a small ring worth 15l.; that was the first thing I missed; I did not pay much attention to that—on 28th August I was taking my approbation stock, and after going, through it I missed one pair of diamond earrings, value 60l., and another diamond ring, value 21l.—I made search the whole day for those things—I spoke to the prisoner towards the evening—I said "I cannot find those things, I am going to search for them again," and he took hold of my hand and said "I took those and other things besides, more than you think of"—I said "How is it that I don't miss more?"—he said "When you were calling over I passed other articles than those you asked for"—I was calling a certain ring and he would pass another ring in the place of it—I then let him go upstairs while I went through the same stock, which I did with my boy to see what really was missing—after that I told him I missed a great many more rings and he said "Yes," and he handed me seventeen pawn tickets—I then took a little time for consideration and decided that I must give him into custody, and I went to Vine Street and stated the case to the sergeant there—a detective returned with me and he was given into custody.

Cross-examined. I left Streeter's in July, 1875—I was manager there for I ten years—I believe the prisoner was apprenticed there and paid a premium 1 of 100l.—the Leeds Exhibition was the same Summer that I left Streeter's—I began business for myself in July at 81, King Henry Road—I never pawned I an article in my life that I know of, or put it on deposit—I don't quibble—this (being referred to an entry) was not mine, that was done for a client of mine, a distinct bussiness transaction—I did the act of pawning for the lady—that is my signature to the date of 4th October, 1875—ic was a necklace of sixty-two stones and three drop diamonds pawned for 400l.—I swore before Mr. Newton that I never pawned any article for myself—I have nothing to conceal—I said the goods were Mrs. Cowan's, to the best of my recollection—the sixty-two stones and three drop diamonds formed one necklace, value, I should say, 600l., not over 1,000l.—I said to Mr. Newton "I never pawned, or caused to be pawned, an article in my life," referring to my own business, it was done by Mrs. Cowan's instructions, the pawning being at 78, Strand, corner of Salisbury Street—my address was at that time, 81, King Henry Road; I believe I gave that address as a guarantee I that I was a respectable man—I have no recollection of pawning other property of large value—the value of the property was estimated at 1,000l.—I forget what I asked to be advanced, I should think 300l. or 400l.—pawnbrokers advance about a third—I have not the slightest recollection of ever offering anything else—I don't think I was refused an advance on jewellery 1 took there—I was on the look out for premises at the time I got the 300l. advance—I should think I was in negotiation for 3, Piccadilly, about January or February, 1876—I never had an idea of taking Butlin as a partner—I issued circulars announcing that he had joined me as an assistant—I caused the advertisements to be inserted announcing that he had joined me, never that he was my partner, I say positively—I do not understand the meaning of the expression "beneficial owner of the property."

By MR. WILLIAMS. I stated the facts fully to my solicitor, and left him to shape the indictment accordingly.

By MR. BESLEY. I did not get a list from Streeter of their customers and send round my circulars to them—I did not carry them in my head after ten years, I exhibited a letter of Mr. Streeter's in my office at Piccadilly—I was desirous in February, 1876, that Butlin should join me—the solicitors I employed were Messrs. Matthews and Co., of Bedford Row—their clerk was Mr. Swaine—I knew that the 200l. I lent, and the 200l. his mother lent was to pay a pawnbroker a sum that had been advanced on certain goods; I knew Matthews and Co. as Butlin's solicitors only—I do not know that they were bringing actions against pawnbrokers that they might have to give up the property—the money was to be paid over to pawnbrokers to relieve certain goods,. some might belong to Mr. Webb, so that the money went to redeem property as early as February 1876—Butlin's salary was paid to him on the first of every month—he was given into custody on the 28th August—he had been paid on the 1st August—the time had not arrived for me to go through with him, the commission account from 31st March, 1877, up to the time of my giving him into custody—I had back 130l. of my 200l., the commission from 31st March up to the time I gave him in custody amounts to 70l. odd—a lady to whom you allude put a large amount of money into my business, which I was to invest to the best of my ability in jewellery—she was always satisfied with my judgment, and her own being perhaps as good as mine, she satisfied me—a much larger

sum than 150l. was received by me from that lady of quality, for the purpose of buying a set of earrings, which were afterwards sold to a noble Marquis for 825l.—those earrings were bought between us in partnership for 400/.—this lady did not care to give the credit, and I gave her a certain fixed sum down, as her profit on them viz., 70l., I taking the whole responsibility of the thing on myself—I was giving what 1 considered a long credit—I did not represent that those earrings had been bought for 350l. when in fact I bought them 300l.—I did not cause an invoice to be made out as if those earrings had been purchased from a person of the name of Abrahams, he cannot write—I have had lists made out, but never made use of them beyond my own business—Abraham's name was put in the list because he was a dealer—the articles were never bought for him; some articles were had from him—I have no recollection of asking Mr. Butlin to write the name of Abrahams and he declining saying "The lady will know my handwriting;" and I did not say "I will get Lanthal the boy to do it"—he did not say "It must open the eyes of the boy a great deal"—there is no partnership between the lady of quality and myself—I have the agreement for the loan here—I cannot recollect what the ring on the 12th March was pawned for—I have seen the tickets relating not only to ray property, but that of Messrs. Blogg and Martin—I have heard since that they entrusted the three rings to Butlin—I could not identify as to whose property it was when before Mr. Newton—I did not look over the articles and swear that Messrs. Blogg and Martin's were mine; I believe 87l. 10s. was the amount for which the property belonging to me was pawned—the pawn-tickets referring to the Hon. Mrs. B.'s property were for the sums of 15l., 17l., 16l., and 33l. altogether—it did not come to my knowledge until after this affair that the Hon. Mrs. B.'s property was absolutely lent, not to be redeemed until the month of October next—I did not know that Butlin was actually in treaty for a loan to be made for him in October—I know Mr. Lynch by sight; he was not a gentleman who promised to make a loan in October—I never permitted Butlin to wear the jewellry—I have never seen him wear anything in my presence, neither pin nor studs—I did not know that the ring and pin had been pledged over and over again and redeemed—I do not remember what you refer to by a moss agate box of the Hon. Mrs. B.'s being entrusted to me to sell; yes, there was something sold for her; Butlin sold it, he was entitled to commission on everything he sold—I do not think the box sold for anything like 30l., whatever price I returned to her I gave her a cheque for and she was perfectly satisfied—I had no diamond brooch belonging to Mrs. H., of St. John's Wood—I did not enter into any arrangement to make it up in rings and charge her just the price of the settings—with Mrs. B. I have had such transactions—the prisoner was not entitled to commission on those rings—the cost I returned to Mrs. B. of making up the rings was 70l.—I think it cost more than 30l.—for the first twelve months I had implicit confidence in Butlin, and he was trusted with property to the amount of several thousand pounds.

Re-examined. At the police-court I identified things only as my own and not others—Butlin was a very good salesman and I was anxious to secure his services—he was well known to persons who buy jewellery—the advertisement stated that he joined mo, not as a partner, but as an assistant—I said nothing to a contrary effect in the agreement—I did not draw the indictment; I left that to other people—I did not suggest that expression being put in stating that Butlin was a beneficial owner—I had not access to

any of Streeter's books but my own sale book; I had no opportunity—there was a slight balance in my favour on the commission account between Butlin and myself—respecting the 825l. for the earrings I gave twelve months credit and stood the whole risk, and the lady had returned to her 200l. capital and 70l. profit—the 200l. capital was in my hands for a few months only—I took the difference, she having declined to give credit at all—there is do truth in the suggestion that I have made up a list of invoices in the name of Abrahams with the intention of doing it fraudulently—I have a book containing an account with each of my wholesale dealers of goods on sale and return—I have one relating to the rings in this indictment (produced)—one ring in April is struck out as returned, which I have since indentified at the pawnbroker's, and also a set of diamond studs is struck out as being returned.

Further cross-examined. The pawnbroker produces the ring of the 12th May. (The pawnbroker's assistant did so.) I do not know that that is the ring referred to as being struck out—the ring, No. 1,256, with a pen run through it, is returned from Webb and Co.; the same people who brought the action for 400l.—it is entered in January, 1877—I swear that is one of the rings; the number is scratched on it, that is how I identify it—there are three single-stone diamond studs entered in this book as 1,648—I do not think you would find 1,648 on so small a thing; they came from Webb and Co.—I kept one commission book and the prisoner kept one—I have not taken possession of everything in the upper part of the premises, 3, Piccadilly—there is 543l. odd brought forward which I am giving him commission on—the previous half-year which he is to have the benefit of, I have credited him with 45l.

Further re-examined. Butlin has never complained of my neglecting to account to him for commission—this is the first time that anything of the kind has ever been imputed to me—I have not got Mr. Butlin's commission book, and I do not know where it is.

JAMES NEWBY (Detective Officer C). On the 28th August the prosecutor came to Vine Street station and made a communication to me—I went with him to 3, Piccadilly, to the second floor front room occupied by the prisoner, and told him he was charged with stealing rings and other articles of jewellery the property of his master—he said, turning to the prosecutor "Oh, do forgive me, don't lock me up"—I asked him if he had got any more pawn-tickets—he said "Yes," and he took me upstairs to a room above and gave me fifteen more pawn tickets, saying "They are mine"—I then took him to the station and found on him a watch, a ring case, and a pencil case—I produce the pawn-tickets.

Cross-examined. I was not shown the agreement which has been read—I knew nothing about the relations between these parties—I disturbed nothing in the room—I have looked to see whether there were any more pawn-tickets—I never saw any commission account books.

HAROLD GILBERT . I am assistant to Messrs. Dobree and Freeman, pawnbrokers, of 318, Strand—I produce a diamond ring pledged with me on the 12th March, 1877—it was pledged with me in the name of Harry White Carlton—I do not remember who pawned it.

FRANK FLOWER (re-examined). I identify this by its number.

Cross-examined. I cannot say whether the person who pawned the ring was wearing it—it was the first transaction we had—I afterwards had another transaction with the same person, a pin and ring—he wore the pin

at the time—the retail value of the ring of the 12th March would be about 14l. or 15l.—he only asked 4l.

GEORGE WHITE . I am assistant to Thomas Sutton, of 17, Stockbridge Terrace, pawnbroker—I produce a diamond ring and duplicate for it (produced), pledged for 6l. in the name of Thomas White, 14th March—I do not remember by whom.

Cross examined. The retail value of it would be about 12l. or 15l.; 6l. was all that was asked—that was the first transaction—we advance what the articles will fetch in trade—sometimes more than others.

EDWARD PENASTON . I am assistant to Mr. Edward Smith, pawnbroker, of 67, Buckingham Palace Road—I produce a set of diamond studs pledged by the prisoner on the 31st March, 1877, in the name of Henry Christie, Carlton Villas, Sutton.

Cross-examined. Butlin had previously pledged this set of studs with Mr. Smith—5l. was advanced on them—the retail value would be about 15l. or 16l., it might be a little less—I believe this to be the same set of studs we received on the first occasion, the 19th December, 1876—I am accustomed to see jewellery—the set of studs was redeemed on the 21st December, and were pledged again on the 28th of December, and redeemed again on the 30th—I believe they were the same—Butlin has pledged other property at our place—I cannot recollect as to a pin—I believe this gold Albert chain (produced), to be the same that has been pledged on several occisions, six or seven times—I believe on every occasion he detached it from his watch—I believe the studs were not taken from his shirt front—I remember a diamond ring being pledged for 25l.—it was pledged on the first occasion, on the 24th March, 1877, but I had previously seen what I believed to be the same ring as this—it was not offered in pledge then, although some remarks had been made about it—he was not wearing it; it is a lady's ring—about October or November, 1876, we had a diamond pin in the window we valued at 30l., which Butlin wanted to buy and spoke of pledging the ring in consequence, but we sold it to another customer before he made up his mind—he would redeem these articles from time to time mostly by money—I think the first transaction with him was concerning the pin—I do not recollect seeing him before that—I did not have these in October, 1876, to my knowledge.

FRANK FLOWER (re-examined). I identify this ring and set of studs, and the ring produced by Mr. White, by the numbers scratched inside each ring, and their general appearance.

Witnesses for the Defence.

PETER LYNCH . I am of New York, and am studying medicine in this country; I have the means of raising monies for persons desirous of borrowing—I promised to lend Butlin 200l., about a week or ten. days before his arrest—he was to have had it in October.

Cross-examined. I have been in this country about a year—I have not yet entered any hospital—I have been stopping in two rooms that Butlin had in Mr. Flower's house; I cannot say whether unknown to Mr. Flower—I could get the 200l. by simply writing to my father and mother's executors in New York—I have not written to New York, in consequence of the arrest—I was not aware of this jewellery being pawned, and on my first impression I was very much disappointed in the man—I think 1 first met Butlin at the Criterion—I was introduced by a mutual friend—I suppose I I have talked to him about America—there was to be no security for the

200l.; I have every confidence in the world in him—he had not told me he intended going to America at the latter end of this year—I understood he wanted the money as he was in debt to Mr. Flower, and he said it caused him considerable trouble.

Re-examined. My father was a wholesale provision dealer—he died in July, 1874; I am inheriting property from him—I have entered at a hospital, as I took this year for a holiday—but for this prosecution I should have got the money and lent him; I am allowed an income by my father's executors now of 50l. a month.

FRANK STEWART BASTOW . I now live in Bedford Place—I knew Butlin well before I went abroad, and since my return I have renewed my acquaintance with him—he told me he was in trouble, the very day he was taken I nto custody—he wanted 87l. 10s. to redeem jewellery, and I should most certainly have lent him the money but for this prosecution.

Cross-examined. I have heard Mr. Webb's name, but do not know anything of him—I have heard him spoken of as urging Mr. Flower to prosecute in this case—I was not aware that Butlin had pawned jewellery, which belonged to Mr. Webb—I knew he had pawned other goods which were entrusted to Mr. Flower, but I did not know whose they were.

Re-examined. I think I was prepared to have put down 500l. if he had asked me.


There were other indictments against the prisoner, as to which the prisoner entered into his own recognizances to appear if called upon.

NEW COURT.—Monday, September 24th, 1877.

Before Mr. Recorder.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-726
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

726. SOLOMON WISEBAUM (46) , Obtaining by false pretences from Bernard Goldberg 4l. 15s.; his money

MR. TICKELL conducted the Prosecution; and MR. FRITH the Defence.

BERNARD GOLDBERG (interpreted). I am a tailor, of 8, Brick Lane, Spitalfields—I met the prisoner on a Friday, I cannot tell the date, in the Commercial Road—I was with my friend, whose real name is not Abraham Goldberg, I call him Abraham—he said "It is hard times"—the prisoner said "Lots of people go away from here"—I said "I should like to go, but I have got no money for my passage"—he said to my friend "I could send you away and Mr. Barnard to Australia, and to-morrow morning between 10 and 11 o'clock, I shall meet you here at the same place"—he then asked how much money we had—I said "We have got about 2l. 10s."—he said it would cost 5l. or 6l.—I said "I have got 30s., and my friend has got 1l."—he said "You can pay this on account, and pay the rest nest week"—when he got to Haydon Square, he said he wanted a sovereign before he went into the office—I gave him a sovereign—we all went into No. 6, and into a room on the first floor—another gentleman was there, who said "This is my partner, we send away people"—he had a book before him—the prisoner said "They are the men who want to go to Australia"—the gentleman said "How much money have you got?"—I said "I have 30s. with me"—I gave the 30s. to the prisoner, and the other gentleman gave me a receipt, and said "Next Monday you bring me the rest"—we met again on the following Monday in Backchurch Lane, by appointment, and the prisoner told us to meet them in Haydon Square, and he would go another way—we went to Haydon Square, and saw the same gentleman in a room—he

asked for the rest of the money—I said "I have got it, less 5s."—he said "Next Saturday you shall have a letter, and you will find out by what ship you will go"—I gave the prisoner the money, and he handed it over to the other gentleman, who gave me a receipt.

Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate "I met the prisoner in the street, and said 'I want to go to Australia'"—the prisoner spoke first—he did not say he had heard of a society at 6, Haydou Square for sending people away—I saw the prisoner's daughter after I paid the money—the prisoner did not give her a half-crown to take to her mother, nor say he should require a half-crown for his trouble—he handed the money over to the other gentleman—I do not know a Mr. Albert, I gave the prisoner the sovereign for his trouble.

Re-examined. I believed I was going to Australia, or I should not have given the sovereign to him, or parted with any of the money—I never received the promised letter—I gave up the receipt to the police.

ABRAHAM GOLDBERG, alias POSHLONIK (interepted). My real name is Poshlonik—I live now at No. 2, Fleet Street—I was with my friend Bernard Goldberg (I cannot recollect the date), when I met the prisoner at the corner of Backchurch Lane—my friend began to speak to the prisoner and said "These are bad times, we have got no employment"—some men came up and said "What are you talking about?"—the prisoner said "There's lots of people goes away from here"—we said "We should like to go to Australia as well, but we have not got sufficient money to go with?"—the prisoner said "It would not cost you much, for between 5l. and 6l. you can go off"—we said "We have only 2l. 10s. between us"—he said "I and my friend could send you away to Australia tomorrow morning when you have got the money, we can meet at the same place between 11 and 12 o'clock"—on the Saturday we went to Haydon Square, the prisoner telling us to go another way—he said that was the office—we went into a room at No. 6—a gentleman was sitting at the table—the prisoner said "They have not more than 30s. about them"—the gentleman said "They can give me the 30s. and they can bring me the rest next Monday"—we gave the 30s. to the prisoner, who handed it to the gentleman; the prisoner had said "Before I go in give me a sovereign, and then I will go in"—he did not say why I was to give it to him, nor anything about a ticket, but that he would send me away—we made an appointment to meet on the Monday, and on the Monday we went to Haydon Square and into the same room, and gave the prisoner 2l. 5s., who handed it to the gentleman at the table—we parted with the money because we believed we were to be sent away; we had a receipt for the 30s., which was returned, and this one given us for the 3l. 15s.;—" Received from Mr. E. Goldberg and Mr. B. Goldberg, 3l. 1s., for forwarding to Australia H. Bow."

Cross-examined. I used the name of Goldberg because the prisoners said it is better to go in one name, and the receipt was made to say the same—I did not see the prosecutor give the prisoner half a crown, nor did I give one myself, nor hear the prisoner say he should require some money to be given him for taking the prosecutor—I thought the prisoner was a partner in the firm—I did not know that he was working at his trade—I went to the prisoner's house after we had paid the money—he said we should receive an answer—I did not see his daughter.

CAROLINE LANE . I keep a private hotel at 6. Haydon Square—I do not

know the prisoner as being in our house—there is no room used as an office there.

Cross-examined. A gentleman asked me to let him have the use of a room for a friend of his, and he used to come in—I do not know what took place—I supplied stout and ale, the waiters took it in—the room on the ground floor is a large dining-room for gentlemen.

JOSEPH BUNYAN (Policeman H 62). The prosecutor gave the prisoner into custody, on 22nd July, for obtaining money by false pretences—the prisoner said when I took him to the station that the prosecutor gave him a half-crown for what he did.

Witnesses for the Defence.

FANNT WISEBAUM . I live at 26, Everard Street, and am the prisoner's daughter—the prosecutor came to see my father before breakfast; I cannot remember the date—my father is a boot finisher—I was calling my father to breakfast when the prosecutor gave him a half-crown—father said "Go and give it to your mother"—I did not hear what else was said, I did not see any sovereign.

ALLEN ASHBOURNE . I live at 14, Boy Street, and am a tailor—I went with the prosecutor and the prisoner to 6, Haydon Square, on 14th July—I saw the prosecutor pay some money to a gentleman who was writing in a book at a table, and who said if he would be ready to go away he would send him. a post-card.

Cross-examined. He said to Australia; I wanted to go as well.

BECKERMAN (interpreted). I remember the prosecutor coming to the workshop when the prisoner was at work, and asking him if he could tell him where to go to a shipping office—the master would not let him go; the prosecutor said he would pay him for loss of time, and he went—I did not hear anything about the amount.

Cross-examined. I do not recollect the date when this conversation took place—it is a long time ago—the prisoner has been about ten weeks in prison—I think it was about three months ago—Mr. Goldberg was not alone—I was not called at the police-court.

HARRIS DAVIS . I am a master shoemaker, at 35, Everard Street—the prosecutor and another man came to my shop and asked for the prisoner, and said to him "I shall pay you for your trouble"—I told them I must not work on Saturday like the Christians, but I must work on the Sunday, and I objected to his leaving his work till it was finished—he went, and was away more than half a day—I have employed him half a year—he is an honest, hard-working man, and earns more than 30s. a week.

Cross-examined. I do not know the day of the week this took place; it was Monday, I think—I do not know the month—it was three or four weeks before the prisoner was taken into custody—I never saw Bernard Goldberg before—he did not say what he wanted the prisoner for.

MARY BARNETT . I saw Bernard Goldberg pay the prisoner a half-crown; I do not know what it was for.

Cross-examined. It was given to the prisoner in his room on a Monday, I don't remember the month—I and the prisoner's wife were present, and Fanny and the other children—it was about 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning.

GUILTY Nine Months' Imprisonment.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, September 25th, 1877.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant,

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-727
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

727. JULIA POUNTNEY (19), was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury on a charge of rape made by her at the Marylebone police-court.


THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, September 25th, 1877.

Before Mr. Common Serejant.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-728
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

728. JAMES GLAVE (42) , Unlawfully failing to discover to his trustees part of his property, his affairs being then under liquidation.

MR. F. H. LEWIS and MR. TICKELL con ducted the Prosecution; and MR. SERJEAST BALLANTINE and MR. STRAIGHT the Defence,

THOMAS BLACKLOCK . I am a clerk in the Bankruptcy Court at Leeds—I produce the proceedings in the petition for liquidation filed by John Edward Bennett and James Glave, of 45, Cheapside, London, and of Leeds, woolen manufacturers, and trading as Bennett and Glave—the petition produced was signed on the 16th of April, 1875, and was filed in the London Bankruptcy Court on the 20th April—the first meeting of creditors was on the 7th May, 1875—I produce the accounts filed by the prisoner—the liabilities are put at 25,610l. 8s. 9d.: unsecured creditors, 25,084l. 4s. 9d.; fully secured, 21,000l. 19s. 5 d.; securities held by them, 22,062l.; creditors fully secured, 176l. 16s. 10d.; value of their securities, 100l. 12s.; liabilities on bills, 2,0161l. 19s. 5d., of which only 450l. was expected to run against the estate, giving as total liabilities, 25,610l. 8s. 9d.—the total assets are 18,896l. 2s. 10d., as shown by the statement and including the amount supposed to be over and above the securities—the appointment of Mr. Henry Bull, as receiver, is dated the 13th April, 1875; and the appointment of James William Coles, as trustee, is dated 2nd June, 1875—I also produce the examination of the bankrupt taken at Leeds, on 25th April, 1877; also what I call an order to prosecute, by the Judges of the Court—the words are "To be at liberty to prosecute"—there is also an order of commitment.

ANDREW CALDECOTT . I am one of the firm of Caldecott, Sons, and Co., of Cheapside—we were customers of Bennett and Glave—I paid them 30l. 16s. on 8th April, 1878; on the 10th, 20th, and 15th, 82l. 12s. and 10l. in cheques which have passed through my bank and have been paid.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. The prisoner was the partner in London, the other partner was at Leeds—I have dealt with them some two or three years—I do not know the prisonor personally.

JOHN BATLAND PONSFORD . I am a woollen warehouseman, in partnership with Mr. Southall, in Cannon Street—we were customers of Bennett and Glave—I paid them in April, 1875, 80l. 18s., and on 12th April 59l. 8s.; both cheques passed through my bankers.

Cross-examined. I had known the firm twelve or fifteen years—they carried on a very large business—the prisoner was always an upright, honourable man; ho has about nine children.

JOHN BALDERO . I am a clerk to Messrs. Spencer and Co., of Lisson Grove—the cheque dated 9th April, 1875, for 123l. 4s. passed through our bunk, it is payable to Bennett and Glave.

Cross-examined. We have carried on business with the firm for eight or nine years—we considered the prisoner perfectly upright and trustworthy.

JAMES WATT . I am ledger clerk to Messrs. Routledge and Co., of Cannon Street—we were customers of Bennett and Glave—we paid them the follow cheques: 12th April, 1875, 30l.; 15th April, 10l. 15s. 6d.; those cheques have been paid by our bankers.

GEORGE HERBERT LADBURY . I am an accountant at Cheapside—the cheque for 31l. 10s. 9d. of 2nd April, 1875, was made payable to Messrs. Bennett and Glave with respect to a dividend upon an estate of which they were creditors, and was paid through our bankers.

GEORGE MORTON . I am a partner in the firm of G. and J. Morton, of No. 39, Cheapside—I have known the prisoner many years—in 1875 I received the following cheques from him: 9th April, 123l. 4s.; 12th, 59l. 8s. and 30l., 8l. 13s., 68l. 3s. 9d., 82l. 12s., and 34l. 10s.; I also received in cash on 9th April 65l.; altogether I received 471l. 10s. 9d. which was paid into my own banking account—I also paid him the following cheques: April 10th, 5l. 17s. 7d., 9l. 0s. 6d., and 2l. 8d.; 13th, 10l. 8s. 7d., and cash, 9l. 10s. 3d.; 14th, 10l. and 6l. 2s.; 16th, 10l. and 47l.; 28th, cash, 12l. 10s. 6d.; 30th, 30l., and cash 5l.; May 1st, 20l.; and the following are all cash: 5th, 12l.; 10th, 15l.; 15th, 15l., 18th, 5l.; 21st, 12l.; 25th, 5l.; 29th 10l.; June 4th, 5l.; 5th, two items of 7l. 5s. and 5l. and 2l. 5s.; 9th, only 10s.; 11th, 5l.; 12th, 5l.; 14th, 5l.; 17th, 5l.; 19th, 12l.; 25th, 5s.; 26th, 16l. and cheque for 2l.; July 1st, 5l.; 3rd, 8l.; 6th, 5l.; 8th, 10l.;15th, 5l. and 5l.; 17th, 10l.; 20th, 10l.; 24th, 14l.; 28th, 5l.; 31st, 2l.; August 3rd, 10l.; 6th, 10l.; 7th, 5l.; 10th, 2l.; 12th, 2l.; 14th, cheque for 35l.; 19th, cash 15l.; making a total of cheques and cash which I paid him of 475l. 4s. 5d., leaving a balance due to us of 3l. 13s. 8d.—the cheques were payable to several names, but all paid at his request; some of them are made payable to Munday, the managing man for Bennett and Glave—I drew those cheques by the direction of Mr. Glave and paid them all by his direction—it is not true that Glave paid me back 100l. out of those monies.

Cross-examined. I made no arrangement with Mr. Glave as to the money, I was to hold it at his disposal—I have known him for many years—he has a young family, the eldest is sixteen—the money was disbursed in payment of debts on account of his children.

Re-examined. The money was disbursed for school and other expenses—I cannot tell you when I knew the prisoner had filed his petition, it is two years ago, but I knew shortly after it was filed, Mr. Glave told me.

JAMES MCLEWIN . I am cashier in the Union Bank in Prince's Street—the prisoner had an account at our bank—the two cheques, amounting to 112l. 0s. 9d. were paid into Mr. Glave's credit on April 2nd—his balance was then 128l. 1s. 5d., but previously 16l. odd.

THOMAS JAMES GEDGES . I am a clerk to the Union Bank, Prince's Street—on 9th April I paid the prisoner's cheque for 80l. by the note No 60229, dated 6th October, for 50l.; No. 10064 for 20l., dated 7th December, and two 5l. notes, dated 17th February, 75166 and 75167.

PHILIP NASH HERBERT . I am a cashier at the London and Westminster Bank—I produce the day-book and a paying in slip—on 10th April, 1875, 75l. in notes were paid in to the credit of G. and J. Morton—the numbers are 60329 for 50l. 10064 for 20l., and 14048 for 5l.

WILLIAM HENRY BURROW . I am an accountant, of 18, Albion Street, Leeds—I was appointed receiver of Messrs. Glave's estate on 20th April, 1875—I sent my clerk, Senior, the list produced which I made out from the books of the firm—I asked the prisoner to account for the monies referred to

in that list and in a letter from my clerk—he said "It is being paid away to private creditors"—I asked him to whom—he said "That I will account for presently," or words to that effect—this conversation occurred four or five days before the meeting of creditors—the first meeting was on 7th May 1875—the prisoner never gave me any particulars—at the meeting he was asked and in my hearing he explained to the effect that 100l. had been paid to his wife and some money to Mr. Morton and to Mr. Perry—my duties ceased on 7th May.

Cross-examined. The prisoner did not tell me he had paid small trades. men—the business was carried on at Leeds, and in London—the mill was at Leeds—I do not know anything about the mill not paying—the assets were valued by the servants of the firm at the market price of the day—I believe the assets were about 18,000l., and the liabilities 22,000l. leaving about 500l. deficiency—there was also a stock in London; I do not know what that realized—it was valued by the servants of the firm under cost price—the deficiency was about 4,000l., I cannot say if there would be a profit by reasonable trading if it could have gone on.

Re-examined. The principal assets were in Leeds under the control of Mr. Bennett; of course they were subject to realisation.

JOEL SEINOR . I was formerly a clerk to Mr. Burrow, afterwards was appointed receiver—I saw the prisoner and took possession of the warehouse and the goods, and the books that were there—J received also a list of which this is a copy from Mr. Burrow; I shewed it to the prisoner and asked him to give an explanation, he took the list and said he would do so—the total of the sums received is 369l. 11s. 6d.; this interview would be about the 29th April—I asked him for an explanation twice—he. said he had written to Leeds about it; that was his only explanation—I left before the meeting of creditors, when he said he had written to Leeds, I understood him to mean to Mr. Burrows.

Cross-examined. I made an inventory of the goods at his private house near Barnet—I did not value the goods—I sent a copy of the inventory to Leeds and destroyed the original—I did not enquire if the prisoner had sent any particulars of the sums he received to Leeds.

JAMES WILLIAM CLOSE . I am an accountant at Leeds—I was appointed trustee of the estate of Bennett and Glave under the liquidation, on the 7th of May—the prisoner has never accounted to me for the disposition of the cheques produced—I was at the meeting of creditors on the 7th of May, and heard the prisoner say he had paid 100l. to his wife, and something to Mr. Perry, and Mr. Morton, per George Lee—a dividend of 7s. has been declared—the assets that came into my hands were nearly 17.,000l.—the proofs of debts are over 32,000.

Cross-examined. The secured debts were 21,000l.19s. 5d.; I have paid all I had in hand except about 1,400l.—the preference creditors have to be paid in full, and some money has been spent in wages and other expenses—Mr. Pullen, my solicitor, cross-examined the bankrupt at the Court—there was an appeal to Vice-Chanceller Bacon; I was not present—Mr. Straight read the judgment at the Mansion House.

Re-examined. I have no interest in the prisoner except as trustee—this prosecution was sanctioned by the committee of inspection—some portion of the assets realised under the estate, went to pay off preferential creditors whose securities did not realise the amount—those assets were for the most part at Leeds.

THOMAS BEAUMONT . I live at 22, High Street, Southwark, and am manager to Messrs. Foster, tea merchants, Cheapside—I cashed on 15th April for the defendant, a cheque for 10l. drawn by Messrs. Caldecott, and dated the 15th of April, 1875,. and also a cheques for 10l. 15s. 6d. drawn by Messrs. Davies, and handed the cash to his manager Mr. Munday.

Cross-examined. The 10l. was not to pay small sums for the bankrupt—I had an account against him for wine; I had known him four or five years—as far as I know he is a thoroughly respectable honorable man.

JAMES WILLIAM CLOSE (re-examined). I never received any letter from the bankrupt whilst I was acting as trustee, accounting for his property; the sheets produced do not contain any reference to the cheques produced.

Cross-examined. The sheets were sent to Leeds to MR. BENNETT, not to the prisoner.

Re-examined. I sent the sheets to MR. BENNETT, and he handed them to me—I know of no other communications than those contained in those sheets.

Several other witnesses gave the prisoner a good character.


OLD COURT.—Thursday, September 27th, 1877.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-729
VerdictGuilty > manslaughter
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

729. GEORGE CHAPMAN (48) , For the wilful murder of Sarah Elizabeth Devereux; he was also charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with manslaughter.

MR. CROOM conducted the. Prosecution; and MR. H. AVORY Defence.

ALICE AMBLING . I am fifteen years old, and live with my father and mother, at 12, Seward Place, St. Luke's—the prisoner has lodged there three years—Elizabeth Sarah Devereux lived with him as Mrs. Chapman—on Saturday night, 28th July, they came in together about 11.20—I saw them in the street before they came quite to the door, and at No. 11 I saw kick her in the door on her back, as she was standing up—she then went into the yard at No. 12, and the prisoner followed her at once—when they were into her room I heard her hallooing and fetched my brother John—I saw him go into the room, and shortly afterwards Devereux and the prisoner came out to the foot of the stairs, and I saw him kick her in the back—they then went upstairs together to their own room.

Cross-examined. I did not see them when they went out at 10 o'clock, or at all that evening till I saw them in the street coming home—she was then very tipsy—I did not hear him say anything—I did not hear him tell her to go upstairs or hear her say "You will hit me if I do," or hear him reply "No, I wont"—I was at the street door looking down a passage. my brother was at the foot of the stairs at that time.

JOHN AMBLING . I am a brother of the last witness—on 28th July, at 11.45 p.m., I went into the yard—I did not see Mr. and Mrs. Chapman there at first, but I did afterwards—I heard him call her a cow and saw him kick her, but I cannot say where—they then went into the house, and she sat on the foot of the stairs—he said "Go upstairs"—she said "You will hit me again"—he said "No I wont"—he said to me "You will see her upstairs wont you"—I said "All right"—I got a lamp off the table in my room and went upstairs with her to her room and lit their lamp—Mrs. Chapman went upstairs before me and sat on the corner of a sofa—the

Prisoner then came up and hit her on her mouth—I said "Don't hit her any more"—he said "You go on out of the room or else I'll hit you"—I saw him pull her off the sofa before I left, on to the floor—I asked him to be quiet and he threatened to hit me again—he then kicked her on the ribs—I left the room leaving them there—I heard him swear and call he a bcow—she was on the floor when I left the room, and he was standing right over her looking at me—he was quiet just then—about a minute or two after I had gone I heard a scuffling on the floor of their room—I went up again, but only just put my head in—I saw her lying in the same place, and the prisoner was pulling all her clothes off—he pulled them all off, and then got a can of water and poured it all over her—I went downstairs leaving her on the floor in that state—I spoke to my mother and saw her go upstairs to the prisoner.

Cross-examined. I was there in the evening when they went out, but I do not know what time it was—I saw them go to my mother's room, they were both sober then and on good terms with each other—I next saw them in the yard when my sister spoke to me—the deceased was a little drunk, and I think the prisoner was drunk—I think she was the worst—he was not so drunk as he generally was—he was drunk, but I have seen him worse—he did not hit her on the stairs—he had his own clothes on, boots and all—when he pulled her clothes off I did not bear him say anything to her about getting into bed—I did not go upstairs with my mother—I shall be nineteen on Monday—he only kicked her once when I was upstairs—she did not say anything after she got into the room, before he hit her on the mouth, nor did I say anything—he went straight up and hit her on the face.

ANN AMBLING . I am the wife of Samuel Ambling, of 12, Seward Street—the prisoner and deceased have lived with me about three years—on 28th July, about 10 p.m., they paid me their week's rent—they seemed pretty comfortable together, and did not seem as if they had been drinking—they left the house together and returned a little after 12 o'clock—my son then spoke to me—I went up to their room and saw her lying on the floor quite naked, except a jacket across her shoulders—her arms were through the jacket—the prisoner was standing by her feet with only his shirt on—I asked him what he had been doing of—he said that she had lost her money and he had been beating her—I told him he ought to be ashamed of himself and said "Don't beat her again"—he said he would not—I told him to go to bed, and he got into bed while I was in the room—the deceased was bleeding from her nose and mouth—I pulled the bolster off the sofa and put it under her head—I spoke to her so that, the prisoner could hear me, and shook her by the chin—I called her and she raised herself up on her elbow, but she did not speak out loud—she said "oon"—I said "Sally, get up"—she was able to see where the prisoner was, and after she saw him she cuddled herself down all in a lump—I then put her head on the pillow, covered her shoulders over with a piece of a table cover which was on the sofa, and went downstairs—about ten minutes after I had been downstairs the prisoner called out "Mrs. Ambling," twice, and when I got on to the stairs he said "Sally is dead"—I went into the room and found her where I had left her, but not as I had left her—the things I put on her had been pulled off again—she was lying in the same place but not in the same position—I had left her on her side and I found her on her back—I put my hand on her heart—I called out and my husband came up—it was the best part of an hour before a doctor came; very nearly 1 o'clock.

Cross-examined. I could tell that the deceased had been drinking, and so had the prisoner, but not very much—I do not think she was so bad as he was—he sat in my parlour all night, and Sunday I did not see him, but I heard he had been there—he was taken in custody early on Monday morning when I was not in the house.

Re-examined. The deceased was on the floor when I went up, and I was not able to form an opinion as to how drunk she was—the prisoner was quite sober when he went out but he was in liquor when he came home—he was not so drunk in the bed-room as not to know what he was doing—he slept in my parlour and left between 7 and 8 o'clock, but I was so worritted I did not see him leave.

WILLIAM MILLER (Detective Officer). On "Monday morning, 30th July, about 2 o'clock, I took the prisoner at a barber's shop, at 207, Whitecross Street—I went up to the second floor front, opened the door, and found him lying on the floor at the foot of the bed—I said "George, get up, you will have to go to the station with me for causing the death of a woman in Seward Street"—he said "All right, Miller"—he got his coat and hat and said she was drunk, and there was a young man who had assisted him home with her, and a young woman living a few door from No. 12 saw them in the City Road when she was knocking herself about, but he did not know the name—he asked me if I would find her, and I told him I would if I could—he was the worse for drink—this was twenty-four hours afterwards—I took him to the station.

MARTIN LUTHER CLIFT . I am a surgeon, of 83, Central Street—on Sunday morning, 29th July, I was called to Seward Street at 1.10, and found a woman lying on the floor on her back—Mrs. Ambling was with me—the woman was dead and had been so about an hour—on the same evening, by the Coroner's directions, I made a post-mortem—her age was about forty—the body was well nourished—I found a bruise on the left eye, the right eye had been blackened from a blow, and was contused, and the nose was recently fractured, within a few hours or a day—I think the nose bad been fractured quite recently, because it was bleeding when I first examined the body—there was a bruise on the right hand, arm, and shoulder, and on the right shin bone—the cause of death was rupture of the spleen and effusion of about two pints of blood into the abdominal cavity—that, in my judgment, would cause death—the rupture of the spleen had been caused by violence; a blow, a kick, or a fall" on a sharp instrument—I found no external wound corresponding with the rupture of the spleen—I found no external mark to indicate a fall upon any sharp instrument, therefore I exclude that from consideration—a kick on the ribs would be likely to cause the rupture of the spleen, and I found the four ribs on the left side and. the filth rib on the right side fractured; those ribs were too high in the chest to cause the rupture of the spleen—that had nothing to do with the death.

Cross-examined. On the rupture of the spleen death would be rapid, because in this case the effusion was so great; ten minutes would be the outside—the spleen was very distended, owing to her recently having had a meal—either food or drink would increase its distention.

By THE COURT. Anything which excites the stomach would distend the spleen, and food does that of course—I do not think it would be more distended in consequence of being excited by ardent spirits—the mere fact of intoxicating liquor acting upon the brain would have no effect

upon the spleen—she had recently had a meal, which would account for its distention—after the rupture it would be quite possible for her to walk up to the period of her death.

JOHN AMBLING (re-examined). When he went into the yard, the prisoner, besides calling her a b——cow, said "I will settle you to-night"—I forgot all about that until I saw it here to-day in my depositions before the Coroner.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I was quite ignorant of what I was doing at the time. I have not the slightest recollection; I was too far gone in drink.

GUILTY of Manslaughter— Fifteen Years' Penal Servitude.

17th September 1877
Reference Numbert18770917-730
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

730. CONSTANTINE THEODORIDES (34), and PAUL GOLERO (48) , Feloniously sending to Augustine Ernesta Slade a letter demanding money with menaces.


AUGUSTINE ERNESTA SLADE . I am living with my uncle, Admiral Sir Adolphus Slade, at 3, Hyde Park Place—in 1869 I was travelling with my mother in Turkey, where I was introduced to Theodorides at the house of some friends—I saw him only a few times in Constantinople, and later in 1872 he called on my mother in London—he continued to see me, and I made an engagement to marry him in the Summer of 1873—I addressed letters to him and received letters from him—he said it was always best to destroy letters because people might find them, and he also told me that he always destroyed mine, and he advised me to destroy his, which I did soon after receiving them—the engagement was broken off in the Summer of 1874—it extended over about twelve months—I addressed a few letters to him, I think, in 1875, after the engagement was over—the engagement was renewed again, but only for about a month, and then it was finally broken off—soon after that I asked him for my letters; he first of all said that he had destroyed them as I had his—I several times asked him to give me my letters back, and he said my mother was prejudicing his character, that was in September, 1875, I think; and he kept the letters for that reason—that was after he said he had destroyed them, but when I asked him for them again he said he had kept them—I did not believe that he had destroyed them all—no other letters of a friendly character passed between us—T saw him once in 1876, in the Park, I think it was—I had not seen him to speak to him previous to that—I also saw him in the Park this year, in June—he asked me if I had any emnity towards him—I answered "No"—he asked me if I was sorry I had not marrid him—I said "No"—he then said he was in great distress, he had had some unfortunate speculations and had lost everything, and would very likely be made a bankrupt, in which case all his papers might be examined, and my letters as well, to prevent which 500l. would be necessary to enable him to pay off his most pressing debts—I said I could not give him that sum of money—he said that my letters were in the hands of two other people, and, therefore, if I wished to get them I must pay that sum—I said I would consult my friends about it, my trustees, and he made me swear that I would not tell anybody until he gave me leave to do so—nothing more passed then, but he wrote to me two or three letters asking me to meet him and

My dear Miss Slade,—I have not yet answered Mr. Golero, expecting to hear from you. If by to-morrow's post I do not receive any answer to my Wednesday's letter I shall understand you wish to leave out of my hands this unfortunate affair. Without explaining to Mr. Golero what the papers are I will tell him they are different papers concerning you, and that he had better come and see you, and then you can make whatever arrangement you like. I tried my best to save you and your dignity, and as I tell you, by to-morrow Mr. Golero ignores what the box contains and shall not know it from me. Unfortunately, the 18th is not far off, then I shall have done with the matter. The remaining letters in my possession you can have. Those which are out of my hands, and which are, as you know, dreadful, can be got by the 18th, provided I know by to-morrow's post the answer for Mr. Golero. Again tell me what are your wishes. What can be managed privately and confidentially now for 200l. or 250l., God only knows what will be afterwards. Constantine Theodorides.") There is a reference thereto Wednesday's letter—I had received the letter from him on the Wednesday, and I had received other letters—I tore up the first ones and sent my maid into the Park to fetch the eight letters to which he referred—he said he would give me the remaining letters for a sum of money, and some of my mother's; there were eight altogether—the third time I saw him he said that he had no more letters, except eight, which were all in Golero's hands—I only saw him three times—I cannot fix the date—this other letter is in his writing, it is partly in French and partly in English. (This was dated 18th July, 1877, signed Constantine Theodorides, 27, Bishopsgate Street, stating that he had received an anonymous letter; that he had seen Golero, who had promised not to open the box, except before him; that there were seventy-four Utters in it of Miss Slade's. and also a few of her

mother's, and that he had made Golero promise not to do anything without communicating with her; being unable to do anything himself, it was for Miss Slade to act, as Golero wanted his money and was a determined and resolute man who would not recoil from anything, and whose only God was money. Signed, Your devoted Theodorides.) There is an allusion there to an anonymous letter—I suppose I did not sign my letter—on the 18th Golero came to my uncle's house—he sent up a card, but I refused to see him—I then received this letter (produced), in consequence of which I communicated with Mr. M'Coan—after the prisoners were given in custody a large travelling box was brought to the police-court, carried by Sergeant Butcher—all the letters in it were addressed to Theodorides—seventy-four of them were delivered to me, besides which there were fifty, I think, in the large trunk, but there were hundreds of others—there was nothing but letters in the box—I have destroyed the seventy-four letters and the fifty taken from the trunk—all those were letters which I had written to him during the engagement—I do not know the writing on this card (produced) "Prince's Gate Hotel," but it is in the same writing as Golero's were—here are names in it of friends of my family, please not to read them out—the whole of this one (another) is in Theodorides' writing, but I am not quite certain about the bottom, it is written rather quicker—this one, the third, is in the same writing as Golero's letter—this address, "Prince's Gate Hotel," is Theodorides' writing, but I say nothing about the others—the writing in ink corresponds with Golero's letter.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. Theodorides did not visit at our house on the Continent, not till he Came to London—he visited at my mother's house—he was connected with people of wealth in Constantinople, and was received at my mother's house in England, but I do not live with my mother; that was where I renewed my acquaintance with him and became engaged to be married to him—it was I who broke off the engagement, because my friends objected to it and bis friends also—many letters passed between us of an affectionate character such as might fairly pass between a young lady and gentleman who were engaged; that was the nature of the correspondence—my friends did not know of my engagement except ray own family, and I was unwilling that it should be known—his position had altered very much from the time I first knew him—I have no doubt he was in a deplorable state of poverty; he told me he was very badly off, and I believed it—no arrangement was made about taking a house with a view to our marriage; he took a house, but it was not for that, because he was going to take another one afterwards; he took a small house for the time being, which be gave up in a very short time and took another one in South Kensington, near my mother—I never met him anywhere but at my mother's house—he appeared to be in decent circumstances when I knew him originally, but I am hardly able to form an opinion—I met him at other places in Constantinople besides my mother's house—his sister is married to a person of some distinction and wealth, and he had held a confidential position in that house—he was still in a good position when I broke off the engagement—I have reason to know that he lost that position—I am not quite sure if it was in 1874 when I broke off the engagement first of all—the second time was in 1875, but I never keep a diary, and it is rather difficult to remember—he never took any steps to enforce the marriage—he never gave me any annoyance till I met him in the Park—he then seemed badly dressed, different to the way he dressed previously—it was by Theodorides'

desire at the police-court that the letters were returned direct into my hands.

Cross-examined by MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS. Some of the letters were in English and some in French—I burnt them directly I had read them—there was nothing in them except the ordinary terms of affection between parties under similar circumstances—nothing which I had to fear in any shape or way.

SIR ADOLPHUS SLADE . I am an Admiral in the Royal Navy, and live at 3, Hyde Park Place—the last witness is my niece, she was the daughter of my late brother, Ernest Slade—she lived with me at times when her mother was alive, but her mother was in feeble health and she was very often with her—in July last the prisoner Golero called at my house and sent in his card—that was I think four or five days before he was arrested—he introduced himself by saying that he had heard of me in Constantinople and so forth, and said that he had a box which he held as security for a debt from Mr. Theodorides, that it contained valuable articles and letters belonging to my niece, and considering all things he thought somebody belonging to the family ought to be there to see the box opened, as it would be opened on a certain day, as the things in the box belonged to Miss Slade—I said that I did not see the necessity for that, but that in case there were any letters of Miss Slade's in the box, he as a gentleman would send them to her—he spoke very harshly of Theodorides, and said that he owed him a debt and he would be able to recover it by the contents of that box, that was the substance that passed—I did not know the man—after that the letter in question came.

JAMES CARLYLE M'COAN , I am a. barrister, and live at 3, Kensington Gate—I am a friend of Miss Slade's family—I knew Theodorides in Constantinople, but not intimately—about 18th or 20th July, Miss Slade made a communication to me and I consulted Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, on the 23rd, or 24th July—I called at Theodorides' lodgings, 13, Rathbone Place, but he had gone to the City—I then went on in an omnibus and overtook him and Golero in Holborn together—I got out and joined them—I had known Golero many years before in Constantinople, and recognised his face and name—I had the two letters of Theodorides with me which have been read, and one of Golero's of 18th July, signed "Golero"—we adjourned from the street into a coffee-house in Holborn—I said that Miss Slade had mentioned the matter to me and asked me to settle it, and I asked Golero what he wanted—I began the conversation by producing the letters—I asked Golero if those were the letters he had written to Miss Slade—he said they were—Golero does not speak English, but they both speak French—I said to Golero "I do not know exactly what you want, or how much you want" and I asked him for an explanation—he said that Theodorides owed him 695l. the balance of a debt, and he showed me a memorandum purporting' to be a statement of account between them shewing that balance on an original debt of 800l. odd—he said that as a material guarantee for the payment of the balance; he had got possession of a box of Theodorides containing letters, and as Theodorides could not pay him the money he must have it from Miss Slade—I said it was idle to ask such a large sum as 695l., but as soon as I had seen Miss Slade and Sir Adolphus Slade I would see what could be done by way of arranging the matter—during the conversation Theodorides frequently spoke to Golero in Italian, thinking that I did not understand it, but I did—the meaning of what Golero said was this, Theodorides appeared to be inducing Golero to take a less sum than 695l.,

but Golero said he would not take less than 500l.—I do not quite recollect whether it was at that interview or the second that he spoke of taking two-thirds in cash from me, and an acceptance from Theodorides for the balance, indorsed by some solvent person—I then made an appointment for the fallowing day at the Cafe Monico, in Tiehborne Street—we met there and pretty much the same conversation passed—I said that when a sum was finally agreed on I would give my cheque for it—Golero shook his head and smiled, saying he would have no cheques, he would have nothing but bank notes—I asked him where the letters were—he said they were in safe custody and could be produced in ten minutes—Theodorides in some stage of the conversation asked me in an aside how much I was really disposed to give and he again suggested to Golero in Italian that he should not press for an impracticable sum—I said in an aside also that I thought I should not go beyond 150l., or 250l.—Theodorides then spoke again in Italian communicating the substance of it to Golero, and we made another appointment for the following Saturday, the 28th, at the Cafe Monico, at 12 o'clock—I found them waiting for me when I got there, and in the meantime a warrant had been taken out, but as the arrangement was not ripe for execution I said that 1 was not. ready yet, but on Monday I hoped to finish it altogether—Golero was very angry when he heard of another adjournment—he said he would not stand it any longer, he would take immediate steps—he threatened to begin on Saturday, but said that I could arrest them by obtaining a settlement on Monday—I said that if he did I should decline to carry out the matter, and he would only be cutting off his nose to please his face—he calmed down a little, and consented to suspend it till Monday—the last sum he had mentioned was 500l., and I led him to think that I would give him that sum, or a greater part of it—on Monday, at 4 o'clock, I went to the Cafe Monico, and found them waiting for me—a negotiation for the amount was then opened, and to satisfy them that I meant business I showed them a roll of bank notes—Golero said "Well, it is understood that you are to give me 500l."—we were all three sitting at the same table—I said "No, that is really too much, but go and bring the letters and we will fix the figure"—Golero went out and was away a quarter of an hour, Theodorides remaining with me—Golero returned with the box, which was tied with red tape—it was opened—I examined its contents; it contained seventy-four letters of Miss Slade's, and two or three little objects, a tobacco bag, and something else—I closed the box and said that it was a very serious matter, that they had put themselves within the reach of the law, and in fact they were arrested—I had only been able to obtain the warrant that morning, which accounts for the postponement—two police-officers in plain clothes then came forward and took the prisoners in custody to Vine Street station—I wished to retain possession of the box of letters, but Golero applied to the inspector and said that it was his property, and the inspector sealed it up—Theodorides asked to see the warrant—the officer said that he would show it to him at the station—I saw that the seventy-four letters were in Miss Slade's writing, and were addressed to Theodorides—they were given up to her before the Magistrate—Theodorides had assured me that those were the whole of the letters remaining in his controll—I was present at the subsequent examination of the contents of the box, but I afterwards saw a trunk produced by Sergeant Russell, in which 1 with Miss Slade found about sixty-three or sixty-four of Miss Slade's letters, and a great many other ladies' letters also.

Cross-examined by MR. SERJEANT BALLANTINE. The appointment was made with the prisoners—I do not know what has become of the other ladies' letters—when I last saw them they