Old Bailey Proceedings.
25th February 1884
Reference Number: t18840225

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
25th February 1884
Reference Numberf18840225

Related Material


Sessions Paper.








Short-hand Writers to the Court,








Law Booksellers and Publishers.



On the Queen's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Monday, February 25th, 1884, and following days.

Including cases committed to this Court under Order in Council pursuant to the Winter Assize Act of 1879.

BEFORE the RIGHT HON. ROBERT NICHOLAS FOWLER , M.P., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; The Hon. Sir LEWIS WILLIAM CAVE , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; Sir ANDREW LUSK , Bart., M.P., and HENRY EDMUND KNIGHT , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q.C., M.P., Recorder of the said City; SIMEON CHARLES HADLEY , Esq., JOSEPH SAVORY , Esq., POLYDORE DE KEYSER , Esq., and HENRY AARON ISAACS , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; Sir WILLIAM THOMAS CHARLEY , Knt., Q.C., D.C.L., Common Serjeant of the said City; and ROBERT MALCOLM KERR , Esq., LL.D., Judge of the Sheriffs' Court: Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer, and General Gaol Delivery, 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 dagger (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters—the figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.


OLD COURT.—Monday, February 25th, 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-315
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

315. EDWARD HALES was indicted for feloniously forging and uttering a bill of exchange. Other Counts for forging and uttering an acceptance to the same bill, with intent to defraud.

MR. GILL prosecuted; MR. EDWARD CLARKE, Q.C., and MR. BESLEY Defended.

EDWARD BARTON . I live at Sussex Lodge, Lee, Kent—I am now a traveller in the hop trade—I was formerly a hop-merchant—I had know the prisoner for some years before 1881 and had had many transactions with him—I had sold him large quantities of hops—in the middle of 1881 he owed me about 600l.—I almost constantly asked him for payment—I don't know that he was doing anything at that time, he had been a broker in the Baltic—I had seen Mr. Miller two or three times with him-about July, 1881, Hales said, "Mr. Miller is about putting 10,000l. and my father is to advance 2.000l. and we are going to start a broker's business together, but Miller has only just come of age, so haa not yet come into his money; but to assist me he will give me two acceptances of 500l. if you will draw upon him'—I said "I cannot consent to do so until I know his status; if he has no banking account how can I find out?"—he said "We will go to Somerset House and see his father's will, he also comes into property through his uncle"—we went together but could not find the will or wills—after that he gave me another date of the probate of the will—I did not find it at that time—I sent a messenger down to Horley—I then discovered the date and went to Somerset House a third time and saw two wills—I was satisfied he was a man of considerable property, and consented to draw the bill—I drew two bills, one for 250l. 5s. and the other for 249l. 15s. in the subscription room at the Corn Exchange, Mark Lane—Hales was with me then—I handed them to him and he promised to return them with Miller's acceptance to them the next day—this (produced) is one of them; it is in the same state now as when I drew it, except the "payable at"—two or three days elapsed before I saw him again—I said to him

"You have not yet brought me back those acceptances"—he said "My Miller has been away from home, but I am going to dine with him to-morrow night and I will bring them up the following morning"—he did so and handed them to me—I noticed the writing across the bill I and said, "Why did you not let Mr. Miller accept the bill without your writing on it?"—he said "Mr. Miller is not used to accepting bills, so I put those words 'Accepted payable at' and he signed his name"—I "Accepted payable at" is in his writing—I have never seen Mil Miller's signature if that is not it—nothing more passed then—I took I the bill for 250l. 5s. to my bankers, the Central Bank—I told them Mr. Miller had no banking account, but they could find out his status by inquiry at his mother's bankers, the London and County Bank, at Reigate—I left the bill at the Central Bank four days for them to make inquiries—I then went to the Bank—they would not discount it—after I had discounted it with Hales I told him the bank would not take it because he had no banking account—I took it to Mr. Daniels and said that he had no banking account, but he could find out at the Central Bank—that is where he offered it for discount—I had discounted bills for Mr. Daniels before, thousands of pounds—on 29th August I received from him this cheque for 236l. 9s. 3d., and as I left the office I received I this memorandum from his clerk, who said, "If you are in a hurry I will fill it up"—I signed it and it was filled up afterwards. (This was a memorandum for 250l. 5s., and stated that the bill was only drawn to the acceptor thereof, and had been discounted on the faith of that representation.) I afterwards saw Hales again—he wanted me to give him first, half the proceeds of the second acceptance and then a smaller amount, 150l. I think was mentioned—I said "No, you will never have another shilling out of me, you have had too much already; I cannot discount the other I bill except at large interest, and I had rather hand it you back and wait till your affairs are arranged, when you promised to pay me in full"—I returned the bill to him next day and have not seen it since—on 10th September I filed my petition in bankruptcy; and in October, about two months before the bill was due, Mr. Daniels came over and had a conversation with me—as we were talking in the street Hales came along—I called him over to us and said, "Now, Mr. Daniels, tell Mr. Hales what you have told me"—he hesitated, and I said, "Then I will tell him," and I told Hales that Mr. Daniels said that Mr. Miller repudiated the bill being his signature, that it was forged; and that he (Hales) was the former—he said, "Let him prove it"—Hales said also that nothing could be done till the bill matured—there was some more conversation—we went and had a glass of sherry, and Hales said that he knew a bill discounter who did not object to forged bills, as they were generally paid—Mr. Daniels said, Yes, they are generally taken up at maturity or beforehand" three or four weeks after that I met Hales again in the street and said "Hales, tell me straight, is this a genuine acceptance or is it not? Don't add to your other injuries of me that of passing a forged bill on me"—he said, "That is all right, I have got the very blotting-paper it was I written on, I have taken care of myself"—I saw him again three or four I weeks before the bill matured, and he asked me if I thought Mr. Danie's would renew 120l. of the bill—I said, "I never asked him to do such a thing, and I certainly should not with regard to this bill; there has been

a doubt thrown upon its genuineness, and it must go through and the matter be cleared up"—I think that was in November, 1881, and the next time I saw him was at the Mansion House on this charge—on the day the bill came due I was at Mr. Daniels's office waiting to see the I result—after that Mr. Daniels prosecuted me on this memorandum—I was tried before His Lordship in the other Court in August, 1882, and I acquitted—I then brought an action against Mr. Daniels for malicious I prosecution, which was tried before Mr. Justice Gave last April, and I got a Verdict for 300l.

Cross-examined. I am now a hop merchant at 14, Southwick Street, by myself—my last transaction in hops with Hales was within four years ago—I sold him the hops but never got the money—he owed me for money borrowed—I did not deliver the hops, but I made a loss on them and I considered he owed me the balance—it is nine or ten years since I sold and delivered goods to him—I lost about 150l. on the last hops, and it was a trade debt existing at the time of my bankruptcy—in July and August, 1881, I was employed by Mountain, Horsley, and Co. on commission—I had an agreement; I don't know where it is, I have not seen it for two years—I had no salary, I was paid half the profits—I owed Mountain and Co. about 1,500l. in July, 1881—I was not being I prettied for payment—I had Six months previously arranged with all my creditors to pay them 20s. in the pound—in September, 1881, I failed for 7,000l. and went into liquidation by the advice of my creditors—there were no assets because I had already handed them everything—this account is correct—my furniture and fixtures are put down at 250l.—my trade books were seized by the sheriff at 87, High Street, Borough, and taken away with all the furniture—Mr. Chapman, who was then my solicitor, had all the books and papers we could find; some of them were given to my trustee, but not the principal ones—I do not think any of them referred to the business—I tried my utmost to get them; I sent a clerk and a traveler to the sheriffs office—I did not go till afterwards—it is somewhere near the Elephant and Castle—I never got them—I did not put down Mr. Hales in my statement of affairs because he had gone into liquidation and the debt was worth nothing—I thought he had gone into liquidation before November—I put him down as a debtor to me for 100l.; if you call Mr. Lovering he will prove it—if Hales did not go into liquidation till two months afterwards he had been trying to go into liquidation without a penny of assets—I told my creditors at the meeting what the debt was worth, and the question was asked in the Queen's Bench, and Mr. Lovering got into the box and explained it—I did not, put Hales into the list of creditors because I knew he had not got anything; he had been living on me for two years—I did not put Mr. Daniels in the statement of accounts because I knew it was perfectly good and certain to be paid—I have writing to show that Mr. Daniels owed me money; I think my solicitor has it, and I have an acknowledgment of Mr. Hales owing me money—when I mentioned Hales owing me money my creditors laughed—I pressed Hales for payment in 1881 through a solicitor, Mr. Rice, who saw Hales, and reported to me that Hales did not owe me any money, but that I owed him money—that is Mr. Rice—he did not say that Hales owed me no money, but that he did not owe so much as I claimed—he did not tell me that Hales said that I owed him money—I did not instruct Mr. Rice to

press him again, because Hales came to me and asked me to give him time for the sake of his wife and family, and when he went into liquidation he put me down as a creditor for over 400l.—I gave him a cheque in 1881, which he professed to get the money for, but never did—I think my bank book for 1881 is with the trustees, I mean Mr. Lovering—I have had no notice to produce it—I cannot tell you without the bank-book whether I paid Hales 20l. on 16th July—he borrowed money of me—I had been pressing him for money for two years, and yet I lent him money; he got it out of me as a temporary loan—he told me Mr. Miller was going to put 10,000l. into the business—he told me that Miller owed him I think 300l., which had something to do with racing—he did not tell me that Mr. Miller would accept a bill for 250l.—he asked me to draw on Miller for 500l., and credit Miller's account with 30l., and credit him with the balance—it is not true that he asked me to draw for 250l. he only; he asked me to draw for 249l. 15l., making up 500l.—I did not say anything before Mr. Justice Cave about the drawing for 249l. 15l. because he had returned the other—I went with Hales to Somerset House to find the probate of the will—I did not find it the first time; we afterwards found his uncle's and his father's; one was sworn under 25,000l. and the other under 80,000l.—I saw the probate of a will which I took for Mr. Russell Miller's father's, dated in 1872, from which I considered that Mr. Russell Miller was worth 4,000l. or 5,000l. a year—the two wills I saw roved that—Mr. Hales and I were not in the habit of accepting bills for each other—after he owed me this large sum I told him I was short of money; he said "I shall get my affairs settled in two months; if you will discount a bill, I will give you the proceeds"—I had discounted several bills with him to the amount of 14,000l.—I cannot tell you whether there were 22—all those bills were met at maturity—the whole of the original writing in the bill is by me, and it was written when I handed it to Mr. Hales, and at that time not one word of this acceptance was written—I swear that the 250l. 5s. and the figures at the top of the bill were written by me before any word of the acceptance was written, and that the drawing by me included the name of the person on whom it was drawn, that is my writing too—when Mr. Hale had had it a few days he brought it back with the acceptance on it with the other one—I had two acceptances, which I believed to be genuine, of Mr. Miller, and I made inquiries and was satisfied that he could pay them both—I was pressed for money at that time—the Sheriff was in possession of my goods two months before, in June, but certainly not in August, when the bill was drawn—I am not sure whether he was in possession in September—my books were seized previous to October—I said in my statement of 10th September that my goods had been seized by the Sheriff—I do not think they were seized in August, it was previous to the bill being drawn—I cannot tell you the date when the execution was paid out—I am not certain whether they were seized again in August and taken away and sold, but I was not pressed for money—I owed Mountain l,500l. and they agreed to give me any amount of time—Clittock had got a judgment against me, it was a dispute about some stores which I sold to him; he got a judgment behind my back, and my creditors said "Go into liquidation"—I had sold Clittock the business for between 2,000l. and 3,000l.—he was to take the book debts and the goodwill of the business—he afterwards said that the business was not worth it, and

Some of the book-debts he had never got the money for, and he brought I an action against me, and got judgment in my absence for 1,000l.—we I referred it to Mr. Dawson, of Fenchurch Street—the debt was proved I because he had judgment; my solicitor objected, he wanted 200l., and I could not afford it—I undertook to pay my creditors half my income, and I have done it—I cannot tell how much I have paid them till the account is settled—when I got that bill of exchange I met. Mr. Daniels in the street, who said "You have not been to see me lately," inferring that I had been to some other bill discounter, and I had been to Mr. Shoolbred—I then told Mr. Daniels of this bill; I did not tell him that I had drawn it on Mr. Russell Miller in payment for hops which I had sold to him, and if Mr. Daniels has sworn so it is false—I heard Mr. Daniels swear it in the other Court, and he swore it falsely—I did not see Mr. Daniels that day; the only person I saw was Mr. M'Donald—I received a cheque for 236l. 9s. for interest and commission, and 6l. was kept back—the bill was for 250l. 5s.—the interest was, I think, 1 1/2 per cent.—you have the discount slip—a commission was charged, I don't know how much, you can easily deduct it—I think the agreement was that the 6l. was to be paid to me it the bill was paid—it is a very common thing to leave a deposit on a bill—it was a deposit, not a bet; if the bill was paid I was to have 6l. more—Mr. Daniels came to me about the middle of October and asked me who wrote the words, "Accepted, payable at the London and County Bank"—I told him that they were Mr. Hales's writing—I have heard Mr. Daniels swear that I told him I did not know; that is not true—he then said, "Ah, I thought so, and he has forged it," and that he had had expert's opinion, which was that the man who wrote the one wrote the other—I did not some to the same conclusion—I said that Hales had treated me very badly, but I did not think he would be guilty of such a thing as that—I the suggestion that forged bills were generally met, was made both by Mr. Daniels and Mr. Hales; I do not know which made it first—after that conversation we went to Webster's, a pastrycook's in Moorgate Street, and had a glass of sherry together; I cannot say who paid for it—I paid the cheque for 236l. 9s. 3d. into my bank; Hales did not have a penny of the money, I refused to give it to him—I paid 200l. to Mountain and Horsier next day—the rest was not entirely used for my personal expenses—that was the last payment to my account before the account stopped—when the bill became due on 3rd December I was not seeing Hales daily—I used not to meet him at the railway-station after the middle of November—I never went down to Horley to see him—I knew where he lived, but just before or just after the bill became due I heard that he had gone, and I did not go down—he was not at Horley till 22nd January, because Mr. Daniels went down—I did not go with Mr. Daniels to look fur him, but I went to see his brother-in-law, and went to several places where I thought we might find him—Daniels brought an action and did not succeed, and afterwards prosecuted me, and last April I got a verdict against him for 300l.—I do not know the amount of the costs, I believe they were taxed—Mr. Daniels has not paid damages or costs—he disputes them on account of the judgment against me on this bill—I have agreed to take a letter of apology, which I value more than the money, but until this trial ii over he will not give it to me.

Re-examined. Under the Master's order one judgment was set against the other—Hales returned we as a creditor under his bankruptcy for over 400l.—these are his cheques which came back marked, "Refer to drawer," and dishonoured bills (produced).

By MR. CLARKE. I gave the cheque for 149l. 10s., payable to E. Hales, jun., because he asked me for 400l., and he said that as I was short of money for a few days he would get it changed—he did not get the money, and I asked him for the cheque back—he said that he had destroyed it—it has never been presented for payment—I could get my own cheques changed at that time, but I handed it to him because I did not think he was the sort of man to make use of it—here is another cheque for 139l. 10s.; he told me he had destroyed that—this is to H. Williams and Co. because he told me that that was the name of the party who was going to change it—here are two more, they are the same—this acceptance of mine of 7th June, 1881, is drawn by Edward Hales, junior—he was to give me the proceeds of it—it never was discounted, he told me he had destroyed it—i also gave him this bill of 6th August, 1880, drawn by me on Hales for 156l. 18s. 11d., to get discounted, but he never did so.

By MR. GILL. In December, 1880, or January, 1881, he gave me this 10 U for 203l. 10s., as he had told me in September, 1880, that he could get an acceptance of mine discounted, and he asked me for two acceptances for 198l. each—he did not get the money, and I demanded the bills back—he gave me back one and said that he had destroyed the other, but three months afterwards the other bill was presented at my bankers'—I was pressed for it through Mr. Langridge, and in order to save him I paid the amount—I gave him 100l. in notes, and I held cheques of his which had been presented and returned—this is one (produced)—he said that he had destroyed these cheques—I told my trustee as to not setting out his indebtedness; it was put down as valueless.

GEORGE RUSSELL MILLER . I live at Horley in Surrey—I only know Mr. Barton casually—about the middle of August I gave Hales these two acceptances (produced)—I wrote them while the bills were in blank—the words "Accepted, payable at the London and County Bank, G. Russell Miller" are my writing—I gave them to him because I wished him to get them discounted and he was to give the money to me—I afterwards desired to withdraw them and pressed him for them two or three times—he said that they were in the hands of some gentleman at Cambridge—eventually I got them back—I never gave him authority to accept a bill in my name—this bill (produced) purports to be accepted by me, but it is not in my writing or written by my authority—I generally sign my name in this way—I received a communication from Mr. Daniels about this acceptance, and saw Hales about the end of September, 1881 with reference to the letter which I gave him, and said that I should place the matter in my solicitor's hands—he said "Oh, you may as well," or something to that effect, "it would be a good thing to do"—I cannot recollect the exact words, or whether he mentioned Barton's name, but it occurs in the letter—I cannot remember when he left Horley—I believe these word written across the bill "Accepted, payable at the London and County Bank, Lombard Street," to be the prisoner's writing—my original acceptance was made payable at that bank, I think that was by the prisoner's suggestion.

Cross-examined. It is not even a plausible imitation of my signature—I got the acceptance back on 30th or 31st August, and the next I heard I was when Mr. Daniels inquired whether it was my signature—I received a letter from him about the middle of September, which I gave to my solicitor—at that time I had not seen the bill—I took Mr. Hales the letter and he thought the best thing for me to do was to go to a solicitor—my solicitors were Messrs. Hussell, of 59, Col era an Street—I believe no will of my father's was proved, he died intestate—I do not remember seeing Mr. Hales with Mr. Griffiths at Red Hill Station—I do not know when he left Horley, but up to the time of his leaving I saw him pretty frequently—I believe he went and saw my solicitors—I never had any hops from Mr. Barton or owed him any money.

Re-examined. I did not answer the letter, I only put it into my solicitor's hands—I believe they communicated with Mr. Daniels—I saw in the Times an offer of 50l. for Mr. Hale's apprehension—he did not leave me his address when he went away—I could not have earned the 60l. if I had desired—I do not know what wills of relations of mine are at Somerset House or whether my uncle's will was proved.

CHARLES EDWARD DANIELS . I am a bill broker of Clements Lane, City—I knew Mr. Barton some years before August, 1881, and have discounted bills for him to something like 14,000l., which were always met at maturity except one, as to which there was an irregularity in the advice—I have seen Hales once—I do not know Mr. Miller—Mr. Barton brought me the bill in question in August to get discounted and mentioned the Central Bank—I agreed to discount it subject to inquiries and to the signing of a certain declaration—I made inquiries through my clerk as to Mr. Miller's position, and the result was that I discounted the hill and gave Mr. Barton a cheque for 236l. 19s. 3d.—in September I heard of Mr. Barton's liquidation and communicated with Mr. Miller, who purported to be the acceptor of the bill—his solicitors answered my inquiry, after which I spoke to Mr. Barton—I remember speaking to Mr. Barton in the street, when Hales was called over, and Mr. Barton asked me to repeat to Hales a statement I had made to him to the effect that the bill was a forgery by Hales, but I declined to do so—Mr. Barton then said that I charged Hales with having forged the acceptance—Hales said "You will find the bill to be all right," or words to that effect—I took no steps, I allowed the bill to mature and presented it for payment—it was not met, and I commenced an action against Miller, in which he was interrogated as to the acceptance of the bill, and in March I believe it was, I applied at the Mansion House for process against him for forging the acceptance—I obtained a summons—he did not appear to it—a warrant was issued for his arrest and I offered 50l. reward for his apprenension—later on I took proceedings against Mr. Barton for obtaining the money from me by false pretences with reference to the document he had signed—I never charged him with forgery—he was tried for those false pretences before His Lordship and acquitted—from the time I met Hales in the street I did not see him again till the end of last year, when I received a communication that he had come back to England—my object in the first instance was to get the bill met.

Cross-examined. I charged Mr. Barton with obtaining the money from me by false pretences, and I believe he did so—I saw him on the day the cheque for 236l. 9s. 3d. was given to him—he then told me he had drawn

this bill to Mr. R. Miller, for payment for hops sold to him—I believed it was drawn in respect of that transaction, and on the faith of that statement I gave him the cheque—he told me Mr. Miller had been representing him as a man of means, and he had been to Somerset House and had satisfied himself to that effect, having found he was entitled to considerable property under his father's will—I then had the cheque made out by Mr. McDonald, my clerk, and on that occasion Mr. Barton signed this document—it is not true, as far as my knowledge goes, that lie was called upon to sign it just as he was going away, and had got the money, but it was done by my clerk—I was in the office at the time, and was cognisant of what was going on—I don't know the date, but it was previous to the maturity of the bill; I believe it was in September, but I was away at the time—Mr. Miller had been written to in my absence immediately after Mr. Barton's liquidation—I believe I did not write to him, nor was he written to with my immediate authority—I told Mr. Barton that Mr. Miller had denied that the bill was his acceptance—he did not answer my letter, he referred me to his solicitors—I have said"! believe I told Barton soon after he signed his petition that Miller had denied that the bill was his acceptance; I saw him at Mr. Mountain's office soon after he filed his petition, and said that Mr. Mountain had cast a doubt upon the genuineness of the acceptance" (see Sessions Paper, vol. xcvi., p. 452)—that is true substantially; all those proceedings were ratified by me fully—it may have been a month after that conversation that Hales came up to me in the street—I had said to Barton that I believed Mr. Hales had committed this forgery, and I say so still—I went with Barton and Hales after that conversation and had a glass of sherry—it is true that when I first asked Mr. Barton who wrote those words "Accepted, payable at the London and County Bank, Lombard Street," he said that they were Mr. Hales's writing.

Q. Did you swear this: "I asked him in whose writing the words ‘Accepted, payable at' were; he did not tell me it was Mr. Hales's writing, he said that lie had no reason to believe but what it was Mr. Miller's genuine acceptance; he did not tell me it was Mr. Hales's writing, he distinctly said that he did not know"? A. That is not my recollection; there may have been some fencing about it, but it is certain he said that those words were in Hales's writing—I said "He did not tell me it was Hales's writing, he distinctly said that he did not know"—at that time no doubt that was true, but Mr. Barton told me positively that the words were in the writing of Hales—I have sworn that when I first asked him about Mountain's office he distinctly said that he did not know, and I believed it to be true, but on a subsequent occasion it was rectified—it ¦was in the civil suit, in answer to interrogatories, that he told me it was in Hales's writing—it was not till the latter part of 1882 that it was elicited that the words were in Hales's writing—before that he had told me positively nothing more than he had told me on the first occasion—I never thought that Mr. Barton had committed that forgery—I said when I was examined here (Page 453),"Barton said to me 'Did you suspect me of any complicity of knowing this to be other than a genuine bill? 'I said' Not at all, I knew that you were innocent, or I should not haw come to see you;' and I would not have gone to see him if I had thought he was guilty of forgery: I am doubtful now whether he is guilty of forgery; it is only a matter of belief: I said 'I have all through exonerated the defendant Barton from any participation in the forgery, and I say so

now: my belief is a fluctuating belief, and on the balance I do not believe Mr. Barton is a forger—that was a true expression of my belief at the time I made it, but I am doubtful now, and have been many times at various intervals; I had rather exonerate the man than convict him of forgery"—I abide by that—Mr. Hales left Horley, I believe, in February—I do not know whether it was February 10—I heard in September that it was not Mr. Miller's acceptance—a month later I had a conversation, at which time I believed Mr. Miller was guilty of forgery—on 3rd December the bill became due—I believe it was in March that I made application against Hales, but all those proceedings were in abeyance pending the proceedings in the civil action against Miller and Barton—made my application in March, and I believe Mr. Hales had left the country in February—I never sent thin advertisement down to his father's house at Horley, nor did my solicitor to my knowledge. (Offering 50l. reward for the apprehension of Edward Hales, jun.)—I abandoned my action against Miller, and then indicted Barton for obtaining money by false pretences, which were that he said the bill was given by Mr. Miller in payment for hops sold to him—he was acquitted, and brought an action against me, and recovered 300l. damages, which I have not paid, or the costs; having a judgment against Mr. Barton on the bill in question I set the one against the other, not having received any money under the judgment—the agreement between us is that we are simply abiding by what took place in the Court of law; he got 300l. against me, and I got 250l. against him—I don't know what his costs were in the action for malicious prosecution, but the estimate is about 90l. for the taxed costs—I have written a letter to Mr. Barton within the last fortnight about apologising, since this case was committed for trial—the words (Page 452), "I cannot give any opinion whether the words 'Accepted, payable at the London and County Bank, Lombard Street,' and' G. Russell Miller,' appear to be in two different writings, but I believe they are," are a misprint or a misreport; it means that they are in the same writing; I certainly did not swear that they were in different writings; I believe now that they are in the same writing—I did not say at the police-court, "I adhere to what I said at the Court; I cannot give any opinion whether the words' Accepted, peyable at the London and County Bank, Lombard street,' and 'GK Russell Miller,' are in two writings, but I believe they are"—that is an extract from my evidence which was quoted to me by Mr. Besley—I said that they were in the same writing—if you have the shorthand writer here who took the notes I cannot help it—I understood my depositions when I signed them—before I showed that bill to an expert I submitted it to an optician two years ago, and came to the conclusion that the acceptance and the signature are written under the writing of the body of the bill—that is my judgment now for what it is worth—I did not try to get Mr. Barton to pay the money before I instituted criminal proceedings—I did not write to him in April to ask him to pay the money—my clerk wrote him a letter in his private capacity, which I repudiated, and Mr. McDonald swore that he had no part or parcel in it—I believe I had no communication with Mr. Barton in 1882—I have said, "I saw Barton on several occasions while he was trying to assist me," that was to assist me in the arrest of Hales—I knew where Hales senior lived—I have only seen him once—it was

after 3rd December that I went to see him—I did not try to get money out of him—he lives near Tonbridge—I did not tell him I had an acceptance which apparently had been forged by his son—I produced it, and asked him whether it was his son's signature—he did not tell me it was not and that his son could not write like that—he said that if it were not for the misconduct of his son, whom he called "That wretched boy," he had no misfortunes in his life, and he referred me to his solicitors—I did not say that I only wanted my money, and he had better write cheque for the amount and take up the bill, but I said he might possibly remove the difficulty by paying the money—that was not the reason I went—I never suggested his drawing a cheque—he did not tell me if he believed his son was guilty he would do nothing to save him, and ask me to leave the house and communicate with his solicitor; on the contrary he treated me with the greatest courtesy, and showed me into the morning-room with his daughter.

Re-examined. He spoke of him as "That wretched boy" and the bane of his life—I have been examined at least a dozen times in this matter, including the civil proceedings—I was cross-examined at great length by Mr. Willis and by Mr. Besley at the Mansion House.

GEORGE SMITH LNGLIS . My office is at 8, Red Lion Square, Hoi born—I have made handwriting a study, and since October, 1882, I have been engaged in giving evidence on writing in Courts of Justice—I have been employed by the Treasury to give evidence in their eases—I have examined this bill and my opinion is the words "G. Russell Miller," and the words "Accepted, payable at the London and County Bank, Lombard Street," were written by the same hand, but slightly disguised—the down strokes in the acceptance are light, the pen is turned to the bottom part and the letters seem to run on the same line of writing, and the same feature is seen in the word "Russell," the last part of the capital R in the signature is in close resemblance to the small "h" ii the word "the"—the loop letters "bl" in "payable" are closed up, and the same occurs in the word Russell—the "k" in "bank" is open, and the same occurs in the two "ll's" in "Miller"—if you compare the "a" in "accepted" with the "a" at the end of the line, you will find the last is angular and not at all like the letters in the same line—the "e" in Miller in angular, and does not agree with the "e" in Russell—the "r" in Miller is of the same formation as the same letter in Lombard Street, with the shoulder to the right—my opinion is that the "Accepted payable" and following words are written with a quill pen, and the signature with a steel pen, but with the same ink—I have arrived at this conclusion after careful consideration.

Cross-examined. I have not considered the body of the bill at all—I generally look for capital letters for comparison—I have no materials to judge from but these ten words—there is a very small loop in the first "l" in Russell, the pen has gone up and come down on the other side very close but not in the same line, therefore it makes a loop; the downstroke does not come down on the upstroke, but it touches it more or less all the way down, the loop is a question of degree—I cannot say which is the true writing, the "ll's" with loops or those without—I compare both—there is one "l" in the acceptance—the "k" in bank u open, it does not correspond with the "ll's" in Russell, but it does correspond with the "ll's" in Miller—the "ll's" in Russell are closed

up, and are much smaller, and I find two loops closed up in "payable"—the "k" is the only letter in which the loop is open, I think the "l" is filled up, that would correspond with Russell, and not with Miller—I am not prepared to show you which is the true writing—the final stroke of the "r" in the signature resembles the "h" in "three" the downstroke is light, and the pen is turned down at the bottom, making it heavy—my experience is not that it is very common that the lower part of the stroke where it is carried on is thick—my experience is only thirteen months—many people naturally write on the side of the pen, but it is not the rule—my attention has not been called to the body of the bill, it was never suggested to me—I have not had it under my inspecttion since I was examined at the Mansion House—in the acceptance the two "ss" are separated and they are not alike in shape—the two "ll's" in Miller are looped—I have not investigated whether the body of the bill was written before or after the acceptance—I have got a magnifying glass, and the 250l. 5s. certainly seems to have been put on after the writing which it crosses; the black ink has certainly been written across the other. (The Jury having examined the bill with a magnifying glass, stated that they believed the body of the bill was written after the acceptance.)


NEW COURT.—Monday, February 25th, 1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-316
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

316. JANE PATTERSON (21) PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.— Twelve Months Hard labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-317
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

317. GEORGE HAZEL (19) to a like offence.— Judgment respited. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-318
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

318. KOFFMANN NICHOLSBURG (21) to stealing, being employed in the Post-office, a post letter and packet the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.— Five Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-319
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

319. PHILIPPINE WERLIN (29) to forging and uttering a request and a receipt each for the payment of 10l., with intent to defraud.— Five Day's Imprisonment . [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-320
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

320. MARY ANN JONES (40) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin, having others in her possession.


ELLEN GODDARD . I am the wife of John Goddari, we keep a dairy in Tachbrook Street—about 7 p.m. on the 24th January the prisoner came in for three eggs, which came to 4 1/2 d.—she gave me a florin—I said "It is bad"—she said "Is it?" and offered me another florin—I told her that was bad also—she said she had them in change for a half-sovereign that morning—my husband went into the parlour to get his hat, and she walked out—I gave the two florins to my husband, I know them by the bend—these are they (produced).

JOHN GODDAED . I was in my parlour about 7, and my wife brought me a bad florin; I went into the shop and bent the florin in the tiller, and told the prisoner I should detain her till I fetched a constable—she then' offered a second florin—I bent them both in the tiller—she said nothing—I went to fetch my hat, and when I came back the prisoner was gone—I overtook her about twenty yards off and said "I shall charge you I with passing this bad money," she made no answer—on the way to

Rochester Row she said "You won't lock me up, you won't be so cruel?"—I said "You will have to come with me and give an account of it"—I gave both the florins to the constable—I had never seen the prisoner before.

ROBERT WHEATLEY (Policeman B 302). About 7 p.m. on the 24th January the prisoner was brought to the Rochester Row Station by Mr. Goddard, who charged her with uttering these two bad florins—she said "They were given to me by a gentleman"—she said nothing about a half-sovereign in my presence prior to her being searched by the female searcher—I took a purse and a penny out of her hand—that was all that was found upon her—I asked where she lived, she said she had no fixed abode—she was perfectly sober.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am examiner of coins to Her Majesty's Mint—these are two bad florins, and from the same mould.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I was not aware they were bad."

The prisoner in her defence asserted her innocence, and said that the would not have offered two bad coins in one place if she had known they were bad.

GUILTY .— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-321
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

321. ARTHUR JEFFREY (17) , Unlawfully having counterfeit coin in his possession with intent to utter it.

MESSRS. CRAUFURD and Lloyd Prosecuted; Mr. Keith Frith Defended. Charles Drew (Policeman E 325). About 8.45 p.m. on the 1st February I saw the prisoner and three others in Wellington Street, Strand—they all four went into the Wellington public-house—shortly after I went in and saw them standing in a corner of the bar together—I said "Halloa, you here, what have you got about you?"—the prisoner said "Nothing"—I said "Have you got any bad stuff about you?"—he said "No"—I searched them all four—I only found some coppers on one of them—I knew the prisoner before, he has been pointed out to me as Billy the carrier—in his right hand outside coat pocket I found a packet containing ten bad shillings, each wrapped up separately—I said "What do you mean by these, these are bad?"—he said "Are they, I did not know I had them"—he had no other money on him—I took him to the station and charged him—I had kept my eye on all the men after I went into the public-house—I did not see anybody put the coins info the prisoner's pocket—I had seen them all four together two nights previously. (MR. LLOYD proposed to ask the witness who and what the other men were. MR. FRITH objected that the characters of persons with whom the prisoner had been in company would not be evidence against the prisoner. He had not set up the prisoner's character, and this evidence if relevant would only be relevant to character.

The COMMON SERJEANT, after consulting the RECORDER, ruled that it would be safest not to admit the evidence.)

Cross-examined. The coins were wrapped up in the pocket on the outside.

By the Jury. Fourpence was found on the other men—I was unassisted in the public-house—they did not resist, I got them all four in a corner—the prisoner had paid 4d. for some drink he had.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These coins are all bad—they are blackened and wrapped up like this to prevent them from rubbing, and then the black is rubbed off just before they are uttered.

The prisoner received a good character.

CHARLES DREW (Re-examined). I have known the prisoner about five or six weeks as an associate of men who have been charged with uttering, and as frequenting a public-house where a number of men were apprehended for uttering counterfeit coin.

Cross-examined. Charles or John Hayward was one of the men—his address is Betterton Street—I have seen the prisoner in his company several times in Endell Street—no other officer was present—I cannot say if he knew what kind of persons they were—he lives in Betterton Street.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-322
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

322. JOHN COLE (20) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MESSRS. LLOYD and HICKS Prosecuted.

ELLEN CONNOLLY . I am assistant to Augustus Dorrington, a confectioner, of High Street, Camden Town—on the evening of the 8th February the prisoner came in for some sweets, which came to seven pence—I served him; he gave me a florin—I placed it in a drawer by itself, and gave him the change—when he was gone I found it was bud—I marked it with some caustic—this is it—on 9th February he came again about 12.30 p.m.; he had threepence-halfpennyworth of sweets and gave me a shilling, I gave him change, and then I recognised him and went to see which way he went—nobody else was serving, and I did not go after him—I put the shilling on one side, and afterwards bent it—on the 11th he came and asked for twopenny worth of sweets and put down a shilling—I recognised him, and said "Oh, have you any smaller money?"—he said "No"—I said "Would you mind waiting while I go upstairs and get you some change, as I haven't any here?—I went into the next house and fetched a constable, and gave him in charge with the shilling.

THOMAS BUDDLE (Policeman S 361). On 11th February I was called, and saw the prisoner in the shop; Connolly made a statement to me, and told him she gave him into custody for passing a shilling, and because he had been there twice previously—he said he did not know they were had—I took him in custody; one coin was handed to me then and two at the station—the prisoner was charged with uttering the three coins at the station—he said "I plead not guilty"—he was searched and 1d. found on him—he gave an address, which I went to.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . This is a bad florin, and these are two bad shillings from different moulds.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "The first two I know nothing about, the last I admit passing."

GUILTY .— Twelve Month's Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, February 26th 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-323
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

323. THOMAS SIMPSON (44) was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.



FRANCIS WILLIAM POLLARD . I am a clerk at this Court—I produce

the original depositions taken against Coutts and Dickens; they were sent to this Court when those prisoners were committed for trial.

EDWARD LEES . I am Chief Clerk at Worship Street Police-court—I produce two informations against William Tooth and Andrew Coutts, also one against Walter Henry—warrants were granted, and Coutts and Dickens were brought before the Magistrate on a great number of occasions, first of all on 17th May—depositions were taken—the chaise wm conspiring to cheat Mr. James Rowney and other persons—Mr. Rowney and several other witnesses were examined—the prisoner was called as a witness for the prosecution—I took down his evidence; it was read over to him and signed—Coutts and Dickens were afterwards committed for trial—Henry was never brought before the Court. (The deposition of the prisoner being read, stated that he had always known Dickens as Plummer, not as Dickens or Tooth, and that he did not know Walter Henry, though his wife had let a room to him for two nights.)

ARTHUR ARCHIBALD HANSFOBD . I live at 90, Pitfield Street—I am a mortgage broker—I know the prisoner—I was present at Worship street when he was examined as a witness when Coutts and Dickens were there as prisoners—I went with him to the police-court—after he had given his evidence I told him "I would not have done what you have done; you knew he was Dickens, you also knew he was Tooth"—he said "I nave done it, and who is to prove different"—I had heard him swear that Dickens was Plummer—I never knew him as Plummer till I was at the Court—I knew him as Dickens, and I have also known him as Tooth—the first name I knew him by was Tooth—afterwards I met him with a person named Neal in Neal's house, 90, Bishopsgate Street—the prisoner was there also—there was some conversation about a mortgage which I got for the prisoner—Dickens was Tooth then—he said "Don't call me Tooth, if it makes no difference to you, call me Dickens"—I laid "Very well, it won't make any difference to me, I will call you Dickens"—I have often seen that man and the prisoner together, and drank with them together—Dickens was passing as Dickens and Tooth; never no other name—I afterwards met the prisoner one day; he said he was very glad that he met me, that he wanted to find young Dickens, that they had got a bill discounted together that had become due, and he wanted Dickens to put his name to it again, and he would not show up—I and the prisoner went and found Dickens at a public-house in Moorgate Street—I did not know that Dickens was arrested till I saw the prisoner—he said he wanted me to go with him to the police-court, and I went—he said "Young Dickens is in trouble, and if I don't mind I may get into trouble too."

Cross-examined. I have been at police-courts many times, not on my own account, but I have been there on my own account about twice—it was nothing criminal—I am not ashamed of it—I was once robbed, and I was given into custody for robbing the man that robbed me—they shut me in a public, and they broke the windows and then swore that I broke them; that is the reason I do not like perjury—I had to pay 10l.—you defended me, and advised me to pay the money and settle it—I used to be very foolish at one time; if any one was in trouble I used to try and get them out of it—I don't like police-courts—I went there for the benefit of mankind, as a philanthropist, if you like to call it so—I got 1,550l. on mortgage for the prisoner—I was to have a commission—he paid me a

part; he has not paid the rest; he won't; I don't mind; he is not the only one; I have plenty owing me more than he does, and I have to I put up with it"—he can read and write and spell very well—I have known him about two years.

WILLIAM THOMAS . I live at Punster House, Dunster Road, East Dulwich—I know the prisoner—I first went to his premises in Bishopsgate Street about a year and a half ago—I saw him there and Dickens with him—I heard the prisoner address Dickens in reference to the bill—he spoke to him in the name of Dickeus—he never addressed him in any other name in my presence—I never heard the name of Plummer mentioned—Tooth is the man I heard addressed as Dickens at the prisoner's office.

Cross-examined. I have known Tooth about two years, he was called by both names, Tooth and Dickens.

WILLIAM NFALE . I live at 2, Place Street, Walthamstow—I know Mr. Hansford, and I know the prisoner and young Tooth—I have known Tooth about two and a half years, or from that to three years, both by the name of Tooth and Dickens—I never heard of him by the name of Plummer—on one occasion I saw him and the pr'soner in my parlour behind the shop, when they were speaking about a mortgage—Tooth was then addressed as Dickens or Tooth, I do not remember which—I have frequently seen the prisoner and Tooth together, Tooth always passed by one of those two names.

Cross-examined. Hansford was there to the best of my recollection—I cannot call to mind hearing Tooth ask Hansford to call him Dickens; he might have done so, I was in and out from the shop to the parlour—I knew him as Tooth and Dickens.

WILLIAM HENRY TOOTH, THE YOUNGER . I am now a prisoner in Coldbath Fields Prison—my name is William Dickens—I was tried here in May last in the name of William Dickens, that is my name according to law—I was at Worship Street Police-court when the prisoner was examined as a witness—I had known him from three to five years—I took the name of Dickens from 1869 or 1870—I enrolled it in the Court of Chancery—up to that time I had always gone as Tooth, my stepfather was Tooth—I arranged to take these premises in Bishopsgate Street of the prisoner, and commenced to carry on the business in the name of Plummer—I gave references in the name of Walter Henry and H. Dixon and Company—I wrote to Mr. Rowney on one of the printed forms in the name of Walter Henry—this is it—the prisoner generally addressed me as Dickens—he has known me in the name of Tooth—I first used the name of Plummer when I started this business, at that time I was living at 72, Rhodeswell Road—I had my letters sent in the name of Walter Henry to 77, Bishop's Road, where the prisoner lived—I had these printed forms and billheads prepared and sent to the prisoner's' place of business.

Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate "I have been by the names of Tooth and Dickens, Plummer, and Walter Henry," also, "I passed as Plummer from December, 1882, till I was taken in May, 1883"—the Prisoner knew me as Plummer; it was at his suggestion that I took the name of Plummer—from November to May he knew me as plummer.

Re-examined. I have not gone by the name of Plummer except with

reference to this business—the business was not a fraud, I intended a legitimate business.

WILLIAM HENEY TOOTH, SENIOR . I live at 10, Danbrook Road, Newington Butts—I am stepfather to the last witness—he used at, onetime to bear my name of Tooth, he was baptized in my name when I married his mother—he afterwards took his mother's name of Dickens—I hare known the prisoner about four years—he knew my name and that the witness was my stepson—I was in the habit of seeing them together—the prisoner was in the habit of addressing him as Tooth first—my bob never changed his name to Dickens till he became acquainted with the prisoner—the prisoner knew him by both names.

WILLIAM HENRY CHARLTON . I am an accountant, of 11, Queen Victoria Street—I know the last witness, she brought the prisoner to me about May, 1880—at that time young Tooth was not present, he was afterwards on one or two occasions when the prisoner was present—he spoke to him as Tooth and Bill—until the inquiry at Worship Street I never heard of the name of Plummer.

FREDERICK ABERLINE (Police Inspector). The two men Coutts and Dickens were taken before the Magistrate at Worship Street—I saw the prisoner with reference to that matter, I think, on 13th May—the two men were then in custody—I had a warrant against Walter Henry—I saw the prisoner at his shop, 37, Norton Folgate—I told him who I was and that I had called with reference to Walter Henry, that two men named Plummer and Coutts were in custody, and that one of the references by which goods had been obtained was Walter Henry, of 97, Bishop's Road, Victoria Park, his own address—he said he could not understand it, that he had no knowledge of Walter Henry whatever—he said that he had no knowledge of Dickens or Dixon or any such name—I mentioned several names—I told him that most extraordinary replies had been received from persons who had been defrauded from Walter Henry having written to them from 97, Bishop's Road—he again replied that he could not understand it at all, he had no idea who Walter Henry was or anything about it—I was afterwards at the police-court when he gave evidence.

The prisoner received a good character.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-324
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

324. HENRY RAE (30) PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully forging and littering false testimonials to character, with intent to defraud Thomas Andrew Walker.— Twelve Months' without Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-325
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

325. EMILY STEVENS (32) to stealing a gold watch and chain value 12l. of Martha Francis York, also to stealing two jackets and other articles of Charlotte Griffin in her dwelling-house; also to stealing a gold watch and chain value 35l. of Alexander Scott.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-326
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

326. JOHN HALL (27) to stealing a bag and other articles value 2l. of Arthur Griffiths, having been before convicted at Bow Street Police-court in 1882.— Nine Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-327
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

327. HANS HEINRICH SHWARTZ (31) to three indictments, two for burglary in the dwelling house and stealing therein, and one for attempting a burglary.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-328
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

328. CHARLES RICKETTS (38) and FREDERICK SMITH (36) to two indictments for burglary, RICKETTS having been before convicted at the Middlesex Sessions in August, 1882— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour each. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, January 26th, 1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-329
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

329. JOHN DAY (36) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.


JOHN HYDE . I keep the Crown Public-house, Hatton Garden—on 3rd January, about 7.30 p.m., the prisoner came in for a pint of ale and gave me what I thought was a shilling—I put it in the till and gave him the change—before I closed the till I saw that it was much paler than the other silver; I took it out and found it was bad—I was going to challenge him, but he was gone—I walked round the neighbourhood but could not see him—he came in again about 8.45 for half a pint of half-and-half and put down this other coin—I took it up and said "This is a fac-simile of the first," and called a friend, who held him while I got a policeman—he was charged, but said nothing—I heard him asked for his address at the station—he said "No address."

REUBEN MARK (Policeman G 309). Mr. Hyde called me and gave the prisoner into my custody for passing two bad shillings—he said 'I took them on the road, I meant to pass them somewhere"—I found no money on him—he said he had got no home.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to Her Majesty's Mint—these are two early farthings of the Queen—they have had on one side Victoria Dei: Gira:" which has been obliterated except the "Dei" which I can just see—on the other side there should be "Britannia" and a wreath, I can see a little of it remaining—they have flattened it and made it a little larger and silvered it over, and imitated the edge by knerling it—they are only worth a farthing each.

Prisoner's Defence. I was hard up when I picked them up. I did not know they were bad.

GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-330
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

330. JOHN NORMAN (23) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.


FREDERICK BRAY . I am barman at the Railway Tavern, Fenchurch street—on 15th January the prisoner and Smith and another man came in—Smith, who was convicted last Sessions (See page 446) called for a pint of ale and gave me a florin—I put it at the back of the refrigerator and gave him 1s. 9d. change—I gave him a spouted pint pot and one glass, and they both drank out of the same glass—Smith then called for half an ounce of tobacco and gave me a florin—I said "This is bad"—he said "Is it?"—I said "Yes, it is made of pewter pots," and took a knife and cut a piece out of it—I then took the other coin from the refrigerator and said "This is another bad one," jumped over the counter, and laid hold of Smith—the prisoner was standing by his side—Smith offered to pay with a sixpence—I gave him in custody—the prisoner followed to the station, and the inspector put him into the dock and charged him also, but after a week's remand he was discharged by the Lord Mayor—he gave the name of Frank Davis.

HENRY ROSE (City Policeman 784). I was called to the Railway Tavern and found Smith in a corner and the prisoner a little farther on—Mr. Bray was detaining Smith and gave him into my custody—I told the prisoner to follow to the station; he did so and was charged and taken to the Mansion House and remanded till the 22nd, when he was

discharged and Smith was committed—he gave his name Frederick Day; nothing was found on him—Smith was tried here last Sessions and convicted—he called the prisoner as a witness both here and at the Mansion House, and he signed his deposition—I was present here and heard him examined—he said that Smith did not tender a counterfeit shilling', but paid with threepence in good money.

HENRY CLAYTON . I am in the service of Mr. Wood, of Ludgate Hill, a tobacconist—on 2nd February, about 6 p.m., the prisoner came in for a cigar, which came to 4d., and gave me a half-crown—I said to Mr. Wood" Take 4d. out of that half-crown," and slid it along the counter—no change was given.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You afterwards put down a good florin.

WILLIAM WOOD . I am a tobacconist of 28, Ludgate Hill—on 2nd February, about 6.15, the prisoner came in; I was serving somebody else; I saw him tender a half-crown, which Clayton shoved along the counter and said "Fourpence out of that half-crown"—I took it up and said "Halloa, here is another bad one of the same date as the other one; I should think your brother passed it"—I did not know him or his brother—I gave him in custody with the half-crown—he said nothing but put down a good florin—I did not give him any change but detained bath coins.

Cross-examined. You said "Give me my change, I am not going to stop here all day"—I first stated that it was at 7.30, but I corrected it before the Lord Mayor.

ABRAHAM WALKER (City Policeman 433). On 2nd February, about 6.15, Mr. Wood charged the prisoner—he said nothing—I took him to the station—he gave his name John Norman, but at the Mansion House on Monday morning he was asked his name and said Fitz Charles—I said "That is not the name you gave me on Saturday night"—he said "Oh, I made a mistake, old man"—I asked him where he lived—he said he had no fixed residence—I found two good florins on him—he said he had been at work two days that week—I said "Where?"—he said "Whitechapel"—I said "Where?"—he said he did not know the name of the place or the man he worked for—he did not say he worked for a man named Brown.

Cross-examined. You did not say you worked for Mr. Brown, a cooper, for three days, but did not know the name of the street.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . This half-crown is bad; these two florins are bad, and from the same mould.

Prisoner's Defence. I did not know the half-crown was bad, and when I discovered it paid with a florin. I took the half-crown from Mr. Brown, a master cooper, who I had been at work for for three days.

GUILTY** of the last uttering.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-331
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

331. JOHN SWALLOW (37) and DUNCAN HENDERSON (40) , Forging and uttering an endorsement to an order for 24l., with intent to defraud, to which HENDERSON PLEADED GUILTY .

MESSRS. COWIE and BAGGALLAY Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended Swallow.

FENWICK. I am the wife of Mr. Fen wick, of 93, Eaton Square—on 5th January I drew this cheque for 24l. on the National Provincial Bank, Bournemouth Branch, payable to Madame Richards and enclosed it in a letter addressed, "Madame Richardson, 48, Pem

broke Square"—it was not endorsed when I sent it, it was payable to order—I gave it to my servant to post on Sunday night, 6th January—I enclosed a printed bill with it, on which the name Marie Richardson, appeared.

Cross-examined. I drew the cheque on January 5 in the evening, but did not send it to the post till the next evening—it was locked up in a draw till then.

WILLIAM JACKSON . I am footman to Mr. Fen wick, of 93, Eaton Square—on Sunday evening, 6th January, my mistress sent me out with some letters to post, and I posted all she gave me between 10.30 and 11 in the pillar-box at the corner of Lisle Street.

GEORGE STEM RICHARDSON . I live at 48, Pembroke Square—my wife, Marie Richardson, is very ill; I left her in bed this morning—she saw the doctor yesterday—I am sure of my own knowledge that she is not it to travel—I can swear to her writing; this is not her signature on the back of this cheque, nor has it any resemblance to it.

Cross-examined. I say of my own knowledge that it would be dasngerous to her life to travel—she is a dressmaker; her first hand is managing now, but she does not sign cheques.

MR. GEOGHEGAN objected to the admission of the deposition, the doctor not being present to certify that the witness was unfit to travel (See Rex v. Walton, 9 Cox's Criminal Cases, page 4246). The COURT overruled the objection.

The deposition of Marie Richardson teas put in as follows:—"I reside at Pembroke Square. I never received a letter from Mrs. Fenwick. The endorsement on this cheque is not written by me or by my authority."

WILLIAM OSTLER . I am cashier at the Bournemouth branch of the National Provincial Bank of England—this cheque has been paid there, but I don't remember it—it was paid with two 5l. notes aud 14l. in specie—I do not know who presented it—here are my figures in the corner—the date stamp is 8-1-84, that is the way we stamp the date.

Cross-examined. I never saw Swallow to my knowledge.

JOHN RICHARD WALDEN . I keep the London Hotel, Bournemouth—on 7th January the two prisoners came there and engaged one bed-room, which they occupied that night—I saw them next morning—my bill was 18s. 5d., which was paid with a 5l. note—Swallow afterwards said "Would you mind giving me back the 5l. note my friend has paid our bill with?"—I said "I cannot, I have paid it away"—they did not give their names.

Cross-examined. The bill was made out to the number of their room—Swallow said that in Henderson's presence.

LUCY OSNET . I am a waitress at the London Hotel, Bournemouth I remember the prisoners coming there; they occupied the same bedroom—I took the bill to them next morning, and Henderson gave me a 5l. note—I took the change to him afterwards.

SOPHIA FERGUSSON . I am the wife of Colonel Fergusson, of 92, Eaton Square—on 4th January I drew this cheque (produced), put it into an envelope, and addressed it, "W. B. Holderness, Esq., Park Street, Windsor"—Colonel Ferguson gave it to Crabb, the butler, to post, a little after 11 o'clock—I think there was a bill in it with Mr. Holderness's compliments (The cheque was in favour of W. B. Eoldemess, dated 4th January, 1884, for 5l. 12s. 6d., on Coutts and Co., payable to order, and crossed "and Co.," and endorsed "W. B. Holderness").

WILLIAM BROWN HOLDERNESS . I am a surgeon, of Park Street, Windsor—I did not receive this cheque—the endorsement is not my writing or written by my authority.

WILLIAM CRABB . I am butler to Colonel Fergusson—I receive the letters from him or Mrs. Fergusson every night, and I usually post them at the pillar-box at the corner of Lisle Street late at night—I do not remember posting any letters on Saturday night, 5th January, but on that night Swallow came to the door, and I heard him ask the girl whether the butler was in—I then went to the door and saw Swallow—he said, "Is Mrs. Fergusson at home?"—I said, "No, what do you want?"—he said, "I have a cheque, and I wish to know if Mrs. Fergusson would cash it"—I said, "She is not at home, if you will call later on I will see"—he said, "The reason I wish it to be cashed is because my matter, Mr. Parkam, wants to pay some money; he is a silversmith in Sloane Street," or "Buckingham Palace Road,"I forget which—he went away, and came at 6 o'clock—I said, "Mrs. Fergusson is not at home, but I will go with you and get it cached"—he had mentioned that his master had done work for the house—I asked him to let me have the cheque, and he did so, but when he called first he said his master had the cheque, and he would bring it—on the second occasion he said His master could not come because it was a wet night—he also said that his master worked for the young gentleman as well, Mr. Victor Fergusson—I said, "I see the name is Mr. Holderness, who is he?"—he said, "He lives in Wardour Street; iny master has received it in payment of an account"—we went to the Royal Oak public-house and saw Mrs. Holmes, and asked her if she could cash the cheque—she took it to her husband, and then said, "Yes, is it endorsed?"—I said, "I don't know"—the prisoner said, "Yes, it' is all right, it is endorsed"—Mrs. Holmes gave me 5l. 12s. 6d., which I gave to the prisoner, and we had something to drink, for which the prisoner paid—he said, "When shall I see you again?"—I said, "I don't know"—I next saw him at the police-station among a number of men, and I identified him.

Cross-examined. We have no silversmith—I know Sloane Street very well; no Mr. Parkam lives there, but he may live in Buckingham Palace Road, and he may have done work for the colonel—I don't know whether I took the letters to the post the previous evening—if Mrs. Fergusson or the colonel gave me a letter I should post it myself or give it to one of the other footmen—I never look at the addresses on letters, and should not remember posting it.

SARAH ANN HOLMES . My husband keeps the Royal Oak, Elizabeth Street, Eaton Square—I remember Mr. Crabb coming in with the prisoner Swallow, I believe, about the beginning of January—I was asked to cash the cheque produced—I gave the money to Crabb, and he handed it to the man who I believe to be Swallow—they had something to drink and left.

TOM RAYNER HOLMES . I keep the Royal Oak—I remember this cheque—I paid it into the London and County Bank on 7th January—it had an open crossing.

ARTHUR HOLMES . I am clerk in the London and County Bank—this cheque was paid in to Mr. Holmes's account on 7th January.

GEORGE JAMES DRUMMOND . I live at 14, Belgrave Square—on 14th Belgrave Square—on 14th January I drew this cheque. (produced)

Drummond's Bank for 18l., payable to Mr. Goldsmith—I addressed it to Mr. Goldsmith, Penshurst, Sweyland, Kent—it had no endorsement, and it was already crossed in my cheque-book—to the bast of my belief I posted it myself in the pillar-box opposite 13, Belgrave Square.

STEPHEN GOLDSMITH . I am Mr. Drummond's bailiff, at Penshurst—I sever received this cheque—this is not my endorsement on it, nor did I authorise anybody to endorse it.

ALFRED LINE . I am cashier to Harvey and Nichols, drapers, of Kuigbtebridge—this cheque for 18l. was presented by a person who I believe to be Swallow in payment of an account of 6l. 6s. 7d., due by Miss Austin, of 1, Princes Gate—I receipted the account and returned it I to him with the balance—it was endorsed as it is now when he presented it—I afterwards picked out Swallow from eight or nine other men at the General Post-office.

Cross-examined. I had never seen Swallow before the cheque was passed through a pigeon hole—I went into the shop for the cash-box and passed him—I did not go back, I paid him in the counting-house—I did not identify him in the first instance; I fancied he was the man the I first time I went in, and I asked the detective to allow the men to put I their hats on, and then I said I believed Swallow to be the man—his hat added a certain amount of identity to him—I don't know how I paid I him; if I paid him with notes I should not take the numbers—I will not swear I did not give him two 5l. notes, but he said he didn't want a cheque.

Re-examined. He had his hat on—nothing was done to influence me in my identification.

CHARLOTTE MARIANNE AUSTEN . I live at 1, Prince's Gate—I owed an anccount to Messrs. Harvey and Nichols, but I did not receive any account from them, and did not give any one directions to pay it—this cheque for 18l. never came into my hands.

WILLIAM HENDERSON (The prisoner). I have pleaded guilty to this indictment—I first knew Swallow 10 years ago—I met him in the Strand in January, and we went into a public-house—I had this cheque in my possession, which I got out of a letter which I got out of the Eaton square pillar-box with a string and a piece of lead and some birdlime—we went to Bournemouth to get it cashed, as it was drawn on the bank there—we went to the London Hotel there and occupied the same bed-room on the night of 7th January—we had breakfast next morning and went out for a walk—he took the cheque into the bank and I waited outside—I had endorsed it "Marie Bichardson" in my room in New street-Swallow was with me and saw me write it; he suggested that I should endorse it, as it would not be safe for him to do it as he was going to take it into the bank, and I was to keep it till we got to Bournemouth—when he came out of the bank we went to a public-house and had something to drink, and he gave me half the money, a 5l. note and the remainder in gold—we then went for a short walk and went back to the hotel, and I paid the bill with the 5l. note—Swallow went to get some tobacco and he asked me whether I had paid—I said "Yes"—he said "What with?""—I said "With a 5l. note"—he said "I will try and get it back," and spoke to the landlord—I got this cheque for 18l. out of another letter in the same way from a pillar-box—I endorsed it in Swallow's presence, and I gave it to him to the best of my belief in a

public-house—on the Saturday afternoon before we went to Bournemouth he said he would go to the house and find out some of Mrs. Ferguson's tradesmen and asked them to cash it as it was crossed—he went to spiling, the butcher, while I waited outside; he brought it back agian and we went to Eaton Square—he went into Colonel Fergusson's while I waited outside; he came out alone and went back to the house at 6 o'clock; I waited outside and saw him come out with a man; they went to a public-house—I afterwards found him in Ebury Street, and he said he had got he money—we went to the Windsor Castle—he got change for a 5l. note and gave me half of it—Swallow told me he had taken the cheque to a milliner's in Lower Belgrave Street to pay a bill; he came back and said they had not gnt the change; he had got 5l. and he was to call again for the other 8l.—he said it would not be safe to call again—I told Swallow hove I bad got the cheques—I used to meet Swallow at Lazarus's public-house—I received three or four letters adressed there by Swallow to me—I received this telegram purporting to come from J. Robinson, dated 16th January, Fleet Street: "I am waiting at New Inn, Edgware Road, till 10.30. If not at home, come there"—Swallow sent that—I went to meet him after that, he was not there, and then I went to Mr. Mr. Lazarus's house and received a note from him written by Swallow, to the same effect, to meet him in the house in the Edgware Road.

Cross-examined. I told Swallow at the beginning of January how I got possession of these cheques when I met him in the Strand—before that it was perhaps two months since I had seen him; that was in the neighbourhood of the Haymarket—I was not stealing from letter-boxes then; I was an honest man—I was valet to Mr. Julian Gold-smith three years ago—he was a very good master to me—I pleaded guilty to receiving some jewellery stolen from him—I knew it was his—I got three months for that; it was last July—when I came out of prison I did nothing—I often met Swallow—I lived by selling my furniture and different things I had in my possession—Swallow knows I sold a screen I made for 10l.—he first brought up about cheques when I met him in the Strand—he proposed the birdlime—I didn't give it much thought whether the passing of cheques would require more audacity than dropping the thing down the letter-box—I can't say whether I alluded to it the first day I met him in the Strand—I was sorry for what I had done when I left prison—I overcame that sorrow after I had seen Swallow on different occasionss about the beginning of January—I don't know if it was the first time I met him in the Strand—the first time I saw him there he said he was afraid he should get into trouble over a cheque he had forged, and that a friend of his had cashed for him—I knew him when his father kept a public-house—we did not have a serious quarrel about a game of billiards; we had a word or two—I saw him in the summer of 1883 at the top of the Haymarket in a public-house; he was making a book on horse-racing—I forged the endorsement to one of the cheques—I suggested he should forge them—Swallow said he had two friends in addition to him and me—I did not see them—I was running away when taken into custody—I instructed a solicitor to appear for me—I first wanted to give evidence two days after I was apprehended, when I was told that the police had found things in my room—I gave evidence because I considered it was my duty to forward the ends of justice; it was

a duty I owed to society—I had not time to give evidence when the policeman took me—I said nothing when I was charged; I was not asked—it was not the hope of getting off with a slighter punishment; that never entered my mind—I don't know the names of the other men, swallow was too artful—I wanted to go with them to the station to see his friends off to Manchester to cash a cheque for 200l., and he would not let me—that was on the Thursday before I was apprehended—I suppose Swallow got this cheque out of the letter-box—I should have considered myself entitled to some of the proceeds—it did not come off—I know that by what Swallow told me—Swallow told me—one of the other two men was a back clerk—I don't know in what bank—I don't know who the other was; he had been a bank clerk—Swallow would not tell me his name—I can't say if I thought it suspicious that he would not tell me—I don't know if any one is here from the Windsor Caatle where Shallow changed the 5l. note—there is no one here that I know of who ever saw Swallow give me a farthing of money—when I met Swallow I said I had lived with Lord Dunraven—I did not say I was then in his service—I did not ask him to become my clerk—he was not my clerk—I did not say I was doing business with Lord Dunraven's secretary—I paid the 5l. note—I don't think I suggested he should go to Mrs. Fergusson's—he said he would go and try to find out some of the tradespeople Mrs. Ferguason dealt with—I have given the fullest information about the system to the Post-office authorities—I cannot remember if there are other cheques besides those mentioned at the Westminster Police-court—besides these three cheques and the 200l. one there was another that Swallow cashed; I mentioned that at the post-office—I don't remember any others—I could not swear if there are—I don't know how many cheques or letters I stole—I carried a revolver at Bournemouth—I have been in the habit of doing so for years when travelling, and cartridges probably—I did not carry them in London—the prisoner did not remark and ask me about it at Bournemouth; we certainly did not have a row about it—the prisoner was not present when I took things from the pillar-boxes—I was living at Pimlico at this time—I confined myself to the S.W. district—I think I did not go to any other pillar-boxes except those in the S.W.—I never went north of the park, east of Piccadilly Circus, west of Sloane Square—I was a servant to the late Lord Frederick Cavendish—I had not a cheque on me when I first met Swallow—the second time I don't remember if I had.

Re-examined. I had a cheque on me when I was apprehended.

LOUIS LAZARUS . I keep the Bird in the Hand, Oxford Street—Henderson and Swallow were in the habit of coming to my house on several occasions from January 1 to 17—I saw them together four or five times—Swallow left about three notes for me to give to Henderson.

Cross-examined. I used to keep a house at the corner of Wych street—Swallow kept a public-house for some time, and for four years was assistant treasurer at the Opera Comique, Mr. D'Oyley Carte's Company—during the time I have known him he has borne the character of an honest man; I have never heard a breath against him—he used my house, close to which the stage door was—Henderson did not come on the scene till the beginning of January.

ALLEN GEORGE MADDER . I am a travelling clerk in the confidential department of the Post-office—I remember Swallow being brought to the

post-office by Schœber—I told him who I was, and asked him if he knew Henderson—he said "Yes"—I asked him if he knew Henderson was apprehended—he said "I do, from what I have seen in the papers"—I showed him the cheque for 5l. 2s. 6d. marked "A" and said "This cheque was enclosed in a letter by Mrs. Fergusson addressed to Mr. Holderness, of Windsor; the letter was posted in a letter-box Dew Eaton Square, and it is said not to have been received, and you have been identified as the person who took the cheque to Mrs. Fergusson's house, and who went with the butler to the public-house close by and cashed it"—he said "I am not going to answer any questions; I have a complete answer to the charge"—I said "What charge?"—he said "I Suppose you have a warrant or some reason for bringing me here"—I said "No; you have been brought here in order that you might be asked for an explanation with regard to a statement which had been made to we by Henderson"—I then read to him a portion of the statement that Henderson had got the letter out of a pillar-box—he said "I don't deny it"—I said "Where did you get the cheque from?"—he said "When Henderson gave me the cheque he said 'Can you get it cashed?"—I said "No,' and Henderson said ‘You go to Eaton Square and ask for the butler, but don't mention her ladyship"—this was the first time met Henderson for some considerable period—I had this cheque with me, and showed it to him, and said" Have you seen this cheque before?"—he took it into his hands and said "No, not to my knowledge"—I also showed him this cheque, and said "Have you seen this before?"—he said" I have told you I have a complete answer to the charge"—I then read to him a portion of Henderson's statement which referred to this Bournemouth cheque, and he paid "It is a parcel of lies; he is a scoundrel"—I had this telegram with me at the time purporting to come from Robinson, addressed to Henderson—I said "Have you ever sent a telegram to Henderson?"—he said "Not to my knowledge; I would not swear that I did not"—I produced the telegram and said "Have you seen this telegram before?"—he said "Yes; I did send that"—immediately afterwards he said "I say I did not send that."

Cross-examined. Henderson was arrested on 17th January, Swallow on 11th February—I did not see a report of Henderson's arrest in the papers—I never heard a word of this matter till Swallow mentioned it to me—Swallow was brought to me—I did not put questions to him intending to take him in custody—the matter would have been placed before the solicitors if he had answered satisfactorily—it was not left to me to consider whether he did answer satisfactorily—I consulted the solicitor before the conversation—I consulted Mr. Winter for about half an hour—I read part of Henderson's statement to him and then gave him in custody—I am an investigating clerk—it is my duty to inquire into missing letters—I had complaints from the south-western district before Christmas—there were not a number of complaints of this kind from that district during last year—I have often had complaints about other letters posted and not received in the south-west district—it is my usual practice to cross-examine a man like that, I act under instructions—I do not know that police inspectors and judges dare not do it—the secretary to the Post-office is my superior, he knows I ask questions like that, it is all on paper—Swallow's house has been searched, nothing has been found in connection with these.

HUGH EDWARD TAYLOR . I am police officer attached to the General Post-office—in consequence of instructions I received I was on the look out for Swallow—on the 11th of February I met Mm—he went with me to the Post-office and was seen by Madder—when alone with him he made a communication to me which made a note of at the time—he said "Have you seen Henderson?;"—I said "Yes, at the police court; he said "He is a rank outsider, I wish I had never seen him, my wife has cautioned me against him many times; we quarrelled once over a game of billiards at Gatti's, I always hated him and I can answer anything he says against me; I did not like his style when we were down at Bournemouth; when he undressed to go to bed I saw that he had a revolver and a pouch full of cartridges on a belt round his waist. I asked him what he had got that for, and he said he bought it to take to America, and always carried it now"—I have been up and down Sloane Street and Buckingham Palace Boad and cannot see the name Parroni.

Cross-examined. I searched the prisoner's house in Harrow Road and found nothing—I followed him from Harrow Road to Chancery Lane before I spoke—I do not think he was going to his solicitor's—he said "I am going down to the King Lud to have a glass of ale"—I said "I am going to the Post-office, will you come with me?" and he said "Yes," and we went together in a cab.

GUILTY of uttering.

HENDERSON then PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction of felony in March, 1883.— Five Years' Penal Servitude each.

FOURTH COURT.—Tuesday, February 26th, 1884.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-332
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

332. HENRY GOWER (26) PLEADED GUILTY to burglary in the dwelling house of John Gower, and stealing a watch and chain and 6l. 10s.6d.; also to stealing a watch and chain and 4s., the goods and moneys of Katherine Gower.— Twelve Month's Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-333
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

333. EDWARD GOWEN (19) and THOMAS HODSDEN (21) to entering by night with others upon enclosed land to take and destroy game, being armed with offensive weapons.— Eight Months' Hard Labour each. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-334
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

334. ARTHUR JAMES MAINWARING (23) to obtaining by false pretences from Richard Godfrey Webster a gold watch, with intent to defraud, and from Reuben Dimes 2l. 10s., with a like intent.— Five Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-335
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

335. JOHN BEGAN (18) to stealing a gold watch and chain from the person of Robert Batterbee.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-336
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

336. DUNCAN ANDERSON (36) , Stealing 11s. of Robert Ames. Second Count, receiving.



ROBERT AMES . I am a messenger in the Education Department at Whitehall—on Saturday, the 19th January, I left the office between 1 and 2 in the day, leaving 11s. in a drawer in a table in the messengers' room—6s. were wrapped up in a piece of paper, and 5s. were loose in the drawer—I had had it all in a purse, but through putting it all in I burst the purse and consequently put it in paper—I locked the drawer—the prisoner was a writer in the same department, and had been in the public service about nine years—he was in a different room—I came to

the office on Monday, and about 10.30 found the lock of the drawer had been tampered with and the money gone, the purse was left—the next morning, Tuesday, I reported it to the chief clerk—I found this screwdriver in the prisoner's drawer, off which the lock was broken—on Tuesday the police officer, when the prisoner was taken into custody, showed me this piece of paper—it is a piece of disused examination schedule in which I had wrapped the 6s.—I had torn it myself that morning, and am quite positive it is the piece of paper in which I wrapped the 6s.—all disused papers are common in the office—the prisoner had no business whatever in the messengers' room—his room is three rooms from ours.

Cross-examined. There was a fire in our room that day—it was five or six weeks since I wrapped it up in the paper, and the money has been in the paper since—Taylor is employed in our department—he was there when I locked the drawer, I don't know if he was when I put the money in the drawer—I had nothing particular besides the money in the drawer—there were matches; I missed some—Taylor was not in the habit of coming to me for matches—I don't know that Mr. Martin, my predecessor left out matches for office use—I have been in Her Majesty's service all my life—I have known the prisoner about 12 months—I do not knot that the prisoner produced three or four similar pieces of paper out of his pocket—I have heard since that he is in the habit of collecting 8 raps of paper, and that his room is crammed with scraps like this—our office hours are over at 5 o'clock, and then coal-men and charwomen come into the room—they cannot have access to drawers that are locked unless they find a screwdriver to help them—my lock has next I been tampered with to my knowledge—I never heard of its being broken open; I didn't know it was very cranky—I knew the lock of the prisoner's room was out of order, but not that he brought the screwdriver to set it right—the money in the old purse was two half-crowns, and in the paper was 5s. 6d. in silver and six pence—I am shortsighted—I identify the paper by the manner in which I tore it, by its shape—that is the only reason for identifying it now, but at that time the impression of the money was on it—it has been handled so many times that it is not on it now—I don't know that the prisoner had a penny wrapped up in it.

ARTHUR TAYLOR . I am a messenger in the Education Department—on 19th January the prisoner was with me in the messengers' room from 1 to 5 o'clock—I was not in the room the whole time, while I was there he was sitting at the table where the drawer was—he went to sleep for half an hour between 1.30 and 2 o'clock, and he went to sleep again in the afternoon—alter 1.30 he awoke, and we talked—I went to room 265 to answer the bell, and was absent about two minutes—about 3.30 Heft the room for 10 minutes—I think the prisoner was in the messengers room during that 10 minutes—he went down for about 10 minutes to get his work ready about the same time that I went out—he came back about 20 minutes or a quarter to 4 and remained till 5 o'clock, when I went home—he was in the room when I left—this was the room where the 11s. were—I did not see the drawer had been opened—I did not look to see, I did not try it—the drawer was kept locked, I saw it locked just before 1 o'clock by Mr. Ames.

Cross-examined. The prisoner was out on one occasion when he went

out for 10 minutes to get his work ready—I left at 5 o'clock or at two of three minutes before 5—I did not say at the police-court "And he I returned to my room till 5 o'clock, when he left"—he ought to have I left then, I don't know whether he did or not—I wanted matches that I day—I used to be in the habit of getting them from Mr. Martin, Ames's I predecessor—I knew matches were kept in the drawer—I said to the I prisoner "Matches ought to be left out"—I did not try the drawer to I get them out—I had a piece of telegraph wire at the office, I found it in I the street—I have thrown it in the tire since—I did not take it out of the I fire—I hare got a bit in the office now, I kept three bits in the office—I I didn't take any matches from the drawer.

Re-examined. I did not try the drawer at all.

GEORGE FERRIS (Policeman A). About 1 o'clock on Tuesday, 22nd January, I went to the Educational Department, Whitehall, and saw I Ames—I called the prisoner in and said "I am a police officer; from what I have heard you were here on Saturday afternoon"—he said Yes"—I said "Did you see any one at that drawer?—he said "No"—I said "There was some money stolen from it, about 11s"—he said "I know nothing about it"—I afterwards saw the chief clerk, and the prisoner was given in custody—I told him he would be charged with stealing the 11s.—he said "I know nothing at all about it"—he appeared very frightened and was holding his hand in his right-hand pocket—I said "Have you any keys?"—he said "No, I have none here"—I said "What have you there?"—he produced a piece of paper from his pocket, a penny was wrapped up in it—there were several other pieces of paper—Mr. Ames looked at it and said "That is the paper the money was wrapped up in, the 6s."—the prisoner said "You have made a mistake, sir"—I took him in custody—I found on him a memorandum book, a half-crown, and four pawn-tickets—afterwards Ames showed me this screwdriver—I examined the lock of the drawer—I found marks there; it appeared as if it had been forced, taken off, and replaced—the marks might have been made with a screwdriver.

Cross-examined. He asked leave to see his chief before I took him, but I declined—he appeared confused—it would take 20 minutes to take off the lock and replace it—there were four screws to the lock; they were put hack—a mould of the penny having been wrapped in it was on the paper—the other pieces of paper were like this—I searched his room and found a quantity of paper like this—I know he has been in the habit of picking up pieces of paper like this, and that he bears an irreproachable character.

By the Jury. I could tell the lock had been taken off and put on again by the marks on it on the lock between the catch and the wood—the lid would be lifted up, and the lock had been taken off after that—it was not an old lock.

GEORGE WILLIAM KEKEWICH . I am chief clerk of the Education Department—when my attention was called to this matter I examined Ames's drawer and the screwdriver, and found that the drawer could be prized open by means of the screwdriver—the screws were not in to their full extent, I cannot say they were loose.

Cross-examined. I am the prisoner's superior—he has been there about nine years—I believe his character is irreproachable, and from the reports that he is a good worker, but very slow—he is a writer at 10d. an hour

—Mr. Petterbridge is head of the department—he was called at the police-court—according to Taylor's statement at the police court there would not have been time to take off the lock.

Re-examined. I should think it would take 10 or 20 minutes—the prisoner as writer had no right to be in the messengers' room at all—I found 98lb. of paper.

ARTHUR TAYLOR (Re-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN). This (produced) is the piece of wire I threw into the grate; it was then crooked like this—the prisoner usually remains in the messengers' room; we were cosier there, and had a chat together from 1 to 5.

WILLIAM PETTERBRIDGE (Examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN). I am the prisoner's superior—on or about 9th January I was looking over the parts of our offices that required repair and making a list of repairs, and there was a lock to the prisoner's door that required repairing, and he said, "Don't put that on the list because I can bring along a screwdriver and mead it myself"—that is the screwdriver I saw there the next week—it was common knowledge that he was going to bring it down—he bears an excellent character—he has stopped late to make up arrears; he does not get extra pay for that—he has also done jobs there as carpenter—I do not join in this prosecution.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-337
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

337. DUNCAN ANDERSON was again indicted for stealing 98lb. of paper and a printed minute book, Her Majesty's property, he being employed in Her Majesty's service. Other Counts for receiving the same.

MR. POLAND Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

GEORGE FERRIS (Policeman A). I took the prisoner, and afterwards went to his house, 4, Thomas Street, Peckham—I found there a quantity of paper—next day I made a further search, and altogether found 98lb, of paper, some of it tied up in bundles and newspapers, some of it cut where the Government stamp was, so as to make notepaper—besides the clean foolscap are unused forms, envelopes, and a minute book, all with Government marks on it—the prisoner was present—he said, "I have been in the habit of taking it away in little bite, as you see"—he said he was in the habit of accumulating things.

Cross-examined. He gave me every assistance he could—I saw several empty matchboxes there—I believe he had a mania for collecting things—I found the parings of his toenails and part of his hair cut off was actually preserved too—I found 1l. worth of halfpence stored away—these scraps of paper are part of a copybook; it is waste paper—these envelopes are used, most of those not used are soiled—the minute book is a blue book of 1847, containing a lot of examination papers—the prisoner said it was the accumulation of nine years; I have no reason to doubt him—the total value is about 9s.

Re-examined. I know nothing of how long he has been accumulating it except from what he told me.

GEORGE WILLIAM KEKEWICH . I am chief clerk of the Education Department—all the waste paper in the department is returned to the Stationery Office—the prisoner had no right to take any away—the value of the whole of it is about 6s. or 7s.

Cross-examined. The clean paper is worth about three-farthings a pound; the other is ordinary waste paper—the secretary is my superior—I have had no complaint from him of any falling-off in the revenue.

WILLIAM PETTERBRIDGE (Examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN). I am head of the prisoner's department—to a small extent the clerks can use waste paper for their own convenience—I don't know that the prisoner worked overtime at home—books like this "Minutes of the Committee on Education" are frequently taken home by the clerks with the cognisance and permission of the authorities—I have often given authority to one of my clerks to take a blue book home to read; this is the precursor of a blue book; I have not gone through it—I have heard the prisoner used to wrap up bones in bits of paper to bring home to a cat.

Re-examined. In the Education Department all waste paper has to be preserved—if he wanted to wrap up a parcel in some he could do so.

By MR. GEOGHEGAN. They all write notes at the office on official paper.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-338
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; No Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

338. WILLIAM HARRIS (28) and CHARLES BRAITHWAITE (21) , Robbery with violence on John Cope, and stealing a watch, his property.

MR. RHODES Prosecuted.

JOHN COPE . I am manager of the Liberal Club, Aldgate Road—on 12th January I was in High Street about 2.3—I was wearing a watch and chain and had about 6l. in my pocket—I had just got off a tramcar on to the pavement when there was a block in the horse way which caused a block on the footway as well; I stepped on one side with my little boy and there came a rush, and the two prisoners passed in front of me; I felt a pull at my watch and saw one with my watch in his hand and the other with my chain—I caught hold of the one that had the chain, the other went round to the back of the crowd, and then I was struck on both sides of my head and on the back and laid down, and the one I had had hold of got away—I got up and saw the one with the chain and chased and caught him again—then the other prisoner came up and caught hold of my throat, and I was thrown down again and trampled on—while I was down I heard one say "Poke the b——," and I let the one I had hold of go because I did not want to be injured—on the 22nd a policeman fetched me to Bishopsgate Police-station, and I identified Harris from eight others without the least hesitation—I have not the slightest doubt he is the man who had my watch and the man that had hold of my throat—the other one is the man who had my chain—I am quite positive they are the men.

Cross-examined by Harris. You went to my back; you caught hold of my throat the second time—I was assaulted when I caught hold of the other prisoner the second time—there were two or three gentlemen outside the crowd who said they dared not come to my help as they were afraid of being assaulted themselves—there was a crowd of roughs—it was just the time the police were changing their beat—I caught the one I could lay hold of—I called out "Stop thief!"

JOSEPH HART (This witness being deaf and dumb, his evidence was interpreted by signs). I work at Swift's, the fruiterer's, in Aldgate Street—on 12th January I saw Harris take the watch—I saw him at the police-station afterwards and identified him without difficulty—I am quite sure he is the man that had the watch—I saw Braithwaite with Harris on the 12th—he took the Albert chain.

Cross-examined by Harris. You put the watch in your pocket And went

round a street and came back—I followed you and could not see a policeman—I followed you to Brick Lane Lodging-house, and a policeman came up and caught you—I followed you and notified to the policeman that you had the watch and he took you—you took the watch and left the chain hanging, and then you came back and took the man by the throat.

Cross-examined by Braithwaite. I did not say before the Magistrate I did not see you do nothing; I said I saw you standing beside Harris.

SAMUEL ALLEN . I am carman to Messrs. Webster, 36, Aldgate—on 12th January I was in High Street, Aldgate, with my van—I saw Mr. Cope come along and the two prisoners in the crowd, and when they saw Cope coming they blocked his way, a crowd came bundling round and I saw Harris with his hand in Cope's pocket, and he lost his watch, and then I was walking off my van and went round Middlesex-Street, and saw that Mr. Cope had hold of Braithwaite, and Harris came behind and kicked Cope, and he fell down and Braithwaite got away—I saw Cope seize Braithwaite again, and Harris came and took him by the throat and threw him down—I am certain the prisoners are the men—ten days afterwards I was coming round Middlesex Street and saw Harris—I called the deaf and dumb chap and he said he was the man and I gave him in custody.

Cross-examined by Harris. I was not certain about you, but he said you were, and there you are—I saw you take the watch—I saw your hand on his pocket, and there was a cry that he had lost his watch—no one else could have taken it—I did not take you because I had my own work to do; if an officer had been near I should have given you in charge—I have seen you two or three times before with a lot more thieves—if I had not called the deaf and dumb chap you would have got away—nobody told me to pick you out at the station-house.

Cross-examined by Braithwaite. I only saw you help him to block the way—you had your hand on Mr. Cope's chain—I did not see you use any violence to him.

Re-examined. There was no boy with the van and I could not leave it—Braithwaite committed no violence—he had hold of the chain.

CHARLES WEBBER (City Policeman 924). On the afternoon of 12th January I was on duty in Aldgate High Street—Mr. Cope made a communication to me and gave me a description of some men—on the 22nd the deaf and dumb witness made a communication by signs to me at the corner of Middlesex Street—I saw Harris come up on the other side and cross into High Street, Whitechapel—I followed and clutched him by the shoulder and told him I should take him into custody on suspicion of stealing a watch and an assault on the 12th, I took him to the station—he was detained till Mr. Cope was informed, then he was placed among a number of others in a room and Mr. Cope identified him without the slightest hesitation, as did Hart and Allen.

CHARLES TAIT (City Policeman 890). On 1st February I was in High Street, Whitechapel—I saw Braithwaite there and took him in custody from the published description of a man concerned with Harris in stealing a watch—I took him to the Bishopsgate Street Police-station, placed him among seven or eight others, and he was identified by Cope and Hart—he struggled to get away from me.

Cross-examined by Braithwaite. You struggled with me after I told you what it was for.

Harris, in his defence, stated that another man had committed the robbery, and that he would come forward if the case were adjourned. He pointed out that Hart had stated that he was taken on the same day as that on which The robbery was committed, and that Allen would not have recognised him but for Hart.

GUILTY . BRAITHWAITE**— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

HARRIS— Judgment respited.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-339
VerdictNot Guilty > directed

Related Material

339. JOSEPH ROSENBERG (27) , Forging and uttering a receipt for 11l., with intent to defraud.

MR. RHODES Prosecuted.

CHARLES CASWELL . I am one of the cashiers at the London Provident Institute—Israel Belinski had an account there of 12l. 10s. I think on 22nd August last—he had a deposit book—on that day 11l. was drawn out of the account—to withdraw money a depositor would produce the book—this is the receipt given when the money was withdrawn—it is signed by a cross—I saw the person who made the mark—I suppose it was Belinski; I don't know—I asked him questions to prove his identity and they were answered quite correctly.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I believe before the Magistrate Belinski said he and signed it, and afterwards he said he had made a mistake.

ISRAEL BELINSKI . I am a tailor, of 50, Morgan Street, Commercial Road—I met the prisoner and he asked me to give him a night's lodging—I kept him in my lodgings for three days—I had a box in my lodgings lucked—on the third day I went to my box and found it broken open and the bank book had been taken—I had 12l. 10s. at a bank in Moorfields—the prisoner returned and I gave him in custody—the night Wore the bank book had been safe in my box—I did not give the prisoner permission or authority to draw—he comes from the same village in Poland as I do, and we know all about each other—I gave no; one else lodging in the room I slept in—no one else would have access to the room—I had the key of the box; the lock was broken.

Cross-examined. I had had a boy sleeping with me; I turned him out and you slept with me—there were other people sleeping in the place.

CHARLES CASWELL (Re-examined). I asked the man who withdrew the money his address and calling, age, where born, his father's and mother's name—all that was in my book when the account was opened—we have to depend on questions if they cannot write.

The COURT considered that there was no case against the prisoner, and directed a verdict of


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-340
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

340. JOSEPH ROSENBERG was again indicted for stealing a bankbook, the property of Israel Belinski.

MR. RHODES Prosecuted.

JOSEPH NEWMAN (Detective Sergeant). I received a complaint from Israel Belinski, and I went to his house and found his box broken open and his bank book stolen—I went to Moorfield's Branch Bank, Finsbury, and found some person had been there at 11 o'clock that morning and taken out 11l., leaving a balance of 1l. 11s.—I made inquiries and went to Reading—the prisoner was taken to Leman Street Station—he made no reply in answer to the charge—I understand he shared Belinski's bed—

he disappeared suddenly—I don't know what has become of the bank book.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-341
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

341. CHARLES BUSS (30) , Unlawfully assaulting William Johnstone, a constable in the execution of his duty. Another Count for a common assault.

MR. RHODES Prosecuted.

ALFRED THATCHER (Policeman T 533). I was on duty in King Street, Twickenham at 11.15, on 21st January—I heard some halloaing and shouting in the direction of Church Street, and immediately went in that direction and saw the prisoner and Johnstone struggling on the ground—I took hold of the prisoner with Stride's assistance—he was very violent at the station and tried to jump out of the dock several times—Johnstone complained of pains in his side in the prisoner's presence, he was covered with dirt.

WILLIAM JOHNSTONE (Policeman T 462). I was on duty soon after 11 o'clock, on 21st January, in Church Street, Twickenham—the prisoner was making a disturbance—I went and said to him "Now Buss, you must go home, you have been making sufficient disturbance all night"—I had had to speak to him previously—he swore at me—he was drunk—I left him thinking he would go away—he followed me and wanted to know why I had interfered with him, and on my remonstrating with him he said, "You are the b——s—who took me before," and struck me a severe blow in the face with his closed fist—my face was black for several days—he ran away to the other side of the street—I followed him and endeavoured to arrest him—he resisted, and jerked, and tore his coat; and I caught my foot on the edge of the kerb and fell face down in front of him, and he kicked me—I was perfectly exhausted when Thatcher came up, and was 22 days off duty.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not punch you in your eye when you said "What do you do this for?"

ELIZABETH DAWSON . I live at 15, Church Street, Twickenham—about 11 or about 11.15 p.m. on 21st January I was attracted to my front window by loud shouting and angry voices—I saw the prisoner strike Johnstone deliberately in the face saying, "Oh, you are the man who took me before, I will soon kill you"—the policeman made a rush at him, missed his footing, and fell on his back, and then the prisoner deliberately kicked him in the side—he was kicking him frightfully again and again, I could see it by the limp overhead—I saw the constable's helmet fall off, and I saw the prisoner kick him in the chest—two other constables came up and took the prisoner.

GUILTY *.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Wednesday, February 27th, 1884.

Before Mr. Justice Cave.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-342
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

342. KATE MARSHALL (22) , Feloniously casting and throwing a certain newborn male child into a dust heap, with intent to murder it.


THOMAS MARSHALL . I am brother to the prisoner's husband—I live at 4, Haydon Square—I believe the prisoner lived at 154, Old Montague Street with her mother—on 16th January, in consequence of a statement made to me, I looked in a dust hole there and saw a newborn baby,

naked, covered over with ashes and cinders—I took it out by the hand and gave it to Ellen Noble, who took it to the Union.

ELLEN NOBLE . I live at 49, Old Montague street—on 16th January, between 2 and 3 in the afternoon, the prisoner came to my door and said "There is a baby in the dust hole"—I ran over, went through the passage into the yard of 149, and saw Marshall take the baby out of the dusthole; I took a shawl from the prisoner, wrapped the child in it, and took it to the Union—the prisoner looked sober to me.

EMMA ELIZABETH PERRY . I am matron of the infirmary of the Whitechaple Union, I received the child from Noble, it was in a very cold, exhausted condition, and covered with dust and ashes—I removed three cinders from its mouth—I put it into a bath—while it was there it vomited a black gritty vomit—I saw the doctor remove some cinders from its month—on the 26th I saw the prisoner, and she asked how the child Was—I said "It is doing very well, why did you will use so beautiful a baby?"—she said she was very much intoxicated, she had been drinking, heavily for some days; that she was taken ill and while passing through the yard the child was born and fell on the stones, that she thought it was dead, she waited by it a short time and then laid it on the ashpit.

JAMES JOHN ILOTT . I am medical officer of the Whitechapel Infirmary—on 16th January, about 3 p.m., I saw the child there, it was covered with cinders, dust, and ashes, and was cold and exhausted—I had it put into a warm bath, and while there we took some cinders out of its mouth, about six pieces altogether; one larger than the others was at the back of the tongue; it was as large as a small bead—there were two excoriations, one at the back of the head and one on the back—those might have been done by the child falling on the stones—I do not think' that a child recently born could have taken in its mouth the cinders I found, I think they must have been put there—the baby could not have been in the dust hole more than a few minutes; the cord was broken—I had the child attended to and it is now doing well—if it had remained in the dust heap it would have been dead in ten minutes—I saw the prisoner about half-past 6, and examined her—she had been lately confined—she was then intoxicated—if the child had opened its mouth the cinders' might have fallen in.

JAMES BOYLE (Policeman H R 3). About 4 in the afternoon of the 16th, I saw the prisoner in Baker Row with two other women, about a quarter of a mile from Old Montague Street—I asked her where she lived, she said "In Whitechapel"—I said "Whitechapel is a large place, can't you tell me the name of the street?"—she said "If you want any information you must find out"—she was the worse for drink—I took her to the station; on the way she tried to get into several public-house—I took her to the Infirmary that she might be attended to.

JOHN HOLLAND (Police Inspector). The prisoner was brought to the station by Boyle—I had her placed in front of the fire—I told her she need not answer any questions I put to her unless she liked, if she did I should repeat it again—she said "Very well"—I said "Is it true that you have been delivered of a child to-day?"—she hesitated—her sister; Bridget Hill, who was with her, said "Why don't you tell the Inspector the truth?" and then Hill said "Yes, she has been delivered of a child," and the prisoner repeated after her, "Yes, I have"—I said "What did you do with it?"—she said "I placed it on the dustbin to go and get a

Bed gown for it"—I said "Do you know what has become of it now?"—she said "No, I don't?"—the sister then said "Tne fact of it is" governor, her husband has just returned from India, and she did not want him to know it"—the prisoner said "Yes, I did not want him to know it; give me a drop of brandy"—she was the worse for drink—Marshall followed the prisoner to the station, he was slightly the worse for drink, and so was Bridget Hill—the prisoner's husband came in with Marshall, and he was very much the worse for drink—I sent for a doctor and had the prisoner taken to the Infirmary—Bridget Hill was examined before the Magistrate in the prisoner's presence, she had the opportunity of asking her questions. (The deposition of Bridget hill was read.)

Prisoner's Defence. I am very sorry, I did not mean to do any harm to the child.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-343
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

343. KATE MARSHALL was again indicted for unlawfully abandoning and exposing the said child, whereby its life was endangered.

The evidence given in the last case was read ever to the witnesses and assented to by them as being correct.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-344
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

344. JAMES SANFORD , Feloniously abusing Jane Elizabeth Sanford, a girl under 12.

MR. RIBTON Prosecuted; MR. BURNIE Defended.


There was another indictment against the prisoner for an indecent assault, upon which no evidence was offered.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-345
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

345. WILLIAM CROWHURST (30) , Feloniously wounding Thomas Skeggs, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.


THOMAS SKEGGS . I am 15 years old—I live at Holm brook Street, Homerton—on the 19th of January, between 12 and 1 o'clock in the day, I was going down a road in Hackney, and saw the prisoner and a good many more chaps with him—the prisoner was picking a pigeon—I went to look at him—he told me to go away—I said "I shan't"—he said "If you don't go away I will chuck something at you," and he picked up a handful of gravel and chucked it at me—I picked up a stone and gave it him back; he then picked up halt a brick—I picked up another stone—he said "You little ass, if you don't go away I will shoot you"—I ran away, and as I ran I turned my head round and saw that he had a gun up to his shoulder, pointing to me—I ran about 60 yards, he then fired at me—I felt the shot, and fell to the ground bleeding—I was struck in the eye, in both legs, both arms and in the body—I have since taken a shot out of my leg, on the Thursday night as I came out of the hospital—on the Wednesday when I was before the Magistrate, the marks of the shots were still on my arms and legs—William Leach helped me up from the ground, and was going to take me to the doctor's, and the prisoner came up and took me—he said he was very sorry.

Cross-examined. He did take me to the doctor's, and then to the hospital—he was with me at the hospital when the policeman arrested him—he came up to me at once, and said he was very sorry for what had happened—this occurred in Clapton Park; they are making roads there,

and the ground is uneven—it was a pigeon that he had shot that he was picking.

JAMES CANHAM . I am a carman, and live at Holmbrook Street, Homerton—I happened to be passing by with a pair of horses in a cart when this took place—I saw the prisoner with the gun to his shoulder—I saw the flash, and heard the report—I did not see the boy, for the report frightened my horses, and I had enough to look after them.

WILLIAM LEACH . I lodge at the Palmerston beerhouse, Homerton—on the 19th January I was cleaning my tools at the back of this road, I heard a report which made me look round, and I saw the prisoner take the gun away from his shoulder—I saw the boy; he was close by where I was—he was about 50 or 60 yards from the prisoner—I went to him, and picked him up, and was going to take him to the doctor's—I saw blood on his face and hands when I picked him up, and he had his hand up to his eye.

GEORGE EDWARDS (Policeman). On the 9th of January, from information, I went to the Ophthalmic Hospital in Moorfields, and took the prisoner in custody there—I told him he must consider himself my prisoner for shooting the boy—he said "I am very sorry, I did not dream that the gun was cocked"—he afterwards said "I was picking a pigeon, and the boy came round, I told him to go away; he would not, and commenced throwing; I took up the gun, and it went off; I didn't know it was I cocked at the time"—he made the same reply when the charge was read over to him at the station—I went to his house next day, and found this gun there; it is a double-barrelled muzzle-loading gun—one barrel was loaded with No. 4 shot.

JOHN BOWERING LAWFORD . I was house surgeon at the Moorfields Ophthalmic Hospital when Skeggs was brought there—I examined him, his right eye was injured, there was a perforating wound at the lower and outer part; I had to remove the eye—it was such an injury as a shot from a gun would produce.

Cross-examined. I did not examine any other part of hit body, as no complaints were made.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "It was a pure accident." The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. — Discharged on his own recognisance till next Session, in order that he might make compensation to the boy.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-346
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

346. GEORGE BROWN (28) was indicted for b——st—ty.

MR. DOUGLAS Prosecuted.

GUILTY .— Ten Years Penal Servitude.

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, February 27th, 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-347
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment; Miscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

347. JAMES GARDNER (30) PLEADED GUILTY to a defamatory libel upon Robert Gardner.— Twelve Months' Imprisonment, and to enter into recognisances.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-348
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

348. GEORGE ROBERT SHORT (39), GEORGE SUMBY (33), GEORGE EDMUNDSON (37), and HENRY KERR (52) , Unlawfully conspiring to obtain goods by false pretences.

MR. MEAD Prosecuted; MR. WABBURTON defended Short and sumby.

WILLIAM PULLEN . I am a boiler maker, of 28, Milford Street, Wandsworth Road—on 17th October, 1883, I advertised a silver watch in the Bazaar newspaper, and received this letter. (This was from G. R. Short Contractor and General Dealer, 2, Elcott Terrace, Sunderland: "Dear sir—Send me off at once, if not sold, the gent's silver watch, and as soon as delivered I will send post-office order. Oct. 19.") I sent the watch off on the 23rd, the number of it is 24780—I received this post-cud: "Dear Sir,—I have received the watch all right; I have sent it to a watchmaker, and will send you post-office order"—I then received another letter, still promising to send a post-office order; hut I never received it or the watch—I believed what was stated on the heading of the letter, that Short was a contractor and general dealer.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. This is not the first time I have used the Exchange and Mart—I have not studied the rules—my watch cost seven guineas about 18 mouths ago—I got Mr. Box to write the letter for me—I took no steps to ascertain whether Short was a dealer and contractor—I have no friends in Sunderland—as far as I know that may be a perfect description of him.

EDWARD BOX . I am a fitter's apprentice, and live in the same home with Mr. Pullen—I wrote these letters for him.

HARRY CLARKE . On 22nd October I put this advertisement in the Exchange and Mart: "Two antique gold watches in perfect going order; great bargain," giving Mrs. Clarke's, my mother's, address—I received this letter in reply: "25th October. Dear Madam,—Send me the 22carat gold watch, and as soon as delivered I will send you poet-office rder. Yours truly, George E. Short"—I sent the watch by registered letter, and received this post-card: "Dear Miss,—I have received the watch all right, and will send cheque in a day or two"—I have never received the money or watch.

Cross-examined. I have had other dealings through this paper—I do sot know their rules—I do not know that it is the custom to deposit things with the editor to make them safe—this is the watch (produced) I swear to it—I do not know the number—I know nothing about Sunderland—I have made several applications for the money—I heard from Short about three times from the same address—a County Court summons was not taken out against him to my knowledge, but I wrote to my solicitor; he did not say that he was going to take out a summons, he said that Short was not worth a straw, and I said it was not worth while to send good money after bad.

JOHN DAVIS . I live at Battersea—my sister-in-law, Mrs. Hocquest, lives with me—she had some canaries to dispose of, and I put this advertise for her in the Bazaar, Exchange and Mart: "Canaries, 20 very handsome, 14 cocks, 6 hens; the lot for 30s., or exchange. Mrs. Mary Hocquest, Battersea Road, London"—I received this answer: "Dear Madam,—Please forward me at once the 20 canaries, and as soon as the birds are delivered I will send you a post-office order for the amount. G. A. Short"—I sent them and received this post-card: "I received the birds all safe, will send post-office order; I have been from home. Well pleased with same"—I never received the post-office order—I relied on this bill-head stating that Short was a contractor and general dealer.

Cross-examined. That was in the middle of December—I have not been to Sunderland, but I wrote to the police.

MARY HOCQUEST . I am the sister-in-law of the last witness—these I canaries were mine—I saw the letter asking me to send them, and believed the statement that the writer was a general dealer, carrying on business at that address.

WILLIAM BENNETT . I live in Gower Street—on 14th December I put this advertisement in the Bazaar newspaper: "Lady's nearly new 18-carat gold watch, price only 37s. 6d. Cost more than double. W. Bennett, philpot Lane, E.C."—I received this answer: "From G. Slater, manufacturer of solution for cleaning plate. If you have not sold the lady's gold Geneva watch, price at 37s. 6d., I should like to buy it. Post-office order to my address. G. Slater"—I believed he was carrying I on business and sent the watch, but did not receive the money—I telegraphed, but received no reply.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I have not seen it since—I have read the rules of this paper, but the proprietor deducts a commission if you do it through him—there are several ways in which you can make certain of not being swindled—in the original advertisements you ask for a 10-days post-office order, which would have made it safe, but that I omitted to put in.

JAMES THORNTON . I live in High Street, Borough—on 21st November I advertised a watch for sale for 2l. in the Bazaar, and received an answer—I tore it up, but afterwards collected the fragments—the heading of it was similar to this other letter from George Sumby, contractor and general merchant, fiunderland, residing at Monkwearmouth—it asked me to send the watch, and said that a post-office order should be sent by return—I sent it by registered letter, but never received the money—I believed that he was a general merchant at Sunderand.

JOHN DAVIS (Re-examined). On 3rd December I inserted this other advertisement. (Offering German canaries at 7s. 6d. each; addreit, Mits Mary Hocquest, 10, Grenville Street, Battersea Road, London)—I received this answer, "If not sold kindly send by passenger train one as a sample.—G. Sumby, jun."—I sent one and received this card, "Dear Miss,—Bird received yesterday, but has got his leg broken in transit. Kindly send the remaining five; I will send the P.O.O."—I sent them off, but did not receive the order—I wrote in the name of "Miss Hocquest"—I then received this, "As I was leaving my house I was greatly surprised by your telegram saying that you would communicate with the police; you say money to be sent when the birds sing"—I did not say that—it goes on, "You sent me common birds, just as Mr. Cross, of Liverpool, sells two for 2s.; I will take them into Court with me"—the five that I sent were just the same as the sample.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I sent six at 7s. 6d. each—Sumby answered the advertisement, giving his address at Sunderland—he wrote again and said that he would not pay, he would rather be summoned—there was nothing in my advertisement about the money being sent when the birds sang—they were advertised two or three times—in One of the advertisements I mentioned the birds' singing, but that was 14 days before—there was nothing in his letter to show that that was not the advertisement he saw, but it would not take the birds five minutes to sing—I am an authority on canaries, I deal in them—he said that he would only pay through the County Court, and he was put in the County Court.

Re-examined. When I advertised a fortnight before, I advertised six

birds—I advertised again on 3rd December, and the letter I received was dated 3rd December, and therefore I concluded that he referred to that advertisement—no communications were made to me that any of the birds were dead.

MARY HOCQUEST (Re-examined). I saw this letter from Sumby, and saw the printed heading—I directed my brother-in-law to send the birds first one and then five.

JOSEPH FREDERICK BUCKLEY . I am a musician, of Kennington Road—in October I advertised a violin dated.1670, price 15l., in the Exchange and Mart and received this reply: "Trinder Street, Sunderland. Dear Sir,—I write to ask you if you will kindly forward the violin by passenger train to my address, and if it is what you represent it to be I will forward you the amount, and will pay carriage both ways if you do not like it.—Yours truly, George Edmundson, hairdresser"—I sent it by parcels post and received this post-card: "Just received the article and am well pleased with it; will send the order in due course.—G. Edinundson"—I afterwards received this post-card stating, "I have some accounts to receive, and I will then remit the amount: "also this post-card, "Will let you have orier next week, owing to family trouble could not send it before:" also this: "Dear Sir,—Your post-cards to hand; I have sent them down to my solicitor, as I have had four post-cards exposing me, which have done me harm, and I have lost some good customers. I have been very ill of bronchitis, and will let you have settlement as soon as I get better. Your post-card has been to Deptford, London, Deptford, Durham, and Deptford, Sunderland, exposing me. Please do not put me in the County Court for a month longer"—I have not received any money—this is the violin (produced).

HARRY CLARK (Re-examined). I received this answer in respect of the Second watch which I advertised. (Asking for the watch to be sent by registered post. Signed "George Edmonson," Trender Street, Sunderland)—I had already sent one to Short—a hairdresser's circular was enclosed—I received a letter promising to send the money, but never received any post office order—I then received this letter: "Dear Madam,—I beg to inform you I received your post-card and also the letter you posted before. I have been very ill and did not answer. I am sorry you are so hasty, &c. I did not steal your watch, you sent it to me; it is only a County Court job; and let me tell you when you have anything else to sell have the money first, &c. Yours truly, George Edmonson. I will Send you the money when I say"—I never received the money or the watch back, but I received another letter making promises—I believed it was a genuine affair, or I would not have sent the watch.

Cross-examined by Edmundsom. I put you in the County Court and you Jiave put me 2l. 9s. 10d. expenses.

CECIL WEBSTER . I live at 5, Middlesex Place, Hackney—on December 5th I put an advertisement in the Bazaar newspaper: "Violin for sale; price 27s. 6d.; genuine bargain. Cecil Webster, 5, Middlesex Street, Hackney"—I received this answer from 19, Trinder Street, Sunderland: "Be so kind as to send by parcels post your violin, and I will pay the stamps and send on the amount"—I sent it and received a post-card acknowledging its arrival and promising to send the amount, but I never received the money or the violin back.

ALBINIA ROLLAND . I live at Harrow—on 1st August I put an advertisement

in the Bazaar newspaper of a cockatoo, price 35s., and received this answer: "7, Cross Place. Dear Sir,—In reply to your advertisement respecting grey and rose cockatoo, if you will allow 2s. 6d. off for carriage you can send it to my address. Yours respectfully, Henry Kerr"—I sent it and received an acknowledgment, but have never been paid.

Cross-examined by Kerr. The bird was not nearly dead, nor was the cage broken.

CHARLES HAWSON . I live in Soho—on 22nd November I put this advertisement in the Sale and Exchange: "Violin in walnut case, 40s., in exchange for gold watch. Hawson, 28, Little Compton Street"—I received this answer. (This was from R. Kerr, butcher and commission agent, of Sunderland, asking for the violin to be sent, for which he would pay 35s. and all charges, or send a sewing machine in exchange.) I sent the violin, but did not receive the money or the sewing machine—I received a letter from Kerr asking for time—this is the violin (produced).

ROBERT HODGSON BLACKLOCK . I am a pawnbroker, of Sunderland—this violin was pawned with me on November 4 for 1l. 15s., in the name of Minnie Short—I do not recollect the transaction, but this produced is the duplicate—I know her, and I understand she is related to the prisoner Short, who lives in Sunderland, and who I know in a second transaction, but I never saw her with any of the prisoners—this gold watch produced, which is identified by Mr. Clarke, was pawned with me on October 22, in the name of Minnie Short, by the same person, for 2l.; it was redeemed on October 30, and repledged by the same person for 2l. 10s.—I produce a violin and case, which has been identified by Mr. Hewson; it was pawned on 15th December by Henry Kerr, for 1l. 0s. 6d.; he afterwards brought me another violin, but I would not take it, and he said he had disposed of it to Mr. Wall.

Cross-examined by MR. WABBURTON. I have lived in Sunderland all my life—I don't know Mr. G. Joblin, of 31, Marlborough Street, or Miss W. Smith, of 5, Exeter Street—there are such people as Doxford' s, marine engineers, but I don't know that Short worked for them—I know of no business carried on by Short or Sum by.

Re-examined. I saw the violin identified by Mr. Buckley; this is it (produced)—I won't swear it is the one that Kerr offered me and I declined to take; I don't think it is.

WILLIAM JAMES BAIN . I am a letter earner of Middlesborough—on 18th September I delivered a registered letter to G. Slater, 21, Dundee Street—this is the receipt for it—I gave it to the prisoner Sumby; he took it into his room and brought it back signed "G. Slater."

Cross-examined. I had never seen Sumby before and I only saw him for a moment.

Re-examined. I have delivered several registered letters; that is the only one of the prisoners I saw.

JAMES SMITH . I am a van boy in the employ of the North-Eastern Railway Company, Sunderland—I produce my delivery sheet of 4th Aug., 1883—I delivered a cockatoo in a cage that day at Cross Place, and the sheet is signed "H. Kerr"—the van man who handed it to me is dead.

THOMAS WALL . I am a hairdresser, of 202, High Street, Sunderland—I produce the violin and bow and case which Mr. Buckley identifies—I purchased them from Mr. Sumby for 3l. 5s. in October.

Cross-examined by, MR. WARBURTON. I have lived 23 years in Sunderland—I know Doxford's firm, but am not acquainted with them and know nothing about Sumby—I know Edmundson and Kerr—Edmundwn keeps a small baker's shop.

Cross-examined by Kerr. I have known you a great many years by sight—I don't know whether you are a butcher or a commission agent supplying ships and steamers.

THOMAS HALL . I keep the Sunbeam Hotel, and am the landlord of 2, Harper Terrace, Sunderland—Short was the tenant of my cellars—one is dark without a window, and the other looks into a yard—he paid 1s. 6d. a week—he carried on no business that I am aware of—there was only a bed, two chairs, a round table, and a box there.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I went there very often—he does not carry on business anywhere else that I am aware of—his wife goes out washing and cleaning and keeps him in idleness—I know Doxford and Son; I have not known him to work for them.

JOSEPH CHARLTON . I am agent to Mr. Williamson, the landlord of 19, Cage Hill, Monkwearmouth, Sunderland—Sumby occupied two rooms on the top floor at 2s. a week, but carried on no business to my knowledge—there is no name up or any indications of business.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I do not know that Sumby has a place of business at Corn hill in Sunderland—I do not know him by any other name—he has been there twelve months.

ELIZA NICHOLSON . My family live at 21, Dundee Street, Middles-borough—about 20th September Sumby took a room there in the name of George Slater; he was there nine days—several letters came addressed to G. Slater, and some registered packets—he left on a Saturday, and paid me up to that day, saying that he would return on Monday morning—Short visited him there several times, and when Sumby left, Short called two or three times for the letters; I gave them to him and he took them away.

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I am quite certain I saw Short there in Sumby's time, and he came again a day or two after Sumby left—I have not brought the rent book—I think Sumby came in the latter part of September or between the middle and the end—I did not know that Short was in prison for a County Court debt from the 7th to 28th September—I have said that I could not be certain about Short—I am not certain whether I said that I had doubts about him.

Re-examined. I say now that he is the man who gave the name of Short, and who came for the letters—it might be after September 28 that he came.

AMELIA SMITH . I am landlady of 7, Cross Place, Covent Garden, Sunderland—Kerr was tenant of a room on the ground floor at 1s. 9d. a week with his wife and four children—he was a butcher, but not a commission agent supplying shops—it is a private house—he is not in business now—I have seen him in butcher's clothes.

Cross-examined by Kerr. I have not been into your rooms since you left—you were the tenant when I bought the property, and continued till you were taken away.

JAMES BREBNER (Detective Sergeant, Sunderland). I have known Short and Sumby six or eight years as constant associates—I have known Edmundson ten years and Kerr four years; they have been associates

about two years, and they have associated with the others for two years, and they all frequented the same two houses—Short is a joiner, but he has no tools; he has not worked for many years—he is not a contractor or dealer—Sum by is a bricklayer; he is not a general merchant and commission agent; I do not know him as Slater—he has no place in Sunderland where he carries on business—Edmundson has a small hairdresser's shop in Deptford, which is part of the borough—he has been four years in the shop, not seventeen—I have been there eighteen years, and have known him as a hairdresser—Kerr is a slaughterer and cattle drover—he has no business on his own account; he gets a job occasionally from butchers—he assists in driving beasts from the railway station and slaughtering them, when he can get a job—on 11th December I met Edmundson in High Street, Sunderland, and he asked me the reason I would not speak to him now, as we were once good friends—I said that it was in conesquence of his getting goods in the way he was doing and not paying for them, and swindling people out of their property—he said "Listen and I will tell you all about it; you know I tried to lire honestly a long time, but I could not, so I thought I would just try the other way; I was out of work a long time, and got a long way back, and the things I have got have brought me nicely round, but I have not got very many, and what I have got I am paying 1l. a month into the County Court for; there is no trouble in getting them; people never ask for any references, but send you what you write for; I am going to knock it all off after this week and settle down to my business and gather it together again"—I said "I can hardly believe you, you are not out of the long firm yet; Harry Kerr is still in your company," and pointed to Kerr, who was standing by—he said "Oh, Harry is all right"—Kerr heard the latter part of what I said, and they went away together—I took Short on December 19 in a public-house, and charged him with obtaining goods by fraud—he said "That will have to be proved"—I took Sumby on 29th December; he was very drunk, and I could not make much sense of what he said—I saw him next day, Sunday—I said "I have been to your house on Gage Hill; have you any other place of business in the town?"—he said "No; one house is sufficient for one to keep"—I found this paper at Short's house, and at Sumby's house I found this likeness of Short hanging on the wall with the words, "Geo. R. Short, Her Majesty's prison, Clerkenwell," and these billheads (produced).

Cross-examined by MR. WARBURTON. I know Doxford and Son; they are large shipbuilders—if Short worked for them it must have been many years ago—I was stationed in that division nine years—he has not worked for them recently—he was seen in the streets every day, and sometimes drunk—I do not know Mr. Jephson, of 21, Marl borough Street—I do not know Exeter Street, it must be a new street—I saw Short more than once a week for years, and never knew that he had another place of business—he may have had once, but he has not now—I have made inquiries, and can only find the cellar kitchen in which he sleeps—Sumby has never done any contractor's work that I am aware of.

Cross-examined by Kerr. I have known you about four years—I have heard that you had a shop in Sunderland Market as a master baker—you slaughter for Mr. Gilmore, but do not buy and sell on commission for him—you have been selling fiddles, but not cattle.

Cross-examined by Edmundson. You bore a good character up to two years ago.

WILLIAM LEECH (Police Inspector, Scotland Yard). On December 20 I went to Sunderland and saw Short at the police-station—I charged him with obtaining a violin and case by false pretencos from Hewson, and read the warrant for Kerr's apprehension to him—he said "I never did there is a Henry Kerr lives at Cross Place, Covent Garden; I know nothing about it"—as I was bringing him to London in the train on 21st December he said "I know Kerr had a fiddle, I was with him when he sold it to Gilmore, the butcher, about a month ago; Kerr had two fiddles. I never had a fiddle, but I have had other things. How do they say I had the fiddle?"—I said "By the writing," and showed him some letters not referring to the matter, but on similar memorandum forms—he said "That is my writing; I never saw Kerr write, I don't know his writing; I suppose go me other cases will be brought up; the person at the railway will be able to prove I did not have the fiddle, as he saw Kerr sign his name when he fetched it"—the Sunderland police brought me a number of memorandum forms of George Short, not in Short's presence—I went to 3, Harper Terrace—the rooms were cellars, furnished with a bedstead, two boxes, one on the other, used as a table, and two chairs—I have seen Short write, and in my opinion these letters and postcards are his writing—on December 30 I saw Sumby at the police-station, Sunderland, and charged him on a warrant with obtaining some canaries from John Davis by false pretences—he said "I don't know Davis"—Brett handed me about 150 memorandum forms bearing the name of Sumby, in Sumby's presence, and two County Court summonses—he said "That is right"—I have seen Sumby write, these letters bearing the signature of Slater are in Suinby'a writing—on January 26 I took Edmundson at Durham, on his liberation from prison—I read the warrant to him and charged him with obtaining a violin from Cecil Webster—he said "Very well, I will have to go; if I had not been in Durham Gaol for debt it would have been paid"—I have seen him write, these letters signed Edmundson are in his writing.

Cross-examined by Kerr. I cannot say how many fiddles Mr. Hewson sold—there was a telegram to arrest Short alias Kerr, and Short was arrested for Kerr—the names were mixed up together.

ANDREW LANSDOWN (Police Inspector, Scotland Yard). I took Kerr in Durham on January 19—I read the warrant to him, charging him with obtaining a violin from Mr. Hewson by fraud—he said "Is that Mr. Hewson's fiddle?"—I said "Yes"—he said "A great many people advertise worthless articles in the Bazaar newspaper to swindle other people, but they sometimes get done themselves"—I went to 7, Croft's Place, Sunderland, and found Kerr occupied one room there—two old barrels were used for chair and table—there were two old bedsteads covered with sacks—there were no signs of business.

Kerr's Defence. I have been three or four years in business, and lived 45 years in one place.

GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour each

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-349
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

349. CHARLES WILLIAM WILDING (30) PLEADED GUILTY to embezzling the sums of 2l. 4s. 6d., 28l. 5s., and 18l. 7s., of William Cecil Smiley, his master.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-350
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

350. JAMES WALLACE (19) and JAMES LEWIN (19) , Breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Dewhurst, and stealing 49 boots, his property.

MR. BAYLIS Prosecuted.

REV. WILLIAM NELSON WINN . I am Incumbent of the Chapel of Ease of St. Mary, Islington, and have a large school in connection with the church—40 children are clothed, their clothes are kept in a cupboard in the schoolroom from Monday morning to Friday night—these (produced) are some of the clothes—I identify them by the Church button on them—these are new boots—the clothes were missed on Thursday morning, January 17—the value is about 8l. 10s.—they are the property of the trustees of the School-room—I saw the school-room on Thursday morning—one window opening to the playground had been removed, and the cupboard forced open—we found three or four boots in the playground—I know both the prisoners by sight.

GEORGE WILLIAM DEWHURST . I am the master of this school and live on the premises—my son saw them fastened up on the night of January 17th—he is not here—there is a swing window, which was left open for ventilation—a box, a cupboard, and my desk were broken open, the clothes bags were all emptied, and the shoes taken away—the window was entirely smashed, and this swing window was found on the roof of a shed, it opened wide enough, I think, to admit a man without being removed—I cannot say whether entrance was obtained in that way, because the frame of the other window was cleared out—that was near the ground—a ladder in the yard appeared to have been used, and some of our easels had been used to get over the wall—I picked up three or four pairs of shoes in the garden—we missed thirty-six pairs.

JAMES HODGES (Police Sergeant Y 21). On 17th January, about 2.10, I met Wallace in St. George's Road, Holloway, with a parcel, and said "What have you got there?"—he said "Boots"—I said "Where have you got boots at this hour of the morning?"—he said "I have been collecting for Mr. Miles down the road here"—I said "People have retired some time, where have you been since?"—he said "We stopped having a glass"—I said "Have you been stopped before?"—he said "No, the policemen well know us collecting for Mr. Miles"—Wallace called to Lewis "Harry, stop a moment, here is a policeman interfering with me"—Lewin stopped, and myself, Waller, and a man not in custody came up to him—Wallace put the boots down on the pavement and said to Lewis "You have got me into a nice mess carrying these things for you"—Lewis said "Oh, never mind, pick them up and come on, never mind the b——policeman"—Wallace picked up the boots and we went to 9, South grove Road—Lewis knocked and a woman came to the door—he said "Here, take these in for Dick"—she said "No," and slammed the door to as if she was frightened—the prisoner and the other man ran away, leaving the parcel on the pavement—Wallaco struggled desperately, and got one arm under my leg and threw me backwards on the kerb, fracturing one of my ribs, and after five minutes struggle, sometimes up and sometimes down, he escaped—I was too exhausted to follow him—another constable came and secured the parcel—on the way to the station, and near where I stopped Wallace, I found another parcel containing boots, twenty-four pairs in all—I have no doubt the second parcel was dropped by the man not in custody—the

prosecutor identified them—the doctor ordered me home to bed, I had to keep in bed three days, but got up when the prisoners were taken and picked them out from about eight others—I am positive they are the men, it was right under a lamp—another man was apprehended, but he was not the third man.

ROBERT KEEN (Policeman Y R 44). On the 19th January, about 6.30 p.m., I saw the prisoners in the Cock public-house, and said "Jeffery and Lewin, I shall take you in custody on suspicion of being concerned with another man in breaking into the Chapel of Ease Schools on the sight of the 16th, and stealing boots, also with, an assault in St. George's Road—Jeffery said "What, the old sergeant?"—I said "Yes"—I took them to the station, placed them with six others, and the sergeant said That is the man I had the tussle with, and that is the man who knocked me down"—they made no answer.

GEORGE WILLIAMS (Policeman Y 100). I was with been—I took Lewin and told him the charge, he said "I will go quietly with you to the station."

Wallace's Defence. I am entirely innocent, I know nothing about it, and as to the policeman saying what he says I said at the Cock public-house, it is perjury.

Lewin's Defence. I was in bed and know nothing about it. I met this chap's went into the Cock and a policeman took me.


He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at Clerkenwell in August, 1881, in the name of Henry Jeffery.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.


(The COURT ordered a reward of 2l. to Sergeant Hodges.)

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-351
VerdictNot Guilty > non compos mentis
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

351. JAMES BAKER (66) , Unlawfully attempting to wound Mary Baker, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

MR. GRIFFITHS Prosecuted.

MARY BAKER . I am the prisoner's wife; we live at 108, Kirkley Street, Poplar—on 6th February my husband came home between 2 and 3 o'clock—he bad been drinking very heavily on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday—I coaxed him to have some tea—I was lying on a couch, wearing three jackets and a pair of stays with whalebones in them—I felt something pressed against my side and heard something snap—I screamed out and pushed him away—he threw his body over me to stifle my cries—when I got up I save the handle of a knife in his hand, and my three jackets were all cut through.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not pour out the tea for you, nor did the boy Henry heave it under the grate.

The Prisoner. I sat down in the chair with grief and took the knife out of my pocket. They had taken the sheath away when they tried to make me a lunatic. I broke the corner of the mantel-piece with the knife and cleared everything off the sideboard. The blade of the knife broke in the fire-place. She is a false woman. I have lost three month's work through her. She is w—from morning to night—she is the biggest w—that ever trod in shoe leather. I was 66 last Saturday and she is 67.

ELIZA SIMPSON . My husband keeps the Old Ked Lion, Kirkley Street, Poplar, opposite the prisoner and his wife—on the afternoon of 6th February I went across to their house to see the landlady—I heard

creams of "Murder" in a smothered tone and ran to the street door and spoke to Mrs. Davey next door, and turned back and saw Mrs. Baker in a fainting condition—she had three jackets on and they were all cut.

MARY DAVEY . I live at 2, Charles Street—Mrs. Simpson called me, and I saw the prisoner putting a knife like this into his pocket—he said that his heart was broken.

Cross-examined. I was in your room when you said that.

The Prisoner. You never were in that room, you never put your foot on those stairs. They turned to and shut the door. They had a cab outside to drive me to the workhouse as a lunatic, but I scaled the wall and came out at the next door and away I went.

HENRY BAKER . I am the prisoner's son—I found part of the blade of a knife on the boards by the sofa; it corresponds with this broken, part that is in the handle—the things in the room were broken.

The Prisoner. Three pieces of the knife were broken on the mantelpiece and there are only two pieces here.

ROBERT BUTLER . I took the prisoner at the Poplar Union—he said "All right, I will go with you"—the workhouse master gave me this knife (Produced).

WILLIAM FRANCIS GILBERT . I am the surgeon of Newgate—I have had the prisoner under my charge and have conversed with him—I believe he is insane and that he does not know the difference between right and wrong.

The Prisoner. Insane! I have got as good an intellect as any man, and a clear mind and as good conscience as ever I had when I came from my mother's womb. I am a sound-minded man and a true-minded man and I am not guilty. I didn't want to see my wife. I have been away from her and she will follow me, and she has got me turned out twice from the ship, and now she has been w—on board the same ship with the engineer, and captains, and everybody. She is a nasty dirty beast. I am no lunatic and never was.

NOT GUILTY, being insane. — To be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure.

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, February 27th, 1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-352
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

352. KANTOROWITCH STUM ANSELIM (35) , Stealing a coat of John Robert Lambert. Second Count, receiving.

MR. GRAIN Prosecuted.

JOHN ROBERT LAMBERT . I am a commission agent and live at 16, Newgate Street—on 5th January about 5 o'clock I went into the reading room of the Manchester Hotel in Aldersgate Street—I had placed this coat (produced) on a table when I went to—about a minute or two afterwards the prisoner said "Is this your coat?"—I said "Yes" and apologised for covering up the books on the table, and hung it on a peg behind the door—I continued reading till about 20 minutes past 5 o'clock; and then I left the room, leaving the coat on the peg in the room—in about ten minutes I returned—I did not see my coat—the prisoner was not there—I next saw him at the Snow Hill Police-station about 14 or 15 days after, on the 22nd I think.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner (Interpreted). I should say there were

three other coats hanging on the pegs behind the door—it was two or three minutes before 5 o'clock when you asked if it was my coat.

JOESPH BISSETT . I am assistant to Messrs. Fryett, pawnbrokers, Whitechapel Road—the prisoner pledged this coat on 5th January about 7 o'clock for 11s. in the name of Gorryk(?)—I did not take the coat in, I wrote the ticket—I heard no questions asked—the prisoner looked as if it belonged to him—at the same time he pledged a travelling rug with us for 3s.—afterwards I received some information from the constable and was taken to the station on 22nd January—I there saw the prisoner, and identified him as the man who had pledged the coat.

Cross-examined. The rug and coat were both pledged at the same time—I was not in the shop when my master sent for a constable.

Re-examined. The prisoner spoke broken English—he only told me his Name and address.

WILLIAM WEBB . I am an assistant to Mr. Fryett, of the Whitechapel Road—on 22nd January, about 1.30, the prisoner came in and offered, this coat—I had seen the prisoner before and had received certain information respecting him—I noticed that the coat was a great deal too large for him, and asked him how he became possessed of such a coat—he answered me in English that he had bought the coat of a traveller—I asked him why he had bought it—he said he wished to make money by it, to sell again—shortly afterwards he said he had altered the coat from an overcoat, and indicated two marks on it as the truth of his statement—I asked him why he had not taken out the overcoat which he had pledged previously on 5th January—he said because he had not received his money from Germany—then he denied the knowledge of it directly afterwards, and said he did not know anything about the coat—in the meantime I had sent for a policeman, and Thirley came in and I gave the prisoner into his custody—I asked him two or three timed if he had any pawn tickets about him—he said he had only one, which he produced, for a pair of spectacles—I showed him the rug and asked him if he lift recognised it—he said "No"—I took the rug and coat in on 5th January, and my assistant made out the tickets—I think I asked him when why he wanted money, having some slight remembrance of him formerly; he took the coat off his back—I had then no information from the police, but I gave them information.

Cross-examined. The only question I asked you was if you wanted any money—you did not tell me you were a Polish Jew—I believe you gave your address—I did not tell the policeman that if the address turned out to be correct I would let you go—I did not tell my master I had seen you on several occasions, but was uncertain whether you were the person who had pledged the coat—I told him to the effect that you were very much like the person who pledged the coat, and after whom the police were looking.

Re-examined. I gave information to the police after the pawning of 5th January.

JAMES HARDY . I am a shipowner—on 22nd January I was at the Devonshire Hotel, Bishopsgate Street.

MR. GRAIN proposed to ask the witness a question as to his coat which had been stolen.

THE COMMON SERJEANT considered that as the coat was not found in his possession, but only a pawn ticket relating to it, it was not admissible MR. GRAIN submitted that, as in a case of false pretences or forgery, he

could give evidence of other thefts than the one actually charged in the indictment, to show guilty knowledge. The COMMON SERJEANT ruled that this being a charge of larceny, only the actual charge in the indictment could be gone into.

ARTHUR THIRLEY (Policeman H 205). At 1.30 on 22nd January I was called to Fryett's, the pawnbroker's, in the Whitechapel Road—I there saw the prisoner and this coat—I asked the prisoner where he got it from. (The COMMON SERJEANT considered that this conversation, as it related to another charge than that on which the prisoner tots being tried, could not be given, and that it must be confined to the specific charge.) At the station I examined the prisoner and found these 13 pawn tickets sewn up between his two shirts. (These tickets were dated from November 30, 1883, in various names, and related to coats, trousers, boots, Jewellery, and other articles.)

Cross-examined. The pawnbroker Webb said you resembled the person who had pledged the articles, but he was not sure about it—he did not suggest that if you had given your right address he would not have charged you—he said "Let us go to the station first of all and see if his address is right or not."

Re-examined. I found the tickets sewn up in the prisoner's collar at the back of his neck—he cross-examined me in English at the police-court—I said "When the coat and rug were shown to you at the pawn-broker's, you said' I never saw them before, you have made a mistake.' All the people in the pawnshop said they knew you."

The prisoner, in his defence, stated that on 5th January he was in company with some of his friends, actors, till 5.30, when he went to see some acquaintances in the Whitechapel Road. He contended that had he intended to steal the coat he would not have first asked Mr. Lambert if it was his; that he would not have had time to steal the coat and rug in two minutes, which was the time stated at the police-court; and that he would have been too shrewd to go again to the same pawnbroker's, especially as they knew his face by his having lived opposite; that the pawn tickets found on him were for things he had purchased and pawned to gain a living, and he knew nothing about the coat and rug.

GUILTY .* There were five other indictments against the prisoner.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

OLD COURT.—Thursday, February 28th, and part of Friday, 29th, 1884.

Before Mr. Justice Cave.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-353
VerdictNot Guilty > directed; Not Guilty > unknown

Related Material

353. DAVID RICHARD JONES (30) and ARTHUR GEORGE JONES (24) were indicted for feloniously setting fire to a dwelling-house in the possession of Arthur George Jones, with intent to injure.


MR. BESLEY appeared for David Richard Jones; and MR. CRANSTOUN for Arthur George Jones.

CHARLES DOD (Police Inspector Y). I made this model (produced) of the premises 96, High gate Road—it is correct.

JAMES ADNEY . I live at 92, Highgate Road, Kentish Town—I am a bootmaker—I was formerly a gastitter—about the end of August I went to these premises; there was a room at the back used as a hairdresser's

shop, in which was a bracket and a pipe; this produced is the same bracket, just as it was then, the gas flowed downwards—there was a shelf, and underneath that a gas bracket—I fitted that my self originally and I made this model of it—if the part above was stopped the gas could not get down to this burner—I didn't see anything of the damage done to the pipe—I went to the premises after the tire—I had not been there between the time of fixing the pipe and the fire—the top burner was about four feet from the ceiling—on Saturday, 30th November, about 10 in the morning after the fire, I went there; I saw Arthur Jones and the witness Garrett—I looked at the place where the fire had been—the partition was all burnt away, and the bottom tap was turned off—I moved some of the debris away and saw that it was turned off—they said that there was a leakage in the gas—I could not swear who spoke; they were both together—I said "I know that my joints were wound," and they said that the tap must have been left full on—I said "That cannot be, for the tap is off"—I can't remember that they made any remark upon that—the pipe was entirely gone; all burnt away—it was a composition pipe—I saw the top bracket found among the debris by Inspector Dod—I looked at it, and the tap was slightly turned, not sufficient to let the gas through—I tried it by blowing into it; no air passed, I am quite sure if that—I saw the other three burners in the back room; they were all off—firemen had been there before me—on the Friday night, between 9 and 10 o'clock, I was at the Vine public-house; David Jones came in white I was there with three other persons—Stevenson was one of them—after they had been there about ten minutes Garrett came in and gave David a key—David said "Eight," and immediately left the house—he went towards No. 96—I saw him from the window—he was away for about ten minutes—I then saw him come in again; it might have been ten minutes or a quarter to ten—I don't remember whether he left before I did.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I cannot give you the date when I first, made my statement or gave my proof—I do not think I was examined on the 11th of January—it was on the 17th, it was before I heard they were in custody that I gave my evidence, it might have been nine or ten days or a fortnight before, I could not tell you—I did not put down the dates—I think it was before Christmas, but I will not be positive, Sergeant Miller can fix it, he took down my statement—when I put down this pipe it was for the purpose of carrying on the hair-dressing business—the pipe comes down from the ceiling from the upper part of the house—I have given up my gasfitting for a living, but I frequently do it now—I had been on the premises before I had put up this bracket, I knew the predecessor in the business—I had not done any gasfitting business for him—this pipes I was put on for the convenience of warming the shaving water—the composition pipe is much cheaper than the tin pipe—it was entirely consumed, nothing of it was left—that was on the 18th of January—the upper bracket was found among the debris—the leather beds in the upper rooms were consumed and the feathers had fallen through, with the plaster and dirt—I saw the fire at half-past 1 o'clock, it was alight at that time—I do not know that it broke out then—I live next door but one—I saw the firemen there, a policeman, and, I think, a watchman—I was there before the fire-escape man came—he went in first, through the window—there was a light in the upper part of

the house, a jet of gas in the front room, it was flame that I saw, the whole of the back of the house was alight—I went through the yard to see the flames before anybody came up—that was about half-past 1—I was in bed at the time, my lodger called me up, and I dressed and went downstairs—that did not take me more than two or three minutes—I had to go to the back to see the flames, there were no flames in front—the front door had been broken open before I got there the front of the house was scarcely damaged at all—there was no indication of fire at the front when the escape man went in—the fire upstairs was in the fitting room, not the bedroom—I have only known David Jones since August—I heard that his parents kept a dairy in Bow Street, and that he was conducting it—I learnt from him that he had a considerable amount of money coming to him—the prisoners both said it—they spoke of thousands of pounds, in fact they spoke of an estate in Wales—I went into the premises about twenty minutes or half an hour after the fire was out—I did not examine the place then, I merely looked in out of curiosity to see what the damage was—the meter was in the corner of the shop.

Cross-examined by MR. CRANSTOUN. On Friday morning, the 10th, I was in the Vine, and the fire happened three hours afterwards, which would make it on Saturday morning—I saw Arthur Jones at 6 on Friday afternoon in the shaving saloon; he was then about to leave—he said he was going to the Grand Theatre—I saw him go off with Steventon—Garrett and David Jones were there, I think, no one else—I saw nothing: of Arthur that night.

By the JURY. The partition was lath and plaster for about 7 feet, the bottom part was panel—there was not wood work above the shaving-pot, it was all lath and plaster—I should test an escape of gas by blowing through the pipe, and also by suction—I should try both, and I did so to try whether gas would pass through—I have been in the trade eight or nine years.

CHARLES GOODWARD (Policeman R 8). On 3rd November last, about 20 minutes to 2, I was on duty in High gate Road, when my attention was called to No. 96 by smoke issuing from the back-room window—I got over the back wall, looked in the back window, and saw that the back room was on fire—I then sprang my rattle for assistance, came round to the front in Highgate Road, and burst open the side door and got out a chest of drawers—I then found that the smoke was too dense to proceed farther into the room—I closed the door and remained till the fire brigade arrived, which was within about 10 minutes—I didn't go in with them, I gave up the charge solely to them—the chest of drawers was just inside the passage; it didn't interfere with the door as I burst it open.

Cross-examined. I was about 50 yards off when I saw the smoke coming out of the chimney at the back—I saw a light in the room and flames coming from the floor of that room—I went along the wall of the back-yard so as to see in at the window; it was closed—after the fire was all out I went in and let the firemen in—it was ail over in about 20 minutes—I hammered and knocked at the door at first to ascertain whether there was anybody in the house—some one came up, I cannot say who it was, and said that there was no one in the house.

Re-examined. I did not notice whether there was any shutters to the

back window, I could not see any—I could not see whether there were any flames at the lower window or not.

THOMAS WILLIAM BATEMAN . I am an engineer in charge of the fire station in the Highgate Road—on the morning of 3rd November at 1.50 I was called to No. 96, it was about 400 yards off—when I got there I saw Good ward standing at the door—I opened the door and saw that the place was all alight, the back part of the house and the passage—I got to work and the fire was extinguished in somewhere about 40 minute—I afterwards examined the premises, and discovered that the fire had originated in the partition on the left-hand side as you entered the room—the fire had travelled upwards and had burnt through the partition towards the staircase—I did not see the composition pipe, none of it was left—the fire had gone through the staircase up to the floor above, which it had burnt through—considerable damage had been done to the back room, first floor; the contents of it had been burnt—when I got into the house I found all the doors and windows closed—after the fire was extinguished I noticed the gas-burners; there were three standing there—I told one of my men to try and light the gas, and I found that the pipe was melted and there was no gas on—there were shutters or boards to the back window of the shaving saloon, they were closed—on going upstairs I didn't find any burner alight—I did not go into the front room for some time, when I did so the gas was out—in my opinion the fire had been alight for some considerable time before I got there—the salvage men arrived before I left—I returned to the station at 3.12 a.m., and soon afterwards the prisoners came in there—David asked me if there had been a fire up the road—I said "Yes," and asked him if he was not Mr. Jones—he said he was the brother, and he pointed to one behind as his brother who was the occupier—I asked David if he could give me any cause for the fire taking place—he said "No," he could not—I asked him what time he left the house—he said, "About 9 o'clock"—I asked him who was the last man in the house—he said, "I was"—he said that his brother had gone out about 5 p.m.—he said he and the barber or workman were in the house—I don't think Arthur spoke to me then; he did speak eventually, but not then—I asked David if he had any occasion to go to the cupboard under the stairs with a candle, or anything of that kind, and he said he believed not—I think he said when he left the house he went to a public-house close by—I asked Arthur if he could tell me anything—he said "No," because he had left and had gone to the theatre or music-hall with a publican's daughter in Camden Town—I booked the times I have spoken of, at least my man on duty did so.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I took no note of the conversation which took place between me and the prisoners—Mr. Stevenson was with them at the time—I asked which of the two was last on the premises, and David said he was and the man that worked in the barber's shop—Arthur said that he had gone to the theatre or music-hall with the publican's daughter—I didn't see the gaslight turned down but still alight in the top front room when I went there at 1.50—the front door had been opened then—I didn't say before the Magistrate that when the door was opened I could only see smoke; nothing of the kind—I am quite clear about the matter—as soon as the door was opened I could see the place was well alight—the place was full of smoke, but when I went inside I

could see the place was well alight—it took more than ten minutes to get the fire under; it took fifteen minutes—I have attended a few fires in my time—I left the place in the charge of my own man—Cook was there before I left—the fire was then out as far as I could say—I didn't see an one connected with the insurance office to my knowledge—I cannot say when I was first told to be a witness; I should say it was two or three days before I was examined at the police-court—I had seen the police authorities before that—Inspector Dod told me to come to the police-court—I didn't make any statement to him as to what I was going to prove.

Cross-examined by MR. CRANSTOUN. I had charge of the fire-hose—I went inside the house with it, to the room upstairs, and all round where the fire was—when the prisoners came to the fire-station David said Arthur was the proprietor.

By the COURT. My men and myself played on the fire—I could not perceive any smell of gas at the time I found it was burning; I could not tell whether there was any gas flame, there was too much fire—after the fire had been put out, about half an hour after I arrived there, I ordered my man to go and turn the gas meter off—I didn't see him do it—he is here.

ALFRED FREDERICK PITAWAY . I am a fireman, stationed in the High-gate-Road—I was in charge of the fire-escape on the morning of 3rd November—I went to the fire at 96 with the escape, which I used to get into the front window on the first floor—about half an hour after the fire was out I went downstairs; the place was all in darkness—I looked round to see if anybody was in the house, and I turned on three gas burners in the back room ground floor, and tried to light them with my lamp—they would not light.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I did not see the meter—I did not see Adney, only the firemen in the building—I saw the constable at the door—the light was in the first floor front—I could not see it when I first went in, the room was too full of smoke; it was turned down very low—I turned it up afterwards; therefore the gas must have been on at the meter then—only the stand pipe was used to put out the fire—I was the first person who entered the upper part of the premises—the fire was then entirely in the back—I did not enter the lower part of the premises till the tire was put out.

WILLIAM HENRY COOK . I am in the Salvage Corps—on Saturday morning, 3rd November, I went to 96, Highgate Road—I got there something after 1 o'clock—Bateman was there—after the fire was put out I was left in charge of the premises—between 3.15 and 3.30 the prisoners came to the house with Mr. Stevenson—I asked if they wore the proprietors of the house—George, I think, said "Yes"—I said "Very well," and they came inside—I asked if they could assign any cause for the fire—he said that they could not, but they threw out a suggestion that it might have occurred from a spark or the overheating of the shaving pot, which was fixed on a shelf and nearly over the meter on the left of the shop—he pointed to the place where the shaving-pot had been—I called their attention to the scantiness of the stock, and asked if they had lost anything—George said "No; there was not much in the shop, as what was ordered had not come in"—I asked who was last on the premises before the fire—they said Garrett, the assistant in the shaving

department—they said they would go to Garrett's to sleep, as lie had a place and could accommodate them—they then left—I remained in charge till Mr. Wood, the assessor to the insurance office, came—nothing was taken away up to that time—some considerable time afterwards I saw the premises examined—that was alter I had been before the Magistrate—Inspector Dod and Mr. Adney were there—the debris in the hairdressers' shop was moved, and I saw a bracket in Mr. Adney's hand—I did not see him pick it up—I examined it; the top was off—it was slightly turned—Dod took possession of it—the prisoners and their assistant with my permission had looked through the debris for a few things belonging to the assistant—I have been in the Salvage Corps four years—I would rather not give a professional opinion as to how the fire originated.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I said before the Magistrate "I did not notice any wood, or shavings, or anything that would have assisted the flames"—I said the fire originated at one point and might hare spread in the way in which I found it—I think the building was rather old; there was only one storey above the ground floor—the outside walls were of brick, the interior divisions were lath and plaster—half an hour would be quite enough to gut a house of that description if the doors and windows were open—they were all shut.

By the COURT. The fire originated just above the bracket—the pipe under the bracket was melted and the partition burnt—the top bracket was gone, the best part of the bottom bracket remained—the shelf was burnt and all the upper part was completely gone.

HARRY OAK STEVENSON . I am a clerk employed by the Submarine Telegraph Company, and live at 23, Fortis Road, Kentish Town—I have known the two prisoners for some little time—I knew that they lived at 96, Highgate Road—I remember the fire of 3rd November—about two or three days before that, on going into the house with the prisoners, about 1 o'clock in the morning, my attention was attracted by a strong smell as of burning, and one of the prisoners, I could not say which, called attention to a shaving-pot that was there; it was picked up off the shelf, and the one that picked it up dropped it, it was hot; it was in front of the glass on the fixed shelf—the shelf was burning, but not flaming—I extinguished it by wet towels—I had no difficulty in doing it—on the night of the fire, Friday, 2nd November, I went to the premises about 6 o'clock, by appointment, to meet George Jones, to go to the theatre with him—I went into the barber's shop—David Jones and Garnett were there—I and Arthur George went away to keep our appointment—we left David Jones and Garrett in the shop—Arthur and I went to the theatre with two young ladies, and we then came home again as far as Camden Town—we went into the Buck's Head public-house, and whilst there David and Garrett came in—that was about 12 o'clock; they stayed about 10 minutes, and then left—Arthur and I remained some little time, and then we left and went for a walk up to the Euston-Road, then back again up to Hampstead Road and Kentish Town—Arthur accompanied me the whole time—we met David and Garrett in the Kentish Town Road about 1 o'clock—they said they were going to walk to the Euston Road, and upon that the four of us turned back and went as far as the Britannia public-house, in High Street, Camden Town—I then advised Garrett to go home, and he shook hands and left us—the

prisoners and I then went down to the Euston Road and stood there talking for about five minutes; we then turned back to come home to the Highgate Road—David sat down on the coping of the railing that is near Mornington Crescent, and I and Arthur stood there for a few minutes waiting for him—we then went straight up the High street to Kentish Town Road and stopped at a coffee-stall outside the Assembly public-house and ordered some coffee—someone came up to us there and said "Have you heard of the fire?"—one of the prisoners, I cannot say which said "Where?"—the man said "At the Vine"—George said "What, at the Vine?"—he said "No, at the little cigar shop close by"—one of the prisoners said "Why, that is my place"—we then ran up to the fire station and there saw the witness Bateman; they had some conversation with him and stayed there, I should think, about 10 minutes; that was just alter 3 o'clock—we then went to 96, and got there between 3.15 and 3.30—I looked for the policy of insurance; we were all looking for it—I believe the salvage men asked for it; and one of them said it was in the bureau in the passage, and it was found there, and it was given to one of the salvage men—it was a similar document to this (produced)—it was shown to the salvage men, who looked at it and handed it back to one of the prisoners, and he took it away with him—the three of us then went to Garrett's house and slept there that night.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I had known the prisoners about four months at that time—I was living at 23, Fortis-Road, not far from them—I had been there very often—I had seen an oil painting of their father, and the ordinary furniture of a house the appointment to go to the theatre had been made some time previously—I did not hear David say to Arthur "Leave it to me, cheer up; I will have a flare-up to-night"—it was sot said in my hearing—George had gone upstairs for his overcoat, and directly he came down we left—on the evening when the tin can was found to be very hot, all the water had boiled away—I can't remember at what height the little jet was burning; I can't remember it burning at all—no particular notice was taken of that matter till after the place was burnt-down—I said it was two or three days before the fire; I am not prepared to say it was not a week before—on that occasion I had been walking with both of them up to about 1 o'clock in the morning—I believe Garrett is married; I am not—it was not unusual for us to be walking about till 1 o'clock; I had walked with them as late as that on previous occasions—Garrett was with us up to about 2 o'clock I think, or not quite so late—after leaving the coffee-stall we had to pass the fire station to get to 96—we stayed at the station about 10 minutes, and then went on and found the place in possession of the salvage men.

Cross-examined by MR. CRANSTOUN. It is about a mile from the Buck's Head to 96.

Re-examined. When I went to 96 on the Friday night I went through the shop into the saloon and walked about waiting for George—I did not hear any conversation between the brothers, nothing particular, I did not listen—I waited till George had got his coat and hat—they were down-stairs.

WILLIAM GARRETT . I live at Victoria Road, Kentish Town—I am by trade a hair-dresser's assistant—I knew the prisoners when they were living at 96, Highgate Road—I first knew them about 12th September—

Arthur Jones engaged me for the hairdresser's department, in answer to an advertisement in the Daily Chronicle—I did not live on the premises the prisoners lived there—there was no servant—I commenced at a salary of 25s. a week, after a time I was to have had 30s. as the business increased—it had increased—I did not get my wages regularly—about the second week after I was in their employ it fell short; I had part—they could not pay me all because the money was expended in other ways—David said so—my wages got into arrear—I remember 40l. being borrowed from a loan office in October, Arthur asked me to join in the promissory note—this is it (produced)—this is my signature, and the other is Arthur Jones's—I heard from Arthur, on signing this, that there was also a bill of sale on the furniture; I knew that this was for extra security—I had on several occasions before that lent Arthur small Bums of money, the last time was 5s.—after that on November 2, the night they went to the theatre—I was paid 6l. 10s. out of the money from the loan office—about the 27th or 28th of October, I remember the part by the shaving-pot being burnt—I noticed it when I arrived the next morning—David said "You done a fine thing last night"—I said "What?"—he said "You very near burnt us out"—I said "How?"—he-said "You left your gas alight under the shaving-pot"—I went and looked at it, and found that part was burnt about seven or eight inches, not the pipe, the woodwork; the pipe was disconnected under the bracket, and the pipe was stopped with soap—the pipe remained in that state until the Friday—it had not been repaired, and I was not able to use it to make the water hot, I used a tea kettle—the fireplace was at the other side of the room—I am not sure whether I left the gas burning that night or not, I may have done so, but not full on, for I never used to let it be full on—on Friday, November 2, I was there attending to the business in the ordinary way—on that day David said to Arthur "Cheer up, you seem very dull; the only thing we can do to save ourselves is to have a good flare-up"—that must have been between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon—Arthur was just preparing to clean himself to get ready for the theatre—I did not hear him make any remark when David said that—he told me he was going to the theatre—I saw him go to get ready, he was washing himself in the shaving saloon—he used to wash in the shampooing basin—he seemed to sigh, and David said "Cheer up; you are going to the theatre, you will be out of it," something to that effect—"you leave it to me, we will have a good flare-up to-night; where Garrett's pot accident happened will be a good place to start it"—Arthur did not say anything to that in my hearing—that was about 5.30—he was washing then—I saw Mr. Stevenson come in, he came through the tobacconist's shop into the saloon—Mr. Adney was in there when Stevenson came in—no one was in the saloon when David said this to Arthur, only us, the others came in afterwards—Arthur and Stevenson went out together about 5.40 or 5.45—Adney had gone then, I and David remained behind—I stopped till about 9.20, and then locked up the premises, 9 o'clock was the usual time—David was there when I locked up—all the windows and doors were shut in the usual way—the gas was on at the main—I left the premises quite safe as far as I know—the gases had been burning in the hair-dressing saloon—I turned them all off—I left just a glimmer of gas in the first-floor front room, that was their sitting-room—the other burners I turned

off—there four, two over the fireplace and two over the front lookingglass—the gas burner on the bracket was alight—David was not with me when I shut the door and left the house, he had gone out about three minutes before and gone into the Vine, and he told me to bring him the key, as he must come back—that was all he said then—I went to the Vine and took him the key—he was standing in the bar—I handed him the key, and said "Here is the key, I have locked up"—he said "All right"—at that time Mr. Adney and some other persons were there—I did not notice what he did when he took the key, a gentleman asked me to have a glass of something—David went away for about ten minutes and then came back—he asked me if I was ready, I said no, I was going to have another half-pint—I had another half-pint, and he left me again—he did not say anything—he was away about ten minutes again—when ho came back he did not tell me whore he had been, he joined us and we came out as quickly as we could—that was about twenty minutes or a quarter to ten as near as I could tell—when we got outside he said "Let us get out of this quick"—we went down the left-hand side of the road—he said "Let us cross over, nobody won't notice us, there will be' such a flare-up there" (we were then about 300 yards away from the shop); "there is only me and you that know it; if you keep your mouth shut we shall be able to pay you what we owe you, and make it all right"—I said "I shall not say nothing"—I took an envelope he gave me for security home with me; it had a Mason's certificate in it and some photographs that he did not want to lose; he asked me to keep them safely, so that they should not be lost in the fire—he placed them in an envelope, sealed it up, and asked me to take it for safety till he asked me for them—I put them in my pocket—I told him I would see him again at the Bedford—I left him and went home and had my supper—afterwards I met him at the Bedford Music Hall, Camden Town, about 10.25—we stopped there till it was all over, and afterwards went to meet his brother and Stevenson at the Buck's Head, and then the two prisoners, me, and Stevenson walked about the streets together till five or ten minutes to 1—I then went home and went to bed—before I left them nothing was said between them in my hearing about the premises—about 5 o'clock I was knocked up, and the prisoners came to my place and slept there; David first spoke, he said "Can you take us in, Garrett, we are burnt out"—Arthur did not say anything—I said I would do the best I could, and I took them in and they went to bed—nothing more was said about the fire—next morning I went to the premises and saw that there had been a fire there—I went over the premises to see what was done—I saw that the partition between the back room and the cupboard under the staircase was burnt—I did not say anything to anybody about the conversation I had had, at that time—all that the prisoners owed me for one thing and another was about 25l.—David said I was to have that when the insurance was settled—they told me to go down to where they were living, and as soon as the insurance was settled they would open afresh and want me to carry on again—I first told about this to Mr. Wood, the assessor to the insurance office—he first came to me—I think that must have been two or three weeks or a month before the prisoners were taken into custody—I gave him information—I never got my 25l.—I asked the prisoners for payment, and if they could give me an acknowledgement

on a little written document—I made an appointment with both they met me at my house, and I showed them what I wanted them to sign, and they refused to do it—I had copied it—this (produced) is what I copied from—a friend of mine made it out for me, a customer that I waited on, and I copied it and asked them to sign it—they said if I liked to make it 15l. instead of 25. they would sign it, and I then tore it up and threw it in the fire, and said I had done with them—they both looked at the document and appeared to read it—this is a correct copy; I cannot say on what day in December it was. (This was an acknowledgement of a debt, the amount being left blank, due for arrears of salary and extra services rendered by the witness, to be paid on settlement of the claim by the insurance company.) I tilled in the sum of 25l.—after I tore up and burat the paper nothing more was said, I told them I had done with them—David asked me to bring the marriage certificate and the Mason's certificate to Wilson Street, and I took it to him there and gave it to him three or four weeks after the fire.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I have a wife and four children dependent upon me—I had a licence as a licensed victualler twice—the last time was three years ago, it might be four—I have always taken out a licence as an omnibus conductor, though I do not use it—one of my houses was the Hope and Anchor, Earl Street, Lisson Grove; that was in 1874—I swore at the police-court that I had never been convicted except for loitering as a 'bus conductor—I swear that now—I was not convicted as a licensed victualler for allowing gaming on my premises—I was a member of the Order of Foresters—I was not discharged from that body, I have run out of it—I did not apply for readmission and was refused—I did apply and they accepted me, but circumstances would not permit me to go, money matters—I do not know what a horse coper means—I have heard of the name of Ward, who dealt in horses—I was not a friend of his, I only know the name, and have not known him personally—I might have been in his company, he might have come into my houses—I have never assisted him in horse transactions—I never told Mr. Hall that I had been mixed up with a horse coper—I became a bus conductor 14 or 15 years ago—I said "Three years" before the Magistrate—I say I have kept my licence—the other house I had was the Railway Bell, at Wardsworth—that was about four years ago—I did not become an omnibus conductor after I left that house—it may be five years ago since I was a 'bus conductor, that was after I left the Railway Bell—I was a conductor during the time I kept the house in Lisson Grove—it is three or four years since I last worked behind an omnibus—I was dismissed for missing my 'bus—I then took up hairdressing—I was employed at several railway stations by Faulkner—I worked for Mr. Delerue in Bloomfield Street for 12 months, ending in September, 1882—I was manager to Skelton, at Moorgate Street Station—I applied for a character there, and was refused—that was six or seven years ago—I did not tell the Magistrate that I had only taken to hairdressing within the last two years, I said I had gone in and out of it—hairdressing is my trade—I was born and bred a hairdresser—the refusal to give me a character at Moorgate Street was when I wanted a testimonial to manage a hair-dressing establishment in India—they did not say I was a bad character—I did not prodnce this copy of agreement to any one connected with the prosecution till I was asked about it at the police-court—I had it in my

pocket all the time—the 6l. 10s. was paid me for arrears of salary, not for becoming security—I told the prisoners that a friend of mine named Quick, of Westbourne Park, would lend me 15l. if they would sign a paper for 25l.—I knew that Arthur was the tenant of the premises and owner of the business—Mr. Bagot, a solicitor's clerk, a friend of mine, drew up this agreement—it was untrue that Mr. Quick had promised me 15l., that was an invention of mine—I made a copy of the agreement for security for what was due to me—I had been out of work about six weeks when that took place—the remuneration to me was to cover that six weeks and for being surety for money lent—I never let them have any money after the note was signed—that was a week or fortnight before Christmas Day—I had not given any information even to my wife after their refusal to sign the paper—the statements I made to Mr. Woods were signed by me—I said before the Magistrate "As David went away with Mr. Stevenson and the two Taylors to the Vine I said' I will go upstairs and take the clean clothes up, and turn the gas down, shut the doors, lock up, and bring you the key"—I did not take the clean clothes up—that was the night of the 2nd November, at about half-past nine—David asked me previously to do so, and I said that openly—I swore before Mr. Cooke "I did not expect any fire that night"—I did not intend to assist in the arson—I was never one to advise or assist in it—when they called my attention to the gas I may have said "I turned it down in a hurry"—I know in December the matter was referred to an arbitrator—I did not understand by that that there was no imputation of fraud—I did not threaten either of the prisoners that if they did not yield to my demand I should go to the loan office and tell them that the goods were not the Jones's and that they would be had up for obtaining money by false pretences—I signed what was true in the papers handed to Mr. Woods—the first paper I signed at his office about a fortnight before Christmas, and the second one at the same place a few days after—I said I should give information to Woods because I had pawned nearly everything for their benefit and that I was starving—I began by saying I was an accessory before the fact, and that the only chance I had of getting my money was by keeping quiet, as they promised they would pay me and give me something out of the affair when the claim was settled—I expected the fire to come off the night it did—if I said before the Magistrate that I did not expect it that night, I misunderstood the question—I got a promise from Wood, before I gave information that I should not be prosecuted—he took down what I said in his pocket-book, and then he asked me to come and sign after—these are my two signatures (papers produced)—all the writing there was read over to me before I signed—this is the paper marked "M" (Read: "I was an accessory before the fact. The only chance I had of getting my money due to me was by keeping quiet, as they promised they would pay me and would give me something out of the affair when the claim was settled. I knew when the fire was to come off, and I knew that when I gave the key to David Jones he was going to fire the place. He went by Mr. Adney's shop about five or ten minutes after I gave him the key," &c. Signed "William Garratt")—two or three days alter I went to Mr. Woods's office again—he took notes in his pocket-book—he did not give me 5s. then, I swear—I got 5s. for loss of time and expenses in calling at the office, but I cannot say whether that was

on the 18th December—my statement was written down by Mr. Woods in my presence—I did not see him write anything more after I signed—this writing below my signature has been written since (Read: "William Garratt, 4, Victoria Road, Kentish Town. I went to Mr. David Jones in the early part of September last as manager of the hairdressing and shaving department of the business. I asked 30s. a week, but Mr. Jones said as the business was a new one lie would only give me 25s. at first, and if it improved he would then give me 30s. a week," &c.)—I said, "As far as I know personally no one was on the premises after I left"—I did not object to those words which are written in pencil remaining; I did not ask that they should be struck out—the words, "The first I heard of the fire was at 5 o'clock in the morning, when D. G. Jones came to my house and told me of it," are not true—I told Mr. Woods that—I knew of it before, and it ought to be struck out—I said to Mr. Woods, "From their conversation and remarks I firmly believe it was their intention to burn the place down"—I do not know why that was struck out—I spoke to Mr. Woods of a cup and saucer being given to Mr. Apps, for which there was a fancy price offered—I said "a considerable sum" should be substituted for "3l. 12s. 6d.,"—I did not tell the Magistrate that I was an accessory before the fact to the arson—I did not say to Mr. Woods that there was to be 100l. made, and that I was to have 50l. out of it—on the 3rd January 10s. more was given me by Mr. Rouch for loss of time—the signature at the bottom of those papers is mine—the ten shillings were paid me by Mr. Rouch—I did not go to Mr. Woods's office on more than those two occasions I spoke of—when the documents "M" and "N" were signed I was at the office about a couple of hours—I do not recollect anything about having 50l.—the offer to me was 25l.—I was asked at the police-court whether upon their refusal to sign a paper prepared by my friend the solicitor's clerk I said I would make it hot for them or make them suffer, and I said I did not—I said, "If you starve a dog he might bite," not "would bite"—I had no animosity or ill-feeling against any one—I did not reckon that a threat—it was only to save myself and my own things—I said I would go to the loan office and tell them the goods they advanced the money on were not Jones's goods, and that they would be had up for obtaining money by false pretences—I think I said I ought to go to the loan office, and that was only a threat to clear myself—I did not know this document was in existence when I was cross-examined, but that is not the reason I swore I did not expect the fire to break out that night, or that I did not say anything about the false pretences or about the 50l.—I have no account of the alleged loans to me—there were some other persons, whose names I do not know, who went with Stevenson and myself to the Vine—David Jones left me twice; I do not say he left the Vine—I told him I was going to the music-hall, and he said if I would wait a little later he would shut up earlier and go with me—when he left the Vine Stevenson walked up as far as the Bull and Gate with us, and David Jones went with him—I afterwards found David Jones at the music-hall—it is about five minutes' easy walk from where I left him to where I went to get my supper—I was absent about a quarter of an hour before I found him at the Bedford Music-hall—it must have been about 10.10 when we were at the Bull and Gate—the music-hall closes about 11.40 or 11.45—I went into my situation the Wednesday before Christmas; I

got it myself—when I spoke in my statement about "the younger one," I believed the younger one to be Arthur—Stevenson slept at my place on the night of the fire.

Re-examined. David is the elder one—it was David who was left behind on the night of the fire—I was given some money two or three days after I made this statement—Mr. Woods said he thought I knew more about it than I told him the first time, and he told me to tell him what I knew, and be wrote it down as I told him, in ink, I thought—I see this writing is in pencil, and I signed that at the time—here "3l. 12s. 6d." is changed into "a considerable sum"—I am not able to say whether it was 3l. 12s. 6d.—I thought it was at first—the words "As far as I know personally no one was on the premises after I left" are struck out—I knew George Bagot, the lawyer's clerk, as a customer in different business places I have been in—he told me I had no claim on them if they got 300l.—I copied the paper out in ink for their signature, and submitted it to them to be signed—on finding they would not sign it I burnt it—I had the pencil copy in my pocket-book, and it was produced for the first time at the police-court—I was turned out of the Foresters for not keeping my subscriptions paid up—I was not turned out for misconduct, and should have paid my entrance fee to go in again, but have not had the money.

By the JURY. I cannot undertake to say that Jones left the public-house with the key.

GEORGE STEVENSON . I am an assistant to the District Surveyor of St. Pancras, and live at 19, Twisden Road, Tollington Park—on 2nd November I was at the prisoners' premises, 96, High gate Road, at about 8.30 p.m.—David Jones and two others named Taylor were there—I remained till a little after 9 o'clock, when we went out together through a passage into the street—the last witness was also there, and David Jones said to him "We are going to the Vine, bring round the key, and see all safe"—we went to the Vine, and about 10 minutes after Garrett came with the key, which he handed to David—we sat there talking for a few minutes when David left with the key—he returned in about 10 minutes alone—we remained about 10 minutes longer, when we left the public-house and went into the High gate Road, walked down the road, and I left them at the Bull and Gate, and went home—Adney was standing in the corner when we went into the public-house, and we left him there—the Bull and Gate is about 800 yards, I should think, from the Vine.

Cross-examined. I believe the two Taylors to be respectable—I heard Garrett say he would lock up and come round—I cannot swear whether I offered him anything to drink when he came round—you could net see the tobacconist's shop from the Vine, as it is set back about 40 or 50 feet from the road—there is a urinal by the side of the Vine—I would not positively swear how long David was absent, but I should say about 10 minutes—my attention was not called to the time he was absent until 11th January—I should not like to swear he was absent more than 10 minutes, but he was not absent from the party twice, I swear—when we walked to the Bull and Gate we went in an opposite direction to the tobacconist's—I think it was just past 10 o'clock when we were at the Bull and Gate.

GEORGE WELLS . I live at 11, Orbingley Road, Hornsey Road, and am a baker—I have known the prisoners for a little time—on the night

before the fire I was going towards Highgate Road Station at about 9.55—I did not pass No. 96, but was going towards it—I saw David Jones, and passed him this side of the Vine public-house—I saw him come out of the side door of his house, and then he went back and tried the door—he pushed it with his hand and went down Highgate Road towards Kentish Town—he passed the Vine after leaving the house—I cannot say how far down the road he went—I did not see him after he passel the Vine; I went into my house—I live in the next house to where the fire was—at the time I last saw David Jones he had passed the Vine about 100 yards down the road—nobody was with him—I went to bed, and was aroused when the fire happened, about 1 a.m.

Cross-examined. I was examined before Mr. Cooke on the 17th January—I do not know how long it was before that that I was asked about the occurrence on the 2nd November—I saw David Jones about 100 yards beyond the Vine, alone, walking towards the Bull and Gate at about 10 p.m.—I could not answer before as to the day of the month—I did not see anything of Adney, Garrett, Stevenson, or the Taylors—I do not know the Taylors—I know Adney and Garrett by sight.

Re-examined. I was awoke by the smell of the fire—I saw David Jones come out on the night of the fire, and told the Magistrate so—I told my sister about it the Sunday after the fire—I had not mentioned it to anybody else—I was surprised at being sent for to attend before the Magistrate—I do not know who brought the paper for me to attend.

HENRY ALEXANDER MACKINTOSH . I now live at 16, River street, Clerkenwell—I formerly kept the tobacconist's shop, 96, Highgate Road—in August last I sold it to Arthur George Jones; this (produced) is the document which passed between us, signed by both of us—the amount of the purchase money was 20l. for the fixtures and goodwill, and 8l. 15s. for the stock; that was to be paid off in various instalments—the last was paid on 2nd August last by his agent.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I had been carrying on the business for about 18 months; it was only a tobacconist's business—I was travelling as agent for a tobacconist, and my wife managed this business—I did not keep a large stock; sufficient to keep the business going—I had nothing to do with putting in the gas fittings—the house was done up in my time; papered and distempered throughout, and the partition in the passage.

WILLIAM LEES . I am assistant to my brother, an insurance agent—I know the prisoners—David's life was insured for 300l. in the Rock Life Office, for which I was agent as well as for the Commercial Union—on 16th August I called on him for the renewal premium, 8l. odd—he said he was not prepared to pay it that day; it was within the days of grace—they were both present—he said he wished to effect an insurance on his stock and furniture—I said I could do it for him, and asked what amount he wished to insure for—he said about 300l.—I asked how it was to be divided—he told me—I made a note of it at the time in my book, which I have here; it was to be 150l. on household furniture, clothing, books, and things of that kind, 125l. on stock in trade, and 25l. on fixtures and utensils—he said the policy was to be made out in the name of Arthur George Jones—I knew they were brothers, but not the names—I had the policy made out; this is it, dated the 17th—I took it to the shop the week following, and gave it to one of the prisoners; I believe they were

both present—it was read over and approved of, and they paid me the premium.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. My brother is the insurance agent—I have charge of the West End office; it is a large business, connected with several companies, fire as well as life—one of our agents got the life premium the year before—David never told me that he was not going to continue it—this fire insurance was a small risk, only 2s. 6d. per cent.—it is our interest to get as high an amount as we can.

ROBERT WILLIAM TYRONE RANDALL , I am a clerk in the Charing Cross Bank—on or about 12th October last we received this application from Arthur George Jones for a loan of 25l., to be repaid by monthly instalments—30l. was advanced, which was secured by this bill of sale on the effects at 96, Highgate Road, and this promissory note for 40l. signed by Arthur George Jones and William Garrett—the schedule in the hill of sale sets out the articles in the different rooms.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I believe there was a statutory declaration that the goods belonging to him—I did not myself go and see the goods—there was a fee of 15s. paid before anything was done—ours is a loan office as well as a bank.

JOHN ROBERT CRAIG . I live at 36, Eleanor Road, Hackney—I was formerly employed by the Charing Cross Bank—in October last, under instructions, I went to 96, High gate Road, and made this appraisement in connection with a proposed advance by the bank—I itemed out each of the articles of furniture—I valued it all at 31l. 8s. 6d., and the fixtures and tobacco stock at 18l., altogether 49l. 8s. 6d., that was the next auction value after paying expenses.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. I was three months at this loan office, and I left because I did not care about the business done there—this if the pencil inventory that I made at the house—I put down all the principal articles, everything of value—Garrett was in the shaving shop at the time.

EDWARD ALFRED WOODS . I am assistant to Mr. Rouch, the assessor to the Commercial Union Fire Insurance Office—on Saturday afternoon, 3rd November, I went to 96, Highgate Road, for the purpose of ascertaining the damage done by the fire—while there I saw Arthur Jones—I told him who I was and what I had come for—I asked him if he was going to make out a claim against the Company—he said "Yes, certainly"—we then proceeded to look over the place—first as to the shop, I said "There is very little stock here," and he said "Yes there is"—we went into the back room first, afterwards we went upstairs; I saw David there—I said "There is very little damage in the front room"—he agreed with me that there was—then we went into the back room; I found that was nearly burnt out—I handed Arthur one of our usual printed claim forms, and told him we should want the claim made out in the usual way, and left the form with him—that was all that passed at that time—on November 9th I received this claim on the form I had left, filled up—I then went again to the house and went right through the list, and appointed for them to come to me on the 10th, which they did; I had the claim with me—I handed it to Arthur and asked him if the amount did not very much surprise him—it amounted to 134l.—he said "No; what for?"—I said it was such an exorbitant claim that I should think he did not expect to get that amount, and if he did he was very much

mistaken—I quoted one or two instances where the claims were exorbitant, and then I said unless they were prepared to accept a very great reduction on that amount it was useless my going into the matter with them—after a time Arthur wanted to know what amount I was prepared to offer—I said I was willing to recommend the Company to pay 48l.—David said that was d—d nonsense—Arthur said that amount would not do for him—I said I supposed not; if he thought that the Company was going to pay his debts he was very much mistaken—they said they were going to see Mr. Apps on some other business, and they would talk to him about it, and they would let me know on Monday whether they would accept the amount or not—I told them unless they accepted the offer on that Saturday it would not be made any longer—that was all that passed; they did not come again—after that Mr. Apps communicated with me, and these are the letters that passed, two from Mr. Apps and one from Mr. Middleton—I have been a valuer 20 years—I went through the list in this claim, my valuation was 43l.—in my judgment 48l. was a fair amount for the damage done by the fire—the matter was referred to arbitration—before the reference was finished I saw Garrett—I first saw him on December 18th; I went to his house in consequence of what I had heard and took down from him in my pocket-book some information he gave me—I asked him what he knew about the matter—I afterwards wrote it out in pencil on this sheet (marked N) while I was waiting at the Law Courts, where I was subpœnaed as a witness—I read it over to Garrett the next night; he made certain corrections—I struck out those parts, and he afterwards signed it—there is some writing after his signature—I added that from memory the same night—it was copied out in ink while he was in our office, and read over to him, and he signed it—after this Mr. Rouch paid him 5s., 18s., and 10s.—about December 20th or 21st Mr. Rouch and I called at Scotland Yard with this statement and gave in formation to the police, and left the matter in their hands.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Thomas and Hollams are solicitors to this office—I believe Mr. Rouch consulted with them before applying to the Public Prosecutor to pay the costs—I have my pocket-book here—I do not say that what I copied is a verbatim copy of this; this was taken at Garrett's house—I did not say to him "You know more about this than you have told us"—before he said a word about it he did not say "Will you undertake not to prosecute me?"—I didn't promise not to prosecute him before I took down the first statement—I will swear that document M was written after N; there is no original of M, this is the original, it is my writing—it is my usual style of writing—I took it down from Garrett's mouth after he had signed N—I took down exactly what he told me—he said "I was an accessory before the fact"—I didn't ask him if he was—he gave the whole of this without any suggestion from me—I told him that we shouldn't prosecute—I don't think I had promised him that I should not prosecute him—it is usual when there is a dispute there should be an arbitration—before you get the arbitration I believe the Company has to swear that it is not done to avoid liabilities on the ground of imputing fraud—I had nothing to do with the affidavit that was sworn on the 6th of December—I don't know that the Company swore that they did not allege fraud—Mr. Land is fire manager at the Commercial Union; I suppose he would be the person to swear the

affidavit—I asked Arthur Jones if lie could account for the fire—he said No, he could not, without it was a spark from the grate—he afterwards said that he had gone out early that evening—they employed no solicitor or valuer until they returned the claim to me—their claim was 134l., and mine was 48l.—I believe I said to Mr. Middleton after they were in custody that they had only themselves to thank for being prosecuted, for if they had taken the 48l. they would have heard nothing about it—Mr. Middleton was the valuer employed by Mr. Apps—I think he came to our office twice and brought his claim, which was 115l.—I reckoned the value of the furniture in the first-floor front room at 6l.—there were three rooms and a shop—two rooms on the ground floor, the barber's shop, and the tobacconist's—Mr. Middleton's claim was about 30l. for that front room—I didn't discuss in detail with Mr. Middleton to as to try and approach each other—I didn't meet him at the arbitration—after Thomas and Hollams had been sued with regard to the arbitration application was made to the Public Prosecutor.

By the COURT. Mr. Middleton sent in his valuation to me—this is it (produced)—it was on the 23rd November—he has claimed for the articles as if they were destroyed instead of their being damaged—I don't think there is anything here alleged to be damaged, which did not in fact exist.

CHARLES DOD (Re-examined). I arrested David Jones on 10th January—I told him the charge; he made to reply—I took him to the station, he was there searched, and 6d. was found upon him.

Cross-examined by MR. BESLEY. Directly the two prisoners got to the station they sat down and wrote a note to Mr. Apps—they told me that they were writing to their solicitor—found them at their lodging in Milman Street—I did not search their lodging to see how much money they had there.

CHARLS MILLER (Policeman). I arrested Arthur Jones on 10th January—I told him what he was charged with—he made no answer—he was searched at the station—a knife was found upon him but no money, only a few halfpence, less than 6d.

The RECORDER being of opinion that there was not sufficient evident against ARTHUR JONES, the Jury found him.


GEORGE STEVENSON (Re-examined by the COURT). When I went into the house a few days before the fire, I saw the woodwork of the house burning, not flaming, it was red—I put it out with a wet towel—I cannot say if the gas below was burning or not—there was no smell of gas in the place—I noticed neither a smell of gas nor a tremulous flame.

Witness for the Defence.

ARTHUR GEORGE JONES . I shall be twenty-four next April—I have been in the dock and heard Garrett's statements—it is entirely false that on Friday, 2nd November, I was depressed, and that my brother said "Cheer up, we will have a flare-up to-night"—my brother never said in Garrett's hearing that a fire was to take place, either in joke or earnest—an engagement was made a week previous to take a young lady to the Grand Theatre; there being a large family, the sisters took it in turns and only went out once a week—Stevenson was a friend of the family—when we left at 6 not a word was said in Stevenson's presence by my brother to Garrett that we must leave it all to him, that we must have a flare-up

—it is utterly untrue, I swear it—having gone to the theatre my brother joined me alterwards at the Buck's Head—Garrett was with him it is not true that I and my brother went aside and had a private conversation together—nothing was said by any one about a fire till we got to the coffee stall, and then for the first time I heard of there being a lire—we had to pass the fire brigade station on the way to the house—I went into the fire station then and heard the conversation spoken to by Mr. Bate-man—substantially it is correct—my brother then said Garrett was the last on the premises—then we went into the house and found it in the possession of the salvage men, with policemen and fire brigade men—the bureau had been put back in the shop, my brother forgot it had been taken out—it is absolutely false as far as I know that my brother had given Garrett a photograph and a marriage certificate—he never showed me anything of the kind given by my brother—I stopped at Garrett's place that night and my brother at Stevenson's—there was no bed—the next day I got a lodging at Milman Street—this man came to me to Milman Street—I gave him small sums of money—I expected that shortly it would be put in order and that we should go on again—the day before my brother and I went to his place I saw Garrett come to our place at Milman Street, where we were lodging, he said he was going to the City to see a gentleman—I went with him, and on the road Garrett was half intoxicated, and said to me "God strike me dead, if you don't give me some money I will go to the office at Cornhill and tell them that you and your brother put that place on fire, unless you sign that paper"—I told my brother of that—we both went and saw what he would say—he gave me that paper to look at, I handed it to my brother—it had been written by a friend of his, George Bag, I believe—I handed it to my brother, he read it and said "No, you will not sign that paper," and then Garrett flew in a passion and tore the paper up and put it in the fire—I gave him no money after that, I did not see him after that—I had no idea any communication had been made to Mr. Woods until I was taken into custody—I did not know Garrett had carried out his threat—he never said anything to me, nor to my brother in my presence, about going to the loan office, and false pretences—at the time he made that statement to me we were in arbitration with the Company—the Judge in chambers had made the order before he made the threat.

Cross-examined. The expression "God strike me dead" was used in December in the street going to the City, I had to see a gentleman and so had he—he was half intoxicated at the time and I laughed at him—it did not occur to me at the time it was a threat to extort money, because I thought the man was drunk—I took no further notice of it—before we parted I made an appointment to go to his place on the following day, and it was then he asked me to sign the paper, he claimed 15l.—he said a friend of his, Mr. Quick, would lend us 15l. if he got a paper signed by us for 25l.—he wanted us to sign a paper for 25l.—I read it and showed it to my brother—he read it and said "If you will alter it to 15l. I will sign it"—he said "No," and tore it up in a passion and put it in the fire—I have no doubt this is a copy of the document, except that the 25l. is filled in—I cannot tell if he was drunk on this occasion, because his room was not sufficiently lighted—you cannot always tell by a man' conversation whether he is drunk—I took no proceedings against him

when I found he was still trying to get 25l. from us—I did not tell Mr. Middleton when I saw him in the City that Garrett had threatened to charge us if we did not give him money—I did not tell Mr. Apps 'the solicitor—I never told anybody till I got into the witness-box to-day—I had no latch-key on this Friday when I went to the threatre—there were two keys to the door—I and my brother mostly met each other at the Buck's Head, Camden Town; we used to meet every night—I cannot remember if I made arrangements to meet him that night—I did meet him; we went about the streets till 3.30 in the morning:—we were rather fresh—the gas had been left burning and the shelf had got charred two or three days before this; that was found out when we got home about 1.30—I went in with my friend and found the smell of burning and examined it, and saw it put out with a wet towel—I did not notice if the pipe wan burnt through; the wood was charred all round—I saw the state of the pipe when I came down next morning—I did nut notice it; I looked at it no doubt—I didn't take sufficient notice to see if it was burnt through—I cannot recollect if the burner underneath was lighted again after that night—I don't know if it was—I don't know that the pipe was burnt through and stopped up with soap—it was in the same state each night afterwards—I hadn't called in any man to repair it; I had intended to call a man in—if dangerous on one night it was on all—I cannot account for the fire at all—I have no suggestion to make—when I went into possession of these premises I paid Mr. Mackintosh 9l. 14s. 11d. for the stock—after I took possession I went to live there with my brother David—there are only two rooms over the shop, a front and back, the front was the sitting-room—David didn't assist me in the business; he was there staying with me doing nothing; he had no occupation—I moved in some furniture to furnish the two upper rooms; that was not my mother's furniture, it was mine; it came from Islip Street, where we were staying, and where my mother was staying before she went to Wales; it was furniture that she had used—I got from the loan office altogether 27l.; 3l. was deducted for the first instalment—it was out of that that I paid the Michaelmas rent—I don't know whether my brother gave Mr. Apps a cup and saucer—they belonged to me—I believe my brother gave it to him; I am not sure—I don't remember whether any cups and saucers were removed from the house before the' fire—my brother is a Freemason, and I believe he had a certificate—I don't know whether he had my mother's marriage certificate.

Re-examined. There is no china mentioned in the inventory; that was taken, and was included in the bill of sale—ray brother is still a Freemason—Garrett received his meals as well as his wages of 25s.—at the time he used the strong language spoken of he was not sober.

WILLIAM GARRETT (Re-examined). I remember going into the City with Arthur on one occasion when he went to Mr. Middleton's; I was sober at that time—I did not say to him on that occasion "God strike me dead, if you don't give me money I will go to the office and say that you and your brother set fire to the place"—I didn't use any expression of that kind—I don't remember the date when I went into the City with him; it was about the time that the first instalment was becoming due, and he said he was going to Mr. Middleton's to see if he could let him have some money to pay the first instalment on the bill of sale—I didn't go into the

City with either of the prisoners on that day before I made the claim on them, I will swear to that—no claim was made at all one way or the other; they simply said "You will be paid"—I did not tell Mr. Woods that when I locked up on the night of the fire I left a glimmer in the hairdressing saloon—the fire was out before the shop was shut up—I told him I was the last out; I said I took the key into the Vine; I didn't say I stayed there till David came out and then gave him the key—I gave it him when I first went in, and I stayed till he came out—when David came to me after the fire he said "Did you shut the doors?"

MR. WOODS (Re-examined by the COURT). I took down what I wrote in this book from Garrett's lips on the 18th December in the presence of the salvage man—I made the copy the following morning in the Court of Queen's Bench, taking the book as the basis—I had nothing else besides the book—I saw Adney before I saw Garrett on the 18th December—I am not quite sure whether Garrett mentioned Adney's name; I don't think he did; if he had it would have been down in my book—this is not an exact copy of my book—I have got down here "I locked up on the night of the fire. I left the gas alight only a glimmer upstairs in the hairdressing saloon." I took that down as he said it—he also said "I left the remains of the fire in the grate"—he said nothing about the bootmaker the first time—I suppose I put that in from what he told me; probably he said it after I had closed my book.

Several witnesses deposed to the prisoner's good character.


NEW COURT.—Thursday, February 28th, 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-354
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

354. FRITZ VON WEISENBERG (34) , Unlawfully conspiring (with August Linden, not in custody) to obtain money from Heinrich Hutsch by false pretences.


CHARLES ALBERT . I live at 33, Great Marlborough Street—I have translated these 23 letters, and in my opinion they are written by the same hand.

The Prisoner. I don't think I wrote 23 letters; some are dated from Liverpool, and I never was there in my life.

HENRY HUTSCH . I am a baker, of 205, Globe Road, Mile End—on 4th November, 1882, the prisoner and a customer of mine named Linden came to my shop—Linden introduced the prisoner as a Baron and a very wealthy man related to Prince Bismarck, Prince Waldeck, and the Duke and Duchess of Albany, and said that he would come into a lot of property in Sheffield and Leeds in a short time, and if I would be kind enough to advance him 28l., Linden, who was his trustee, would call again in a day or two—he did so, and I advanced the money—the prisoner came in after that and told me Mr. Pearson, the Q.C., would not accept Mr. Linden as trustee, and would I mind having my name put down as trustee—I said I did not mind, and he told me whatever money I let him have I should receive double, and that I should have 13l. 10s. a week as trustee, but I must let him have some money from time to time—I asked if he required much—he said "No," but he drew 199l. from November 6th to Christmas Eve, 1882—on 6th November I let him

have 28l. in gold—they said on 9th November that the property consisted of houses, a warehouse and railway shares—on 12th November the prisoner came again and said that he wanted some more money for the trustee's stamps, and I let him have 20l.—he called every day till Christmas, 1882; and I saw Linden from time to time, who said that Weisenberg was a very wealthy man and had come into a lot of property—the prisoner told me he was going to Leeds to get his aunt's documents and will, and that she was a lord's daughter, and that his uncle had lost 30,000l. in the Glasgow Bank—he was away three weeks and wrote several times for money, and I let him have all he asked for—on his return he brought this wooden box (produced), which he said contained his aunt's will and documents relating to the property—I believed that, but he told me not to look into the box—he obtained money from me up to May, 1883, sometimes he wrote for it and sometimes he called—on 27th April, 1883, he called on me for 200l., saying that he was going to Scotland to get some documents and papers relating to Prince Waldeck which he was entitled to—on May 5th I let him have 190l. in notes and 10l. in gold; and about a month afterwards Linden brought me a letter asking for 58l. more, and Linden and I arranged to meet the prisoner at Bedford Railway Station—we did so, and I gave Linden the 58l. and he gave it to the prisoner, who said he wanted it to get the documents concerning Prince Waldeck, and that it would not be long before the property was settled—about the end of May I received this letter (produced): (Dated May 30th, 1883, stating that the documents from Scotland would arrive in a day or two in an iron box at the Great Northern Station, and saying" Pray go yourself to fetch it, as its contents are of great value "Signed, "Yours till death, faithfully loving brother, T. W. Weisenberg.")—the box came in July as near as I can say, and I believed it contained those valuable papers and documents—he continued to have money from me up to 6th January, 1884, 600l.—I constantly asked him when the business would be settled, and he said that his friend Waldeck, who had the management of his business, was not ready—he said he was Prince Bismarck's nephew, and a relation of the Duke of Teck, and that there was a relationship to the Duke of Albany—on 24th December, 1883, a letter came to my house, addressed "Baron Weisenburg, care of H. Hutsch, 205, Globe Road, Bethnal Green"—I gave it to the prisoner, and when opened it contained a copy of the Builder and other papers—when I gave him the registered letter he said that it came from the Duke and Duchess of Albany, and I was to take care of it and put it with the boxes—I asked him next day if he had opened the letter—he said "You can if you like"—I did not do so, and on 7th December my wife showed it to him again still unopened—he said "Take great care of that, that comes from the Duke and Duchess of Albany, and I have to receive 5,000l. from Rothschild's Bank"—he then told me that no trustee would be required, and I should be paid my money with double interest, and asked me to lend him 50l. more—I told him to call next day; he did so and I refused to lend him the money—on 4th January this year he called again and asked me to let him have 6l. to go to Scotland, as he was going to sell some railway shares and repay me—I saw no more of him till he was in charge on 18th February—I believed the statements he made, and it was on those representations that I let him have, not only all the money I had, but I deposited the lease of my house and borrowed money

on that—I received from him these 23 letters, with each of which he sent me an envelope directed to himself to send an answer and the money he asked for—he told me that he lived at the St. Pancras Hotel with Prince Waldeck, and I believed him—he once told me he had lost his watch, and asked me to let him have my watch and chain that he might look respectable to Prince Waldeck—he said he owed 15l. at the St. Pancras Hotel, and his friend Prince Waldeck must not know that he owed anything—I let him have the money—there were two boxes at my house; they were opened and contained rubbishing papers—a warrant was issued for Linden, but he had absconded.

Cross-examined. This is my watch (produced)—I did rot make you a present of it; I lent it to you—I kept an account of the money I lent you, but I have lost the paper.

JOHN RUSSELL HARMS ., M.D., M.R.C.S I am surgeon of the K division of police—I have seen Giovanni Frassenelle this morning in bed; he has a bad leg and is utterly unable to come here to-day.

WILLIAM WALLER (Police Sergeant K). I am in charge of this case—I was before the Magistrate when the prisoner was charged—Giovanni Frigsenelle was examined—I saw him sworn, and the prisoner had an opportunity of examining him. (Deposition read: "I live at 24, Club Row, Bethnal Green. I am a looking-glass maker. On 17th April, 1883, Linden, who had worked for me for some years, brought the prisoner to my house, and told me that he was a very wealthy man and worth a lot of money; he told me he was a German baron and related to the Duke and Duchess of Albany, and had some documents of great value in his possession. Prisoner had a bag in his hand and proposed to go and drink, and we all went to the Knave of Clubs next door. Prisoner told me he had some documents of great value in his bag, and that he had property in Germany, Sheffield, and Leeds, and that he was worth a great deal of money. He said there were more documents in Scotland, but before he could get them he should require 800l. or 900l. I told him I had no money. He said he wanted more and we all went away. On 27th April we all three went to the same tavern again, and then Linden told me that the prisoner had to go to Scotland to get some documents, and that he required about 50l., and he asked me to let the prisoner have it. I said I had not got it; I said I did not like the look of prisoner much. Linden said he was all right, and had 28l. a week coming in; Linden said' If you will lend him 50l. I will let you have 25l. towards it, and that will enable him to get his documents from Scotland.' Prisoner opened the bag he had with him and pulled out a lot of bank-notes, and he showed me one for 100l., and said' I don't want any money,' and bragged. He had some papers also in his bag tied up with red tape. I said I would think about lending the money. The same evening we all went to the same tavern again, and I said to Linden' If you give me 25l. I will lend him the 50l. Linden told me to ask the prisoner if he wanted the 50l., so I said to him If you are short of 50l. to go to Scotland to get your documents I'll let you have it,' and I also asked if 50l. would be enough, and he said' Yes.' Next day Linden came to me and said, 'I cannot get the 25l.,' so I declined to let him have any of the money at all. After that prisoner and Linden called nearly every day for the money. Linden said he would see I had my money back with double interest. I said I doubted his word, and Linden said I should have my money back, and that the prisoner

belonged to the German Royal Family and was a relation of Prince Bismarck. I believed it all, and said' Well, he can have 50l. if he pays me by the 18th of May.' On the 10th of May prisoner and Linden called and asked me if I had the money, and I said' Yes,' and gave the prisoner a 50l. note; my son wrote this receipt (produced), and prisoner signed it and Linden witnessed it. Prisoner said he could not pay me till the 5th of June, and then he would give me double. I received the letter produced of 16th May, and saw Linden and asked him where I should write to the prisoner, and he said to the Midland Railway Hotel, Sheffield. I wrote to prisoner, asking for 10l. if he could not send me the 50l. I do not remember the date, but it was after the money became due. On 16th June I received the letter produced, and I wrote again fur my money and received the letter of 29th June, and I then wrote again for the money, but got no answer. On 3rd July I received the letter produced, and did not answer it. Linden saw all those letters; I showed them to him, and he said 'Oh, that is all right; he will pay you.' I received the letter of 9th July, and Linden was in my shop when it came, and I showed it to him and said 'I think you are as big a rogue as Weisenberg, and if you don't tell me where he is I'll make you pay.' I said to Linden 'We will go to Sheffield after him.' That day we went to Sheffield, and went to the Victoria Commercial Hotel. I asked for Weisenberg, and he was not known. Linden and I then went to the Midland Railway Hotel and found out the prisoner was a customer but did not sleep there, and had letters and telegrams directed to him there. All my letters bore my trade stamp. Linden said he knew where prisoner lived, and we went together to the Freedom Beer-shop and Hotel. From what I learnt there I went to Melbourne House, and did not see the prisoner, but left my card for him. Next day I called and did not see him, but heard he had gone to Liverpool. I returned to London. On 14th July Linden brought me the letter produced. I said no more of them then. On 8th October I received the letter produced, and on 2nd November Linden called on me, and I asked him where prisoner was, and he told me to go to 23, Frederick Street, King's Cross. I went there next day, and while I was there prisoner came up and I asked him what he was going to do about my money, and he said 'I'll pay you,' and I said 'When?' and he said 'Next week;' and I said 'If you don't it will be a bad job for you,' and he said 'You can't do anything to me.' I said' I can lock you up now,' and he said 'Don't do that.' He called on me nearly every day up to 21st December and promised to pay me. That day he asked me to let him have 31l. more, and I said' No.' He said if I did he would give me 100l. at the end of the month. I said I only wanted my 50l. cash. On the 19th of December my son wrote the two telegrams and the envelope for the prisoner, at his dictation. Prisoner wrote a letter in German and asked my son to address the envelope. He said the Duchess knew where she had to meet him. On the 5th of January this year prisoner called on me and asked me to be his trustee, and he showed me a registered envelope which he said contained papers of the value of 5,000l. I said all I wanted was my money. He asked me to go to the railway station with him to get his box of documents, and I refused. I changed a 5l. note for him, and after that I saw no more of him till he was in charge," February 8. "I know prisoner's writing; the letters produced are in

prisoner's writing. I believed what prisoner and Linden said, and that is why I advanced the money. The photograph produced is one of Linden."

ROBERT ETSENBERGHER . I have been manager of the St. Pancras Hotel for 11 years—I do not know the prisoner, he has never lived there, nor has Prince Waldeek.

CHARLES KINE . I keep a coffee-shop at 23, Frederick Street, Gray's Inn Road—on 10th June, 1882, the prisoner and his wife came to lodge there, and left on 12th July; they came again on 25th October, 1883 and remained till January 16th, 1884—they had a back bedroom,'at 8s. per week, and had their meals in the shop—he told me he was related to Prince Bismarck, but I thought that was tall talk—he left a portmanteau and box at my house—Sergeant Wall opened them, they contained rubbish—this telegram was in the portmanteau. (This was from Mr. Pearson, of Leadenhall Street, to Mr. Weisenberg, care of Mr. Hutsch: "Dear Sir,—Be at 3 in my office to see you about documents")—I also found the watch which Hutsch identities in the box, and this photograph of Linden—the prisoner owes me over 10l. for board and lodging.

WILLIAM WALTER (Policeman). I took the prisoner at Sheffield, and read the warrant to him—he said "That is wrong, that is not so"—I took him to the station next day, to take him to London, and on the platform he said "Have you got Linden?"—I said "No"—he said "He is the worst"—I said "I don't see that; Linden never said he was a Baron"—he said "What matters that? if I told you I was the Emperor William, and you were fool enough to let me have your money, that's not my fault, it's your fault"—I brought him to London, to Bethnal Green Station, and when he was charged he said to Mr. Hutsch "If you give me time I will pay you your money"—on January 15th this year I went to Hutsch's house; he showed me the boxes, and I broke them open and found a quantity of rubbish—I found a portmanteau at the coffee-shop, in which was a photograph of Linden, a telegram to the Duchess of Albany, and a letter—I have not been able to take Linden.

Cross-examined. You said Linden was in London, and then you said he was in America.

The prisoner in his defence stated that Frassenelle had 50l. in gold from Mr. Hutsch, but that he never saw half of it.

GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servtiude.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-355
VerdictGuilty > pleaded part guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

355. NICHOLAS JAMES DYER (26) and MONTAGU DANIEL WILSON MAIN (23) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Ann Partridge, and stealing a ring, a stud, a cash-box, and certain papers, his property. Second Count, for receiving the same.

PLEADED GUILTY to the Second Count. Dr. Forbes Winslow and Dr. Wynn stated that Main was of feeble mind, that his grandfather and father died insane, and that his uncle is now a patient at Colney Hatch.

DYER— Three Months' Hard Labour . MAIN— Two Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-356
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > penal servitude; No Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

356. GEORGE FARRAH (16), WILLIAM TOOMEY (26), and WALTER BARTER , Stealing a quantity of drugs, the property of Julius Cyriac and others, the masters of Farrah, to which FARRAH and TOOMEY PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. GRAIN Prosecuted; MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS defended Barter.

JOHN DAVIDSON (City Detective). I have known Barter and Toomey by sight for some time—Barter lives at stock Orchard Crescent, Holloway, and Toomey at 3, Underwood Street, Mile End New Town—I received instructions about them, and on 19th January, about 10 a.m., I was outside Barter's house—he came out; in about half an hour, and I followed him to Buxton Street, Mile End, which Underwood Street runs out of—he met Toomey there, who went into his house; Barter remained in the street at some distance—Toomey soon afterwards came out carrying a brown-paper parcel—he joined Barter, and both walked to Whitechapel Station, East London line, and got into a train together which would go to Peckham—I did not follow them—on January 23 I was with Sager in Underwood Street shortly before 11 o'clock watching Tourney's house—Barter came into the street and knocked at Toomey's door; he was answered by some one from the first floor; he then walked away, and remained about the centre of the street, where Toomey joined him with a brown-paper parcel—they walked to Whitechapel Station, entered the station separately, took tickets separately, and got into the train together—Sager and I got into another compartment of the same open carriage, and I saw Toomey place the parcel on the seat—they both got out at New Cross—Barter, who had the parcel, walked out of the station three or four yards in front of Toomey—we followed Barter to Mr. Akhurst's, a manufacturing chemist's, 207, Queen's Road, Peckham, whose name was on the gate—it is a private house—Barter went in with the parcel—I did not see him come out—I went away—on 24th January we were again watching, and saw Toomey come out; we followed him to a urinal in Pitfield Street, Hoxton; he went in, and Farrah, who was standing close by, followed him in—Toomey came out and I followed Him to his house—on January 25 I saw Toomey come out of his house, and followed him to the same urinal, where he met Farrah, and when he came out his pockets were bulky—on January 26 I saw Farrah at Shoreditch' Station, and followed him to his house—he went in; I waited there, and about 11 o'clock Barter knocked at the door; it was answered by some one from the first floor—he then walked up Underwood Street, and waited there—Toomey came out with a large brown-paper parcel—he passed Barter, who followed him to Whitechapel Station—they got into the same carriage—I followed in the same train—Toomey got out at Old Kent Road without the parcel—Barter remained in the train, and got out at Queen's Road, Peckham, with the parcel—we followed him to Akhurst's with it—he was inside a quarter of an hour, and came out without it—we followed him to a public-house in Old Kent Road, where Toomey was waiting—they remained about 10 minutes, and came out and got on a tram—we did not follow them—on the same day I was with Sergeant Wright and Sager near Messrs. Burgoyne's premises, and saw Farrah come out and join Toomey—they went to the urinal in Pitfield Street—on 30th January, about 10.45 a.m., I was watching Toomey's house again with Sager—Barter knocked at the door, received an answer, and waited as before—Toomey came out carrying a brown-paper parcel, and I followed them to Whitechapel Station, and to New Cross, where they got out—Toomey remained in the station, and Barter walked towards Akhurst's house with the parcel—Sager followed him and brought him back, and I took Toomey in custody—we all four drove to the City in a cab, and I said to Sager, "Have you told Mr. Barter what

he will be charged with?"—he said "Yes"—Barter said, "What is this man charged with?" referring to Toomey—I told him that Toomey was charged with being concerned with a lad in the employ of Messrs. Burgoyne, wholesale druggists, Coleman Street, in stealing and receiving the contents of the parcel that he had got—Barter said, "I always thought he bought them at sales"—I said, "You must have known better than that, this is the man I cautioned you about last July"—he said, "Yes, so you did, I recollect"—they were all charged when Farrah was taken—it was on 11th July, 1883, that I cautioned him.

Cross-examined. On the 23rd the two men walked three or four yards ahead of each other for about 100 yards, and then joined, and were evidently in conversation—sometimes Toomey was ahead and sometimes Barter—I know nothing to prevent their meeting outside Akhurst's—I do not insinuate that Akhurst's are not respectable people—I do not think I said anything to the Magistrate about Toomey passing Barter on the 26th, I left it out—the public-house in the Old Kent Road which Barter went into on the 26th is about a quarter of a mile from 207, Queen's Road, Peckham—I don't remember that Barter said, "I always understood he bought the things on commission at sales"—I heard what Sager heard.

ROBERT SAGER . I was with Davidson, and watched Toomey and Barter—on 30th January I took Barter in Queen's Road, Peckham—he was carrying this parcel (produced)—I said, "Good morning, Mr. Barter, I suppose you know me?"—he said, "Oh, yes'—I said, "What have you got in that parcel?"—he said, "Proprietary articles"—I said, "Where did you get them from?"—he said, "I decline to answer"—I said, "Very well, you must consider yourself in custody; you will have to go back with me to the City, where you will be charged with being concerned with a man, whose name I believe to be Thompson, who you will see shortly, with receiving the contents of that parcel, well knowing them to be stolen from Messrs. Burgoyne's, wholesale druggists in the City"—Davidson brought Toomey up, and we got into a cab—Barter pointed to Toomey and said, "What is this man charged with?"—I said, "He is charged with being concerned with you in receiving the contents of that parcel; he may also be charged with a lad not yet in custody"—he said, "I always understood he bought them on commission at sales"—Davidson said, "You must have known better than that, as you know that is the man I cautioned you about dealing with some time ago"—he said, "Oh, yes, I recollect"—I afterwards opened the parcel—it contained 5 dozen boxes of pills—the charges were read over to the prisoners—they made no reply.

WILLIAM WEIGHT (City Detective). I was present when the prisoners were charged—Barter made no reply.

WILLIAM EDWARD AKHURST . I am a manufacturing chemist, of 207, Queen's Road, Peckham—I have known Barter nearly four years—when I first knew him he represented a druggist's house in the City as a commercial traveller, and called on me on his rounds with druggists sundries—I occasionally purchased of him—I lost sight of him for a considerable time, but about May last he called again and said he was travelling on his own account as a commission agent—since that he has called frequently, and I have made purchases of him amounting to hundreds of pounds—I am not aware that I ever received a printed

invoice from him—on one or two occasions I asked him if it was quite right—he paid that surely I knew him long enough and his bona-fides to trust him—I bought from other houses and received invoices from them—I purchased goods of him on 19th January, and he gave me this memorandum. (Produced; total 4l. 3s. 3d., and balance 5s.)—there is a memorandum on the back; there was half a dozen of Cockle's pills instead of a dozen, which made it amount to 3l. 19s. 3d., which I paid him—other persons in the market sell them at those prices—he came again on the 23rd—I received this card from him, and paid him 9l. 12s. 6d.—I gave 7s. 3d. per dozen boxes for pills at 1 1/2 d. per box, and 17s. 6d. for those at 2s. 9d.—they are sold at the stores at 9d. including the duty—on the 26th Barter came again, and I paid him 12l. 4s. for 21 boxes of pills and 2 1/2 packets of powders—I am not now in the retail trade, but I knew of customers for them and took them, knowing him to be a respectable man—I did not buy them cheap.

Cross-examined. I was a registered chemist in 1867—I had not the slightest idea that the goods were dishonestly come by—I knew where Barter lived, and that he owned his house, and I always knew him as a respectable man—I considered I was paying a fair price—drugs are sold by auction, but not patent medicines—I know that 52 wholesale druggists failed last year, and I think that would throw a quantity of drugs on the market to be sold—the price of articles sold in job lots and in sales is considerably diminished.

Re-examined. I have attended sales in Victoria Docks, and saw Cockle's pills and other patent medicines sold in October last.

WILLIAM TOOMEY (The Prisoner). I have pleaded guilty to receiving a number of Messrs. Burgoyne's drugs in January—I have known Barter two years dealing in pills and drugs—he had no place of business, but lived in Seven Sisters Head—I am a general dealer, and live in Underwood Street, Mile End; I have no shop—I sold him some pills nearly 12 months ago which I got from Farrah—Barter told me he was doing with a man who got them from Farrah, but he did not like him, and would I go and speak to Farrah, who was at Burgoyne's—I went there, and met Farrah coming out—I spoke to him, and got two packets of pills from him like these—Barter came to my house, and I gave them to him—that went on sometimes twice a week, and sometimes three times, and I gave Barton whatever I had; it was always pills—I did not know where he disposed of them, because he only let me go with him as far as New Cross, and I waited while he went—I first heard of Akhurst at Guildhall—on 19th January Barter came to my house, and asked me what I had got—I told him, he told me to bring it down, and we went to Whitechapel Station, and then to New Cross—I took a parcel of pills with me which I had got from Farrah—on the 23rd I went again, and took a parcel of pills which I got from Farrah, and on the 26th I did the same—on the 30th I was apprehended—Barter came to my house that evening, and I said I had a parcel—we went to New Cross, and he took it; it contained pills—I received 2l. and 30s., and sometimes 2l. 2s. and 2l. 5s.—I never gave him an invoice, nor did he ask me for a receipt—I had been convicted of an assault, and I came out of prison on November 26—Barter came to my house that day, and said he was sorry for my getting into trouble, and was I going to commence again—I said I thought not, after what I had suffered I had had enough—he gave me some money, and said that there was plenty of money, and I ought to do

it—I said that I would rather not, but at last I was very hard up, and I consented—he gave me some pills, and said that I ought to go and see Farrah, and get some more, and I went—Farrah said that he did not care about doing it, and I told Barter so—he said "Tell him he must do it"—I said "I don't care about threatening him"—I used to wait for Barter at a pub at the Old Kent Road Station while he disposed of the things—he got into trouble before July last, and I missed him—he came round to my house, and said that he had got into a little bother, but it had all blown over, and was I going to commence again—me and Farrrh had a talk about it, and we said we had better drop it—he said instead of meeting me at the different houses he would meet me once or twice a week at my house.

Cross-examined. This has been going on nearly 12 months—I knew him before—he said that he did not like the man who was getting the things from the boy—he told me who the man was, and I have seen him, but not to speak to him—I knew that Barter's suggestion meant that I was to go and receive stolen property—I said that I would see about it—I took three or four days to consider, and then I determined to do it—I had never been dishonest before—I made no objection to him; I went at once and saw the boy—this is the first time I have mentioned it—he gave me, as the middle man, 5s. a dozen for the pills, and he procured the thief for me, Farrah—he did not pay me 15s. a dozen for the large boxes, and 6s. 3d. for the small ones—I kept no account of what I sold him—when I gave him so many he said "I have got to give you so much," and that was 5s. a dozen, but we had no agreement—when we were in a cab with the officers Barter said "What is this man charged with?" meaning me—I did not hear him say "I always understood he bought the things on commission at sales," pointing to me; nor did I say anything upon that—I have never said anything to the inspector or the police about his having sent me to the boy, or selling them at 5s. a dozen—I said before the Magistrate that I had nothing to say—I did not say a word about Barter having tempted me—Barter never mentioned Akhuret's name, but he said he took them to a man he knew at Peckham—he did not pay me till he came back from where he took them—the 5s. a dozen applied both to small and large boxes.

GEORGE FARRAH (The Prisoner). I have pleaded guilty to this indictment—I saw Barter twice after I became acquainted with Toomey, once in Pitfield Street and once in Worship Street, a little distance ahead—I have never spoken to him.

JOHN IBBS . I am manager in the sundries department of Messrs. Burgoyne's—Farrah was employed under me—the firm deals largely in these articles—this "One dozen Parr's life pills" means one dozen boxes—at that time the price was 22s. per dozen for the 2s. 9d. boxes, and 5 per cent, off—here are some large boxes of Cockle's pills, they were 22s. per dozen for 100l. worth; you cannot buy less—the smaller Cockle's are 18s. 6d. for 100l. worth—all these pills range about the same price—we have similar articles in stock.

Cross-examined. The sale is enormous, and there is nothing to show on the outside where they come from.

JULIUS SYRIAC . I am one of the firm of Burgoyne and Co.—I have heard Mr. Ibbs's evidence, it is correct—Cockle's and Stedman's pills are not sold at sales, in any quantity.

GUILTY . Barter received a good character, but Sergeant Lively stated that he was the associate of a man named Hunter, who had instigated three lads to commit a robbery at a wholesale druggist's in November, 1881, and that a companion of his had seven years' penal servitude in August, 1882. FARRAH—Strongly recommended to mercy by the prosecutors— Four Months' Hard Labour . BARTER— Five Years' Penal Servitude . TOOMEY— Judgment respited.

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, February 28th,1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-857
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

857. JANE GOODMAN (29) , Feloniously wounding Arthur Myers, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

MR. RHODES Prosecuted.

ARTHUR MYERS . I live at 20, Hercules Place, Holloway—on the 18th of January I was in a coffee house in the Caledonian Road with George Beard—we received a message, in consequence of which we went outside and found the prisoner there—she said "Can I speak to you for five minutes"—I said "Not unless George cornea too"—she replied "Very well," and conversed for about five or six minutes, I can hardly remember what about, walking round to the corner of Huntingdon Street—she said "Come to Thoruhill Square"—I said "No, I shan't go any farther than this," and I leant up against the railings of the first house in Huntingdon Street—the same conversation went on about my not meeting her on the previous evening, she blamed me and seemed rather angry—she is married—I do not know if our meeting caused unpleasantness between her and her husband—there was no allusion to it in the conversation—I had seen her three or four times before—she said she would make me repent—I said "No, no, I shall never repent, I have done nothing to repent"—she replied "Well, take it, then," and made a blow at my left side—I was dressed as I am now—I felt wet directly afterwards—I walked back to the light at a shop at the corner and opened my shirt and found I was covered in blood, and 'bleeding—the prisoner had a handbag—I called out to Beard "Look, George, what she has done"—I walked back to her and snatched her bag and gave it to Beard—he opened it and took a knife from it in her presence—I walked with Beard to the hospital, and subsequently to 49, Muriel Street, where he lodges—I think I fainted two or three times—I laid on a sofa, and about half an hour afterwards, after I had been to the hospital, the prisoner came in and said "Will you forgive me?"—I said "Yes, if you can forgive yourself, only go home"—I went to the hospital next day, and was an in-patient almost a fortnight, and then an out-patient for a fortnight.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I think I saw you on the Thursday night in the Caledonian Road—I cannot remember your saying to me "Seeing you and George Beard has made a grievance between me and my husband," or my saying "I am sorry to hear it"—I did not say "I suppose if you were to leave your husband you would not so much mind"—you did not say "I don't know so much about that," nor did I then say "If you will be the same to me as you are to yours, you shall never repent"—you did not say "No, it would be the first time fox thirteen

years I have been false to my husband, and I will not be now"—I said I was going to sing a song that night and would not stop any longer—I did not say I would come down the next night—on Friday you sent a boy to say you were waiting—I do not know who the young man was who stood outside with you and who afterwards came to 49, Muriel Street—George Beard was with us—you did not say "Mr. Goodman is very much put out, he does not seem in a better humour"—we spoke in reference to the Thursday—I do not remember your saying "You cannot wonder my husband is cross, look how long I have been out lately"—I did not say "You had better go and cuddle your old man and make it up"—you did not say "To make the best of you you are a villain"—I did not laugh in your face and say "I know that you are not the first woman who has told me so, if I am a villain what are you?"—you did not say "A respectable woman, as I always have been"—I did not say 'Yes, you are, if I am a villain you are a b——w——"—I saw nothing disrespectful to you—I remember your hand being in your bag, and I saw your hand go back to your bag after I was struck—I did not speak to you, I only said "George, I am stabbed," and I said "No, let her go home," and then I snatched your bag and went into the coffee-shop—at Muriel Street I did not say I hoped the Almighty would forgive you—I got off the sofa and walked to the backyard door and fainted there, I believe—Beard brought a doctor—I cannot remember if Mrs. Thornton was kneeling down by the side of me—I do not remember my saying to her "Nellie, darling, is that you?"her saving "Yes, Arthur," or ray saying "Come here and kiss me, for you are my wife and not my wife"—I saw you in the front parlor—I could not swear that Beard said "Are you going to prosecute the prisoner?"that I said "No," and that he said "If you are not going to prosecute you had better go home"—you said "If you don't prosecute me I will do all that lies in my power for you, as I have got all those dear little children at home," and I said "No, Mrs. Goodman, go home to your husband and children"—I did not prosecute you till the following Wednesday—I am the prosecutor here—after you were committed for trial I went to your residence—I saw your little daughter, and inquired for Mr. Goodman; they told me he had not come home—I did not ask for you—they said they expected him home every minute, and I asked which way he came home, I wanted to speak to him with reference to getting bail, I had no malicious feeling towards you—I did not say I was sorry I had prosecuted you, that I had not done it on my own account, I was persuaded to do it.

By the COURT. I became acquainted with the prisoner first, on Boxing night at a party at her husband's house—I saw her pretty frequently previous to the stabbing—I had had no previous quarrel with her—she only knew my Christian name, from Beard I suppose.

GEORGE BEARD . I live at 49, Muriel Street, Islington, and am a milkman—I have known the prisoner and her husband for four or five years, I think—on the evening of 18th January I was with the last witness in a coffee-house—a boy came in with a message—we went out and found the prisoner in the street—she said to Myers "When you are disengaged I want to speak to you for five minutes"—I didn't hear him reply, he turned round and smiled at me—we all three went up Caledonian Road together to the corner of Huntingdon Street—the prisoner said to Myers "Come to the top, I want to speak to you by yourself"—he said

"No, wherever I go George goes"—he leaned himself on the railing with his left hand in his pocket—he said he had never been commanded by a woman before and he would not be now—she said "Arthur Myres, you have deceived me and you shall bitterly repent it"—he said he would defy her or any other woman to make him repent—she had been foraging in a black bag she was carrying, and she struck him on the left breast, saying at the time "Take it then"—after the blow she put her hand back into the bag and shut it—Myres took his hand from his pocket up to his side, walked a little way away, came back again, snatched the bag from the prisoner, and gave it to me—I opened it and took out this knife (produced)—Myers opened his coat, waistcoat, guernsey, and two shirts, and said, "Look, mate, she has stabbed me"—there was a wound just above the nipple of his left breast; it was bleeding just a little, but the skin was broken—he said she had stabbed him and he felt faint and asked me to take him somewhere—I said "You had better send for a policeman"—I took him into a coffee-shop—the prisoner followed behind and wanted to come into the coffee-shop with him—there was no policeman there, only a few boys—I let Myers get into the coffee-shop and kept the prisoner back—I put a cold water rag on the wound and took him to the Great Northern Hospital, he leaning on me very much, and said he felt faint—he said "Let her go, and come with me, I feel very bad"—the prisoner was outside the coffee-shop when we came out—she had not seen Myers that same evening to my knowledge—they were on friendly terms—I think I was in her company for a few minutes on the Thursday evening.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. On the previous night I left you and Myers in the coffee-shop together—on the Friday I stopped behind talking for a second or two to a man who was outside, who had been in the coffee-shop talking to us—you did not get many yards in front of me—I did not hear Myers tell you to go home and cuddle your old man—I don't remember that you got to high words—I believe you said "Don't talk to me; the pair of you have done a fine thing for me"—you called Myers something, I think it was a wretch—I don't think he made any reply—he did not say "If I am a villain, what are you?"—you said to me "Have you ever known me to be anything else than a respectable woman?"—I said "No, Mrs. Goodman; I have always known you to be that"—I had been to sea and had not seen you for two years until Christmas—I did nut see Myers laugh, he was leaning on the railing—I am positive he did not call you a w—I pinned your arms in the street, and Myers said "Let her go"—Myers was hanging on one arm and I was keeping you back with the other for fear that you would get at him again—I know him as an honest working man, and he could sing a good song, so I took him to your place on Boxing Day—when you came to Muriel Street I had gone to get some brandy and a doctor—I had lost this knife, I found it afterwards outside the Great Northern Hospital—I only remember telling you to go home when I saw you there—Myers said "Get her out of my sight, I cannot abear her"—you told me to take some money out of your bag and get some brandy, I did not—I went to Mr. Smith's and borrowed a shilling—the doctor sounded Myers's chest and said he had got a flesh wound—he asked who did it, you said "No" at first—the doctor said "Did she do it?"—you said "No"—I came outside 49, Muriel Street with you and went to the comer and advised

you to go home—you wanted me to come with you as far as I could because you felt bad, and I refused—I wanted to get back to Myers—I did not hear Myers say when you were standing in the front room "I should be sorry to express my opinion about you"—you were crying at the corner of Muriel Street—I believe I said something: to the effect that "He has not acted what is right, but what was he to do?"—I did not say he had brought it all on himself—I told you I was sorry it occurred, if only for your husband and children.

By the JURY. Myers is a vocalist, and I took him to the prisoner's house on Boxing Night because he could sing a good song.

DR. FRANCIS ALEXANDER STOKES . I am house-surgeon at the Great Northern Hospital—on January 18, between 7 and 8 o'clock, Myers came there with Beard—I found a punctured wound on the left side of his chest—it was bleeding, and had bled a good deal—it was about an inch and a half deep, and sloping outwards and backwards about three inches from the nipple, about an inch deep—it went away from the cavity of the chest through the muscles—it might have been caused by such a knife as this—it was over the second and third ribs—from the direction it took it would not have injured the cavity of the cheat if it had gone deeper—I only saw him at the hospital—I advised him to come into the hospital, he would not—I told him if he left the hospital he did so at his own risk—he came back next day—there was suppuration all down the left side, he was in bed for 12 days.

WILLIAM THOMSON (Policeman Y 381). On 23rd January I received information in consequence of which I apprehended the prisoner—I said "I am a police officer, I shall take you into custody for wounding. Arthur Myers," and cautioned her—she said "Is he dead?"—I said "No"—this is a note of the conversation, which I took down at the time.

Cross-examined. I did not ask why you asked that, and you did not Bay "Because he took his oath to God that unless death came he would not prosecute me."

The prisoner received a good character.

Prisoner's Defence. I think you will see I had great provocation in doing what I did, and hope you will deal leniently with me, as I had great provocation, and am a wife, and have children.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding under great provocation. — One Month's Hard Labour

OLD COURT.—Friday, February 29th 1884.

Before Mr. Justice Cave.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-358
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

358. SIDNEY CLAY (21) , Unlawfully soliciting Eustace Julian de Gruyther to kill and murder a certain male child aged two months.


EUSTACE JULIAN DE GRUYTHER . I live at 66, Jackson Road, Holloway—I am a physician and surgeon, and a registered medical practitioner—on 8th January last a male child about two months old was brought to me by a woman who I now know to be Mrs. Manning; it looked very ill—I prescribed for it, and it was taken away—on 10th January the same woman returned with the child and its mother, Maud Morris—I gave them advice as to its treatment, and it was taken away—that was

about half-past 7 o'clock at night—some time after they had left the prisoner came to my surgery—I did not know him before—he said "I have called respecting a child you are treating, and about which I believe two women have been to you; I am the father of the child"—I said "What do you want me to do?"—he said "I believe you ordered a wet nurse"—I said "Yes; if the child has breast milk it will live"—he said "I don't think I can afford that, it has cost me a lot of money already; do you think it will do as well on artificial food?"—I said it might—he said "I am a married man, and in business close by, and if this thing gets about it will ruin me"—I said "As far as I am concerned no one will know anything about it"—he then asked me to call at his tobacconist's shop in the Holloway Road, close to the railway arch—I said I would call—that was all that passed on that occasion—on Thursday, 17th, I saw him again in consequence of a message, at 254, Holloway Road, about 1 o'clock in the afternoon—it was a tobacconist's shop—in the meantime I had seen the child twice, I think; Mrs. Manning had brought it—he asked me how the child was getting on—I said it was improving and I thought it would live—he said "I am sorry to hear that, for it will be a burden for me for 16 years"—I said "Why, if you pay 5s. a week you need not be troubled with it, any one will keep it and not say anything about it"—he said "It will never do, if my wife gets to know it there will be a fearful disturbance"—he then asked me how long I thought the child would live—I said probably not more than two years—somebody then came into the shop, and he asked me to call again, and I left—on the following Tuesday, the 22nd, I saw him again at my surgery, about 8 o'clock in the evening—he said "How is the child getting on?"—I said it was still improving—after that there was some general conversation, and he then said to me, "I want you to get rid of this child for me"—I said "What do you mean?"—he said "I want you to put something in your medicine so as to slowly poison the child, and I will pay you any reasonable amount of money"—I said "I refuse to have anything to do with it"—he said "Why not? you will be handsomely paid; other doctors do it and no one is a bit the wiser"—I said "You won't tempt me to commit murder for any amount of money"—he then spoke about the vaccination, I am not sure about the words—I think he said "How about the vaccination?"—I told him the child was not in a fit state to be vaccinated, and if I did do it it would die—he sail "Then why not do it, it would be an easy way to get me out of my difficulty?"—I told him if I did it would be murder—he then said "If the child dies in a fortnight or so will you give a certificate?"—I said provided there were no suspicious circumstances I should be compelled to give one—he said "If I call in a fortnight will you give me one?"—I said "You have had my answer"—he then said "It would be easy to get rid of this child by putting something in its food or in your bottles of medicine, and I mean to get rid of it, and I shall call on you for a certificate"—I said "If I suspect foul play I shall withhold it"—he said "You need not know anything at all about it, it will be done neatly and quietly, and after. You have given the certificate you can ask for what fee you like"—he then bade me good night, saying "I shall call in a fortnight and depend on you for the certificate"—it was about 8.45 when he left—next afternoon after I shut my surgery at 12 o'clock I went to the police-station and made a communication to Sergeant Targett—I put it in writing the

same night in his presence—on Saturday, the 26th, at the instance of the police I went to the police-court and swore an information, and after the prisoner was arrested I gave my evidence at the police-court—a bottle of medicine was shown to me by the inspector—it appeared to be in the same state in which I gave it to Mrs. Manning—I saw the child at Mrs. Manning's in Hornsey Road on the night of the 26th—it was much in the same state as I had left it—I don't know whether it is living—that was the last time I saw it.

Cross-examined. I should not be at all surprised to hear that it was dead—I did not when I first saw it decide that it had consumption of the stomach—it was suffering from bad feeding, from condensed milk, not in proper strength, and in a very dirty bottle—that would produce wasting and emaciation—on the first interview with Mrs. Manning I formed I very unfavourable opinion of the child's condition, and thought it probably would not live long, and I so stated to the prisoner on the 10th—on the 22nd he came about 8 o'clock and left about 9 and bade me good night—I also bade him good night—the following afternoon I communicated with the police—I did not consult any person before communicating with the police, I am positive of that—I was asked that question by Mr. Ricketts at the police-court, and I said I consulted somebody in the Temple; but that was after I had given information to the police—I did not have the interview personally with the barrister—I did it through my brother, a student in the Middle Temple—I had no ill feeling against the prisoner, but I wanted to know if I was doing right, to protect myself—I thought I might be compromised; that was what I was afraid of—I did not make an analysis of the contents of the bottle; I tasted it, and I believe it was in the same condition in which it left my hands—I had no reason to believe that it had been tampered with—about three-parts of it had been used—I received the bottle from Inspector Dod—when the prisoner first made this proposition to me I was so taken aback I did not know what to do—I made no attempt to mention it to the police that night, and next morning I could not go out, because my surgery was open—I did not institute the prosecution—I have carried on my profession at 66, Jackson Road from 30th January, 1883, before that I was at 104, Store Street as house-surgeon of a provident dispensary for 18 months—I had a mouth's notice to leave because I did not attend at a committee meeting—I left in debt, but not largely—I registered as a practitioner in September, 1882, and was qualified on 29th July—I studied at St. Mary's Hospital from 1873 to 1877—I had an interview with the prisoners father on Sunday night, 27th January—he told me who he was, and asked me if I was the prosecutor—I said no, the police were prosecuting, and that I was an unwilling witness in the matter—I did not say "I suppose your son has been talking of this affair, and it came to the ears of the police, and so Mr. Dod called on me and asked me about it, and that is how it occurred," nothing like it—the prisoner did not bring a vaccination paper with him when he first came, nor at all—he did not say he had had one left at his house—Mrs. Manning brought it on the 22nd I said the child was not fit to be vaccinated—the prisoner did not say "If the child knew what was best for itself it would die, but I suppose I shall have to keep it till it is 16"—I made a few notes of what he said on the 22nd next day—I have not got them here—I did not say before the Magistrate that I had not taken any note—I said I had notes of the conversation

on the 22nd—I had no note of the previous conversations—I don't know that the prisoner is not married—I have heard so—he certainly said on two occasions that he was married—he was not living at the tobacconist's shop—it is his father's business, and he carries it on for his father—I told Mrs. Manning that the child was suffering from consumption of the bowels—that is a term we use for malnutrition, as persons of the poorer class would not understand that term—tuberculosis is a very deadly disease—I never said it had tuberculosis—I did not tell the prisoner that it had consumption of the bowels; I never thought so—he never asked me what was the matter with it—I told him it was suffering from improper feeding; that it was very bad and likely to die very soon.

MAUD MORRIS . I am a dressmaker, and live at 39, Stanhope Street, Euston Road—I have kept company with the prisoner, and became in the family-way—the child was born on 19th November—I registered it; it was a boy, named Sidney—that is the prisoner's Christian name—after I was confined I wrote to the prisoner—I did not receive any reply to the first letter—he came to see me three days after; before that I went to his business to see him, but he was not at home; I took the baby with me—on the day he came to see me he asked to see the baby—I did not show it to him; it was rather late in the evening; I thought perhaps it would catch cold—one day in the week before Christinas he called again, and saw the baby—I told him the doctor said I was not able to suckle it—he said he would try and get a wet nurse for it, or do the best he could—he said if he found a nurse could I let it go away on Boxing Night, and on Boxing Night Mrs. Manning came, and believing he had found a nurse for it I let it go with her—I asked her where she lived, and she said at Poplar—about a fortnight after that I saw the prisoner again, and I asked him to tell me where the baby was—he said "You can see the baby whenever you wish to, but I don't wish you to know where the nurse lives"—he told me not to come there again; he was in a temper; I think someone had upset him during the day—I wrote to him after that, and then I and my mother went to him and asked to see the baby—I was going to see the doctor then—he said we could see the baby whenever we wished, but he did not wish us to know where the nurse was—that was facing the Nag's Head in the Holloway Road—he was cross because my mother came with me, and at first he said I should not see the baby—I sad "If you don't let me see it I shall go to your business"—he said "Come along, then," and he took us to Mrs. Manning's, where we saw the baby—I went with it and Mrs. Manning to see Dr. De Gruyther on one occasion—when I went to the shop the prisoner Maid "If you come here kicking up a bother neither you nor the baby will go out," but he did not mean anything—I saw the baby again a few days after—the prisoner is not married, but he told me he was, so that I should not go there in the evening to annoy him in business.

Cross-examined. There is not the least reason to suppose that he is married—the business is his father's—I said before the Magistrate that he had promised to marry me, and I have no reason to doubt that he intends to carry out his promise—I heard him say to Mrs. Manning "Take great care of the child, and let me know at once if there is any thing the matter with it"—that was when the child was taken from me—he said the reason it was taken to Mrs. Manning was because I could not maintain it any longer—I know Mrs. Manning now, she is poor but

very respectable—I had no knowledge of her before the prisoner wrote to me telling me that the child was not very well and would I like to see it—he said he would do his best to support it.

JULIA MANNING . I am as good as the wife of George Manning, and live in Essex Road, Holloway Road—I did not know the prisoner before I took charge of this child, my husband did, and spoke to me about him—I first saw him on Christmas Eve at his shop, and I arranged to take charge of the child—he was to pay me 10s. a week—he gave me 3l. in advance—I fed it on condensed milk—when it got ill I took it to a chemist's in the Holloway Road, and afterwards to Dr. de Gruyther, and he gave medicine for it and I afterwards went with the child's mother to the doctor's with it—I let the prisoner know that it was ill.

Cross-examined. I received from the doctor a bottle of medicine, and gave the child part of it—it did not appear to be any the worse for it—the prisoner told me to treat it in a proper manner; I have it still.

CHARLES DOD (Police Inspector). On Saturday evening, the 26th, about 5.30, I went with Sergeant Targett to 254, Holloway Road—I there saw the prisoner—I said "Are you Mr. Clay"—he said "Yes"—I said "We are police officers, and I hold a warrant for your arrest, which I will read to you"—I read it to him, it was for inciting to murder the child—he replied "Oh, there is nothing in this; the doctor is attending the child and the nurse is close by; it is all a mistake"—I produce the bottle of medicine which I got from Mrs. Manning; Dr. de Gruyther tasted it and sealed it up.

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY. Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of his youth and previous good character. — Six Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-359
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

359. HENRY HOBBS (31) , Feloniously wounding Phœbe Hobbs, with intent to murder. Second Count, to do grievous bodily harm.


PHCEBE HOBBS . I live at the Royal India Asylum at Eating, as house maid—the prisoner is my husband—I was married to him four and a half years ago—his habits were very intemperate, and I refused to live with him any longer, and went into service in Southall Park—the prisoner come to see me from time to time while I was there, and on one occasion he asked me to go out with him, and I refused to go—on the 12th February, about twenty minutes to 8 in the evening, he came and asked to see me—I went and saw him in the doctor's study—he said to we, "Well, my girl, how are you?"—I said "Pretty well, thank you"—then he said, "I am going away for two years, I thought I would like to see you, as I have some valuable property I wish you to take care of while I am gone"—he asked me the size of my wedding ring, as he said he wished to give me a keeper on my birthday—I had the wedding ring on my finger, I took it off and took a piece of paper for the purpose of measuring the size of my ring—I went across to the doctor's desk and measured the circle of the ring on the paper, and while doing that I saw him put his hand into his pocket and take something out, and I found it to be a razor—I do not know whether he took hold of me then, subsequently he did—I cannot tell whether the razor was open or shut—he tried to pull my head back, I struggled with him and I caught hold of

his whiskers—we struggled together, and I screamed out, and one of the servants came in—when she came in we were behind the door in the doctor's study, and he said, "Now you can give me in custody, I hare finished, you can give me in charge"—I cannot say exactly the words—Clifford ran out of the room and went to the doctor in the dining room, and she came back in a second or two with Doctor Christie—I took the razor away from the prisoner and he got it again—I do not know whether it was open or shut then—my fingers were very much cut, and I had marks on my face and a bruise on my forehead—my apron was cut and my cap was on the floor—it is not true that he said to me "Phœbe, as you have shown me the cold shoulder be very careful, don't flirt with this attendant again, this is the third man I have found you with, if you do I will give you the contents of this," pulling out the razor from his pocket, nor is it true that I grasped his throat or injured him in any way.

Cross-examined. We have been married about four and a half or fire years—I have been at Dr. Christie's about four weeks—I had been living away from the prisoner at that time—when I was married I went back to the Park for 12 months, then I left and went home to him for some time, and then I went back to the Park again—he is not an excitable man, only if he has taken anything to drink:, then he is, and he is very apt then to act rashly and impetuously—on one occasion at Christmas time he threatened to throw himself under a railway train—I have heard that he has had two sunstrokes—on this day when he called he kissed me several times—he seemed very fond of me and glad to see me—he took the razor out of his pocket, but I don't know whether I took hold of him first or he me—he did not threaten to commit suicide unless I went out with him of a night—he was not violent or excited—I thought he looked very pale—he did not say he would make away with himself unless I came home with him—I said I could not go out with him as they were at dinner, and I should have to wait on them—he said "Wait a minute, they won't say anything; can I see you after dinner?"—I said "No, I have my bedroom to do"—I suppose I caught hold of the razor when he had it in his hand—I had not been cut anywhere then, not till we were struggling—the only cuts were inflicted in the course of the struggle—the struggle commenced as soon as the razor came out—he did nut say that he wanted to destroy his own life, I am positive of that—I got my fingers cut in the struggle—I was cut in four places across the fingers, I think it was done in my attempt to take the razor from him—I was not anxious to press this matter at the police-court, or am I now—I believe Dr. Christie gave him in charge.

Re-examined. We were struggling when I attempted to take the razor from him—I thought he was trying to get at my throat—my hair was a little disarranged, and a great lot of it came out next morning; whether that was done by him or not I cannot say—I think he took hold of me alter Clifford left the room—he put his arm across me at the back of my shoulder, and then Dr. Christie came in—my cap did not come off while he was trying to kiss me—he did kiss me several times; and I kissed him the same.

ELIZA CLIFFORD . I am lady's maid at the Royal India Asylum—on February 12, some little time after 8 o'clock, I heard a screaming struggling noise downstairs—I went down to the foot of the stairs

and then I recognised Phœbe's voice—she was screaming—I went at once into the doctor's library, and saw her and the prisoner both struggling together—the prisoner was on the ground and she was holding his hands to keep him from her, and he was trying to push her down—I saw a razor in the prisoner's hands, I saw the handle and the blade—it was open—I screamed and rang the bell, and got outside the library door and ran into the doctor's dining-room, and he returned with me to the library—when we got back into the room I caught hold of Phœbe and helped her out of the room—I saw Wood—I could not tell how much she was hurt—I saw that she had got the razor, and I took it from her—it was open, and all over blood—her cap was off, and her hair was very dishevelled.

DR. THOMAS BEATU CHRISTIE . I am medical superintendent of the Royal India Asylum, Ealing—about 8 o'clock on the night of 12th February I was at dinner—the door was suddenly opened, with a cry of "Phœbe is being murdered"—I at once left the room with my son and went to the library—Phœbe passed me just as I went in—I can scarcely say that I noticed her just then—I saw her directly afterwards, and I attended to her wounds—I saw the prisoner in the library—my son seized him, and he was brought into the hall and handed over to some attendant—I sent for the police—I then examined Phœbe—I found that she had a wound at the back of her right baud; three fingers were divided right across—there were four separate cuts; the three fingers might have been cut by one cut; the other one was a separate one in a different direction—they were done with a sharp instrument such as a razor—they were about one-eighth of an inch deep—she had a bruise on her forehead, which I imagine must hare been done by the carpet when she fell—she had no cap on—I found that in the library behind the door a chair was turned over and the legs broken off.

GEORGE WILLS (Police Inspector X). I was sent for to the asylum—as I was going along I saw the prisoner in custody of one of the attendants, Dr. Christie and his son following behind—the prisoner was given in custody by the doctor for attempting to murder—on the way to the station he said he only did it to frighten her—he was charged at the station with wilfully cutting and wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm—I cautioned him, and took this down in writing as what he said: "I went to see my wife at the Asylum; I was shown into the study. After a short time she came in. I paid, 'I am going away to-morrow or next day, and I want you to take care of some papers for me.' She said she would take tare if anything for me, but don't come here again. I told her I wanted to give her a keeper ring, and I lent her a pencil to mark it, which she did on a piece of paper. I then said, 'Now, Phœbe, this is the third man I have caught you with, if it occurs again I will give you the contents of this,' pulling out the razor from my pocket. She grasped the razor; it was not open. I called out 'Murder, and I know nothing more"—I read it over to him; he signed it—I afterwards went into the study of the Asylum, and found this piece of paper, a pencil, and a wedding-ring on the floor, also a woman's cap—Christie pave me the razor at the station.

Cross-examined. He was not excited, he was very cool when he made the statement—he had not been drinking, he had no signs of drink—I walked with him nearly half a mile to the station—he might have been

drinking before—he told me he felt faint, and would I mind coming to the station with him.

RICHARD CALLAHAN . I am an attendant at the Asylum, and live about 150 yards from it—on the 12th February, between 7 and 8 o'clock in the evening, the prisoner nailed at my house and wanted to know if Mrs. Hobbs was at home—I said, "I don't know any one of the name in the neighbourhood," and asked him how he came to know my name—he said his wife had written a letter to him saying that she would come out to my place and meet him—I said I didn't know who she was—he explained that she was in the employ of the late Dr. Boyd, and gave a description of her.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I did not go there with the intention of hurting her; she did it herself, she grasped at the razor."

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding. — Six Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Friday, Februray 29th, 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-360
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

360. BENJAMIN JORDAN (36), HENRY GEORGE CHAPMAN (21), ALFRED THORNTON (51), and FREDERICK HADDEN (23) , Burglariously entering in the dwelling-house of Edward Hunt, and stealing therein an iron safe and 537l. 7d. in money, his property, to which JORDAN PLEADED GUILTY .

MESSRS. MONTAGU WILLIAMS and WARBURTON Prosecuted; MR. COIE appeared for Thornton; and MESSRS. GEOGHEGAN and BEARD for Hadden. ROBERT MORLY. I am outdoor manager of the Dairy Supply Company, 28, Museum Street—on 31st January, about 18.30 p.m., I put 255l. into the safe, locked it up, and put the keys in my pocket—I came out, pulled the door after me, it closed on the latch; I put the key in my pocket and left the premises, leaving all secure—I have since seen the safe at the police-station—I know Hadden as a milk dealer; he has been a customer of the firm about two and a half years—he is a respectable man.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I said at the police-court that I had known Hadden four and a half years.

EVANS HOLLIER . I am head dairyman at the Dairy Supply Company—on Friday morning, February 1, I went to the office about 3.45 a.m., opened the door, and signed my name in the time sheet—no one was there—the manager's room window was open top and bottom—the constable on duty came across to me, and we went to the manager's room, struck a light, and found that three or four sacks of chaff had been strewn about the floor to deaden the sound—the cupboard where the safe used to be, was standing open—the safe was about 7 cwt.

Cross-examined by MR. COLE. Thirty-five or thirty-six people are employed on the premises.

EMILY BAKER . My husband is a dairyman, of 53, Gloucester Street, Theobald's Road—on 31st January, a little after 9 p.m., I noticed a pony and cart outside the Hole in the Wall; it was still there when we closed at a little after 11 o'clock, and I had seen it in the meantime; the name on the cart was Jordan, 5, Bell Street, Stepney—next morning I

saw Mr. Clarke, the landlord of the Hole in the Wall—I had heard of tat burglary and spoke to him about it—it had been a very wet night.

ARTHUR LOCKWOOD (Policeman E 105). On 31st January, about 11 p.m., I was in New Oxford Street, and saw a pony and cart standing by the Black Lion, Duke Street—the name on the cart was Benjamin Jordan, 5, Bale Street, Stepney—it was 30 or 40 paid from Museum Street—I accompanied Barham to 5, Bale Street on 1st February and saw the same cart—the back of it was then broken; it was all right the night before.

GEORGE BARRRAM . I live at Danehurst, Hampstead, and am managing director of the Dairy Supply Company—Chapman has been in my employ four yearn, and I know Madden as a customer—between October 6 and December 13 I saw Thornton and Hadden in the warehouse in Museum Street—I asked Thornton what he was doing there, if he was being attended to—he said "I am with Mr. Hadden," or "I am a friend of Mr. Hadden," and Hadden said "Oh, yes, Mr. Bareham, it is Mr. Thornton, a friend of mine."

JANE MATILDA WARD . I live at 12, Shandy Street, Stepney, and was servant to the prisoner Hadden—I slept away from the premises, but I slept in the house on 31st January—I saw Hadden last that day at dinner time, and my mistress and I sat up for him that night in the parlour till 2.30 a.m., when he came home and whispered to Mrs. Hadden, and said he had to go and mind the pony because somebody was dying—Mrs. Hadden and I did not got bed at all that night, but we laid down on the floor with pillows under our heads and a rug over us—I did not see Hadden again till I opened the shop at 6 a.m., he then came into the parlour and went into the yard; a short stout man was with him I know as Jack—Hadden had a long nail in his hand; he asked Mrs. Hadden to make him a quart of tea to take over the road—she made it; it was put into a milk can and Hadden took it away and came back afterwards with a tall dark man—they went into the yard; there was a grindstone there, and I saw them sharpening a chisel on it—Hadden was turning it—he then sent me to his father-in-law in the Mile End Road, to tell him to make haste as he wanted to speak to him very particular, and the father-in-law came in the afternoon—I did not See Hadden next day, February 1—he went out on the Friday afternoon, between 3 and 4 o'clock, and I remained at his house till 10.30 or 11 o'clock—he had not then returned—he returned on Saturday morning about 7.30—I remained there till 11 o'clock that night—he did not return that day.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I have only been with Hadden since Christmas—a policeman spoke to me first about this matter; he did not tell me that there was a reward of 50l. out, but I saw that in the windows—that was before I gave evidence—the police showed me a photograph, and asked me a number of questions, or I should not have known what night I had slept there; he recalled it to my mind that it was the 31st—it was not an unusual thing for Hadden to go out—I had not seen the grindstone used before.

Re-examined. Hadden went out in the day time—Saturday was the last day I was there—it was Friday that Hadden slept out.

SAMUEL CLARK . I keep the Hole in the Wall, 1, Gloucester Street, Peckham Road—I never saw Jordan till 31st January, when, to the best of my belief, Thornton and Jordan were in the bar from 9 to 11 o'clock

—they were served several times—I picked them oat from several others go the police-court.

Cross-examined by MR. COLE. One person serves in the bar besides me; he is my barman—the police communicated with me on February 3—I went to Bow Street and saw Inspector Langrish; I waited in the gaoler's room five or bin minutes before going in—there were two private policemen there and the gaoler—I did not see any uniform men in the room; there were some in the passage.

Re-examined. A dozen persons or more were there—Thornton was more wrapped up on that night, and seemed rather stouter—I said I thought lie was in my house.

JAMES DOE . I am a smith and wheelwright, of 13, Maroon Street, Limehouse—I have known Hadden about two months—I always thought his name was Rosed bladt—a day or two before this robbry he came to my shop, paid me a bill of 2s., and borrowed this hammer (produced)—I swear to it—I have known him over 20 years—I did not give him a receipt.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. It is three weeks or a month ago; it may have been a week before this robbery.

ANNIE JORDAN . I am the wife of the prisoner Jordan, and live at 5, Bole Street, Stepney—I know Hadden; he came to the house on Friday, January 31, about 6 a.m., and brought an iron thing in my husband's cart—I opened the door, Hadden opened the gates, and they backed the cart in—I then went upstairs to bed with my children—I afterwards came down and got my husband's breakfast, and saw a big iron box in the middle of the back parlour—Thornton, Hadden, and Chapman were there I don't know where they went to—my husband came home about half an hour afterwards—a young man named Bentley was also there—I know little Jack; I can't say whether I paw him that morning—when I was upstairs dressing the children I heard a little knocking going on; they were knocking a box—I had not known Chapman or Thornton before that night—I had seen Hadden about once.

Cross-examined by Chapman. It was 6.30 a.m. when I saw you—my husband was there—I do not know that Hadden arrived first, and that six of you accompanied him in a cab.

Cross-examined by MR. COLE. I was first spoken to about giving evidence, this morning—Inspector Langrish spoke to me—I had never Been him before; he merely asked me what time my husband and the cart came home, and I told him—he did not tell me my husband was going to plead guilty, and they would let him off easy—I did not know whether he had pleaded guilty—I took no notice—we have been married 11 years.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. My husband was present while these men were standing round the iron box, which I thought was part of his trade—he is a merchant in the streets, and goes out with a pony and cart—he brings home lots of iron—I do not know why Hadden should bring it home for my husband, he had never done so before—all I heard was a little knocking; it was louder than some one poking the fire.

By the COURT. I was upstairs, but I believe my husband was there part of the time of the knocking.

ALFBED ROWAN (Police Sergeant E). On 6th February, about 6 a.m., I went with Detective Felton to 28, Museum Street, and in consequence

of what Lockwood said I went to 5, Bale Street, Stepney, and saw Mrs. Jordan in the back yard—I had a conversation with her, and went into the parlour at the bank of the shop and found a large iron safe, which has been identified by the proprietors of the Dairy Company—the hinges were off, and one side of the safe was partly torn away, but not so as to get at the contents—it had evidently been forced with a chisel or hammer—I found two hammers, a crowbar, and a chisel, one of which is the one lent to Hadden by Doe—I took Jordan to Tottenham Court Road, where he made a further statement, and Felton removed a safe to the station—on February 2, at 8 o'clock, I went with Inspector Langrish and saw Hadden and Thornton come out of a public-house in the Bethnal Green Road with a woman—I told Hadden I was a police officer, and asked him his name—he said "Johnson"—I said "I know you as Hadden, you have not been at home the last few nights since the burglary occurred in Museum Street, and I shall take you in custody"—he said "I owe a man 100l., and that is why I have not been at home lately"—he tried to get away, and Langrish ran up and handcuffed him—I went after to 92, Doggett Street, Stepney, where Hadden carried on business, and found this clock and these candelabra in ormolu in a room on the first floor—one of the candelabra has the board and glass mining.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. Hadden struggled, I had him by his neck—I have heard that legal proceedings have been taken against him.

JOHN GERDES . I live at 133, Bethnal Green Road, and have another shop at 141, which I left safely locked up on January 8, and this clock and candelabra were safe at 12 or 1 o'clock in the day—I missed them at 9 or 10 o'clock on Monday morning when I went there—the stand and shade of one of them was left behind.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I did not buy them second-hand, I paid 6l. for them—this is the bill (produced)—I should sell them for 8l.

JOHN LANGRISH (Police Sergeant E). On February 2, at 3.30 p.m., I went to these premises, where Chapman was employed, and told him I should charge him with being concerned with others in breaking and entering these premises, and stealing an iron safe containing 500l.—he said "You are right, but there were seven of us in it; I have shown them round the premises: Hadden was in it"—he gave me seven names in all—I sent him to the station—I went with Sergeant Rouse to Bethnal Green Road, and saw Thornton speaking to a female—I directed Bowman to take Hadden, and another officer to take Thornton—I charged them with being concerned with others in a burglary in Museum Street—Hadden said "I thought you wanted me for that 100l., if you do I can't pay it"—we took them to the station—Chapman, Thornton, and Hadden were placed in the dock together, and I heard Thornton say to Chapman "Keep it dark"—Chapman said, loud enough for them to hear, "Both these two were in the job"—they made no reply—I had a coat with me which was found at Jordan's house, Chapman claimed it.

Cross-examined by Chapman. I was not told to keep my hat on if you were the men, and to take it off if you were not—you had no hat with you—nothing of that kind was said.

Cross-examined by Cole. I conducted Mrs. Jordan near this Court this morning by Mr. Batchelor's direction, the Treasury solicitor—I merely

told her that Mr. Batchelor wished to speak to her—I did not tell her that her husband was going to plead guilty—I had no idea he was going to do so—Mr. Batcheor merely asked me to conduct her into Court—the public-house in Bethnal Green out of which Thornton came, is a quarter of a mile from Sackville Street—Thornton described himself as a coachmaker, of 13, Sackville Street, Bethnal Green—I went and found he lived there—Bowman searched the place.

Cross-examined by MR. BEARD. A reward of 50l. was offend.

Witness for Chapman.

MISS CALTHORPE. I have been living with Chapman as his wife, I am not married to him—I went with the two detectives—they said I was to let them know all I could, as it would be a great benefit to my husband, they thought he was.


THORNTON then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at Clerkenwell in July, 1880, in the name of Alfred Clarke— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

JORDAN—Recommended to mercy by the Prosecutors.— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

CHAPMAN received a good character.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

HADDEN— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-361
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

361. HENRY GILLETT (29) , Breaking and entering the dwelling-house of James Sidney Hooker, and stealing two coats, a hat, and three thermometers, his goods.


JAMES SIDNEY HOOPER . I am a seedsman, of Hart Street, Covent Garden—my premises were broken into on the 25th or the morning of the 26th September, and I missed some thermometers, a hat, and a coat—the coat was found on the prisoner when he was taken—I produce a key of my iron safe, which was stolen on another occasion.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I went to your house with a detective on 17th January—you made no objection to our searching—we were told that the thermometers were sold to a man named Lindsay—I went to him and he denied that you sold him any thermometers—you put the coat on in my presence.

Re-examined. The coat was made by Christopher White, and I find his name on the collar partly obliterated.

Walter John Fawlke. I am a carman, of 186, Commercial Road East—my sister lived with the prisoner as his mistress—three or four months ago he told me that a man named Lindsay, who had been employed by Messrs. Hooper, told him how to break into their premises, and he said "Will you go with me?"—I said "No, I will stick to driving rather than that"—I saw him a week after at his loggings, 54, Britannia Street, City Road—he said "I have done the job"—I said "What job?"—he said "Hooper's," and that he had a large number of thermometers, and a coat and hat, and left his own hat behind, and that he had sold some of the thermometers, some to Lindsay and some to a man in Hackney Road.

Cross-examined. I did not give information for a week, as I had my work to do, there was no 10l. reward then—I knew that Lindsay was in the habit of buying stolen property of you—I am not married—I have been convicted of assault—I did not say at the police-court I had not—I admitted to a burglary 12 years ago at the police-court, I did not deny it at first—on the night you were apprehended I went to your house to know what you had to say about me, I did not threaten your wife's life

—I had no life preserver up my sleeve—I did not tell Mrs. Arthur that I would knock jour wife's brains out—I never belonged to the Militia—I was not locked up at Yarmouth for an assault with a knife—I believe the woman you are living with forged a bill of exchange from what she told me—I was never locked up fur assaults on the City police—I say that the coat left on Hooper's premises belongs to you—I did not say at the police-court that it was the proceeds of a burglary at Poplar, I said that when I was employed at Fardell's I took you for a ride with me after some sugar and you stole the coat from one of the dock labourers on the quay—I did not sell it to Harry Cohen, I don't know him—I have not sold him wool—this is the coat.

TIM KUHRT (Policeman D). On January 17, at 12.30,1 went to 54, Britannia Street, City Road, and saw the prisoner, who had just got out of bed—I told him I should take him for breaking into a warehouse at 13, Hart Street, Covent Garden, on 3rd and 4th January—he said "Who have you got your information from?"—I made no reply—I found a bunch of keys in his pocket—Mr. Hooper, who was with me, identified one of them as a duplicate of the key of his warehouse.

Cross-examined. As far as I know those keys had nothing to do with the case of September 2nd—you said I had no right to search your place without a warrant.

Prisoner's Defence. If I had done such a thing should I have told the policeman false, and why did not he make that statement at first? He perjured himself twice at the police-court. Why have they not called Lindsay? He paid the woman he lives with 4s. for the coat and 6s. for something else. I gave my wife 5s. and told her to give him another, and she will make that statement. He denied at the police-court that he had ever been convicted, but he has been locked up several times for assaults on his father and on the police. He threw a boot at his father and only got two months for it, and his father died alter from the effects of it. The chaplain of Warwick Gaol got him on board a fishing smack, and he got eight months for an assault on the captain. Harry Cohen, who took the coat, is a well-known receiver of stolen goods, and has had three terms of penal servitude. He knew that Falk stole the coat when the brokers were in. He knew all about Hooper's, as Fardell's sent him there for orders.

Witness for the Defence.

ELIZABETH FAWLKE . I am living with the prisoner, and this is his child—my name is Mrs. Dodd—I asked the Magistrate, and he said I might use any name I pleased—your wife did not pay me 10s. on Saturday night, but one night when we wanted bread she said "Just take that, and get some bread"—you did not say "Take that 10s. for the coat, and give Walter his share."

JAMES SIDNEY HOOPER (Re-examined). This is the key of my safe—I missed it on January 2nd—my premises were entered at that time.

GUILTY .— Fifteen Months' Hard labour.

There was another indictment against the prisoner.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-362
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

362. WILLIAM BROWN (22) and JOHN WILSDEN (20) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Keeler, and stealing a pair of socks, a tobacco-box, and other articles of Evan Sanderson, and a brush and a pair of stockings of Ida Behrens.

MR. A. METCALFE Prosecuted.

MARTHA HOPE . I live at 24, Richmond Crescent, Islington, and had charge of Mrs. Keeler's house in her absence—on January 22nd I locked the house up between 10 and 11 p.m.—the kitchen window was locked, and the glass was in proper condition; the shutters were closed, but not fastened—I came down next morning at a little before 7 o'clock, and found the shutters open, and a pane of glass broken—I missed a few things of Mrs. Keeler's.

CHARLES BERRY (Police Sergeant). I examined this house, and found it had been broken into by pasting a piece of brown paper over the kitchen window to make the glass adhere and not make a noise by falling, and then breaking the window and moving the catch—on 4th February the prisoners were taken—Brown was wearing this pair of socks, and Wilsden this pair of lady's stockings (produced)—they both claimed them as their own.

RICHARD BURDEN (Policeman Y 235). On 4th February, about 12.50 a.m., I was on duty about 100 yards from the prosecutor's house, and saw the prisoners walk up Richmond Road; in about 10 minutes they walked into Richmond Crescent, and into the front garden of No. 39; they remained there about two minutes, and then went to the garden of No. 30—Brown remained at the gate, and Wilsden went into the garden—they then went to No. 32, and both went into the garden; as soon as they got in I heard a whistle, and they both came out—I followed them to Charlotte Terrace; they saw me, and began to run—I ran too, and stopped them in Charlotte Street—I took Brown; he had this empty sack under his coat—I saw another constable take Wilsden, and take from him this bottle of paste, a lamp, two knives, a chisel, and two small keys—on the way to the station, Brown threw away a screwdriver, which was picked up—I searched him at the station, and found a handful of matches, some brown paper, and a pocket-knife.

JAMES CLARK (Policeman Y 456). I was with Burden—I have heard his evidence; it is correct—I took Wilsden, and found this pasteboard and lantern on him—he said nothing.

EVAN SANDERSON . I live at 24, Richmond Crescent—these are my socks; they were marked, but it has been ripped off, and here are two pieces of cotton where the ends have been—I lost two pairs of socks, a pair of boots, and a pouch of tobacco.

IDA BEHRENS . I live at 24, Richmond Crescent—I missed a gold brooch, a ring, a scent bottle, and a pair of stockings—these are my stockings (produced)—I made them myself, and here is a pair which I made with the same wool.

Brown's Defence. I bought the sock.

Wilsden's Defence. I bought the stockings.


BROWN then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of stealing fowls in July, 1883.

BROWN— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

WILSDEN— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Friday, February 29th, 1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-363
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

363. JOHN RILEY (36) and THOMAS NORMAN (28) , Stealing a mare, a set of harness, and a cab, the goods of Thomas Haywood, and a whip rug, apron, and cape of Sidney Edwards. Second Count, receiving.


MR. RHODES Prosecuted; MESSRS. KEITH FRITH and BLACKWELL defended Norman.

SIDNEY EDWARDS . I am a hackney carriage driver, No. 8147 and live at 41, Tottenham Court Road—on the morning of 29th January I put my Hansom's cab, No. 8307, on the rank in Catherine Street, Stand, about 12.25—I saw Norman there; right opposite where I pulled up is a public-house, into which I went—I saw Riley there—I came out when the house closed, about 12.30—I did not see Riley or Norman there then—my cab was gone—I had been in about five minutes—I spoke to the cab rank attendant, Coveney—I saw my cab the next day, about 3.30 at the police-station, Plaistow—in consequence of what Coveney said I gave Norman into custody—I had waited about three hours with Coveney to see if I could see the cab anywhere—I could not find it, so I went home; it had not come into the yard—I am not the proprietor.

WILLIAM COVENEY . I live at 16, White Horse Yard, Drury Lane, and am cab rank attendant at Catherine Street cab rank—at 12.25 on the morning of the 29th January I saw Elwards put his cab on the rank—Norman was standing outside the Old Drury—Edwards said "Give an eye"—I said "All right"—he went into the public-house—when he came out he made a complaint to me—immediately alter Edwards had entered the house I saw Norman on a cab going up Catherine Street, and round the corner—I don't know the number of that cab—I called after it several times "Norman, that ain't your cab; you have got no cab at all; that ain't yours"—he was then about five yards away—he only made a noise with his mouth—I ran, it was a wet night and I slipped—I saw Riley on the springs of the same cab—the driver covered his face over as he went by me—I had seen Norman come out of the public-house in Catherine Street about 12.15—I am quite certain he had no cab with him—he did not join any one—no one was waiting for him that I know of—there were seven cabs on the rank—I did not go into the public-house at that time.

Cross-examined. I had not been in the public-house since 6 o'clock—I was certainly not under the influence of drink—I am not a teetotaller—I was brought up before Mr. Flowers on Thursday week and fined 2s. 6d. for being drunk; it was the first time for 20 years—about 20 of them conspired together and charged me—I was sober; the police and inspector said I was drunk—the cabmen have complained of my being drunk when I ought to be on the look-out, they would say anything—they did not say I was drunk on the night this cab was taken; I had had nothing since my tea at 6 o'clock—I have seen Johnson and Sills, I did not see either of them that night—Johnson was not the man standing on the springs of the cab, it was Riley; his face was right over like that—the only opportunity I had of seeing him was as the cab drove past—at a quarter past 12 I saw Norman come up the street without a cab—I did not hear Norman say, "I am going to King's Cross, I will meet you and Mr. Rutland in Catherine Street"—it is not true that while Johnson and Norman were drinking in a public-house I came in and asked for a drink, and Norman gave me one—I did not hear him say, "I will drive Waxy's home, jump in and come along," Waxy wasn't there—I did not hear Norman say, It is Sills's cab, I am going to drive

home"—I don't know Sills by name; as a rule be comes there to have a glass of ale.

Re-examined. I have known Norman about eight months—I have no doubt whatever it was Norman I saw on the cab.

ROBERT HAYWOOD . I live at 104, Chenies Mews, Tottenham Court Road, and am proprietor of the Hansom cab 8307 and of the mare in it on 29th January—on the morning of the 29th I went to a neighbour's in the same yard, Mr. Wilson's, in consequence of something I heard from my driver—I saw Norman there—I said, "I have lost a cab last night, did you have a cab yesterday?"—he said "Yes"—I said, "Where from?"—he said, "Catherine Street, Strand"—I said, "What time?"—he said, "25 minutes past 12"—I said, "It is a peculiar thing, I had one stolen from the same place and at the same time"—he said, "It was not your cab that I had, it was Mrs. Aider's"—I said, "If such is the case, would you mind walking along Tottenham Court Road with me? if such is the case you can easily extenuate yourself"—he said he could; he walked across to Tottenham Court Road Police-station—I stated there what I have stated now—they referred us to Bow Street, where I stated the same—the inspector said, "You must fetch Coveney"—I left Norman at Bow Street, and went with my driver to White Horse Yard, Drury Lane—I found Coveney and took him to Bow Street—Norman was placed among some passers-by brought in from the street, and Coveney was asked which was the man that got into the cab and drove away—he at once pointed to Norman—the inspector said, "Touch the man"—he went and laid hold of the man—my driver, Edwards, then charged him with stealing his whip, rug, cape, and apron, as I did of stealing the cab, horse, and harness—subsequently, from a telegram I received from Bow Street, I went to Plaistow Police-station and saw my horse and cab and Riley there—Riley was brought to Bow Street and charged with the other man—the value of the horse, cab, and harness was about 65l.—when I saw the horse he was covered in mud from top to toe, and the cab as well—it had been about 30 hours from the stable when I got it back again.

Cross-examined. I charged Norman after Coveney identified him at the man that stole it.

WILLIAM THAXTER (Policeman E R 15). On the morning of 29th January Norman came with Haywood to the Tottenham Court Road Police-station, and I took him to Bow Street, where he was charged about 11.30 with stealing a mare, cab, and harness—he said, "I did take a cab, but not Mr. Haywood's cab"—I went down to Plaistow with Mr. Haywood in consequence of information, and found the cab 8307 at the police-station—we brought Riley and the cab back to Bow Street, and Riley was charged.

Cross-examined. At Bow Street Riley said, "Coveney has made a false statement; I alone took the horse and cab, Norman is quite innocent."

FREDERICK DICKER (Detective Sergeant K). On 29th January I was in the Barking Road about a quarter past I in the afternoon, and saw Riley driving a Hansom cab, No. 8307—he stopped outside the Abbey Arms public-house and conversed with several men, to whom he wanted to sell the horse—I took him into custody and to the police-station—about 5 o'clock the same afternoon Coveney came there and identified Riley

immediately from among other men—I saw the cab about seven miles from Bow Street.

Cross-examined. I have known Norman for a little time as a respectable honest man, a cab-driver, I know nothing against him—when charged at Bow Street Riley said, "There is no other man in the matter."

Witnesses for the Defence.

FRANCIS SILLS . I live at 7, Model Buildings, Gray's Inn Road, and am a hackney carriage driver, badge No. 2619—on Monday, 28th January, about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, I saw Norman at Rutland's, the Old Drury Tavern, in Catherine Street, Strand—I was driving a Hansom's cab, No. 3566—we had something to drink—I took a job, and came back and stopped with him till 6 o'clock—then we went to the Brunswick Mews to change horses, and then I went down the Commercial Road with Norman inside my cab, and down Cannon Street Road to the Golden Lion, where we stopped till a quarter or 20 minutes past 10 drinking together—I came over queer and stopped down Cannon Street Road all night, and Norman took my cab home for me about 20 minutes past 10—Norman is a driver; I have known him about three or four years, during which time he has always borne the character of an honest man, or I should not have trusted him with my cab—I know Coveney; he is nearly always drunk on the rank of a night; we have often asked him to look after our cabs, and come back and found him lying in a public-house drunk—I don't know who appoints the looker-out—I cannot say what condition he was in on this night.

Cross-examined. Norman drove away on my cab, No. 3566, about 10.20, with Johnson on the springs—I drive for Mrs. Horricks—before the Magistrate on 30th January I said I drove for Maria Alder, but I only drove for her for a few days, and I did not then know the names of the persons in the yard, and I thought it was Alder.

THOMAS ALFRED JOHNSON . I live at 21, Samuel Street, Cannon Street Road, and am a stoker in the merchant service—on Monday evening, 28th January, I saw Sills and Norman drive a cab up to my mother's house, 21, Samuel Street, about 7 o'clock—I knew Sills before—I went out and asked them if they were coming inside—we had a few words, and then all three of us drove to the Golden lion, in Cannon Street Road—we stopped there till 10.30, and then Sills was queer, and asked Norman to take his cab home for him—Norman drove the cab, and I went with him, standing at the back on the springs talking to him—we drove somewhere where there are new buildings and a statue, and Norman was stopped by a gentleman—I got on the pavement; the gentleman got in the cab—Norman said to me "I am going to King's Cross, Tem; I will meet you at Mr. Rutland's at 12 o'clock"—I knew Mr. Rutland's, in Catherine Street—Norman came there with Sills's cab about one or two minutes after 12 o'clock—he left the cab outside on the rank with five or six others, and we went and had a glass—Coveney came in and asked Norman to treat him—Norman said "I haven't got any money to spare, but you can have a share of this," giving him his pot; Coveney drank it all—he wasn't sober; this was 12.20 or 12.25—we stopped there till every one had left; me, Coveney, and Norman were the last three to leave; we had been there about 20 minutes—when we came out Norman said "We will take Waxy's (meaning Sills's) cab home," and he got on the seat and said "Jump up, Tom," and I got

up on the springs as I had before, and went to Brunswick Mews—I did not see Coveney as we drove off; he left as we came out of Rutland's—I did not see anything of Edwards—we stopped at the top of the mews—Norman said "I don't like to drive the cab down the yard, I will fetch the yardman," and I stopped at the top of the yard with the cab while Norman went and fetched the yardman; the horsekeeper came and took the lamp from the cab and had a look at it, and asked Norman who he was, and Norman said "It is Silk's, he is queer, and asked me to bring it home for him"—he left the cab there in charge of the yardman, and we went homewards, I going with him as far as Guildford Street, leaving him about 12.50.

Cross-examined. We left Sills at the Golden Lion—Norman drove.

Re-examined. I have known Norman two or three months.

THOMAS RILEY (The Prisoner). I have pleaded guilty to stealing the horse and cab—I was a painter—I was outside Drury Lane Theatre that night—I got up on the cab on the rank in Catherine Street I think it was, and drove it away; there were some other cabs there—no one else was in it with me—I drove the cab up Old Street; I don't recollect now where to—I have been in a lunatic asylum—Norman was not concerned with me in it—I don't know him.

TOM TAYLOR . I am nightman to Mrs. Alder and Mrs. Horricks—Norman and Johnson brought Sills's cab home on the night of 29th January, about 12.50; the clock struck as I was taking the horse out.

The JURY here stopped the case and returned a verdict of


The COURT said that Norman was discharged without a stain on his character.

ELIZA RILEY , the prisoner's mother, stated that he had been twice in an asylum, and was not fit to be at large.

RILEY.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-364
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

364. JOSEPH SOUTHGATE (19) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Isaac Moses, and stealing a coat, the goods of Meyer Allowitz.

MR. ROBERTSON Prosecuted.

HARRIS MOSES (Interpreted). I live at 21, Booth Street, Spitalfields, and am a tailor—the Monday night before I was at the police-court I left my lodgings about 10.30—before doing so I locked the door and shut the street door—I was away about 10 minutes; when I came back I saw some person come out of the house and run away; he had a coat under hid arm—as soon as I opened the door I screamed "Murder!" and "Police!" because I had seen the prisoner inside—I am sure the prisoner is the man I saw inside standing near the chest of drawers against the wall—there was some light in the room—when I called out people came in by the street door, down the passage, and the prisoner opened the shutters from the inside and the window, and jumped out and fell in the street—I missed a coat which belonged to Meyer Allowitz, who lodges in the same room with me and my brothers—I identified the prisoner on the same night at the police-station.

MAURICE COYNE . I live at 20, Booth Street, next door to the last witness, and am a master tailor—about 11 o'clock on the night of 11th February I heard cries of murder and so on, and came out of my house and saw the prisoner in the act of leaping out through the window—I

was struck for a moment, but the prisoner fell on his feet, and as soon as he touched the ground ran up the street—I cried "Stop thief!" and ran too—the prisoner ran into some one's arms, who held him till I came up—I sent one of those who came round me for a constable—it was about 200 yards from the prosecutor's house that the prisoner was apprehended—the prisoner was in my sight from the time he leapt from the window till he was caught; I was not more than five yards behind him—I recognised him by his jacket—in the light of the gas-lamp just past my house I saw his face—I saw him leaping from the window as I was coming from my passage door—the window he came from was the ground floor, about 5 feet high I should say.

WILLIAM GREGORY (Policeman H 70). On 11th February, about 11 o'clock, the prisoner was given into my custody—I told him the charge; he made no reply—he was searched at the station, nothing was found on him.

MEYER ALLOWITZ (Interpreted). I lodge at 20, Booth Street—I left there about 1 p.m. on 11th February, leaving a coat on a chair in the front room—about 12 o'clock I returned; the coat was gone—I sleep in the same room as Harris Moses.

Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I was coming down Brick Lane, and went into a urinal, and when I came out all these men got hold of me."

The prisoner repeated in his defence what he had said in his statement.

GUILTY .*— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Saturday, March 1st, 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-364a
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

364. ELLEN DALEY (17), ELLEN BURKE (17), and JOHN WHITE (17) , Robbery on Francis Henry Crispin and stealing 3l. from his person.

MR. GREENWOOD Prosecuted.

FRANCIS HENRY CRISPIN . I am a bootmaker, of 21, Purcell Street, Birmingham—that is not my right address, it is 21, Elton Terrace, Kilburn—on 11th February, about 7 o'clock in the evening, I was in the Britannia public-house, in Frederick Street, Pimlico—the prisoners were there and others—I was served with some beer—there were 9 or 10 lads there, and I gave them some drink—they got me to sit down and play a game with them which they called cottam—I afterwards went out, and the two female prisoners followed me, one on each side, followed by the rest; I saw White among them—I walked on about 12 or 14 yards—I heard a shout and I made a rush, and they all rushed after me, and as I crossed the road I was tripped up, I can't say by whom, there were too many to say—I fell face downwards on the ground—White was lying across my shoulders holding me down, and the two female prisoners ransacked my pockets—I had about 4l. in my pockets when I left my business in the afternoon—I imagine I had over 3l. when I left the public-house—I had been drinking in several houses coming along—I was certainly under the influence of drink, but I was sensibly drank; finding the company I was in sobered me.

Cross-examined by Daley. I had done work about 9 o'clock—it was 10

when I went into this public-house—there was no light outside except from the public-house—it was 100 yards from the house where I was knocked down—I could tell your voices—I can't say that I asked you to go to Birmingham with me, I might have said so.

RICHARD SMITH . I am a paper-hanger, of 1 Marshall Street, Westminster—I was in Vincent Square on 7th February, about 5 minutes to 11—I saw some wrestling going on with a number of persons, 14 or 16 I should think; they seemed to leave the prosecutor one by one—he was on the ground—they went up Vincent Square, the prosecutor followed them—I passed the two female prisoners in company with two young men, and one of them said "I fell under the man"—I spoke to a policeman, and he took the females into custody—White was one of those who ran from the prosecutor; I noticed that he was lame.

WILLIAM WILLIAMSON (Policeman B 283). The two females were brought to the station—from what was told me I went to 89, Bessemer Street, about 5 minutes past 11, and saw White—I told him I should take him into custody for being concerned with others in assaulting and robbing a man in Vincent Square that he had been playing cottam with—he said "God blind me, I have not been near the place"—I took him outside, where he was immediately identified by the people and Smith—on the way to the station he said "Yes, I was there and playing with him, but it was not me that dipped the man, it was some of die other men that dipped him."

RICHARD STENTON (Policeman B 528). The two females were given into my custody by the prosecutor.

GEORGINA BRAHAM . I am female searcher at the station—I searched the two female prisoners—I found on Burke a shilling in silver and 9d. in copper, and on Daley 2s. 3d.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-365
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

365. EDWARD WIGGINS (33) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Muriel Jessie Warden, and stealing 2 boxes, 52 purses, and 13l. in money.

MR. DE MICHELE Prosecuted.

MURIEL JESSIE WARDEN . I am lady superintendent of the Clergy Orphan School, St. John's Wood Road—on the morning of 6th February my housekeeper spoke to me, and I missed a box which had contained 13l. from a small sitting-room on the ground floor.

MARY ANN MILLHOUSE . I was housekeeper at the school—at 10.15 on the night of 5th February I locked up the premises—this box was then safe in a small sitting-room on the ground floor—it had a number of purses in it—I came down at 7 o'clock next morning; the servants spoke to me, and I missed the box—I found the upper part of the window open.

ELLEN FRANCES KERSHAW . I am second English governess at the home—I had the custody of this box from the 3rd to the 10th—it was safe at 9 o'clock in the evening—it contained a little over 13l. in 52 purses belonging to the children—it was locked, and I had the key—I missed it next morining.

WILLIAM KING (Policeman S 434). I was on duty between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning in St. John's Wood, and saw the prisoner and another man loitering about—I lost sight of them for some time—about 3.20 I and another constable were standing at the comer of St. John

Street Road and Wellington Road, about 40 yards from the Orphanage—I saw a man move away from the gateway of the Orphanage and walk away in the opposite direction—after that I heard I noise in the grounds of the Orphanage—we went in the direction, and saw the prisoner come over the top of the gate—I have measured the gate; it is nearly 10 feet high—he jumped on the pavement and I stopped him—I am sure he is the man that came over the gate—I asked him him what he had been over there for—he said he had been over there for a necessary purpose—I said I did not believe it, and I would go and see—he then said "Well, if you must know what I have been there for, I have been there with a woman"—I asked him where the woman was—he said he supposed she was gone—I did not see any female—I took him to the station.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. We were close to the gate when you came over—I was 40 yards away when I heard the noise as if somebody was moving about in the grounds.

THOMAS TUCKER (Policeman S 456). I was with King—I saw a man standing outside the double doors of the Orphanage—I saw the prisoner come over the double doors; we stopped him—as he jumped on the footpath I went up to him—he said he had been there for a necessary purpose—I also heard him say he had been with a female—I saw no woman about.

LEWIS LAIDLAW (Police Sergeant S). About 9.30 on the morning of the 6th I went to the Orphanage—I found that an entry had been effected by some person getting over the yard gate, passing to the rear, and pulling down the lobby window—there were marks on the soil very distinct—they had entered through the window, through the schoolroom into the little room—there were marks on the window—I afterwards searched the back garden some distance from the gates, and found this box containing 52 purses and two or three penny-pieces; sixpence altogether—the box had been forced open with a screwdriver which was lying by the side of it.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I found the address you gave was correct, and found nothing against you—you had been living there two months and had done no work.

FREDERICK BONNER (Police Inspector S). I was at the station when the prisoner was brought there—I asked what he was doing in that neighbourhood—he said he had been with a woman in the Orphanage grounds; "I had been to sing my bird at the Painter's Arms"—I know that that house has been shut up since 1st October—he was searched, and 1s. 6d. in silver, a latch key, and four duplicates found on him.

Prisoner's Defence. I am as innocent as the child unborn. I have never been charged with a single thing. The man that has done this robbery works there now, and I will give every information that lies in my power. I did not do it; the man that did it is named George Poole, and works for a builder. He asked me to go there, and I went there with him. I waited at the gate, and he went in and committed the robbery, and he is to be found now, and the ladies will recognise him if you will defer passing sentence. I will give every information where he is to be found. I am very sorry. I think every one will sympathise with me when you hear my statement. It is all through drink or I should not have been there.

GUILTY.— Judgment respited.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-366
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

366. JOSEPH BARGE (35) PLEADED GUILTY . to unlawfully writing and publishing a libel of and and concerning Frederick Bradford McCrea and others.— Discharged on his own recognisances in 50l. to appear for judgment when called on and to keep the peace.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-367
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

367. THOMAS ALLEN (18) and JOHN FOREMAN (17) , Robbery with violence on Amelia Distin and stealing a bag, brooch, and other articles, and 6s., her goods and moneys.

MR. HOFFMEISTER. Prosecuted; MR. ERNEST BEARD. defended Allen.

AMELIA DISTIN . I am a barmaid at the Opera Comique—on Friday evening, 15th February, about 6.45 or 6.50, I was in Drury Lane going to the theatre carrying a hand-bag in my hand containing a brooch, a pair of earrings, and about 5s. in money—the value of the bag was about 2l.—the two prisoners came up and tried to snatch the bag from my hand—they could not get it—one of them said "Punch her"—I was struck on the back of my head; then we had a little tussle, and they got the bag, leaving the handle in my hand, and ran away—I went to the theatre and was afterwards taken to the police-station, where I gave a description of the boys—next day I saw them at the Bow Street Police-station—at first I picked out two boys very much like them, but directly after when they moved I saw them and saw I had picked out the wrong ones—I picked out the prisoners about a minute alter—the blow on my head knocked me down—I have not been well since.

Cross-examined by MR. BEARD. I all took about five minutes—there were a great many boys altogether next morning at the police-station—after I picked out the first two I said I was sure the first two were the men—I did not speak to the detective at all—I recognised directly afterwards that I had picked out the wrong ones—I did not go out of the room till afterwards—in the police-station after I had picked them out they came up to me and said "You prove it"—I thought they were going to hit me.

Re-examined. I saw the two lads outside a court in Drury Lane before they came up to me, I am quite sure they are the same.

By the COURT. said when I picked out the first two "I am quite sure these are the two"—I was very nervous at the moment, and made a great mistake and touched the wrong two.

ALBERT GREGORY . (Detective Sergeant E). About 7.30 p.m. on the evening of 15th Feb. I received certain information and a description in consequence of which I went with Inspector Langrish and looked for the prisoners—at 11.30 we were prssing along the Strand and we saw them coming towards us—Allen immediately ran across the road through some cabs followed by the inspector—I took Foreman into custody and told him the charge and then took him to the station—he said, he knew nothing about it—he was detained—at half-past 9 o'clock the following morning I went to 8, Hertford Place, Drury Lane, and saw Allen in bed, he lives there—it is about 200 yards from where this occurred—at the identification both prisoners were placed with about a dozen others in a row in the presence of the inspector—the prosecutrix was kept in a room during that time—she was called in by the inspector and pointed to two men, not the prisoners—directly after she pointed the two prisoners out before the others had left the station—about a second or two elapsed between the

two pointings out—the first two were very similar to the prisoners, they were all about of a size.

Cross-examined by MR. BEARD. he Strand is not far from Hertford Street, Drury Lane—I did not hear her say "I was sure the first two were the right ones"—I did not arrest them the moment she pointed them out, she pointed out the others the moment afterwards and said she was quite sure they were the men; I had not time to take them, it was a few seconds after—Miss Distin was in the waiting room about five minutes while we got the other men—there were about six policemen in uniform in the room where the identification took place—Allen was searched—nothing was found on him in connection with this matter.

Cross-examined by Foreman. I never went in the room where the prosecutrix was till afterwards—the inspector did not say to her "Go round and make sure they are the men."

Witnesses for Allen.

GEORGE ALLEN . I am the prisoner's brother and live at 8, Hertford Place, Drury Lane—I went with my brother to the police-station when he was taken into custody, and was present during the identification—the prosecutrix picked out two wrong men and said those were the right ones—then the inspector took her into another room and kept her then for a quarter of an hour—they were by themselves, and they detained the prisoners and let the others go.

Cross-examined. I am sure the prosecutrix did not pick out two lots of men—after she had picked out the first two the prisoners were put on one side and detained, she did not pick out the prisoners at all.

MARTHA SMITH . I am a widow and live at 5, Arthur Place, Drury Lane—I remember 16th February when these two boys were charged—on the evening before that I was at work with Allen's mother, and he came in at 5 o'clock to his tea and did not go out till after 7, and I gave him 3d.—I did not go to the identification—I was present when he was arrested.

Cross-examined. Gregory said I might go if I liked, but I had some work to do—Allen lives with his mother at 8, Hertford Place—I do not live there, I went at 8 and left after 12 at night—I am quite sure Allen came in at 5 and did not go out till after 7—I had a clock there—Allen's mother, father, his brother John and I, were there when he went out—I did not say before the Magistrate he went out at 7—I signed my name—I said he went after 7—he said he was going to the Hungerford—I do not know where it is—I was working with his mother.

By the COURT. was at home when Allen came home, it was about 11.30.

ERNEST EGERTON . live at at 8, Mitre Street, Blackfriars Road—Allen is a friend of mine—on the evening previous to the 16th, when he was charged, I was at the Hungerford Music Hall in Villiers Street, Strand—I was with the prisoner at half-past 7—after we left the music hall I met Foreman and another chap, and we had a drop of beer together.

Cross-examined. I met Allen in George Court in the Strand, and we went from there to the music hall about a quarter to 8 and came out about 10.30.

Foreman's Defence. I am not the man that did this robbery.

ALBERT GREGORY . (Re-examined by the JURY). Foreman lives somewhere about Drury Lane.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-368
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

368. JOHN TWYNAM (34) , Burglary in the dwelling house of William Russell, and stealing a spoon and other articles, his goods.

MR. JONES LEWIS. Prosecuted.

WILLIAM JAMES RUSSELL . keep the Royal Hotel, Norland Road, Notting Hill—on Saturday night, the 9th of February, about 12, I shut up my house safely and went all round to see everything was secure—I saw the bar parlour window was securely fastened, it was not open nor broken—these spoons we had used at supper in the bar parlour on Saturday evening about twenty minutes past 10, I saw them placed in the cupboard close to the window, the cupboard was securely shut up and fastened—I went to bed—about a quarter to 2 I was aroused by the ring of a bell—I went to open the window, but to be quick I went downstairs and opened the bar parlour to go to the bar—I saw the window had been broken at the top, all the glass laid on the floor, and the window was open—a constable was outside—I went all round the house and yard and found nothing and no one—I missed nothing at that time—on Sunday, in consequence of something I heard from my cook, I missed these spoons—the police gave them to me about four hours afterwards.

ABEL ASTWELL . (Policeman X 550). I was on my beat in the Norland Road on Sunday morning, the 10th, near the prosecutor's house—I saw a lot of men standing outside the Royal Hotel, and the prisoner stood about 50 yards off, that was about a quarter to 12—I did not see him do anything—a little after that, about a quarter to 2, I found the glass of the side window of the Royal Hotel broken, and the bottom sash lifted up—there were no marks about it—I rang the bell and called the prosecutor's attention.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not speak to youwhen I saw you—I am sure the man was you, he had only one arm.

JOHN DOGGETT . (Policeman T 340). About half-past 2 on the morning of the 10th I was on duty in Netherwood Road, it was a wet night, and about half-past 2 I saw a shadow of some one standing against the lamp—I walked up to the Richmond Hotel at the corner of Netherwood Road, about 600 yards, by the lamp-posts, from Russell's Hotel—I examined the windows and doors of the Richmond Hotel, listened, and not being able to hear any one walking, I knew they must be somewhere about—I waited at the corner of Henley Road, 50 or 60 yards from the public-house, and listened—I did not hear any one—I walked back again to the corner of the gardens, and while standing there two or three minutes I saw the prisoner come to the corner of the Richmond Hotel, 30 or 40 yards off—he stood as if looking at the premises, then stepped out into the gutter and gradually into the road—when he seemed satisfied that no one was about he went back to the public-house—I crept across the road to the public-house, got on my hands and knees, and peeped round the corner and saw him getting on the window sill—somebody came round, he got down—he then made a second attempt, he got on the window sill and slipped, he waited as if to hear—the third time he got on the window sill I crept on my hands and knees to the window sill, as I rose he jumped; I asked him what he was doing; he said "I picked up two spoons, these two"—I said "You didn't want to get on the window sill to pick them up"—I proceeded to search him, and he produced this spoon from under his coat—I took him to the

station and charged him, he made no reply—he refused to give any account of himself before the Magistrate.

Cross-examined. The spoons were not there three minutes previous, no one had come there from the time I had passed three minutes before to the time I apprehended you.

Prisoner's Defence. That is where I found the spoons on the window sill. About the public-house broken into that morning, I know nothing about it. How could I break into a public-house with one hand and get a window open?

GUILTY . He then PLEADED GUILTY. to a previous conviction of felony in May, 1873, in the name of John Ravenstone.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Saturday, March 1st, 1884.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-369
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

369. THOMAS KENT PELHAM , Stealing two pictures, the property of Charles William Wilson.

MR. MONTAGU WILLIAMS. Prosecuted; MR. GRAIN. Defended.

CHARLES WILLIAM WILSON . I am a picture dealer, carrying on business as W. H. Williams and Co., in Gresham Street, City—I have known the defendant about four months—prior to January 7 I had certain dealings with him in pictures—on January 7 I had a picture by Pyne and Cooper called "Fulling Mills," price 150l.—the prisoner said "Will you allow me to take it away on approbation, as I have some rich friends to whom I think I can sell it?"—I consented, and my manager, who was present, wrote this paper—I also sold the defendant at the same time a picture by Sidney Cooper, which was paid for by cheque, which has since been dishonoured—I got no money for either of them—this paper was brought back to me by my porter—I asked the defendant almost daily if he had sold "Fulling Mills"—he said "No, I think you had better leave it with me a little longer"—I asked him almost daily and got the same answer—I had no idea that it was at a pawnbroker's—on January 29 I had a picture by Herring called "Deerstalkers," price 350l., which he said he thought he could sell to some of his rich friends—I did not let him have it on account of not having received the account of the sale of "Fulling Mills"—he came next morning and asked me why I had not sent it—I told him I could not get a cart—that was an excuse—he pressed me, and I let him have it—I never had it back—I had no idea that on that day or the next it went to a pawnbroker's—he owed me about 550l. at that time, not including these two pictures—he has gone into liquidation since the 29th.

Cross-examined. Since I have known him my dealings with him have been rather more than 1,500l.—he has bought several pictures of me, but I had never sent him any on approbation before—I did not ask him to purchase "Fulling Mills" before I sent it—I saw him nearly every day for four months—I did not say "If you like to buy it you can"—by "on approbation" I mean on sale or return—if he had sold it I should have sent him an invoice—up to January 7 all my dealings with him had been sales out-and-out, as my books will prove; but these two are not entered—I entered the others when they were sold—he is a fair artist—he painted two pictures for me—he can earn 1,000l. a year, I dare say if he sticks to his business—I have not made 50l. on pictures for which

I gave him 40l.; I never sold one—I have got some of his pictures for which I gave him 50l. each without the frames, which cost me 5l. each, and I should sell them for 75l.—I have also bought pictures not his own of him, and he has had other pictures in part payment—I have not paid the other part in cigars and jewellery—I bought a picture by Hume of him, and paid him with a Sidney Cooper—this is the statement of account (produced)—on January 28 of this year I purchased of him a painting by Partington, and another by Pettit, for 100l., and paid him with a painting by Cooper—he gave me his cheque for 150l. and these two paintings, value 100l.—this is the cheque (Dated Feb. 11)—I took his post-dated cheque for February 11—I knew perfectly well that he had not got money at the bank to meet it, but he asked me to hold it over—on December 19 I bought four paintings of him, value 140l., and gave him a painting by Cooper value 250l.—he gave me a bill, which has been dishonoured—there is no other transaction in which I have purchased from him—I did not pay him for his own paintings—there was an arrangement of November 28, when he bought a picture value 200l., that he was to paint me two pictures—I only got one of them—he once sent me a picture on approbation which he got from Messrs. Dodson on false pretences—I will tell you if you wish to know all about this man's villainy—Messrs. Dodson have got the picture now, I have given it up since the examination—I refused at first to give it up under the advice of my solicitor—I said that it was not in my shop—it was on my premises, but I said that it was not in my shop because I wanted to consult my solicitor—I bought 950 cigars of the prisoner—I sold him a picture by Shayer as a genuine one—it was not returned to me on the ground that it was not genuine—I told him I would take it back if he did not approve of it—it was returned because he was not satisfied with it, not because it was not genuine, because it was a genuine Shayer—I don't think he said that in his opinion it was not a Shayer—I took it back and allowed him the same money as he was to pay me—I am not indebted in commission to him, nor has he ever made any claim for it—I never made arrangements with him for selling a number of pictures, or to give him commission—we were not negotiating daily about whether if I bought certain articles he thought he could sell them for me—I sent to him as to buying some pictures which I had offered me—I did not tell him that if he could dispose of them I would give him a commission, or part of the profits—I was not to give him anything for his opinion on those pictures—he has come to my place in the evening after he had done work, but we were not constantly together discussing the value of pictures—I don't know that if I get him convicted I shall get my pictures from Cox, with whom they are pawned—I have been told that if I convict him I can apply for the restoration of them—I suppose an application will be made if I convict him—they are worth 500l., so that to convict him it is 500l. in my pocket if I get the pictures back.

Re-examined. I have not been paid for them, and I should like to get them back—they are not entered in my books.

WILLIAM WALTER WAINWRIGHT . I am manager to the prosecutor, and was present at a conversation between him and the prisoner—I wrote this document and sent it with the picture "Fulling Mills"—it was returned signed—I do not know who signed it—I wrote these words "On appro."—that was in consequence of what I heard.

Cross-examined. This is not the defendant's usual signature.

CHARLES COX . I am a pawnbroker and fine art dealer, of 79, Wardour Street—I know the defendant very well—on 8th January he pledged with me a picture called "Fulling Mills" for 50l.; I cannot say the time—it is still in my possession—on Jan. 31 he pledged another picture called the "Deerstalker" for 100l.—it is still in my possession.

Cross-examined. I have known him several years—many artiste and and dealers pawn pictures for a time and then redeem them—I have had many transactions with the defendant, and he has usually redeemed the pictures within a short period—nearly all the dealings were in pictures—the transactions amount to nearly 2,000l., and a large proportion of them were redeemed—he is considered a good artist and a good judge—I think I suggested to him, as to Herring's "Deerstalker," that the figure in the corner was too much in the corner; that it was not fairly balanced, and it would be a great improvement if something could be added, and he said he could alter it—it is not uncommon for an artist to send the picture alone to prevent the frame being spoilt, especially when they are large—one of these was 5 feet by 4, and he brought them to me without the frame—I don't know what he has done with the frames.

MR. GRAIN. submitted that there was no larceny, the prisoner being a bailee.

MR. WILLIAMS. stated that he relied upon the simple larceny, upon which MR. GRAIN. submitted that there was no case whatever, simple larceny meaning larceny by a trick, and there was no evidence of any deception being practised, both pictures being sent on approbation, which meant on sale or return. (See Moss v. Sweet and another, Adolphus and Ellis, vol. 16, p. 493.) MR. WILLIAMS. contended that the goods must be returned within a reasonable time, instead of which they were pawned the very next day, and it was because they were not sold that no entry in the books was made. The COMMON SERJEANT. having consulted the RECORDER. considered the case ought to go to the Jury as to whether possession was obtained by a trick as alleged.


OLD COURT.—Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, March 3rd, 4th, and 5th, 1884.

Before Mr. Recorder.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-370
VerdictSpecial Verdict > unknown

Related Material

370. RICHARD COBDEN COX (37) and RICHARD JOHNSTONE RAILTON (37) were indicted for unlawfully and fraudulently obstructing and perverting the provisions of the 13th Elizabeth, c. 5, and making, attesting, and registering a fraudulent bill of sale, with intent to deprive Henry Munster of the fruits of a verdict and judgment obtained by him. Second Count for publishing the said fraudulent bill of sale with the same intent. Third Count for conspiring to commit the acts charged in the above two Counts Other Counts varying the form of charge.


Before plea taken, MR. CLARKE. applied to quash the First Count of the Indictment on the ground that it disclosed no offence in law. The acts charged did not amount to an offence for which a single person could be indicted, and as no conspiracy was alleged, it followed that no offence in law was charged. If this Count had charged a conspiracy, the difficulty might

have been got over; but the word "conspiracy" was not used, nor any word equivalent toil. An Act of Parliament might be disobeyed, but could not be obstructed or perverted. Objection was also taken to the Second Count on like grounds. He further submitted that the Third Count was bad, because it contained no allegation of any intent to defraud; and that the remaining Counts were bad, on the ground that as they charged a conspiracy to commit acts which were not in themselves illegal, it was necessary to set out unlawful overt acts, which had not been done. MR. WILLOUGHBY. as to the first two Counts, referred to a similar case to the present, tried before MR. JUSTICE MAULE. in 1852, in which the same language was used, and to which no objection was taken; and he contended that the words used were sufficient to disclose a misdemeanour under the Statute in question. As to the other Counts, he suggested that the COURT. might amend them by adding the necessary words. MR. CLARKE. also urged that the prosecution should elect upon which Count they would proceed. The RECORDER. declined to accede to the last proposition, but as to the other points he should reserve them.

WILLIAM MCCOMBIE . I am clerk to Mr. Brewer, who acted as solicitor to Mr. Munster—the writ in the action is annexed to the deposition—Henry Munster was plaintiff and R. J. Railton and Company were defendants—the action was for damages, for libel—the writ is dated 1st February, 1882—R. J. Railton and Company was the name of the publisher at the end of the paper called the Brightonian, we copied from that "printed and published by the proprietors, R. J. Railton and Co., at their offices, 24, Duke Street, Brighton, January 20, 1883"—an appearance was entered on 9th February by the London agents of Mr. Nye, who is a solicitor at Brighton—the case came on for trial before Sir Henry Hawkins at Westminster on 22nd June, and was concluded on the 24th, and judgment was entered on the 3rd July for the plaintiff, damages 40s., costs to be taxed between solicitor and client, that is the highest scale, it includes all costs.

WILLIAM JOHN WELLER . I am a clerk in the Appearance Office of the Queen's Bench division of the High Court of Justice—I produce an appearance in the suit of Munster v. Railton—it is entered "9th February, 1882, Henry Munster, plaintiff, and R. J. Railton and Co., defendants. Entered appearance for Richard Johnstone Railton, trading as R. J. Railton and Co."

THOMAS SAUNDERS . I am a short-hand writer—I was present at the trial of Munster v. Railton before Mr. Justice Hawkins on 22nd, 23rd, and 24th July—I have my notes of the trial.

MR. WILLOUGHBY. proposed to read a statement made by Mr. Railton's Counsel at the end of the trial to show under what circumstances an apology was arrived at. MR. CLARKE. would not object to any statement made by either of the defendants, but he objected to any statement made by any other person. The statement was made in Court after communication between the client and Counsel, both Counsel retiring with the Judge for forty minutes. MR. WILLOUGHBY. stated that all that was material was that there was a verdict for 40s. and costs, and a withdrawal of all charges against Mr. Munster.

CHARLES HENRY BARNES . I am a clerk in the Bill of Sale office in the Royal Courts of Justice—I produce a copy of a bill of sale registered on 19th August, 1882, sent to us by Messrs. Drake, Driver, and Lever, with an affidavit attached to it—it is registered in accordance with the Act of Parliament, and purports to be between Railton and Cox—the

practice is to compare the copy with the original to see that they agree—it is not read through word for word, but the material portions are.

ALFRED DRIVER . I am one of the firm of Drake, Driver, and Lever of 13, New Bridge Street—I do not remember this bill of sale, or know anything about it, except that it has got our stamp upon it—that tells me that it was done in our office by one of our clerks—it came by port and we transmitted it to the Registry Office.

STEPHEN EDWARD GUNN . and my partner carry on business as law stationers, at Brighton—I think my partner sent this, bill of sale up to Messrs. Drake, Driver, and Lever; it came from our firm—we received it from Messrs. Lamb and Evett, solicitors, of Ship Street—it was mi from the office.

WILLIAM BREWER . I am a solicitor, of 3, New Inn—I was retained by Mr. Munster to act as solicitor in the action which he was about to bring against the Brightonian newspaper—my clerk; issued the writ in accordance with what appeared to be the publisher's name at the bottom of the paper—the appearance was entered on 9th February—at that time I was not aware that any other person was connected with that paper except the person who appeared to the writ—the statement; of claim was drawn believing it to be a genuine and proper appearance—I did not know of any "Co." at that time—the action was tried on 22nd June and terminated on the 24th—in accordance with the judgment I prepared Mr. Minister's bill of costs on the scale between solicitor and client, which is the highest scale—the bill was submitted to the proper officer of the Court for taxation—Mr. Nye in the first place acted as solicitor for Mr. Railton; about March there was a change of solicitors, and Messrs. Lamb and Evett acted for him—a gentleman from the office of Messrs. Palmer and Bull, their London agents, attended the taxation—we attended before the Master three or four times, the allocator is on the Judgment—Mr. Evett attended personally to the case in London—Mr. Cox and Mr. Railton were together at the trial; I believe Mr. Cox was sitting with his solicitor and Railton in the little well of the Court beneath his Counsel—I did not notice Mr. Cox take any part in the consultation with Counsel—I think execution was lodged with the Sheriff on 20th or 21st August—I heard of this bill of sale within four or five days, from the Sheriff; I received a letter which had been sent by Lamb and Evett to the Sheriff; that was the first I ever heard of the bill of sale—I received a notice from the Sheriff's officer—I think the Sheriff interpleaded before the Judge at Chambers—in the first place it came before the Master in Chambers, and was referred to the Judge, and on 5th September an issue was directed to be tried at Lewes in reference to this bill of sale—Mr. Cox was the claimant and Mr. Munster was the execution creditor—Mr. Cox produced an affidavit in support of his claim—I am not acquainted with Mr. Cox's writing—the next Assizes for Sussex where civil business was taken would be in January, 1883; I think the commission day was 10th January—we served this notice to produce certain documents upon Mr. Cox's agents in London (Dated January 9, 1883.)—I did not then know for certain that there had been any deed of partnership; I had a suspicion that such was the case, and that was a sort of tentative notice—the case was tried on 15th January before Mr. Justice Field, and a verdict passed for the claimant, Mr. Cox—amongst the witnesses I subpoenaed

at that trial was Mr. Goodman, a solicitor of Brighton—he was subpœnaed within a day or two of the commission day—at that time I had heard that there was a deed of partnership prepared by him—I saw Mr. Evett at the Assize Court between the 11th. and 15th, I can't say which day—I saw him with reference to producing the deed—I think he was there every day—Mr. Evett and Mr. Goodman were together in the other Court, where the criminal business was proceeding—Mr. Evett undertook to produce that deed at the trial—a letter was handed to me undertaking to produce it—in consequence of that I dispensed with Mr. Goodman's services at that trial—I should not have done so had I not received this letter—(This stated: "If the defendant will excuse your attendance we certainly will do so")—that was not altered at Mr. Goodman's request—I was not satisfied with having an undertaking to produce the deed, I said "I insist on its production"—I did not know what the nature of Mr. Goodman's evidence would be—an application for a new trial was made in the February following, and the rule was made absolute on 15th March, 1882—upon that Mr. Cox applied to the Court of Appeal; that appeal was heard on 19th January—the decision of the Court below was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed—in June, 1883, there was a motion in the Bankruptcy Court—Mr. Railton had, I believe, become bankrupt—I was present when he was adjudicated in November, 1882—on 26th June, 1883, a motion in Bankruptcy was made in Railton's matter—the original file is here—(This stated: "Upon motion made, &c., the Court being of opinion that the said bill of sale is fraudulent and void as against the said trustee, &c, the said bill of sale is hereby set aside"—on 2nd July I received this notice of abandonment, from the agents to Lane and Evett—(Abandoning all claim to the goods, in consequence of the bill of sale having been declared void. Signed, "Palmer and Bull")—the matter was first heard by Mr. Justice Manisty, who adjourned it over the long vacation—they served me with a summons to stay all proceedings—it came on on November 3rd, before Justice Field—this is his order: "On hearing Counsel on both sides, &c., it is ordered that the claimant, R. C. Cox, pay all costs, and that all further proceedings under the interpleader issue be stayed,"

Cross-examined by MR. CLARK. was first instructed to dot for Mr. Munster, I believe, on the day before I issued that writ, the 1st February, 1882—I had never previously been employed by him—I have acted for him ever since, and am acting as his solicitor now—you may take it that I am the nominal prosecutor in this action; the real prosecutor is Mr. Munster, I suppose—I have never put such a thing as his guaranteeing and being responsible for all my costs—I dare say they won't be left to fall upon me—Mr. Munster is a person of substance, I believe—he does not generally find fault with his solicitors to my knowledge—Mr. Maynard, I believe, had acted for Mr. Munster in some isolated matter before me, but not Mr. Goodman; on the contrary, I believe it was Mr. Goodman who was acting against Mr. Munster in the previous proceedings—Mr. Munster has never employed Mr. Goodman to my knowledge—Mr. Maynard's bills were taxed, and he brought an action to recover, but he thought hotter afterwards, and did not proceed with the action—Mr. Munster did not proceed against Mr. Maynard to my knowledge—I have found it amongst the papers that he tried to get process against Mr. Maynard; that he considered Mr. Maynard had not

conducted himself properly—there was not a charge of perjury against Mr. Maynard—I only heard in that indistinct way that Mr. Munster proceeded against Mr. Goodman, I do not know what for or what the character of the proceedings was; I found it amongst the papers soon after I was first instructed—I have not many actions now pending of Mr. Minister's, something is pending—I was in the action of Munster v. Lamb, solicitor for Mr. Munster against Mr. Lamb; you may consider it still pending, as it is going to the House of Lords; we were nonsuited upon a point of law, and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal, now Mr. Munster is going to appeal to the House of Lords—Mr. Munster has made an application to add Mr. Cox's name to the record in the action of Munster v. Railton and Co., so as to make Mr. Cox liable as a jointdefendant; I cannot say the exact time that was made, but I think we have the summons here; the judgment, I think, will show it—execution was issued in August, 1882—this application was made about April, 1883, and was granted by the Divisional Court to add his name at a co-defendant, and about June there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal which reversed the decision, and we are now going to appeal against that reversal to the House of Lords—Q. So that if you succeed in getting that application from the House of Lords you will then be in a position to make Mr. Cox liable for the costs and damages recovered before Mr. Justice Hawkins?—A. Pardon me, I do not think that follows, but that is our object, and our proceedings are directed with that view; my point is this, that at the time of the libellous writing and the action brought I say Mr. Cox was a partner, and as a partner liable jointly with Mr. Railton—if I could establish that he was a partner at the time of the libel and at the time of action brought, then having him as co-defendant I might be in a position to put in execution against him, but he could avail himself of any defence he might have—that is to be decided it some future time by the House of Lords—there is not an action now pending by Mr. Munster against Mr. Cox in reference to these very same libels; there was, but it has been stayed until after the decision of the House of Lords upon the application to add Mr. Cox as a defendant—you will find by reference to the order that there were particular terms stated—I am going to prosecute the appeal to the House of Lords with reasonable dispatch; if I do I shall succeed there, if I fail there I shall have this action to fall back upon—a writ was issued a long time ago against Mr. Railton for subsequent libels, but nothing was done further, I think it was shortly after June, 1882—there is an action by Mr. Munster for libel against Mr. Blackburn, the editor of the Brightonion—I cannot fix the date, I believe it was after the hearing before Mr. Justice Hawkins—more has been done in that, it is actually now down in the list for trial—I do not think it will be tried—Mr. Blackburn has expressed his willingness to apologise to Mr. Munster, and I do not think it will ever be brought on under those circumstances—Mr. Munster would not wish to carry it on in a vexatious way—that arrangement was made about a month ago—it was not an arrangement, he wrote voluntarily to my client about a month ago—it was about the same time that Mr. Blackburn was called as a witness at Bow Street in this case—I have not got Mr. Blackman's letter; Mr. Munster has—he is at his residence at Bloomfield, near Kymer—he has not come to Court to-day—on 9th January, 1883, I gave notice to produce the deed of partnership—I cannot say from whom I first heard of its existence—it was on my own suspicion in

the first place that I gave the notice, but I went down to Brighton on the commission day—at the time I gave that notice to produce I had not heard from anybody that there was a partnership deed, otherwise I should have inserted the particulars of it—no one had told me that Mr. Cox and and Mr. Railton had been in partnership together at that time—it was my informant, Mr. Brandreth, who induced me to subpoena Mr. Goodman—I know nothing about Mr. Brandreth having six months' imprisonment—I do not know that he was a partner in the firm of Brandreth and Grey; I know he was a Brighton solicitor—I have heard he was struck off the rolls—I have heard that he was prosecuted for obtaining money by false pretences and sent to prison for six months—I have no reason to disbelieve it—I have no knowledge of it one way or the other—I know nothing about it—I have never asked anybody, but he has mentioned it I himself—he told me of it—he never acted as my clerk; I say that positively—I have asked him to do things for me, to serve documents possibly, I to save the expense of sending down to Brighton—I never paid him for I doing anything of the kind—I have paid him money that he was out of pocket, if he paid money for me in serving subpoenas—I paid him for travelling expenses and loss of time; I paid him for the time he has been engaged—I have had very few occasions, I think, to employ him—he I wired one or two subpoenas, I believe, for me in this case—I laid the information in this case—I did not send a copy of that information to Mr. Brandreth—I do not think he has had a copy in his possession, unless I he has been at the police-court and seen it—I know as a matter of fact that Mr. Brandreth has seen Railton, and he has reported to me the results of his interviews—I have no writing from Brandreth—I did not employ or instruct Brandreth to see Railton—he came to me and told me he had seen Railton—it was not with my authority in the first instance that he went to see Railton—I do not know whether he is here—to the best of my recollection that letter was handed to me by Mr. Evett in the Central Criminal Court—I cannot be sure—Mr. Evett and Mr. Goodman were both together in the Central Criminal Court—Mr. Goodman said something about having business in Brighton, in the presence of Mr. Evett; they were both together—I cannot be sure, but I to the best of my belief it was Mr. Evett who said that to me—I told I them I could not have the letter from Messrs. Lamb and Evett in its original form—I cannot be sure whether it was in Mr. Goodman's hands; it was one or the other; they were both together—it meant nothing as it stood; I objected to it in that form on the ground that it was not a positive undertaking to produce; I wanted to make sure that the deed would be produced—I did not know the nature of Mr. Goodman's evidence—objected to it in that form, and the ground of my objection was that it was not a positive undertaking to produce—I do not think Mr. Goodman altered the letter thereupon in his own hand-writing—I cannot be sure who altered the letter—I swear that Mr. Evett was there—Mr. Goodman did not show me the letter; I did not object to it and Mr. Goodman did not then take it away and bring it back altered—I followed Mr. Goodman—the moment it was altered we walked together to where Mr. Evett was sitting in the Criminal Court, where it was altered, I cannot say by whom—I do not know that it in Mr. Goodman's writing—having that undertaking I agreed that Mr. Goodman need not attend; I did not want to detain him—in December, 1882, I was acting as solicitor for the trustee in the bankruptcy

of Railton, and made an application to postpone the interpleader issue; I think nothing was done, that no order was made—the Judge endorsed the order, I think; if you have it it will speak for itself—the order was dismissed before the Master; then it came before Mr. Justice North; upon my appeal from the Master's decision the Judge made an order, I think in substance confirming the Master's order; I am not sure—it is here: "No order unless within forty-eight hours Mr. Munster agrees to abandon this issue; if he does so, summons to be put in the paper; if Mr. Munster so agrees, Mr. Cox agrees to waive all claims on the issue by 1st January"—it may be "all claims to his costs on the issue;" I have read it as it is here: "Cox to have costs of this application"—the interpleader order had been made directing the trial of the issue as between Mr. Munster and Mr. Cox, but no step, I believe, had been taken in bankruptcy with the object of testing the validity of the bill of sale—I made an affidavit alleging that it was desirable that the interpleader issue should be stayed until the validity of the bill of sale had been tested in the bankruptcy proceedings; of course I contemplated making such an application—it was undoubtedly intended at that time that the validity of the bill of sale should be tested in the bankruptcy proceedings; I thought we should have a better chance of succeeding than the Trustee in the bankruptcy proceedings—I did not agree to abandon the issue and allow this to be tested in the bankruptcy proceedings, because I thought that the circumstances were such as required investigation and we should have a better chance in bankruptcy—it was evident to my mind that Mr. Cox wished to evade an investigation; in bankruptcy proceedings you can bring people forward and cross-examine them, and we have done so in this case, and Mr. Cox's depositions in bankruptcy have been used as evidence in this case—I thought the bill of sale itself was an act of bankruptcy, and therefore it would be more easy to set it aside in bankruptcy as against the Trustee, I anticipated there would be much greater difficulty in regard to the execution creditor—I thought that his personal interests would be better served by the interpleader—there were two distinct questions there, one between Mr. Cox and my client Mr. Munster, and the other between Mr. Cox and the Trustee in bankruptcy, representing all the creditors—Mr. Munster had no interest to serve at that time because he had given a personal engagement to the Judge of the County Court to bring into the bankrupt's estate anything he might recover under that issue, to test the circumstances attending the giving of the bill of sale—I do not think it is more easy to ascertain in bankruptcy the whole circumstances than it is in a litigated interpleader issue, because in bankruptcy we have to abide by the decision of the Judge or Registrar and in an interpleader you would have the benefit of a Jury, and I thought we should have a better chance of arriving at the bona-fides or otherwise of the bill of sale, and I thought that possibly the necessity would not arise for such an investigation in bankruptcy; preferred an investigation in which a Jury would form their opinion, and there was an investigation at Lewes and the Jury found in favour of the bill of sale—on the very day after the bill of sale had been set aside as void against the Trustes in bankruptcy we gave notice of a new trial of the interpleader issue—the rule for a new trial had been made absolute, and we intended to proceed unless we were stopped by the Court—the appeal by Mr. Cox

against making the rule absolute was on 19th June, and on 26th June it was set aside on behalf of the trustee, and thereupon we gave notice of a new trial of the issue—there were a good many creditors in Railton's bankruptcy, they are all scheduled; I do not know how many proved, Mr. Evett at the first meeting of creditors produced a long string of them—I was not solicitor at that time, I became solicitor for the trustee in bankruptcy subsequently; I became solicitor to the trustee some time after December, I cannot fix the date, the order is here, if you will allow me to look at the file I will tell you. (The file was handed to the witness), it would be about the commencement of January, 1883—I cannot tell you how many creditors have proved in that bankruptcy, they are not sent to me—the assets conveyed by this bill of sale were sold to Mr. Cox for 160l., the greater part of which is in the hands of the trustee, nothing has been distributed yet—I have sent in my bill against the trustee, it has been taxed at 130l., I believe—when the bill of sale was set aside as against the trustee there was an order against Mr. Cox for the costs, which came to about 50l.—Mr. Cox's solicitors paid them, I do not suggest that they paid them out of their own pockets—Mr. Cox has paid further sums for costs, he was ordered to pay the costs of the case at Lewes, he paid about 120l. or 130l.—the costs of one appeal, I think, were paid separately, they came to 20l., I think—he has paid us altogether in respect of costs about 200l. over and above the 160l. that he paid when he purchased the assets.

Re-examined. Munster v. Lamb was an action for slander—Mr. Lamb's main defence was one of privilege, that he spoke as an advocate—there was no justification or anything of that kind upon the record.

EDWARD GILBERT HOWELL . was present at the interpleader issue tried at Lewes Assizes of Cox v. Munster on 15th January, 1883, and took shorthand notes of the evidence of Cox, Railton, and Evett—I produce a transcript. (The transcript teat here read.)

HENRY JOHN JONES . I am the Registrar of the Brighton County Court, which has jurisdiction in bankruptcy—I produce the file of proceedings taken in the bankruptcy of Richard Johnstone Railton—the adjudication was on November 2nd, 1882—there was an examination before me on the 28th March, 1883, of Railton and Cox—I did not take the notes, I had them taken by a shorthand writer, and the transcript is on the file, verified by the affidavit of the shorthand writer, Thomas Saunders—this document is signed "Lamb and Evett," but I do not know whose writing the signature is. (This was addressed to Mr. J. Railton, forwarding bill of costs up to that time., amounting to 337l. 18s. 4d., stating that the costs out of pocket amounted to 220l., which they regretted, but that it was unavoidable, and requesting that the costs out of pocket should be repaid them within a week, and they would then allow time for the balance, and stating that they could not make further advances for Counseel's fees or costs.)

THOMAS SAUNDERS . (Re-examined). I took the shorthand notes in the private examination on the 28th—the transcript is affixed to the proceedings. (The transcript of the evidence given by both the defendants was then put in and read.)

MR. CHAPMAN. I am clerk in the Queen's Bench division of the High Court of Justice—I produce an affidavit filed in my office upon the interpleader issue between Munster and Railton, it purports to be made

by Richard Cobden Cox, it was sworn on the 24th of August, 1882, and filed in Judge's chambers on the 29th.

THOMAS ROBINSON . live at 38, Duke Street, Brighton, I have seen Cox's signature several times, and I believe this document to be his writing—I am in partnership with his father as printers, I keep the books, this is the ledger—on the 17th September, 1880, an account was opened with us on behalf of R. C. Cox—I wrote this entry, it was for posters announcing the publication of a paper called the Brightonian—we printed the posters, and the paper was published on October 22nd, 1882—that is the day we have it entered, but it may have been first published the day after—the accounts were generally paid to me, but at first they were paid to my father—they were paid weekly to me for the first few weeks by Mr. Blackburn, and frequently or always afterward—I think it was on the 14th December, 1882, that the defendants paid I accounts to me—we generally went for their money, they did not come to us with it—we went to Mr. Railton's after the partnership was formed—the accounts were debited to the Brightonian—at the beginning of April, 1881, Mr. Railton said that he had entered into partnership with Mr. Cox, and was to carry it on for three years at least, even though he lost 1,500l. by it—on 5th January, 1882, my father had a bill of exchange, I saw it, it was for the Brightonian—I used to draw the bills of exchange—we were paid by acceptances at that time—the account was settled on that day by an acceptance by Mr. Cox—nothing was said to me about a dissolution—we continued to print the Brightonian up to a few months since—I never heard anything about any dissolution till I read it in the papers at the time of the trial at Lewes in January, 1883—I remember the trial of Munster v. Railton in June, 1882, and I frequently saw the defendants afterwards—Mr. Railton said that Mr. Munster would not get anything out of him—I do not know that he I gave me any reason why Mr. Munster should not—that was probably a week or a fortnight after the trial. (The affidavit by Cox was here put in and read.)

THOMAS AUGUSTUS GOODMAN . I am a solicitor, of 150, North Street, Brighton, and Clerk to the County Magistrates of the Hove division of Sussex—I prepared a partnership deed between the defendants on April 9th, 1881, it is the one that has an endorsement of dissolution on it—Mr. Railton came to me first about it, I do not think I saw Mr. Cox till he came to execute it. (MR. CLARKE. submitted that this evidence was inedmissible, both of the defendants having consulted the witness as their solicitor professionally. (See Cromach v. Hepworth, 2 Broderick and Bingham's Reports, p. 4, Reg. v. Tufts and others; also "Taylor on Evidence," and Archbold's Criminal Cases, p. 306.) MR. WOOLLETT. contended that it would be impossible to ascertain whether the matter came with in the scope of privilege or not until the witness gave his evidence, that the defendants went to him for the purpose of fraud, therefore the question of privilege would not apply. MR. WILLOUGHBY. urged that this question was distinctly decided by MR. JUSTICE BOVILL. and MR. JUSTICE MELLOR. in Tichborne v. Lushington. The RECORDER. overruled the objection, the privilege being that of the client and not of the attorney, and if the client consulted an attorney with a view to the concoction of fraud he forfeited his privilege: but at MR. CLARKE'S. request reserved the point)—

a duplicate was given to Mr. Railton or Mr. Cox of the original deed; I cannot say which—it was my suggestion—when they came to execute it, it was suggested that I should hold it on behalf of both parties, but I suggested that the better plan would be to have it in duplicate, and some little time afterwards I gave a second copy—I am told that the action before before Mr. Justice Hawkins came on on June 24—I remember Railton and Cox calling on me; I cannot say whether it was in June—here is an entry in my memorandum book, "Mr. Cox, 6s. 6d."—I meant to charge 6s. 8d. for the attendance, but I suppose I took 6s. 6d.—I cannot fix my mind whether that refers to the Mr. Cox in question; it is I only fair to say that the names of Cox and Railton are not in my call-book at all, but I have an entry on the 28th of a Mr. Cox calling and a 6s. 6d. payment—I assume that it refers to the defendant, but I cannot positively say, if it does not I cannot fix the date—Railton said, when he and Mr. Cox called, "I suppose you have heard the result of the Munster case?"—I said "Yes"—Mr. Railton said, "Can anything be done to prevent the property being sold" or "seized under an execution?"—I said, "Only a sale of the property to a bond fide purchaser' '—Railton said, "Could the property be sold and I remain in possession as manager?"—I said "No," I thought possession should be given up, that they should go out of possession—he said "That would do," or something to that effect, "can I give a bill of sale to Mr. Cox?"—I said, "No, you cannot, because of the partnership"—he said, "Does any one know of the partnership agreement excepting you and ourselves?"—I said "No, not that I am aware of, only my clerks"—Cox said, "You don't think a bill of sale will do, Mr. Goodman?"—I said "No, certainly not"—they asked my fee and paid it, and left the office—nothing was said about a dissolution of partnership at that interview—I have given you the whole of the conversation word for word as far as I remember.

Cross-examined. Apart from that entry I have not the slightest idea when it was—whatever conversation took place was with me as a solicitor, and was paid for at the end of the interview—as far as I know the partnership has always been kept a secret from the world, it was specially arranged that it should not be published—Mr. Cox is a chemist who has carried on business some years in Brighton, and is a Town Councillor and is a very respectable man—there were reasons why his partnership in a paper should not be talked about all over the town, we realised that when we mentioned it at the time—nothing was said either way as to whether the partnership had been dissolved or not—I was served with a subpoena duces tecum to produce the agreement at Lewes—I had not got it—I saw Mr. Brewer—I called at Lamb and Evett's office and saw Mr. Evett—I said, "I don't want to go to Lewes unnecessarily, will you produce it?"—he said, "Certainly, we shall produce it in our own case"—I said, "Will you give me a letter, that I may show it to the solicitor on the other side?"—he said "Yes," and he sent me round a letter from Lamb and Evett addressed to me, and saying, "We will undertake to produce it"—having got that letter I went to Lewes next morning and called on Mr. Woollett, the barrister—I saw him in the robbing-room, and he said that he would see his client later on in the day—Mr. Brewer was pointed out to me, and I showed him the letter—he said, "I do not like that, it is not a positive undertaking"—I altered it

then and there, and got Mr. Evett to re-sign it—I believe I altered it myself, whether I did or not, Mr. Evett acknowledged that it meant so—all this was entirely for my convenience and at my desire absolutely, because I had to go to East Grinstead on the Monday—Cox has resided some years in Brighton; he is a man of great respectability, totally incapable of committing any dishonourable act; I know him intimately, I cannot find language too strong to speak in his favour.

Re-examined. I made the alterations in the letter—I was frequently in Mr. Evett's company during the day—Mr. Brewer obliged me late on the Saturday by allowing me to go, after I had been there two days.

DOUGLAS BLACKBURN . live at Franklin Road, Brighton—I was formerly editor of the Brightonian, and was so during 1881—I recollected this action being brought against the publisher of the Brightonian by Mr. Munster for libel—I saw the writ—I believe it was issued about the early part of February, 1882—Railton, I believe, showed it to me—it is highly probable I saw Mr. Cox a few days afterwards, as I was constantly seeing him about the town—I knew him very well—it is highly probable that I had seen him at the offices of the Brightonian in Duke Street in 1882, shortly after the issue of the writ—I would not swear to any one day, but I can safely say that I had seen him there about that time—I saw him frequently in conversation with Mr. Railton—I cannot remember any one particular occasion on which Mr. Cox said anything specific to me about what the writ was for, we were certain to speak on the subject—I recollect his saying on one occasion in a good-natured way "You have got us into a nice mess," or something of that sort—I dare say I answered it good-naturedly, I do not know what I said—it is highly probable I said it would do good to the paper,—my idea was to gloss the matter over and make it appear in as simple a light as possible; I may say I did say-so, now I remember—The Brightonian is the genece name applied to the paper; it is published at a penny weekly—I cannot say whether Mr. Railton made any remark, I am not even sure that he was there at the time—I was constantly seeing both of them; perhaps every two or three days, and naturally it was the subject of common talk in the office—I could not fix any one day—it was a topic of conversation between me and Mr. Railton, not so much on the part of Mr. Cox—I did not see him so often as I saw Mr. Railton—I do not know what you are leading up to—I have not been seen by a solicitor in the matter—I know nothing of the matter since I was in Bow Street—fifty conversations may occurred—lean safely say that between the issue of the writ and the time the action was tried I had conversations with Railton relative to the action, and as to Mr. Cox's connection with the matter—I cannot bind myself to the specific words—on one or two occasions we have spokes with regard to the liability of Mr. Cox in the matter and the line of defence proposed to be taken—I have spoken slightly occasionally about the same topics with Mr. Cox, but I do not think there was any definite statement made by him to me—we spoke generally as persons mutually interested about the subject matter of this action—I attended at Messrs. Lamb and Evett's office, and gave them my account of the transaction, and was called as a witness at the trial before Sir Henry Hawkins on the 22nd, and it terminated on the 24th, I believe—it was tried at Westminster; and after the trial was over Railton, Cox, and I went together to London Bridge Railway Station—there was a conversation between us with

reference to the action and how it resulted—the conversation was this: Mr. Cox said it would cost him a certain sum—Railton objected, and offered to make a bet that it had not cost 1,000l., I think that was the amount—Mr. Cox replied that if it had not it would by the time it was over, or something to that effect—on the day of the trial I had tea with Railton—I was anxious to know what the issue would be, and I think I put it to him—we had talked over the possible means and ways of getting out of the matter—I remember he suggested that there were ways of getting out of the matter, and I was anxious to know what they were, of course—it is useless for me to attempt to give it word for word; he suggested giving a bill of sale to Mr. Cox; I think there was something else; it was not spoken definitely as though it were agreed; it was simply a I suggestion, a possibility—observations were passed that Mr. Munster should have nothing; it was a sort of understood thing that Mr. Munster would get nothing, or that he would get no benefit, that it would do him I no good; it was put in a qualified sort of way—Mr. Railton was remarkably cheerful over it—I remember Brighton regatta; it was in August, or later perhaps; it is generally fixed about eight different dates and carried on; it was somewhere in August, or September, or October—Mr. Railton had a boat, and I was anxious that he should sail it or that I should sail it in the regatta—I remember walking down, and on the way I looked at the boat—as far as I remember he was very much in the I blues and I tried to divert him on the subject of the regatta, but eventually the conversation turned on the subject of the action and a great I deal was said; I think on that occasion he spoke more definitely with I regard to his prospective bankruptcy and the means of saving himself—at the tea he returned to the subject of the method of getting out of the I matter, and the impression I came away with was that something definite I had been arranged or would be come to to avoid the payment of costs—if I remember rightly it was the giving of a bill of sale to Mr. Cox which I invoked the question of partnership; then I am also under the impression that the question of liability of partnership was discussed and that something was said with regard to a dissolution; that there would have to be a bill of sale and then a formal dissolution of partnership; something to that effect—I think objected that it could not well be I done—if I remember rightly Railton said it would have to be done before last January—Mr. Railton talked to me about this matter more than once no doubt; we were constantly together; it was the principal topic of mutual interest—the trial at Lewes was on 15th January, 1883, the interpleader issue, before Mr. Justice Field—I remember on one occasion shortly before the trial Mr. Railton coming and inquiring about a little ink case that used to be in the office; it was a small pocket arrangement, holding three kinds of ink, and it was not there; either I had had it or put it away; at any rate I was responsible for it—I do not think he said I what he wanted it for—I remember looking for it; had had it or I mislaid it or something, and he seemed a little bit annoyed about it, and I remember his asking me if one of them was an indelible ink—I do not remember answering him—he did not say what he wanted the indelible ink for—I also remember a few minutes later he came to my room with a bottle of ink and wanted to exchange it for mine, and I think objected or said I was using it, or something of that kind, and he compromised the matter by mixing the ink from my inkstand with his own which he

had in the outer office in his desk—I cannot give the precise date; I am under the impression that it might have been, or rather that it was a very short period before the trial at Lewes; three, four, five, or six days, a short period I know—Mr. Cox came to the office I believe about that time; it might have been the same day, but I could not remember now—I remember Mr. Cox having a conversation with Mr. Railton about that time—there is an outer office and an inner office—I was in the inner office, and I remember Mr. Railton coming in—I believe Mr. Cox was outside; of course I am assuming this to be the occasion I imagine it to be; Mr. Railton held in his hand a paper, and asked me "You know about this partnership being dissolved?"—I looked at the paper and noticed some writing—I could not swear to this document (produced), but it is very much like it—this is how I saw it; while talking to him he doubled it in this way and held it in his hand like this (folded)—he did not ask me to do anything—I made no answer, except that I laughed and said "All right," or something to that effect; I wanted him to leave me, and I said "Get out"—I assumed I knew what he wanted—I was very busy, and I do not think I looked up—I could not tell you how I gathered the idea, I don't know—I don't know that I should be justified in saying that I had any actual intimation, but from things which had passed on various occasions I assumed that he would want me to do something of the kind, but he never asked me definitely to witness anything—I won't say "witness," but to assist him in the matter; mind you, it was only assumption on my part; that assumption was drawn from previous conversation, and from his coming in with the paper—when I told him to get out Mr. Cox, if it was he, said "Never mind, we won't trouble him," or something of that kind—I saw Mr. Railton after the trial at Lewes numbers of times, and it is highly probable he spoke to me with reference to the trial—he spoke to me about the evidence that Mr. Evett gave and Mr. Cox gave at the trial at Lewes, before Mr. Justice Field—it was not very uncomplimentary, it was something to the effect that Mr. Evett had made a muddle of his evidence, and Mr. Cox had done as badly, or that Mr. Cox had made a muddle of his evidence and Mr. Evett had done just as badly; I know he was displeased with the way they had conducted themselves in the box—he was very indignant, very much annoyed at the turn affairs had taken; but he won the action—I do not say he said that he was annoyed, but I gathered that—I won't I bind myself as to whether it was on the same occasion he said this, but he said that the matter had been altogether muddled by Messrs. Lamb and Evett—I think he said something to the effect that the matter had been designed or arranged by Mr. Lamb, who had hit Evett and Thorpe to shuffle out of it—I am inclined to think he said Mr. Lamb, and not "the firm," but I would not bind myself; and he said he had left Evett and Thorpe to shuffle out of it—he was very dissatisfied with what Mr. Lamb had done, and in effect he said that the witnesses had muddled the matter—I have talked this matter more or less over with Mr. Railton since this trial—we were always together, we were together four days a week—I withdraw my remark that I made just now I, thought you were speaking of the action—there was no occasion for Mr. Railton to say anything I about the dissolution, that is to make any definite statement to me about I how things were going on, because I was supposed to know; I should I gather it by inference—I gathered that it was an understood thing that

there was an attempt being made to defend themselves in this matter, and get themselves out of it—I dare say there was more if I could remember it—I was examined as a witness when the matter came before Sir James Ingham at Bow Street—I was subpœnaed at eight hours' notice—no solicitor took my proof down—I refused to give evidence, but I went into the witness-box—I said that I was an unwilling witness—since that time I have given my evidence to the Treasury—I went there and saw Mr. Pollard; I was examined and pumped, and the result of the pumping was reduced to writing, and what I have told you to-day is the truth about the matter—there is not the slightest doubt about that.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. have now a paper of my own called the Brighton Figaro; it has been suspended for a fortnight for the want of a loan which I was not able to raise—I am now living nominally at Franklin Road, as I am engaged on this trial, and I have also rooms at Ship Street; I am between the two—I was subpœnaed here last Monday, and have been sleeping at the Strand Hotel and at Franklin Lodge, Brighton—I am not in any one's employment now; I was employed on the Brightonian before Mr. Railton was—I am the person who actually wrote the libels in respect of which this action was brought—I have given a statement to the Solicitor to the Treasury; it is the same in substance as I have given you to-day—with, regard to what I have said I will pledge myself upon my oath the words spoken by Cox were in Railton's presence, so that they both heard what was going on—I will try and remember the occasions when it was said in the hearing of the two—the first was a statement made on the boat as we were going from the Court at Westminster; there was a discussion as regards the trial, and that was said in Mr. Cox's hearing—we went by boat from Westminster Bridge to London Bridge to get a little air, immediately after the trial; we were all three together and were having a bottle of beer in the cabin—on that occasion I said that I went with Cox and Railton to the railway, and that Mr. Cox said that it would cost him 1,000l.—I will not bind myself to the amount—I assumed that they meant the whole matter together, including the expenses of the paper, the trial, and everything—the word "it" was used—I have no doubt in my own mind that 1,000l. was mentioned, but as it is a matter of memory I will not pledge myself—on the occasion, a few days before the trial at Lewes, I say that two persons were in the outer office when the conversation took place with Mr. Railton—he came to me; he was not actually in the office, he stood holding the door with his left hand and the paper with the other in the doorway, and Mr. Cox was just behind him—whether Mr. Cox heard the conversation depends upon his acuteness of hearing, but I have not the slightest doubt that he did—I saw him standing there, at least I saw a figure which undoubtedly had the head and the clothes and the figure of Mr. Cox, whether it was Mr. Cox I will not swear—had I gone out to speak to him I would swear—I firmly believe it was Mr. Cox—I believe I am in the witness-box now, I have no doubt that I am, but it might have been a person got up elaborately like Mr. Cox, but I have no doubt it was Mr. Cox—I mean to say that seeing a person there whom I had known for two or three years before I will not swear it was Mr. Cox, I simply repeat my belief that it was. Q. I quite understand your suggestion with regard to that interview; it is that on the day the dissolution was written that the ink

was mixed, and that it was intended that you should sign it, or that there had been some idea of your signing it? A. If you put it so pointed, yes; that was the impression made on my mind, and what I believe—not the slightest doubt that a voice like Mr. Cox's, which I am not likely to forget, because I remember voices very well, said "All right," or something about "We won't trouble him"—I could not see his lips; I have not the slightest doubt it was Mr. Cox that said that, but I distinctly refuse to swear to it—I did not look at the paper closely; it was close enough for me to see the colour of the ink—that is not necessarily looking at it closely enough to see the colour of the ink, it was very close indeed to me—I looked at it; I saw the colour of the ink, not to form an opinion of when that ink had been used, but to have an idea that the ink had not been long written—I believe the ink was not wet, for the simple reason that the paper was held in his hand in such a manner that had it been wet he must have smeared it—he held it like that (folding), so that I could notice the flourish of that "R" in particular; I always noticed and always admired the symmetry of that letter in his signature; and I also remember looking and seeing another; here is an "R" at the bottom; and while talking to me he turned it in his thumb in that way so that I was able to see this "R"—he held it in his hand like this, so that in looking at the paper I could see this "R" there—I do not know whether you can see it so far, but there is a very conspicuous "R" there—it was not laid before me to look at; it did not pass out of his hand—I think at the police-court I said the ink was pale; I did not say the writing on the paper was blue; that was taken down, but I corrected it in my evidence, and also when the clerk read it over to me I said: "For" blue' read ‘pale' or ‘faint'"—at the police-court when I was examined that document was shown to me; I said "I was never asked to witness an endorsement like that; I have never been asked to put my name to any writing of the same substance as that now shown me, to put my name to a dissolution of partnership, or to a paper purporting to be a dissolution," and it is true. Q. Did you say "I remember Mr. Cox and Mr. Railton being in the office scores of times before the trial at Lewes; Mr. Railton showed me a document; I do not remember what it was; I do not remember what he said." Was that true? A. Read the context again; read on a little further, there may be something to explain it—it all depends upon how the question was put; you will not fluster me—I remember what Mr. Railton said on that day—I said he showed me a document, I do not know what it was—I do not remember what he said—that was true, but still it all depends how that question was put—I also swore there that I did remember what he said—I said "He once came into the room with a paper which was or might be like this; I do not recognise it, I never had it in my hand, if I remember rightly he said something like 'Do you knew,' or 'you do know that the partnership is dissolved'"—that is what I said, and that is what I now stick to—I do not attempt to give the words which Mr. Railton used; I never attempt to bind myself to actual words unless the words are very short and very emphatic—I was very cautious, and am now—I was going to tell you to whom I said the ink on the paper was wet when you interrupted me—if you won't listen to what I say what is the use of asking me questions? I certainly shall answer the questions in my own way—I believe I said this at the police-court "I remember

saying something like this: that the ink on the paper Mr. Railton had in his hand was wet"—I believe I said it to a man who was then my landlord, named Quick—undoubtedly I talked too indiscreetly, perhaps, to several people after this matter, as I thought, was settled, and the other side fished that out and put it by way of a shock to me—I did not talk untruly—that statement came through other hands—I do not think my lips uttered that statement to Mr. Quick—I do not believe I made that definite statement, that the ink was wet, to any one; the answer was made quickly; the question was whether it was wet or fresh writing—the answer I made, as I explained afterwards, was that I used "wet" as a general term to imply it was fresh writing; I do not remember that I said it was wet—I made a statement no doubt to Mr. Quick, to the effect that at the time it was shown me the paper was, if not wet, so fresh that no doubt it had been only just written; I think that is clear enough—I dare say I said that the ink was wet, not the slightest doubt—I cannot recall when I said it, or where—I said it to Mr. Quick, I believe, but I will not bind myself to that; I talked of this matter to two or three people, and what I wanted to imply was that when I saw this endorsement the writing was so fresh that if not wet it was fresh writing—you are trying to tie me down; I repudiate it—I remained till November, 1882, in the service of Mr. Cox, upon the Brightonian—in the month of November Mr. Railton gave me a month's notice to leave that paper; I refused to take any notice of it, and sent it back to him as you have it—I won't fix myself to any one date when I left the Brightonian, I should say a month after that—I do not remember if I asked Mr. Railton if he meant the notice he had given me to stand good—I do not remember his saying "Yes," and then my saying "I will start another paper and crush you in a short time;" certainly not—I won't say "nothing of the kind"—if I remember rightly what I said was (this was not that time, because we were most friendly then, on most amicable terms) in the course of conversation, that I was going to start another paper; it was said in a most friendly manner, and what he said was he hoped it would pay—I returned the notice he gave me on the 16th November, and declined to take it—I did leave a month afterwards, it was my interest to do so—I don't believe that between those dates I asked him "Do you mean the notice to stand good?" and saying "I will start another paper to crush you"—if I had I should have remembered it—I had no reply to my letter—no agreement was made that I should apologise and the action not be proceeded with; most emphatically no.

Re-examined. Before Sir James Ingham I was cross-examined very smartly by Mr. Woollett—Mr. Quick's name was put to me, and then it was that I said "If I said it was it was true"—I said "I do not remember if the ink on the paper was wet;" if I said anything I meant to imply that the writing on the paper was blue, as if it had not been done long; it appeared written with blue-black ink which turns black—at that time the document was made use of—I believe the Magistrate took the document and looked at the ink at the time—I then went on to say "The impression on my mind was that it had been recently written"—I had spoken to Mr. Quick or to people; of course I never imagined anything arising out of it; I imagined the whole matter was very cleverly settled—when I left the employment of the Brightonian I started the Brighton Figaro, on Thursday, January 3rd, this year, and went on with it until it

suspended itself about a fortnight ago—there was an action brought against me by Mr. Munster—I should like very much to know if that action is to be gone on with; I wish you could tell me—no agreement has been made with regard to that action not being gone on with, that I am aware of—it has not been arranged between me and Mr. Brower that that action is not to proceed, and that I am to make an apology—I say most emphatically no such arrangement has been made; nothing of the kind; I will tell you what has been done; some time since, let me see, you like me to be precise, I think; I am afraid you must allow me to let the date slip, but some time, I think, just before Christmas, if I remember rightly, but I will not bind myself to it, I want to be very careful over this; some time in the course of the summer certain facts came to my knowledge bearing on the statements or inuendoes made in the libel which I had written, and I was satisfied in my own mind that certain of those inuendoes were entirely baseless; then could I have done so freely I should certainly have apologised as a matter of honour to Mr. Munster, but I was afraid of compromising any action that might be pending, and abstained from anything of the kind; later on I heard of a chance to apologise without compromising anybody, and I sent an apology to Mr. Munster, and challenged him to proceed with the action—I was starting a new paper, and I thought it would be a good advertisement; I sent a proper, gentlemanly, honourable letter to Mr. Munster, in which I told him certain inuendoes made there were entirely baseless, and expressed regret, and at the same time told him if he cared to proceed against me he could do so, as I had nothing to lose, and, on the other hand, I had a great deal to gain by the advertisement—I said when I was asked further and pressed as to what conversation took place, "If I remember he said something like ‘Do you know, or you do know, that the partnership is dissolved;'" and later on I said "When Mr. Railton came in, and while he was holding the document in his hand, he said 'You know, ordo you know, of the partnership being dissolved?'"—I have no feeling of rancour or animosity against Mr. Railton or Mr. Cox; I would get them out of it if I could—I have told the whole truth about the matter.

FREDERICK MAHONEY . live at 15, Ship Street, Brighton—I am now employed at the Figaro newspaper office at Brighton—I was formerly employed at the office of the Brightonian newspaper, during the years 1882-83—I recollect the trial of Munster v. Railton and Co., in June, 1882, at Westminster—I also recollect the trial of the interpleader issue at Lewes, in January, 1883—at that time I was employed in the Brightonian office—I saw something of the kind of a partnership deed—to the best of my belief this is the same, excepting this endorsement—I have had it in my hand on several occasions—I could not fix the day, but I should say about a week before the trial of the interpleader issue—it had no endorsement upon it then; I had it in my hand—I am perfectly sure about that—I see the endorsement upon it now—it had no such endorsement as that.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKE. I am now in Mr. Blackbura's employment, as clerk—I have been so the last nine weeks, as near as possible—I am in receipt of 8s. a week and a commission—I have not had the 8s. a week regularly—this last fortnight I have not; I have up to the last fortnight—I have not had any money

from anybody during the last fortnight, only from Mr. Blackburn—I could not exactly say how long it was after I left the Brightonian before I went into Mr. Blackburn's employment, about six or seven months—I went into Mr. Blackburn's employment the last week in December—I had not been out of employment for six or seven months between the time I left the Brightonian and the time I went to Mr. Blackburn—I had been in the employment of Mr. Robinson for some time—I was in employment at the time I went to Mr. Blackburn—I did not go from Mr. Robinson to Mr. Blackburn, from another person, Mr. Goddard—I had been with Mr. Robinson and Mr. Goddard since I left the Brightonian—I have not been a little unfortunate in my situations that I know of—I have been twice discharged from a situation—I was in the employment of Mr. Tilney once—he is a stationer—he discharged me—I do not really know that that is connected with this case—he discharged me for theft—Mr. Railton did not discharge me, I left Mr. Railton without any notice whatever, not upon his suggestion that I know of—I went in one evening and I came out, and I did not go in any more at all—Mr. Railton asked me to come back—he told me to leave the office, not because I was drunk, I was not drunk; he said so—I was at the Brightonian office—my duties were to look after advertisements and the books, and so forth, canvassing for advertisements and keeping the books, nothing more—I did at one time clean the office—I never had anything to do with the deed of partnership—I was in the office of a morning looking at the papers, sometimes dusting about; I was looking at the morning papers, the daily papers, and so forth—this deed of partnership was kept in the office, when I saw it it was kept in the inner office, on the top of Mr. Blackburn's desk, lying on the top of the desk—I did not see it in a drawer or in a desk, I only saw it for a short time—that was about a week before the trial at Lewes, I swear that—I remember the trial at Lewes, and I remember that it was a few days before that—I say about a week; it might have been five days, or it might have been a fortnight—it was open for anybody to see it upon Mr. Blackburn's desk—Mr. Railton had a desk at the office, which he kept looked.

Re-examined. I left Mr. Tilney's service a few months before I went to Mr. Railton's; it must be nearly three and a half years ago—no proceedings were taken against me at all for this charge of theft—I have never been charged at all with anything of that kind—I was with Railton and Co. just over two years after that event—Mr. Railton asked me to go back before I went to Mr. Blackburn, when I was writing to Mr. Blackburn, after he said I was drunk.

By MR. CLARKE. was not examined at the police-court—Mr. Brewer first spoke to me about giving evidence in this matter—I had never spoken about it to anybody else before that—I cannot say how Mr. Brewer came to know that I knew anything about it—I had not mentioned the matter to anybody else that I know of—Mr. Blackburn might, perhaps, know that I have known something, I may have talked about it to Mr. Blackburn; I cannot swear to it, I do not remember whether I did or not—I do not know how Mr. Brewer came to know it—I am 17 years of age.

JOHN HART . live at Keymer, near Hayward's Heath—I am the landlord of the premises, 24, Duke Street, Brighton, the office where the Brightonian is published—on 9th April, 1881, I granted a lease of those

premises to Richard Johnetone Railton and Richard Cox—during the year 1881 the rent was paid; I could not tell you who paid it, I put it into the hands of an agent; I have the accounts here, it was paid by the lessees—in 1882 there was an alteration in the payment as to who paid the rent, during Mr. Railton's bankruptcy, prior to the bankruptcy the rent was paid just the same, by the lessees—I had no notice whatever that there had been a dissolution of partnership; as far as I knew, I treated it as still belonging to the lessees. (MR. WILLOUGHB. produced a copy of the lease.)

Witness for the Defence.

EDWARD RALLETT . I am managing clerk to Palmer and Bull, solicitors and London agents to Messrs. Lamb and Evett, of Brighton, and UnderSheriffs for the County of Sussex—I recollect the writ in the action of Munster v. Railton being lodged with the Sheriff—the officer levied under it and was met by a claim on behalf of Cox, upon which an interpleader summons was taken out on 3rd August, 1882—that summons came on in the first instance before the Master at Chambers on 25th August—MR. MUNSTER. and Cox were present—the Master's order was adjourned till Tuesday to consider the claim in the event of its being referred to the Judge—on 3rd September, 1882,1 received from Messrs. Palmer and Bull these instructions for Counsel, and on 6th September I received this letter from Messrs. Lamb and Evett containing these articles: "Dear Sir, Cox and Railton. These gentlemen will be with you at 1.45 to-morrow, and our Mr. Evett will meet you in the Royal Courts of Justice about 2 or 3. Yours, Lamb and Evett. We enclose articles of partnership. To Messrs. Palmer and Bull, solicitors"—when I received these articles of partnership this endorsement of dissolution was upon it, and it was in the same state as it is now in all respects—Mr. Gill was the Counsel instructed to appear on the interpleader issue—I personally attended to it at chambers before it came on—I saw Mr. Gill in the Judge's chambers' ante-room—I had the articles of partnership with the dissolution on it, and I produced it to him and went into the matter with him—I have the back sheet of the brief I delivered to him, it contains words in his handwriting which he made at the time; they are, "Articles of Agreement, 9th April, 1881, dissolved 3rd January, 1882"—then is a further note he took, "Bill of sale, 12th August, 1882"—I read the instructions which came up from Brighton on 3rd September; it contains a verbatim copy of the endorsement on the deed of dissolution—the summons was attended by Mr. Gill on 5th January—the matter was not gone into because Mr. Munster asked for an issue before a Judge—the articles of partnership remained in my custody till 3rd January, 1883—this is my firm's letter-book; it contains a press copy of the letter addressed to Lamb and Evett df that date, stating that we returned enclosed the articles of partnership to them; they were handed back to them for the purpose of the trial coming on in London; I assumed they would want them, and sent them.

Cross-examined. I have not got the press copy of this letter of 4th September—the instructions for Counsel arrived on the 3rd before the original articles—I had had a copy before set out with instructions for Counsel for me to hand to Mr. Gill; I will produce that copy; I believe it is in the handwriting of Messrs. Lamb and Evett's clerk; it was received on 3rd September—Mr. Gill attended the summons before Mr.

Justice Day; I have the original order—I do not know if the partnership deed was produced there, it was in my hands in the room—it has never been put into any affidavit; no affidavit of documents has been applied for, and it was never scheduled to any affidavit—no notice was given to you when the case was tried at London of that partnership deed—it was not produced before the Appeal Court.

Re-examined. No affidavit of documents was asked for with regard to the interpleader summons—at the Divisional and Appeal Courts no affidavits would in the course of things be made, only affidavits disclosing new facts could be produced—these instructions came from Lamb and Evett at Brighton, were actually handed to Mr. Gill, and bear his endorsement—the instructions which I got on 3rd September, 1882, have a copy of the endorsement, I believe—from 5th September till 3rd January the copy in its present condition with the endorsement on it was actually in my possession.

The prisoners received excellent characters.

GUILTY. The RECORDER. reserved the points of law for the consideration of the Court of Criminal Appeal, pending which the defendants were admitted to bail.


Before Mr. Recorder.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-371
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

371. FREDERICK RUSSELL (28) and EDWARD SAUNDERS (43) were indicted (together with Thomas Barron, not in custody) for stealing a quantity of wooden staves, the property of Messrs. Champion, the master of Russell.

After the Jury had been charged SAUNDERS stated that he desired to PLEAD GUILTY, and upon hearing that statement the Jury returned a verdict of GUILTY as to him.

MR. GRAIN. Prosecuted; MESSRS. MONTAGU WILLIAMS. and BURNIE. defended Russell.

CHARLES MANN . I am delivery foreman in the wood department of the Victoria Dock—in December last there was a pile of wood staves standing there to the order of Messrs. Champion, 4511 Ex Faraday—as they are taken out of the ship they are counted and piled on the shore—on 13th December the prisoner Russell came with this order for 300 staves—he drove up a van alongside the pile—I was present at the delivery—I had two men to count them; each calls out his own number up to 100 and the other tallies; they called it out so that the prisoner could hear as well as myself—I took the receipt from Russell; this is it—he signed it, and I signed it as well—I knew Saunders by sight—he was with Russell on the 13th, and he helped in the loading, and he went away with the prisoner—on 15th December they both came again, and presented this order for 200 staves—they were tallied up—Saunders assisted in the loading—I took this receipt for them—on the 19th I received this other order from Mr. Wilson—in consequence of that I gave certain instructions—on the 20th Russell came again; Saunders with him—Russell presented this order for 200 staves—they were tallied up—I asked Russell if he had any intimation from his firm about being staves short—he at first said no—I said "Don't you see them counted

off?"—he said "No, I do not, because they were unloaded in my absence, while I am away"—I told him I had received a letter from Champion's people to say that on the 13th he was 39 short, and on the 15th 29 short—he said "I have come to see if we can't make it right"—I said he had had the staves and he would get no more—I had counted up the pile after receiving the letter, and before Bussell came on the 20th, and I found we had 621 instead of 661; 40 short—after loading the 200 on the 20th I went with Russell to the pass-office to get the pass, leaving Saunders behind with the van—I had previously spoken to Radley, one of our men, and given him certain instructions, and Mr. Davis heard me—we were about 10 minutes away getting the pass; we then returned to the van and found Davis and other people there.

Cross-examined. We only counted the pile once; when they were landed on the shore—I have not got the book in which they were entered—Saunders helped to load the van on each occasion.

WILLIAM RADLEY . I am a piece-worker at the docks—on 20th December I received certain instructions from Mr. Mann, and in consequence I watched Champion's van by the pile of staves—I saw it loaded—I saw Mr. Mann and Russell go away to get the pass, and Saunders left behind, and while they were away I saw Saunders go to the pile and put 20 staves on to the van.

Cross-examined. Russell was not there then.

JAMES DAVIS . I am assistant warehouse keeper at the Victoria Docks—on 20th December in consequence of a communication from Mr. Mann I noticed Champion's van—I saw Saunders standing by it, putting staves on the van—he was the only person there at the time—I went up and spoke to him—Russell was not then present; he afterwards came back with Mr. Mann—I said to Mr. Mann in Russell's presence "This man (Saunders) I have caught putting up staves into the van after it was loaded; had he got his complement when you went away with Russell?"—he said "Yes"—I then sent for a constable, and told him the circumstances—in the meantime we had the van counted, and found 20 more than the complement he should have had according to the order—there were 220—the inspector was sent for and Saunders was taken into custody.

Cross-examined. Russell said "I have not given any instructions to the man to put any staves into the van."

GEORGE RAYNER . I am in the service of Champion and Co., vinegar merchants, City Road—I was not in the yard on 13th December when Russell came back with the load of staves; he came back too late, and they were unloaded the first thing next morning—I found 261; there ought to have been 300—I made a communication to Mr. Wilson, our manager—I was not in the yard when Russell came back with the van on the 15th, he was too late; they were unloaded on the Monday morning; there were only 171 staves, there should have been 200—Russell was not there when they were unloaded—Saunders had nothing to do with our place.

Cross-examined. The staves would remain in the van all night, in the yard, where we pile them.

JAMES WILSON . I am manager to Messrs. Champion—this wood is used for making our vinegar casks—we had a quantity of them in the docks, imported by the Faraday—on 13th December I gave Russell instructions

to get 300 staves from the docks; he was our carman—I knew nothing of Sanders except by sight—I have seen him about the neighbourhood, and he had been carman to Sarson's for some time—he had nothing to do with our firm—Russell had no right to take him with him, it was against the rules—I saw Russell next day—he would not be back till after 6 o'clock—he handed me this paper, it is a dock way-bill for 300 staves—I had not received any communication from Rayner then—there were only 261—on the 15th I again gave Russell orders to go to Victoria Docks and get 200 staves—I told him to tell the people at the docks that they had made a mistake, that we had never had any mistake before, and I thought it very strange I did not see him return on Saturday—the load was counted on Monday morning, and found only 171 instead of 200—I told Russell that there was a great mistake at the docks, I could not understand it, there was another short load—he said "Well, they don't listen to me, you had better write to them"—consequently I wrote a letter to the dock people telling them how I was situated—Russell said they put the staves on so fast he could not count them—on the 20th I sent Russell again to the docks for 200 staves—I did not see him come back—on the 21st he said he had got into trouble at the docks; that he had taken a man with him, that they found 20 staves more on his van than ought to have been, while he was away with the foreman to get his pass signed, and the 20 were loaded in his absence by Saunders—I said it was a bad job, and asked him how he could be so stupid as to take a man with him, as it was against the rules—he admitted he had done wrong by doing so—he said Saunders had gone with him three times—he said he, had stopped at two or three public-houses, and he thought he must have been drugged while he was there, and the van was driven away by Saunders—next day I had a further conversation with him, and told him to go and find the names of the public-houses—he said he would—when he came back he said he had not been, that he did not like to drive the van so far, but he would find them in his own time—on the 24th he gave me a piece of paper with the names of some public-houses on it, and he repeated what he had said before—the value of the staves is about 1s. each to us.

Crow-examined. He suggested that I had better write to the Dock Company—I had told him that he would have to pay the value, 3l., if he could not make it right.

WALTER EARL . I am a constable in the Dock Company's service—on the 24th December I went with Russell to the Crystal Palace Tavern in Burdett Road, he pointed out a compartment there and said "That is the place where I was drugged by Saunders"—I said to the landlord "Do you remember seeing; this man here on the 20th"—he said "No, I do not, I will ask my son;" he called his son and the potman, and neither of them remembered seeing him there—I went with him to the Curtain Road, and he pointed out the shop kept by Barron, who was a steam turner—he said "That is the place where I was told that my van was unloaded"—I also went with him to the Griffin, nothing was known of him there—after Saunders was out on bail he made a communication to me in consequence of which I went on the 10th of January with Inspector Reed and another sergeant to Mr. Ross's.

Cross-examined. Barron's shop is about two miles from the Crystal Palace Tavern, and about 100 yards from the Griffin—I have tried to find Barron, but could not.

Re-examined. I have a warrant against him—I applied for it in conesquence of what Saunders told me—I have not been able to execute it.

JAMES ROSS . I am a fancy toy maker, of 84, Edward's Road, Burdett Road—I know the prisoner by sight, and Saunders also—on a Saturday, about the middle of December, they both came to my place with one of Champion's vans loaded with timber like that produced, they brought one of Mr. Barron's billheads—I have not got it, I sent it back to Barron by the prisoners—Russell went away from my door to the Crystal Palace Tavern, leaving the van with Saunders—Russell seemed perfectly sober at that time—Saunders spoke to me and unloaded fifty of the staves, I put them in my yard—we then went to the Crystal Palace Tavern and found Russell there, and had three half-pints of ale—I cannot remember any conversation—I then went with Saunders on the van to the Curtain Road, Russell drove to Mr. Barron's; I got off there and Russell drove the van away—I went with Saunders to Barron's, and sold fifty staves for 3l. 15s.

EDMUND SAUNDERS . (The Prisoner). I have pleaded guilty to putting twenty staves on the van—I had known the prisoner about four month previous to this transaction—on Thursday, the 13th December, I first went with him to the Docks—I met him at the corner of the Vinegar Ground, he asked me to go with him—he said he was going to take some soda to Clay Hall, and said he had to engage a man—I went with him—after that he said he was going to get a load of staves from the Victoria Docks, I went there with him—I did not know how many he had to receive, although I was standing by while they were put on the van—I went out of the Docks with him, we stopped at a public-house just by the toll-gate, and he had half a pint of four ale—as we came along he asked me if I knew where he could sell some of them—I said that was the first time I had seen such things—he went to several shops to try and sell them, but could not—he went to a lath-render named Barr in Church Street, Shoreditch, and the man said "If you want to sell them I will buy the lot as they are, I do not do anything of that sort," and he recommended him to take them home—we went to a public-house to have half a pint, and Mr. Barron was coming across to have some ale, and he looked at the staves and offered to buy them at a price—fifty of them were unloaded at his door, Russell stood by the side of the van at the time, and counted them while I took them off—he then took the ran away—he told me to go in and get the money and he would meet me at the public-house opposite—I went in and got 1l., and then went over to the public-house and gave it to him—there were two half-sovereigns, he changed one and gave me half a pint of ale and half-a-crown for my day's work—two days afterwards, on Saturday morning at a quarter to 8, I was at the Star public-house right opposite Champion's; Russell came over and told me he was going down to the Docks again to get some staves, and asked me to go with him—we stopped at the Bue Last public-house, next door but one to Barron's—Russell told me to go in and ask Mr. Barron if he could do with another 50—I went into Barron's and saw him and his wife—he gave me one of his billheads with the name and address of Mr. Ross on, in the Burdett Road—I went back to Russell and gave him the paper in the Blue Last—I told him that Barron said that 50 could be left at Ross's, and to call there again in the morning for the money when he

came back from the docks, and that Barron had said he had sent the other 50 away that he had left two days before, because he smelt something—I went on to the docks with Russell, and helped to load up the staves on the van—I did not know how many Russell had to receive, and did not know how many were put on—after loading we went straight to the Burdett Road, to Ross's place—I save Ross the paper Mr. Barron had given me, and I unloaded 50 and left them there on the step, and Ross and his wife carried them in—I did not go into the yard or into the house—after they were unloaded Ross and I and Russell went to the corner public-house and had three half-pints of ale—Russell then drove the van to the Curtain Road, and I and Ross sat behind him—when we got to Mr. Barren's I and Ross got off the van, and Russell pulled the van over to the public-house opposite—I went into Barron's to see if I could get the money; I could not get it then—Barron told me to call round in an hour's time—I went over to Russell and told him what Barron said—he said he would put the horses up, and I was to met him in an hour's time—I did so—I then got 1l. from Mr. Barron, which I gave to Russell, and he gave me 2s. for my day's work—on the following Thursday I saw him again—he said he was going to get some staves, and asked me to go with him—I did so—he called in at a place at Hoxton and I waited for him—we then went to the docks and I assisted in loading up the staves—Russell and the foreman went away—after that Russell told me to put on 20 or 50 more; but previous to going to the docks Russell said to me "Mr. Wilson says that unless I can make these staves up to-day I shall have to pay 3l. for them"—when he told me to put the 20 or 50 more staves up he said "Look sharp"—he then went to get his pass—I was putting on about 15 staves more; Mr. Davis was behind me, and he said "Do you know what you are doing?"—I said "No, sir, only putting these on"—I kept on putting them on while he stood looking at me—he said "There are 22 of them there; I shall charge you with stealing them; who told you to put them on?"—I said "A man"—I knew that I was wrong in that; I ought to have said "A carman"—he said "Did not the carman tell you?"—I made him no answer—I was given in custody for putting the 20 staves on; that was the only thing I did wrong—the staves were taken off, and the carman was sent home—I never drove the van away without the prisoner; I never drugged him in a public-house; he knows better than that.

Cross-examined. I did not help to steal the staves on the 13th—I did not plead guilty to stealing them; I pleaded guilty to stealing the 20—I helped to load the van on the 13th—I did not know how many staves to put on the van; the men from the Dock Company were there counting them, and Russell was standing aside helping, the same as I was—when he asked me if I knew of a place where he could sell some of the staves I said I did not know—I did not know that he was trying to sell property that did not belong to him; I am surprised that you should suggest it—he suggested it to me, and he went to several places to try and sell them—I did not know he was doing wrong at the time; I did afterwards—I did not think he had a right to sell them; I did not think he was robbing his employers in the first instance; afterwards I knew that it was a dishonest transaction—I thought so on the 13th—I did not mention it to him—I had no benefit from it; I was only paid for my day's work—I knew it was a dishonest transaction when he sold them at the last place

—I knew that he was at work for Champion's—I had known him three or four months—I did not say anything to him about robbing his employers—he told me he was told by his employers to engage a man to help him and he paid me the half-crown after I thought the transaction was dis-honest—the next time I saw him was at the public-house—I used to go there of a morning to see the Chronicle to look after a situation—I did not see him there on the Saturday; I met him in Old Street by accident—I thought I was going to do another day's honest work—I did not allude to the previous transaction—I then went to ask Mr. Barron if he could do with another 50—I knew then that he was doing wrong, but it had nothing to do with me—Russell went with me to Mr. Barron's—I did not know that Barron was receiving stolen goods—I did not know what business he might have with Russell—I knew it afterwards, but not at that time—I might have known it on the 15th; of course I knew it, but I could not help it—I did not know that I was helping to receive stolen goods—I thought it was an honest day's work on my part—I got 2s. for it; I had no other benefit by it—I thought what I did on the 20th was an honest day's work—I was not paid on that day, because I was locked up—Russell was present when I unloaded the staves at Ross's; he was standing by the side of the van—he drove the van there himself—he was standing at the opposite side of the way, counting them as they came off.

GEORGE WILLIAM HAMILTON . I am police inspector to the Dock Company—on 20th December I went up to this van, and there saw Russell; he was in the van and Saunders was alongside of it—I asked Russell if he knew Saunders—he said "Yes," he was a carman, that he brought and gave him a lift—I asked him what he knew abou the 20 staves—he said he knew nothing about it.

Russell received a good character.

RUSSELL— GUILTY .— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

SAUNDERS.— Three Months' Hard Labour.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-372
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

372. LOUIS BRYAN (32) , Stealing two sacks of flour, the goods of Henry Perry. Second Count, receiving the same.

MR. CULPEPER. Prosecuted.

JOSEPH DOWSETT . I live at Park Street, Spitalfields, and am a carman in the employ of Messrs. Brown and Goodman, Bethnal Green—on 6th Feb. about 8 o'clock I drew up my van with 25 sacks of flour in it to Ellen Berger's baker's shop, where I had to deliver flour—I went in the shop and was given the keys to unlock the door to go through to the loft—a man came in the shop and called out that some one had taken a sack of flour off our van—I went out and missed two sacks—they were marked "Brown and Goodman."

WILLIAM RAYMENT . I am in the same employment as the last witness—on 6th February I was driving a van, and at 8 o'clock was coming out of Barnham Street, Market Street, when I saw my mate's horses' heads facing my horse's head, and a light van was behind my mate's, tail to tail—as I turned the corner there was a scuffle, and the light van drove off, and the two chaps in it put the tailboard up—I followed the van to the end of the street, and saw two sacks of flour lying in the van as plainly as possible; they had "Brown and Goodman" on them—the prisoner

was driving the van—I worked with him five or six years ago—when I got near the shoulder of the near horse he said "It is all right, Bill"—I said "It is all wrong, Bill"—he drove off, and mine being heavy horses could not keep up with his—I did not go back.

THOMAS TURNER . I live at Gunn Alley, Green Bank—on 6th February I was with the last witness on his van—we passed near Mrs. Berger's shop, and I saw a small van backed up against the van—Rayment said to me "There are two sacks of Brown and Goodman's on the van"—I saw on the small van marked the two sacks "Brown and Goodman"—the van drove off—Rayment said to me "There is the van going away"—I said "Go after them"—the prisoner turned round and said "It is all right, Bill," and Rayment said "It is not all right"—the prisoner went off—I turne round to Ellen Berger's to see whether she had lost two sacks—I helped Dowsett to unload us van—I don't know how many sacks he had to start with—the prisoner used to work for Mr. Perry and I worked with him.

PAUL HALLMARK . (Detective K). On 7th February I was in High Street, Shoreditch, about 3.40, and from information received took the prisoner into custody, and told him he would be charged with stealing two sacks of flour from Canning Town the night before—he made no reply—I took him to Plaistow—he was charged, and in answer said "I have not been down here for a month."

The Prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate and in his defence, stated:

"The night this happened I was in Pitfield Street, Hoxton, from 6 o'clock to 10 o'clock."

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.


Before Mr. Justice Cave.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-373
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

373. JOHN CHARLES (39) , Feloniously wounding Frances Elizabeth Charles, with intent to murder. Second Count, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. LILLE. Prosecuted.

SAMUEL DOLBY . I am a drayman—on 9th February, about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, I was delivering beer in High Street, Woolwich—I heard a scream, looked towards the spot from which it came, and saw a woman lying on the ground, and the prisoner kneeling on one knee by her side—I heard the female say "Oh don't, don't!" and then another female voice said "My God, he is stabbing her!"—I ran to the prisoner, and took him by the neck, and pulled him off, and put my hand down and took a knife from the woman's side—the prisoner said "It is my wife, and I have done it"—not seeing any policeman I told him he had better come to the station with me—I left the woman lying on the ground—there was another woman in her company—I handed the knife to my mate—I took the prisoner to the station, and gave him to the inspector—a constable came in with the knife, and gave it to the inspector—the prisoner said "That is the knife I done it with; I hope she is dead, and I shall die too; I have always allowed her my half pay"—I believe he was sober.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You had your hand on the handle of the knife, and when I took hold of you you let go, and I took it from your wife's side.

MARIA HAYNES . I am the wife of Henry Haynes, and live at William's Cottages, North Woolwich—I am acquainted with the prisoner's wife—on the morning of 9th February, just before 2 o'clock, she came to my house—we were just leaving the house to go over the water to take out a summons against her husband, when he knocked at the door; I opened it—he said "Here you are, I want you, Mrs. Haynes"—he and his wife and I then went down the street—the wife said to me 'You go in along with Mr. Charles and have a glass, for I am going over the water to get a summons"—the prisoner said "Won't you come and have a drink too, Fanny"—she said "No, I will not drink with you any more," and she walked away a few yards—he ran after her, and they struggled together—then he knocked her down on the step of the Three Crowns, and stabbed her—he got the knife out of his right-hand pocket—he had one knee upon her, and with his right hand he got the knife in her side, stabbing her in the side—I sang out "Oh, my God, he is stabbing her!"—Dolby came round from the other side of his dray, and drew the knife out of her side, and then took hold of the prisoner by the neck—I did not hear the prisoner say anything—I believe he said "I have done it"—this is the knife.

FRANCES ELIZABETH CHARLES . I am the prisoner's wife—on Saturday, 9th February, about 2 o'clock, I was at Mrs. Haynes's house—she keeps a house for prostitutes, and she encouraged me there—while there the prisoner knocked at the door, and asked if I was coming out of that house—he said "This is not a fit house for you to be in, come out of it"—I went to the door, and we walked quietly along together—we had been having a little quarrel in the morning; we had both been drinking—I had tantalised him so much by breaking the things, and I said I would go and get a summons—I did not say anything about taking a glass with Mrs. Haynes—I don't believe he had any intention of hurting me—I only wish I could afford to have a doctor to examine me—he asked me would I have a drink at the Three Crowns—I said no, I did not want no more drink; I thought we had had enough—he asked me if I intended to go out of that house that I was given to go in—I said "Yes"—he said "I wish you would live a different life to this, Fanny; let us go home and drop this game, and see if you can be quiet"—I would not go home with him—I turned round, and made use of an expression to him, and having had a little to drink I fell down outside the Three Crowns—I don't believe he took the knife out to me—he was in the habit of carrying the knife on him for his work, and it got catched in my clothes—it is not anything at all; it is just barely a scratch, it is not the size of a scratch—he did not say anything to me—he did not say anything about the summons—allow me to speak, if I was bad enough to be taken to the infirmary, why did the doctor allow me out?

GEORGE RICE . I am medical officer of the Woolwich Union—on 9th February the prosecutrix was brought there—she was suffering from a punctured wound of the abdomen, on the left side, about three inches from the navel, a little below the level of it—it was about an inch deep; it extended downwards, and outwards—it was rather a gaping wound one way, about one-eighth of an inch—in my judgment it was a very serious wound—it was very close to the cavity of the abdomen—it had gone through the clothes, which offered a certain amount of protection—I should think considerable force must have been used with a knife of this

kind to penetrate the clothes and the abdomen as well—this knife would be calculated to produce such a wound.

THEODOSIUS GROSE . (Police Inspector K). About 2.45 on 9th February the prisoner was brought to the station by Dolby, and shortly after a dock constable brought in this knife—the prisoner said "I don't deny that is the knife I stabbed her with; I hope she will die, then I shall die; I have always allowed her my half-pay"—he was very excited, but appeared perfectly sober.

Prisoner's Defence. I had the knife in my hand, and it happened accidentally. I could not help it.

GUILTY. on the Second Count. — Ten Years' Penal Servitude.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-374
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

374. WILLIAM BARTLETT (22) and JOSEPH SPENCER (40) , Stealing 14 yards of carpet, the goods of Henry Chamberlain.


MR. RHODES. Prosecuted:

ELLA RENDALL . I am servant to Henry Chamberlain, 8, Blackheath Terrace, Blackheath—on 6th February, at a quarter to 5 o'clock, I was at the front of the house, and saw Bartlett come in and go round to the I back—I went to the back passage and saw him; he asked me if I had I anything to sell him—I said "No"—when he turned to go out I saw the bag at his back full—when he came in I saw the bag in his hand empty—that was about five minutes before—I went back to the house to see if anything was missing—I ran after the prisoner and saw him with Spencer a quarter of a mile from the house—Spencer had a truck and some bags on it—I said I had come after the carpet which they had stolen from the back yard—Bartlett asked me what carpet, and I insisted on looking in their bags till I found it—I found it in the fifth bag—Bartlett begged my pardon, and said he would take it back, and begged the lady's pardon if she would let him go free—Spencer said nothing—I identify this as the carpet I missed; I had put it down only five minutes before.

FRANCIS ALLEN . (Policeman R R 20). I was on Blackheath on 6th February, in the afternoon—I noticed the servant run across the road—I received information—I saw her and Bartlett together, and she took something from him—Spencer was with Bartlett, and they had a truck, which was at a standstill—Rendall gave Bartlett in custody—he said he ought to be let off; he would go back and beg the lady's pardon—I took him to the station, Spencer followed with the barrow by my directions, and was afterwards taken into custody at the station—when charged he said nothing.

Bartlett's Statement before the Magistrate. I am sorry for it.

Spencer's Defence. I know nothing about the carpet, that is all I have got to say.


BAETLETT** and SPENCER then PLEADED GUILTY. to a previous conviction of felony in April, 1882, at Maidstone.— Two Years' Hard Labour each.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-375
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

375. ARTHUR ROBERTS , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin, having other counterfeit coin in his possession.

MESSRS. LLOYD. and HICKS. Prosecuted.

JOHN SUMMERFORD . I keep a coffee-house at 135, New Cross Road,

Deptford—on 7th February, about 9.30 p.m., the prisoner came in for three patties, and tendered a florin—I bent it with my teeth, found it was bad, and gave it back to him—it was gritty—I threw it on the counter, and it did not ring—I said "What do you call that?"—he said nothing, but put it between his teeth and gave me a good one—I gave him the change and he left—I spoke to Taylor, who followed him—I was fetched to the Peckham Station the same evening, saw the prisoner there, and charged him.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not pick you out at the station, I was not asked—I did not hear the inspector say anything about a half-crown—I gave you a good shilling in change and 9d. in coppers—I did not accuse you of saying that you would straighten the florin and utter it again—I told the inspector that you bent it again.

WILLIAM TAYLOR . I am a carpenter—I was in Mr. Summerford's shop—he pointed out the prisoner to me as he got outside the door, and I followed him to the corner of Brian Street, where he met another man, and they both walked together to Park Road—they were together about 20 minutes—the prisoner then went down Park Road, and the other man went into Mr. Ott's, the butcher—I spoke to Field, the butcher's boy, and then saw the prisoner outside the shop—a constable passed me; I spoke to him, and he stopped the prisoner as he came out of the shop, and I pointed out the other man to him, who was brought to the station by another constable.

Cross-examined. You were 150 paces off when you were pointed out to me—I did not see anything in your hand—the other man was not searched, he was asked to show his money, which he did, and you did the same—1s. 4d. was found on you, and the shilling was bad.

ROBERT WILLIAM FIELD . I am assistant to Mr. Otts, of Peckham Park Road—on 7th February, about 10 p.m., the prisoner came in for a pound of steak, which came to a shilling—I cut it outside, leaving him inside—while I was cutting the steak Taylor spoke to me—I went into the shop to take the money, 1s. 2d.; he gave me a shilling—I weighed it, and told him it was bad—he asked me to break it in half for him; as he did not want it in his possession—I did not break it, I gave it back to him—he put it in his pocket and gave me a good one—I gave him 4d. change—he went outside with the steak and was stopped by a constable—I was fetched next morning to the police-court.

Cross-examined. I saw the constable let you go, and you got right up the street; he then called you back and you stopped, and he took you back to my shop and asked me to show him what you had given me.

Re-examined. He had only got a few yards when he was called back—a constable could easily have caught him if he had wanted to.

JAMES CORBETT . (Policeman P 286). On 7th February, about 10 p.m., Taylor spoke to me in Peckham Park Road, and I went to Mr. Ott's shop and stopped the prisoner as he came out—I took him into the shop and asked Mrs. Otts in his presence what money he had given—she said "He has given me a bad shilling," but she had put it in the till with the rest—Taylor said that he had been in a coffee-shop—the prisoner aid that he had not—going to the station Taylor pointed out another man walking away from the butcher's shop—I spoke to another constable, who went after him, and brought him to the station—the prisoner said that he met the other man in the Kent Road and asked him for a night's lodging, and he referred him to a coffee-shop against the Shire

Arms—I asked him to give me the money he had on him, he gave me a bad shilling and 4d.—I afterwards searched him in the cell and found this bad half-crown in his right pocket—two policemen were outside the cell while I was searching him—I said "There is some more money," I could hear it, the other constable said "Yes, there is more bad money in that pocket, you can hear it"—I then took the half-crown out—the prisoner said "There is no more, and one of you constables has put that in my pocket."

Cross-examined. When you gave me the 1s. 4d. I did not put my hands in all your pockets—I did not see you turn your pockets out—Taylor was not standing by—you were not put in a room for an hour after you were charged, you were taken direct to the cell—you had not plenty of opportunity of getting rid of anything unless you had done so coming along the street without me noticing you—you had only got three or four yards when I called you back, not ten yards—I did not pass the half-crown at No. 472—you took your jacket off when I searched you—you did not ask to be searched in the inspector's presence.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . This shilling and half-crown are bad.

GUILTY . *.— Two Years' Hard Labour.

Before Mr. Recorder.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-376
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

376. ELIZABETH HALLORAN (44) , Stealing a dolman, a cloak, a skirt, and two handkerchiefs, of John Clements in his dwelling-house.


ALICE CLEMENTS . I am the wife of John Clements, a retired publican—at the beginning of this year I required the services of a nurse, and engaged the prisoner to represent my own nurse, Mrs. Snell, who went away ill—I scarcely knew what to make of her, she was so odd—my nurse came and told me something, and I had to have her turned out—I then put the matter in the hands of a detective, and some things were found which I identified as mine, these (produced) are them—I never gave the prisoner authority to take them.

Prisoner. She asked me to pledge them, I refused to do it, and she asked me to lend her some money till her husband returned. Witness. It it false, I never pledged a thing in my life, my husband left me with plenty of money, she (prisoner) was in the house four days.

JAMES EIDER . (Detective P). On the night of the 11th of January this matter was put in my hands—I traced the prisoner to 23, Euston Street, Euston Square, where her daughter was lodging—I went there at 12 at night and saw her—I told her I was a police officer and was going to take her into custody for stealing a silk dolman and other articles—she said "Where from?" I said "31, Halstead Street, Brockley"—she said "I know nothing about it"—I asked if she had anything there that did not belong to her, she said "No"—I then searched the room, and under a skirt which was hanging behind the door I found this silk dolman—I asked her if that belonged to her—she said "No, to my daughter"—I asked the daughter, who was present, if it belonged to her—she said "No"—the prisoner then said "Well, I bought it, and was going to make my daughter a present of it"—I said "Where did you buy it?" she said "I shall not tell you"—I made further search, and found a bonnet box which she claimed as her own, with two silk handkerchiefs inside—I took her to Brockley station, and she was charged—when

the charge was read over to her she said "Mrs. Clements asked me to pawn the dolman, and wrapped it up in the silk handkerchief; I did not do so but gave her a sovereign"—when she was searched a cloak-room ticket was found on her relating to a box at the Charing Cross cloak-room—I went there and got the box, and found in it a cloak and another skirt which Mrs. Clements has identified—on the 22nd I again went to 23, Euston Street, and saw the daughter, who produced another skirt, which has since been identified—the prisoner was to have been tried last Sessions, but she escaped from custody.

ANN SNELL . I am the wife of William Snell, of Star Court, Bermondsey—I was acting as nurse to Mrs. Clements six months ago when she was first taken ill—I left her about a fortnight before Christmas—I saw these things while I was there; they were quite safe when I left.

THOMAS PERCY . (Policeman S R 44). I arrested the prisoner on a Bench warrant—I took her to Albany Street station; she was detained there for some time, and she escaped from there on the 31st—I apprehended her again last Monday in the street near Charing Cross—I put my hand on her shoulder and said "Mrs. Halloran"—she said "No; that is not my name; you have made a mistake"—I took her to the station.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate." Mrs. Snell has stated many things false. I call my daughter as a witness."

Witness for the Defence.

LOUISE STONE . I am the prisoner's daughter; she has been married twice—I live in Euston Street—I saw these things found there—I had been to Mrs. Clements's house twice, and from what I could see I don't think my mother is a thief, or that she could have stolen any of these things—on 23rd Mrs. Clements and Mrs. Snell came to Euston Street to see my mother; I said she was not there, and Mrs. Clements said she wanted the things back—she did not say they were stolen; she said if mother would bring them back she would have nothing more to do with it—I understand that Mrs. Clements had no money in the house, and she gave mother the things instead of money.

GUILTY .— Three Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-377
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

377. GEORGE SISSON (18) and RICHARD WINCH (28) , Stealing 198lb. of fat, the property of Walter George Streeton.

MR. RIBTON. Prosecuted.

WALTER GEORGE STREETON . I am a fat melter, of Corbet Street, Rotherhithe—on January 21, about 6.45, I went to my premises, and found that two casks of fat had been cut into, and a quantity taken away value 1l. 12s. 6d.—I afterwards saw some fat at Greenwich which corresponded in quality and quantity; it was nothing like ship's fat.

JAMES DREW . (Policeman). On 21st January, about 8.5 a.m., I saw the prisoners in Old Woolwich Road, Greenwich; they had just drawn up a barrow with a basket on it at Francis's marine-store shop—Sisson went in and Winch remained outside—I lifted up the bag and saw that it contained a quantity of melted fat; (it was taken to the station, and Mr. Streeton identified it)—I kept observation on it, and in 20 minutes the marine-store dealer went to breakfast, and when he returned Sisson entered—I met him coming out—he said to the marine-store man "If that is it I will go and get a receipt to show that I bought it on board a ship"—Winch stood by the barrow some time, and then walked down

another street—I called Joyce, who took Winch and brought him back to me—I said "That is one of the men; take him to the station"—I took the barrow to the station where Sisson produced this receipt and said "You see I bought it on board the ship Congo"—we got possession of his pocket-book with his writing in it.

Cross-examined by Winch. I saw you with Sisson, and he said that he engaged you to help him—I could not have taken you an hour before; you walked away as fast as I went near you.

JOSEPH JOYCE . (Detective Officer). On 21st January, about 8.45 a.m., in consequence of what Drew said to me I followed Winch into Bury Street; he kept looking back, and then returned to the barrow—I asked him what he was going to do with the fat; he trembled and shook, made a dart and rushed off—I followed and caught him, and said "What are you running away for?"—he said "I don't know; it is not my fat"—I took him to Mr. Robinson; he said that he had not been in his place that morning—I said that I was not satisfied, and should take him to the station—when we got to Queen Street he said "I am not going any farther," and threw me down and bit my arm—I lost him, but caught him again, and got him to the station with assistance—I then went out and found Sisson, and asked him for his pocket-book; he gave it to me—I looked at it, compared it with this, and said "The writing looks very much alike," and asked him if he wrote it—he said that they came from the ship—I went up the river to find the ship, but could not—I met another detective, who told me that a quantity of fat had been stolen in the Kent Road—Sisson said "I did not expect this—I told Winch that morning, at 5 o'clock, to come and get this fat—this is a funny job"—I don't understand that Winch said "If I had but known what was going to happen not six of you would have brought me here"—I found a knife in Winch's right-hand with a quantity of fat on it, and both prisoners' hands smelt of tat.

JAMES TOLEY . I examined the prosecutor's premises, and found that the fat corresponded in weight and appearance with what was there—there was a wall 7 feet high to get over to get into the yard—I saw marks of gunny bags on the wall, as if the fat was taken over in bags—both prisoners' hands smelt very greasy at the station.

Sisson, in his defence, stated that he received the fat from the steward of the ship Congo, and when the constable asked him to show him the receipt, he offered to fetch it, but was not allowed, and that the detective went to the wrong dock, two miles farther up the river.


They then PLEADED GUILTY. to previous convictions, Sisson in May, 1882, and Winch in April, 1877.

SISSON— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

WINCH— Eight Years'Penal Servitude.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-378
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

378. JOSEPH RICH and ARTHUR GODDARD , Stealing a box, a tea service, a Church Service, 30l. in money, and other articles, of Louisa Mary Dodd.

MR. CANDY. Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN. Defended.

LOUISA MARY DODD . I am the wife of Mr. Dodd, of Bromley—on 2nd February I was at the University Tavern, Tottenham Court Road, and employed Mr. Ennever to remove my goods to Brockley that evening—I afterwards missed a black box containing rings, brooches, 30l. In gold in a brown purse, and other articles value 100l.—some were mine

and some not, but they were all in my care—I made inquiries and placed the matter in the hands of the police.

Cross-examined. I got to Brockley about 8 o'clock—I was going to an unfurnished house—a window was broken—I was in the house on Sunday till 11 o'clock, and then I went up to London and left the house unprotected and the window broken—I did not miss the box till Tuesday.

ELLEN SMITH . I was barmaid at the University Tavern on 2nd February—I saw a dark box with brass nails taken downstairs by the prisoner Rich, who was one of the carmen.

WILLIAM BANKS . I am a colourman at Brockley—on Saturday, 2nd February, about 8.30 p.m., I was employed with a friend at the Breakspear to unload some goods out of two vans—we finished one, and then went to the Breakspear and had some drink, and then returned and began unloading the second—the two prisoners assisted us, and Woolridge and Clark—no one was left with the van while we were drinking—when we had nearly finished unloading the second van, a box was taken out—it was about a yard from the tail of the van, and both the prisoners said that it was not to go, it was to go back—I left it where it was, and carried some more things in.

Cross-examined. Woolridge is my son-in-law; Clark is a stranger to me—Mr. Ennever was not present, leaning against the wall, when the conversation about the box took place; he was not within two or three yards of me—the potman was there, but I cannot say whether he heard it; the prisoners said it quite openly, they both spoke—the pony had been taken out of the van—the vans went away first, and we went behind them—we found the Breakspear shut up, and went to the house and got our money, and we then all went home together.

FREDERICK CLARK . I am a labourer, of Brockley—on 2nd February I was employed to unload these two vans—we finished one, and then went to the Breakspear and had some beer—the prisoners came there afterwards and Mr. Ennever, and no one was left with the vans that I know of—while the second van was being unloaded there was a box in it which the prisoners said was not to go inside, it was to go back, and one of them shoved it back into the van—I did not notice whether it was large or small.

Cross-examined. I believe he said, "That box is not to go inside yet," but he also said that it was to go back—Mr. Ennever was there when we unloaded the first van, and I believe he was there during the conversation about the box—I said at the police-court, "Mr. Ennever stood on the pavement, leaning against the wall, when the conversation took place, he was two or three yards away from me"—the potman was in and out, I am not sure whether he was there when the conversation took place.

JOHN WOOLRIDGE . I am a labourer at Brockley—on Saturday evening, 2nd February, I was employed with two other men to unload some vans—we finished one, and then went to the Breakspear and came back and began to unload the second van—I was going to take out a box and the prisoner Rich placed his hand on it and said that it was not to go, it was to go back; I left it—it was a little box covered with brown leather—Goddard was present when he said that, and could hear it, but I did not know their names; I do not know the carman who employed me—we then finished unloading the van.

Cross-examined. It was past 10 o'clock when that conversation occurred.

WILLIAM ENNEVER . I am a carman, of 31, Cherry Mews, Tottenham Court Road—on 2nd February Mrs. Dodd employed me to convey her property from Tottenham Court Road to Brockley, which I did in two vans—I accompanied them and superintended the unloading of the first—we then adjourned to the Breakspear—I employed the prisoners, and Mrs. Dodd paid them—I helped to take the property out of the second van.

Cross-examined. I have employed Rich two years, and he came to me with a 16 years' good character—the three men we met at the Breakspear were strangers.

ALEXANDER JEWELL . (Police Inspector P). On 6th February I went to Cherry Mews, Tottenham Court Road, and saw the two prisoners respecting the missing box—I examined their lodgings but found nothing—I afterwards brought them to Brockley Station in the presence of Banks and Clark—Banks said, "On Saturday last I was engaged in unloading two vans at 279, Brockley Road, and as we were taking one box out of one of the vans I was told by the carman to let it remain, as it had got to go back again, and I left it there"—Rich said, "Do you say I said so?"—he said, "Both of you"—Goddard said nothing—that is what I always do, it was a sort of rehearsal: part of my routine.

Cross-examined. I 'did that to hear what Banks had to say; he had already told me something, but Mr. Dodd was not there then, and I wished him to hear what he had already told us—I had to take it down and the prisoners had to be present—the charge had not then been taken—I had brought them from London and paid their expenses—I look to the Treasury to repay me—on my oath this was not done to get evidence.

JAMES HYDER . (Detective P). I accompanied Inspector Jewell to Cherry Mews to see the prisoners—I asked Rich if he knew anything about a box which had been stolen from Brockley—he said "There were others on the job besides me; I don't know what you mean by a box"—I said "Do you mean to say you do not known there was a box lost?"—he said "No"—I took him in custody.

Cross-examined. I took no note of what he said—he either said "on the job" or "engaged"—I believe he said "There were others engaged besides us"—I said "Don't you know there was a box lost?" not "stolen"—I was present when the prisoners were confronted with Clark and the other—it is usual before a man is taken before a Magistrate that he is confronted with the witnesses and asked to state what he has to say.

The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Rich says: "I am innocent of the charge. I know nothing of the box whatever." Goddard says: "On 2nd February I had to take two vans of furniture to Brockley. My employer was there when I unloaded them. I drew on one side and my employer and another man took the things into the house, and then they said 'We have unloaded one van; we will go and have some beer.'"


Before Mr. Justice Cave.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-379
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

379. THOMAS SMITH (19) PLEADED GUILTY . to feloniously carnally knowing and abusing Sarah Bennett, a girl under the age of 12 years.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

Before Mr. Recorder.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-380
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

380. JOHN MELTON (21) , Unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on Matilda Boylett. Second Count charging an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Third Count, for a common assault.

MR. PURCEL. Prosecuted.

PHOEBE DE LAY . I did live at 16, Mint Street—I am a rag sorter—I know Matilda Boylett—she lived with the prisoner at 1, Duke Street, and I was living with them in the same room—on the 1st of December she came home in the morning; she had been out all night—she came back between 10 and 11 o'clock—she came in and brought the breakfast, and the prisoner said "I neither want you nor the breakfast; you can go where you have been all night"—they began to quarrel, and she took the kettle and hit him on the head with it, and he wrenched it out of her hand and threw it at her across the room and it caught her on the head—it was a small kettle; it would hold about a quart—there was not any water in it—she was not sober; she had been drinking—the prisoner was quite sober—she did not go to Guy's Hospital that day, not till the next day—she came back with her wound dressed—the man who she stayed with all night took the dressing off and gave her two black eyes.

By the COURT. She did not stay out the next night—the man she had stayed out with came and gave her two black eyes and tore the dressing off her head—she told me that.

The Prisoner. That is quite true what the girl says.

JOHN GORROD . I am a costermonger, and live at 3, Duke Street—on the morning of 11th December I was at 1, Duke Street—I did live in the same house; I live next door now—the prosecutrix stayed out all night, and when she came home she brought home bacon and something else to the prisoner—he said that he did not want her or her bacon—she picked up the kettle to hit him, but he took it from her and threw it at her—she sat down and cried—she went to the hospital next day—he threw the kettle across the room; he did not do it intending to hit her; I am quite sure of that—she did not take the bandage off herself, the man she stopped out all night with came and tore it off and blacked her eyes.

By the COURT. I did not see that done, but I know her to be a very bad character; she poisoned herself in my presence, she has attempted her life twice.

MR. HINE. I am house-surgeon at Guy's Hospital—Matilda Boylett was admitted there on Saturday, 8th of January—she was suffering from a scalp wound—I cannot remember whether I dressed it, but I saw it—I was on duty at the time.

CHARLES GROSS . I am house-surgeon at Newington Infirmary—the prosecutrix was brought to me on 17th of December with a bad cut on

the top of her head 2 1/4 inches long, reaching to the bone—there had been three stitches put in it—she was suffering very severely from erysipelas in the face, consequent upon the wound, and she was in very great danger for at least a fortnight—she is now out of danger physically, but she is quite out of her mind—that is in consequence of the wound and the general shock, and she has been sent to an asylum—it was such a wound as could be caused by a kettle—some force would have to be used—neglect might certainly produce the erysipelas—if the wound had been attended to properly in the beginning, very likely it would never have come on, and a person of drunken habits would be especially liable to it.

By the COURT. The three stitches indicated that it had been dressed—there were no indications that the dressing had been removed, but it was necessary to protect it from the air by bandages, and she had not got them on.

By the JURY. Her face was so covered by erysipelas that I could not see whether she had black eyes or not.

GOERGE HARVEY . (Police Sergeant M). On 26th December, about 11 p.m., I arrested the prisoner in Mint Street and charged him with cutting a woman's head with a kettle—he said "What I done, I done in self-defence; I went home in the evening and found a navvy in the room that she had breeched for 5s."—that means robbed of 5s. I asked him to go out, and he would not. I went up to the Borough, found her, and asked her to come home; she did not come home, but went and paid for a double"—that means a double bed—"in a kip"—that is a common lodging-house—"with a man named Scully; she came home the next morning and brought some eggs, bread, and bacon; I asked her who they were for; she said' For you; I said 'You are a fool;' she said 'Scully has breeched me, and I will pay you for it.' I took up the kettle and struck her on the head with it. I will take a stretch for it before a Magistrate, but you cannot hang me."

The Prisoner. The latter part of that is false.

The Witness. I put it down at the time.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "What I have done, I done in self-defence I can assure you. She tried to rouse me, and called me all the beastly names she could lay her tongue to, and took up a kettle. I had no intention of striking her head. She went to Guy's Hospital, and the surgeon asked her who had done it. She said, herself. About 9 o'clock the same night Scully broke the door open and gave her two black eyes and tore the bandage off, and erysipelas took place and she went into the Infirmary. I assure you it was Mr. Scully's fault more than mine."


Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-381
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

381. CORNELIUS CRONIN (26) , Robbery with violence on William Webb, and stealing a purse and 25s., his property.


WILLIAM WEBB . I am a cooper, of 4, Bradshaw Street, Old Kent Eoad—on Tuesday, 22nd January, I was going round Bankside, which faces the river by Southwark Bridge, between 3 and 4 p.m., it was day-light—I was purchasing some casks for my employers, and while waiting for the foreman, who was engaged, I noticed the prisoner and another

man not in custody waiting—all in a moment the prisoner caught me round the neck, and the other one took my purse with 26s. in it out of my left-hand trousers pocket—they ran away—directly my breath came I ran round the stone yard—I gave directions to the police and went to the station and gave a description—I could not see either of the prisoners till Sunday, about 9 o'clock, when I was taken to the station, and picked out the prisoner from about a dozen men—when he robbed me I noticed a kind of scar on his face, somewhere about his nose—about twelve months before, when I worked for Mr. Lewin, I had seen the prisoner casually employed about there—Lewin's is adjoining the place where I was robbed.

Cross-examined. I left my employers about l, and walked directly to Bankside—I went and had a glass of beer, and went with the foreman to have a second glass—I always know when I have had enough, I had been at work all the morning—I felt more mad than anything else, I could not get my breath for a time—I was hurt so much that I had to have milk and sop for two or three days, I could not pass anything—I was not thrown on the ground, the prisoner came behind me and put his arm round my neck—it was all done in a minute—I was not struck about the face or body—I am sure the prisoner did not take my purse—I did not say at the police-court" You are the man that stole my purse, and I could swear to the other man who was with you"—I know the prisoner well by seeing him working at Lewin's—there were a number of men about on this afternoon, I do not know any of them by name—I had not been waiting there many minutes—I had been to other places to look for casks before I went to Bankside—I got there between 3 and 4—on the Friday the detective came to my house for me; I was taken into the Inspector's private room, while a lot of men were brought in from the street—I can say on my solemn oath the prisoner is the man that put his arm round my neck and not the man who took my purse—my head was pulled back and I looked in his face.

Re-examine. I could not get my breath, his fingers were pressed on my throat—I did not know the other man, but I could identify him out of a thousand—this was done at the corner of an alley, just alongside the river, between the ironworks and Mr. Lewin's.

GEORGE FRIEND . (Policeman M 384). I know the prisoner by sight—on the 22nd of January I saw him on Bankside, about half-past 3; he spoke to me, I had seen him the week previously walking about there—about twenty minutes or a quarter of an hour afterwards the prosecutor made a complaint to me, and gave me a description of the prisoner—I went to look for him.

Cross-examined. The prosecutor was not sober, he had been drinking, and was about half drunk and greatly excited, not mad—before the robbery the prosecutor said to me "Governor, there is a man wants running in"—he did not point to the prisoner, there were some men near by in a boat getting out sand, whom he was alluding to—I cannot say if the prisoner was among that crowd—the prosecutor did not come up to me, he was leaning over smoking his pipe—twenty minutes afterwards he came up and made a complaint to me—I know the name Meredith by seeing it on gates on Bankside—I do not know a barge had broken adrift that morning, there are always a number of barge labourers loitering about looking for work—I had seen the prisoner there the previous week.

Re-examined. He gave me a description of the person who put his arm round his neck, and of the other man—he expressed himself intelligently—I know the other man.

THOMAS PICKLES . (Detective Sergeant N). About 8.30 on Friday, the 25th January, I saw the prisoner at 9, White Hind Alley, Bankside, which is about 50 or 60 yards from where this robbery took place, he was in bed—I said "I shall take you to the station for identification for being concerned with another man in stealing a purse and 25s. from a man named Webb, at Bankside, on Tuesday last, between half-past 2 and 3 o'clock"—he said "I think I was out at work at the time"—when he came downstairs into the shop he said to the woman there "On Tuesday afternoon I think I was out at work between half-past 2 and 3"—she said "I know you were out at work or looking for it"—he was taken to the station, detained till 8 o'clock in the evening, and placed among seven others—Webb was called in and told to see if the man was there who had robbed him—he walked up to the prisoner and said "This is the man that put his arm round my neck"—the prisoner said "Are you sure?" he said "Yes, quite sure, I can swear to the other man that was with you at the time"—when the Magistrate asked the prisoner if he wished to cross-examine Pitts, he said "No, I was not on Bank side that day, I was drunk."

Cross-examined. The Magistrate called me into the witness box and asked me to repeat what I had heard the prisoner say, and the clerk took it down—he said nothing else—I have been in the police force a long time—the prisoner was undefended at the police-court—I am certain he said in the charge room "This is the man that put his arm round my neck," there is no mistake about that—I do not think I have made a mistake about what I said the prosecutor said in the charge room, he said "You are the man that stole my purse," and "You are the man that put your arm round my neck"—he might have said both—he said when charged "I can show I was at work at the time."

FRANCIS PITTS . (by MR. PURCELL. I work at Lewin's, and live at 1, Peel Street, Whitechapel—I saw Webb on the Tuesday coming over Bank side, he was three-parts boozed and talking to a lot of men outside the gates—then he went up the street and came back again and stood outside talking—I went in and had some beer, and when I came back I saw the prosecutor with a policeman.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-382
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

382. MARY GREATREX (46) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. GOODRICH. Prosecuted.

ARTHUR DALTON . (Policeman W 171). On 5th February, about 6.30, I saw the prisoner and her daughter in Welby Street, Camberwell—she stooped, her daughter apparently covering her—it was very dark, and there are no lamps—there is a passage there—she appeared to pick up something—I followed them for a quarter of a mile to Ackerman road—the prisoner went into a post-office and came out—I went in, and the other came out and followed her—I saw her coming out of Mr. Robson's shop, a grocer—I went in, and the woman gave me this bad sixpence—I then followed the prisoner into Bailey's oil-shop, Lothian Road—I made inquiries there and followed her again into Mrs. Berry's shop, a baker's next door—when she left I went in and this bad sixpence was handed tome, I marked them both at the time—I followed her 20 minutes,

expecting her daughter to come up—I then told her I should take her in custody—she made no reply, but put her hand to her mouth—I heard some coins in her mouth, and after great difficulty I succeeded in getting my fingers into her mouth and I felt a sixpence—she bit my hand, but I got the sixpence out—this is it (produced)—I heard more coins in her mouth, but she swallowed them—I made this note at the time I told her she would be charged with being with another woman—she said "I have been at work all day, what do you want me for? it is a lie, I did not pass any bad money, and I was alone"—the same charge was made at the station, and she said "I was with no one, I was with my daughter in the afternoon to get a place; I know Mr. Robshaw, my daughter worked for him, and I bought a candle and some wood"—she was searched, but nothing was found on her—next day, after the remand, I went to 101, Mark's Road, Camberwell, in consequence of information—I searched the back room, first floor, and found this file in the ashes under the grate—the carpet was splashed with metal—I sifted the ashpit and found some pieces of a porous jar, and a small piece of copper wire, and a number of pawn-tickets—on February 4th, the day before I took her, I was in Welby Street with Waters and saw the prisoner and her daughter go down the street—the prisoner stooped, and her daughter appeared to be covering her—they went a little farther, and the prisoner stooped again, and I saw the younger one hand her something—she appeared to be receiving something, and then she stooped a fourth time—when they had gone I examined the place and found this piece of copper wire—I struck two matches as I had no light—next day I went to the spot where she had stooped the second time and found a porous pot; a copper wire, and a phial—in the third place I found a bottle of acid, in the fourth place this (producing something).

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I saw you go into a tea shop and a baker's shop—you did not speak to any women, but you kept looking back—I did not ask you what you had in your hand, nor did you say "Only a purse"—you had your hand in my mouth—I did not strike you on the teeth nor did that cause the marks on my hand, but they are here now.

CHARLES WATERS . (Policeman W 59). I was with Dalton on 4th February and corroborate his evidence—I was also with him on the 5th at 6.30 and followed the prisoner into Ackerman Street and saw her go into the post-office, and into Robshaw's, and then into Lothian Road—I was with him when he took her and saw the struggle when she had the coins in her mouth—she gave her address 9, Brook Street, East Street, Walworth, but there is no Brook Street in Walworth.

Cross-examined. I saw you speak to your daughter, but we could not watch both of you—we did not take her because the other constable had to make inquiries while I kept you in view—I saw your other little daughter in the street next morning, and apprehended her—she did not come to ask if you were locked up for a drop of drink—she said she had not seen you since yesterday morning, at 8 o'clock, when she bought a penny Chronicle going to her situation.

SARAH ROBSHAW . I am the wife of George Robshaw, of 30, Ackerman Road—on February 5, about 6 p.m., the prisoner came in and asked for two eggs, and gave me a sixpence—I gave her 4d. change, and put it in a place by itself which we use for ham—there was no other money

there—when Dalton came in I gave it to him—it was marked in my presence—this is it (produced).

CAROLINE BAILEY . I am the wife of James Frederick Bailey, of 8, Lothian Road, Brixton—on 5th February, near 7 p.m., the prisoner came in for a candle and a bundle of wood, and tendered a sixpence—I looked at it, and she said "What a fool I am, give it me back"—I gave it to her, and she gave me 1 1/2 d.—I do not think it was good.

ROBERT WRIGHT . I am in the employment of Ann Berry, of Lothian Road, a baker, next door to Mr. Bailey, and not far from Akerman Road—on 5th February, just before 7 p.m., the prisoner came in for a pennyworth of cake, and gave me a sixpence—I put it in the till by itself, gave her the change, and she left—Dalton came in and I gave it to him—I am sure it is the same—it had been by itself all the time—he marked it—this is it.

EDWARD LAMBERT . live at 101, Mark's Road, Camberwell—the prisoner has rented my back room first floor from December 31—I am a mould-maker, and I had one of these porous cells like this, which I have brought to show you—none of these things belong to me—I had no knowledge of their being in her room.

Cross-examined. I work at a pottery in Lambeth—I do not bring home things like this, which were found in the dust-bin.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These three sixpences are bad, and from the same mould—this wire and jar and part of a battery might be used for coining, but they are not complete—these files have white metal in their teeth, and this copper wire has been in a battery—this porous cell is used to put acid in, and it may be used for many things—here is a piece of bismuth which is used for coining.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I know nothing about the things; I picked them up in a field". (She repeated the same statement in her defence.)


She then >PLEADED GUILTY. * to a previous conviction in the name if Catherine Mill, in June, 1877.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-383
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

383. ELLEN GREATREX (17) was indicted for a like offence, upon which no evidence was offered.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-384
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

384. JAMES PEARSON (26) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.


SIDNEY LIDDIARD . I am barman at the King's Head, 163, Westminster Bridge Road—on 7th Feb. I served the prisoner with threepennyworth of brandy—he then put his hand into his inside coat pocket, and said "Let me see if I have any money," and he turned over some coppers and put down a half-sovereign—I took it up; it felt very light—I spoke to the manager, who went towards the prisoner, and he went out—he had drunk most of the brandy, but I had not given him any change—this was on Thursday—I saw him on the Saturday outside the Rodney public-house, Westminster Bridge Road, and gave him in charge—I am sure he is the man—I had also seen him the evening before.

GEORGE TAYLOR . I am manager at the King's Head—on Thursday evening Liddiard brought me a bad half-sovereign—I went towards the prisoner, and he went out—I went after him, but could not see him—I am sure he is the man—I marked the coin and gave it to the constable with a

second bad half-sovereign which I found in the till the day before—the prisoner had been there that evening.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I cannot say whether you had anything to drink on the day previous.

FREDERICK GRAY . (Policeman). On 9th February Mr. Taylor charged the prisoner—I said "I shall take you for attempting to utter a counterfeit half-sovereign at the King's Arms, Westminster Bridge Road, a few days ago"—he said "That is a fine thing; I never passed any bad money in my life"—I fetched Liddiard, who pointed out the prisoner.

WILLIAM HASWELL . Mr. Taylor gave me these two coins (produced)—the one which was passed on the first day is broken.

GEORGE TAYLOR (Re-examined). This is the coin Liddiard gave me on the Thursday, and the broken one is the one I took out of the till on the previous night.

FRANCIS BOSWELL . (Detective Sergeant L). I took the prisoner—the potman was at the station—he pointed to him and said "You were there, if I had put down a half-sovereign you would have seen it."

WILLIAM WEBSTER . These coins are bad, they are made of white metal and electro gilt—they are of different years.

Prisoner's Defence. Is it credible that in the neighbourhood where I have been 20 years I should attempt to utter a half-sovereign; and when I was arrested I was not 20 yards away. I never went out of the neighbourhood.

GEORGE TAYLOR . (Re-examined). I did not know the prisoner as a customer.

SIDNEY LIDDIARD . (Re-examined). I did not know the prisoner as a customer.

FREDERICK GRAY . (Re-examined). He gave his address; it was in the neighbourhood.

GUILTY . †— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-385
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

385. JAMES CLARK (62) , Stealing in 1879 a large quantity of chemicals, the property of Thomas Tyrer and others.


HENRY PHILLIPS . (Police Inspector R). On 13th January, 1879, two persons named Harbord and Stephens were in custody at Greenwich on the charge of being unlawfully in possession of a quantity of white powder—no owner could be found, and they were discharged and the powder given back to them—in the following December I received information from a man named Carpenter, and on 5th December Wheatley and I arrested Harbord and Stephens carrying a packet containing powder which was identified by Mr. Tyrer as calomel—they were taken to the police-court, committed for trial, tried here in January, 1880, and convicted (see volume 91, page 420)—while Stephens was in prison I received a communication from him and went to see him with the Secretary of State's order, and later on I saw him with Mr. Tyrer—he made a statement to us—a warrant was granted, and Thomas King, William Harbord, Henry Harbord, Thomas Bennett, William Tyrer, and Eichard Henry Matt were brought to the Surrey Police-court and committed to this Court, and during the trial the name of Clark was mentioned—I obtained a warrant and tried to apprehend him—I went to his address but he had absconded, I believe his wife was there—these

prisoners were convicted except Bennett—the robberies were from May and Baker's, and some from Morson's of Southampton Row.

EDWARD SHAW (Police Inspector V). On 10th February I received information from Henry Harbord, in consequence of which I ascertained that Inspector Phillips held a warrant for Clark's apprehension—that was on 10th February, and on the 12th I went with Harbord to Wandsworth where an inquest was being held with reference to the death of a man named Robinson in Wandsworth Gaol in whom Clark was interested, and according to arrangements I had made with Harbord he went up to Clark and remained in conversation with him five or ten minutes—I then went up and said to Clark "Is your name Clark?"—he said "Yes"—I said "Do you know this man?" pointing to Harbord—he said "No;" but after hesitating a few minutes he said "I have seen him before"—I said to Harbord "Is this Old Uncle?"—Harbord said "Yes"—I said to Clark "Have you bought any drugs of this man?" meaning Harbord—he said "I might have done"—I said "I hold a warrant for your arrest"—I read it to him; it was for conspiracy—I took him to Southwark—he was charged, and said "I know nothing about it"—I then went to 68, Walnut Tree Walk, Kennington Road, and searched his lodging, which was in a kitchen—his wife left the kitchen—I followed her and met her going upstairs with this parcel; it contained scammon, and is marked "Gum scammon virg."

THOMAS TYRER . I am one of the firm of May and Baker, manufacturing chemists, of Gardner's Wharf, Battersea—our premises are extensive and our business large—a man named Tom King was our watchman up to his arrest, and Henry Harbord had been in our service—we had a carman named Smith who was known as "Jemmy"—he was sent out in 1875 with his van to bring home 10 bottles of quicksilver, and he reported the loss of his van and the quicksilver—the van was found in a remote part of the metropolis minus the quicksilver—we received information from a man named Carpenter in December, 1879—Inspector Phillips showed me two bottles containing calomel in an unfinished condition—in consequence of Carpenter's information I prosecuted Harbord and Stephens, and they were convicted of stealing the calomel and other articles—later on I went with Phillips and saw Stephens in prison—he gave me information, and I charged Tom King, William Harbord, and others with robbing us, and afterwards a warrant was taken out against the prisoner—I have seen him in the vicinity of our works from time to time chiefly loitering in the street—this scammoni is in a pure state, and I should not expect it to be found in the possession of an individual not a dealer in chemicals—this wrapper would be used by wholesale druggists—it is worth about 42s. 6d. a pound at the present moment, and the calomel found by Phillips is worth about 20l.

HENRY HARBORD . I am labouring chemist and live at 24, Ram Square, Red Lion Street—I have known the prisoner upwards of 10 years—I was introduced to him by a man named Smith, a carman—he had originally been in the service of May and Baker, and left in November, 1876—the first transaction I had with the prisoner was about 1874—at the end of January, 1879, King met me in Battersea—I had a conversation with him, in consequence of which I saw Stephens and introduced him to Clark; and after that goods came out of May and Baker's, some red precipitate, something made of mercury and levigated,

which was stolen from May and Baker's—Clark sold the calomel for 10d. a pound and the red precipitate for a shilling—the selling price of calomel at that time was 3s., and red precipitate 4s.—I used to meet the prisoner at the Nag's Head public-house on Tower Hill which is called the Round House, and also at the Old George—we met Clark there, and Stephens helped to carry the bags away and returned with the money—a great porton of the chemicals were in lumps; it was reduced to powder by rolling it in Stephens's room in Arthur Street, but when it did not require crushing we took it straight to Tower Hill—it was taken from Stephens's house in a cart which Clark provided—we used to call Clark "Old Uncle"—I was arrested with Stephens in 1879, taken to Greenwich Police-court, and discharged—I was carrying calomel which was returned to me, and Clark bought it of me—I was arrested in September carrying some more calomel—these robberies went on to a great extent, as much as 5cwt. a week—I sold the drugs to Clark—he knew they were stolen because I had often sold him stolen property, I told him so when I introduced him—I told him we could get a lot of stolen property if he could sell it, and he said "I can sell any amount of property if you can get it for me on the cross"—I knew him previous to that, but that was the first time I had any conversation with him—I was afterwards arrested, and convicted and got five years, and went through my sentence—I gave information to Inspector Shaw this month, and in consequence of an arrangement with him I went and met Clark outside the gaol.

WILLIAM STEPHENS . I live at 3, Joiner Street, Westminster, and keep a coffee stall—I was convicted with Harbord of stealing these drugs—I have been in Court while he gave his evidence; it is true—we were able to get a lot of stolen property—I called it stolen property, and he said he could sell tons of it at a low price, and would give a shilling a pound for all kinds—we received about 5l. a week each from the prisoner—Tom King got as much as that—the prisoner did not tell us where he sold it, but I understood it was in Leman Street, Whitechapel.

ELIZABETH MARIA STEPHENS . I am the wife of the last witness—in January, 1879, we lived in Arthur Street, Walworth, and afterwards in Theobald's Street—I know the prisoner as Old Uncle—Harbord and my husband brought parcels and bags to our house in 1879, they were rolled and taken away by Harbord and Stephens—the prisoner used to come and see my husband both in Arthur Street and in Theobald's Street—he lived in Walnut Tree Walk—I remember his coming to Arthur Street with a cart in the summer, and about five hundredweight of the powder was taken away.

MARY WILSON . I am a widow, and live at 3, Arthur Street—Stephans and his wife lodged with me in a furnished room in 1879—Stephens used to bring things there, and persons came with a cart and fetched them away—the prisoner was there.

LUCY CATLIN . I am a widow, of 29, Theobald's Road—in July, 1879, Stephens and his wife came to lodge with me—I remember the prisoner coming there—I know him as Old Uncle—he used to whistle outside, and they would go down to him, and then he would go up.

BERNARD WHITEHEAD . I keep the Nag's Head, Tower Hill—I have often seen the prisoner there and Harbord—in 1878 or 1879 they came there together, sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the afternoon.

GEORGE SMITH . I live at 62, South Street, New North Road, Islington—in 1879 I was barman at the Old George, Trinity Square, Tower Hill—I remember three or four men coming there for several months, and a cart followed them—one or two of them used to carry bags on their shoulders, Stephens did I think—the prisoner used to come with them, and he generally paid for the drink—they also had a wicker basket, I cannot say what was in it—I remember Stephens, I don't remember Harbord so well.

Prisoner's Defence. I have lived there 18 months, and worked as a boot and shoemaker for Mr. Davis and Mr. Holt. I was living in Brook Street in 1879. I sold nothing for these men. I am not guilty.

GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-386
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > lesser offence; Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

386. JOHN MILLER (50), JOHN RICHARD MILLER (25), HARRY JOHN NEAL (27), and CHARLES WILLIAM MILLER (37) , Unlawfully obtaining money by false pretences from divers persons, with intent to defraud. Other Counts for conspiracy.


TEMPLE CHEVALIER MARTIN . I am Chief Clerk at Lambeth Police-court—I was present there on the 31st October, 1882, when John Miller was sworn and gave evidence against John Ludwig and others; I took down Miller's examination and cross-examination, and produce the whole of his depositions. (The examination and cross-examination of John Miller on his prosecution of Ludwig and others were then read. In the cross-examination he stated that he first became acquainted with the Permanent Society in October, 1881. The certificate was handed to him by Mr. D'Aeth, and he gave Mr. Graham 50l. for it and the books; the entries in the share book were made by his son William. He did not know of any business being done for fourteen years before. He was voted, into the chair by the shareholders, his son, brother, and nephew. He was known as Miller and Lawrence. He established the Templars at Brighton in the name of Webb; that society was merged into the British Imperial, of which he is chairman and treasurer, because the directors had misspent the money. In October, 1881, he transferred to the Permanent to make up the wasted money by raising shares. One had better powers in a company than in a friendly society. He was a director of the Eagle, that company was wound up. He had a thousand shares in the Permanent allotted to him for services rendered. He transferred 400l. worth of shares to his son, William, they were in addition to his 1,000. George Miller, his son, sixteen years old, had 500l. worth of shares, and J. Miller, another son, 500l. for services rendered. Neal was his nephew—he had 500l. allotted for services. Charles Miller was his brother. They had no banking account; a portion of the money was held by him and kept in a cash box, one cash box was stolen. He paid a claim of 2l. 10s. in June by his own cheque, which was dishonoured. Neal had the Society's money. His (Miller's) salary was two guineas a week paid by the secretary out of the Company. William Miller had two guineas, Neal two guineas, J. R. Miller two guineas, Charles Miller 1l. 5s., George Miller 1 guinea. The directors voted him five guineas a week, but he took less. Graham was a director, policies were issued with his name on after he left. Monteith had not attended any of the meetings. The total voted to his family weekly was

17l. 6s., he did not approve that. Ludwig, Ray, and Waldron sent in their resignations in August; they and others wanted to investigate the books, he said he could not let them that night. He did not tell Waldron there were no funds and that he should bolt if there was any inquiry. He would not wish to stop the Permanent. Neal paid the wages on his behalf and on behalf of the Company. William and George Miller had nothing for six weeks. There were 6,000 or 7,000 subscribers to the Society, some paid 1/2 d. a week. The weekly balance from the agents used to average about 50l.; it had not been now for three months, it was about 20l. now; the Society received the money front, the agents, he paid sick claims, &c., and any balance he would pay into his (Miller's) bank or retain. He had an account at the Agra. Quelch was in the employ of the Permanent from its commencement, he was engaged for the British Imperial, he received 100l. from him for the Eagle, and gave him 100l. shares in the Eagle.) The documents referred to were given back to Mr. Bordman, the solicitor who conducted the prosecution, from which, after the cross-examination, he withdrew on that same day, 7th November, 1882—the persons charged were Ludwig, Graham, Quelch, Waldron, and Gale.

FRANCIS TRIMMER , M.D. I am attending John D'Aeth, who lives at Leytonstone—I last saw him on Saturday, he was then ill in bed suffering from acute rheumatism in the knee joint especially, and unable to leave his bed.

Cross-examined by John Miller. He could not be here for quite a fortnight. (The deposition of John D'Aeth was put in.)

HENRY TOMPKINS . I am chief clerk in the office of the registrar of friendly societies for England, at 20, Abingdon Street, Westminster—I produce the original book of rules signed by William Henry Wells, member, and John Wells, manager, of the Templars' and General Sick Benefit and Life Assurance Society, registered on 17th February, 1873, the office then being at 62, High Street, Brighton—the Society was subsequently removed to 24, Guildford Road, Brighton—I also produce the amended rules, signed by William Wells as secretary—the Society still remains on the register—the last returns were made for the year ending 31st December, 1878—returns were made for 1876 and 1877—in 1876 the number of members is stated to be 2,378, with funds amounting to 506l. 16s.—in 1877 the number of members is stated at 1,995, and funds, 819l. 10s. 1 1/2 d.—in 1878, the members 3,133, and funds, 907l. 17s. 1l—in the returns for 1876, 1877, and 1878, I find a printing press represented as an article of value among the funds—in the return for 1876 it is described as worth 183l.—in 1878 it is stated that there is cash in the post-office to the amount of 300l.—on 27th October, 1879, I received notice of removal of the Templar's office, signed by William Miller, Secretary, from Brighton to Southwark Bridge Road—I produce the rules of the British Imperial Sick Benefit Life Assurance and Friendly Society, registered on 31st December, 1878—the first registered office was 46, Ludgate Hill; it was afterwards changed to 72, Southwark Bridge Road on 15th August, 1879, and then to 12, Westminster Bridge Road on the 6th November, 1880—among the members signing the original rules I find John Wells and Henry John Neal as secretary—amended rules were deposited on the 15th January, 1880, signed by Harry John Neal as secretary and John Miller and William Miller as members those rules were twice amended—I produce the annual

return of the Society for the year 1879, signed by Harry John Neal as secretary; number of members returned is 890, and funds amounting to 218l. 11s. 3 1/2 d., stated to consist of bills and a debt taken over from the Templars of 75l., and cash in hand 123l. 0s. 5 1/2 d.—I produce the annual return for 1880, signed by Harry John Neal as secretary; the number of members is stated at 5,128, funds at 417l. 7s. 5 1/2 d., and cash in treasurer's and secretary's hands, 289l. 16s. 7 1/2 d.—I produce the instrument of dissolution of the Society, dated June 10th, 1882, registered 16th June, 1882—the number of members by that is set down at fourteen, the assets are put down at 27l., consisting of office furniture, value 22l., and 5l. in the Post-office Savings Bank—there is a statement, verified by a declaration, made by William Miller, that the Society has no creditors—the members interested are set out as fourteen; amongst those I find John Miller, William Miller, Frank Neal, Henry Lawrence, John Richard Miller, and Charles William Miller—these annual returns show the money received and paid—in 1879 the amount received was 472l. 14s. 3d., total expenditure 201l. 5s. 5 1/2 d.—in 1880 the sum received I find was 2,468l.—I do not find a further sum of 218l.—the expenses of the year were 1,278l. 2s. 9 1/2 d.—I produce a copy of the rules of the Commonwealth Friendly Society, registered on 8th September, 1883, office, 40, Gracechurch Street, trustee John Miller, 157, Camberwell Road.

Cross-examined by John Mille. I do not see the name of John Wells in the amended rules of the Templars—the date of them is 30th July, 1873—I have got nothing about amalgamation here—I am not aware that any paper was given me with reference to the amalgamation of the Templars with the British Imperial—I have never seen any papers with reference to it—I said at the police-court that a society could not be dissolved or amalgamated without a certain number of members signing a document—a notice sent to the society would be addressed, in the ordinary course, to the secretary—a certain plan of amalgamation is pointed out by the Act—there would have to be a compliance with that Act—meetings would not be the essential part—I am not aware the Act says two meetings are necessary for the amalgamation and two for the acceptance—a society can unite with another without putting an end to its existence, under certain formalities—I am not aware that members at meetings can amalgamate together—the name of Walter Waldron appears among the signatures to the document of dissolution of the British, also Philip Corner, John Miller, Henry Lawrence, William Miller, William Graham, John Richard Miller, Charles John Miller, Aldridge, and Frank Neal—I have no knowledge that in 1879 Mr. Napier made application to prosecute certain people in connection with the Templars for misappropriation of 650l.—I think I did say at the police-court "I believe that in 1879 authority was granted to a Mr. John Beaumont Napier to prosecute Alexander Sharp and William Millard for obtaining possession of the property of the society by false representation"—I don't remember the names of the other persons—I have no recollection whether your name was attached to it; I have not got the papers; I had them before me at the police-court—your name does not appear.

Cross-examined by Neal. The 1880 statement of the British Imperial purports to be signed by you, Harry John Neal.

Cross-examined by Charles William Miller. The date of the instrument of dissolution is 10th June, 1882.

By the COURT. We have no means of getting at the accuracy of the accounts that are sent in—in many cases if we do not get an annual return we summon the party before the Magistrate and get him fined.

He-examined. For one society to amalgamate with another there must be a special resolution—I do not find any resolution registered amalgamating the Templars with the British—I don't find any special resolution converting the British into a company registered.

By John Miller. Unless we received the papers we should know nothing about the amalgamation—I have no papers to show I wrote to William Miller—I said at the police-court "I was not aware that these two societies had been amalgamated; application was made, but the papers were returned for the proper number of signatures"—attempts were made to amalgamate the two societies, but owing to the formalities of the Act not being complied with the amalgamation was not allowed—one company can take over the responsibilities of another.

SIDNEY CASBOUTRN . I am a clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies—I produce the file of documents relating to the Permanent Life, Fire Assurance, and Loan Company, Limited—the memorandum of association was registered on 23rd July, 1867, signed by eight shareholders, representing 1,250 shares of 1l. each—the nominal capital of the company is 100,000l. according to the articles, 10,000 5l. shares, and 50,000 1l.—the office of the company was at 28, Northumberland Street, Regent's Park—there were about eight changes of office—on 12th March, 1873, there is the registration of an agreement between John D'Aeth and the company, which sets out his appointment as general manager under certain conditions, and certificates of 400 5l. shares fully paid up were issued to him—this is the agreement to issue them—in December, 1873, a resolution was passed rescinding some of the articles of association—on 13th January, 1874, a summary of capital was sent in up to 31st December, 1872, showing that the capital was 230l. 4s. 6d., consisting of, 10 shareholders without D'Aeth, 781 1l., and 221 5l. shares; 12s. had been paid on the 5l., and 2s. 6d. on the 1l., making up the 230l. 4s. 6d.—D'Aeth was not given in that list—the returns for the year ending 31st December, 1873, were filed on 12th November, 1875—the shares taken up have been 198 5l., and 2,468 1l., and the paid up capital is 230l. 4s. 6d.—I find Mr. D'Aeth's name here for 100 shares—at the same time the summary for the year 1874 was filed—it was exactly the same; they were filed together—the return for 1875 was filed on 7th February, 1879, together with returns for 1876, 1877, and 1878; that shows that 289 5l., and 2,339 1l. have been taken up, and 12s. has been called on 151 5l. shares, and 2s. 6d. on 1,117 1l. shares, and 5l. per share on 52 5l. shares, making a total of 490l. 4s. 6d. paid up, and 204l. 7s. calls unpaid—the returns for 1875, 1876, 1877, and 1878 were all the game—when returns for those years did not come in we sent a circular caution, which came back through the dead letter office—at the same time as we received all these returns they seem to have brought in a notice of change of office of the company—the office was then, in 1879, 73, Finsbury Place—the last lot of summaries were signed by George Lake, the secretary—the return for 1879 was sent in on 30th September, 1881, signed Harry John Neal, secretary pro tern., with a summary of

capital the same as the last four—the summary for 1880 was tendered for registration on the same day, but was filed on 4th October, being sent back for alteration; that was signed Harry John Neal, secretary protem., and is the same as the others—on 29th November, 1881, I find the special resolutions amending the articles of association; that is signed by John Miller, chairman—that rescinds the article that a director shall vacate his office if he holds any other office or place under the company, and alters it to, "If he holds less than 100l. of fully paid up shares in the company"—that enables him to hold an office of profit—in article 83, section 3, the words "except printing" are inserted after "vacate his office if he is concerned or participates in any profit of any contract"—in article 102, setting out that all cheques for the payment of money shall be signed by two directors, and countersigned by the general manager, general manager is altered to secretary—in article 5, "managing director" is substituted for "general manager and Board of Directors"—we only had notice of the alterations, not of what was done at the first meeting—up to October, 1881, no balance-sheet had been sent in—we do not require it to be sent to us—on 30th September, 1881, we had notice of change of office of the company to 12, Westminster Bridge Road, signed by Harry John Neal, secretary protern.—I produce an agreement dated 29th December, 1881, filed 9th January, 1882, between the Permanent Company and John Miller, which conveys to him 550 fully paid up 5l. shares scrip certificates—on 16th February a summary of capital and shares up to end of 1881 I was filed, signed by William Miller, manager, which shows that the capital at that time upon the whole of the shares paid from the beginning of the company in 1867 was 2,615l. 4s. 6d.—375l. 4s. 6d. was paid on forfeited shares—2,607 shares were forfeited, and 448 5l. shares taken up—I have no doubt the 375l. 4s. 6d. is included in the 2,615l. 4s. 6d.—the list of shareholders sent in was Mr. D'Aeth 46, Menteith 40, Henry De Jersey 20, William Miller 60, John Miller 149, Harry John Neal 19, Charles William Miller 1, Samuel Cluby 10, Henry Brett 10, Alfred dark 8, John Swann 5, Robert Quelch 20, Joseph Andrew Graham 20, John Drage 20, Waldron 20, John Francis Neal 1—for 1882 I also find a list of shareholders sent in on 27th February, 1883, and made up to 3rd July, 1882—the paid up capital is the same, 2,615l. 4s. 6d.—the amount paid on forfeited shares is increased to 415l. 4s. 6d.—that should be included in the 2,615l. 4s. 6d.—additional shareholders are Charles William Miller 11, and Henry Lawrence 20 shares—on 22nd May, 1883, the address is changed to 9, Leo Street—the balance-sheets are not sent to our department—I produce the articles of association and all the papers.

Cross-examined by John Miller. The fact of the company lying dormant for a number of years does not cancel the certificate of registration—our department would not accept the returns of a company whose certificate had been cancelled—the acceptance of the returns should show the company was still in legal existence—shareholders of the company can work the company whenever they think fit to do so, and they can alter the articles of association.

Cross-examined by Harry John Neal. The first return having your signature is 1879 (Neal here stated that he had signed that, and also the summary of capital for 1880, and the change of address to Leo Street, registered 22nd May, 1883, and one on the other side of that page).

HENRY CHARLES WATSON . I am a clerk in the Board of Trade Office, Whitehall—under the Life Assurance Companies Act of 1870 returns have to be made to that office of a company's accounts—I produce a letter, signed Thomas Joseph L. Bordman, dated 9th October 1882, which was an answer sent to one from our office to the Secretary of the Permanent Life Office applying for the accounts—the attention of the office had been drawn to some proceedings at the police-court—afterwards we received a letter dated 30th November from Mr. Bordman which contained the balance sheet—up to that time we had received no balance sheet whatever from the Permanent—I have got a letter here signed Harry John Neal, secretary, and also signed by John Miller, the chairman, and Willian Miller and Henry Lawrence, two directors, with a note at the bottom "Audited and found correct, John Daniels, public accountant, 53, Sutherland Street, Pimlico"—this balance sheet found on the premises when the prisoners were arrested is on a printed form, the signatures are in ink—this balance sheet is the revenue account of the Permanent for the year ending 29th June, 1882, under the Companies Act of 1870—the Life Assurance account is made up of premiums, 607l. 0s. 6d., and calls on shares 150l., making 757l. 0s. 6d. then on the other side, claims under policies 416l. 12s., commission 140l. odd, and then there is the amount at the end of the year as per second schedule at the bottom of the sheet 199l. 12s. 4d.—then on No. 2 the sickness assurance account premiums 3,696l., entrance fees 49l. 15s. 10d., making 3,746l.—the claims under policies 1,373l. 10s., commission 438l., expenses of management 1,025l., and expended in procuration of new business 546l. 12s., and the amount at the end of the year as per schedule is 362l., which balances that 3,746l.—then the endowment account is 149l. 9s., of which claims under policies 59l. 16s., and commission 13l. 10l., leaving amount at end of year as per second schedule 76l.—those three items 757l., 3,746l., and 149l. make the total receipts 4,652l.—then the money expended on actual claims leaving out commission is 416l. for life, 1,373l. for sickness, and 59l. for endowment, making 1849l., and that deducted from 4,652l. leaves 2,802l. for commission, acquiring new business, and management—the second schedule is also a balance sheet of the Permanent at the same date, signed in the same way—it shows shareholders' capital 2,200l. made up from the Life Assurance Fund 199l., sickness 362l., and endowment 76l., all brought down from No. 1—then there are outstanding premiums 573l., claims admitted and not paid 28l., the balance of the account 199l., agents' bonus 85l., cash in hand 87l., furniture and fittings at the head office 225l., and stamps, stationery, stereo blocks, &c, 179l., which makes 1,090l.—that taken from 2,896l. leaves 1,806l.—originally it was 1,706l., and afterwards it was altered to 1,806l.—that balance is put down as the amount expended in establishing the company—on that balance sheet being received it was sent back for amendment, and on 18th January, 1883, it was sent back with a letter signed Harry John Neal as secretary—the amended account merely made some alteration making 100l. difference, the 1,706l. is altered to 1,806l.—the alteration is in ink, the other figure looks like a printer's error—the second one sent in is signed by H. J. Neal, John Miller, William Miller, H. Lawrence, and J. Daniels; with the exception of that 100l. they are the same—that was the only balance sheet ever

sent—the old insurance life offices had to make no deposit—the new ones since 1870 have to deposit 20,000l.

Cross-examined by John Miller. We should not know how to apply for the returns of a defunct company—we find some 2,200l. worth of shares issued—we have no information as to whether that is the whole of the first issue—that would be a permanent charge on the company unless taken off—we know nothing of whether shares were issued to any one for services rendered, that would be a permanent charge on the company—if the company is charged with share capital it must be accounted for in some way—if the company had that charge there would be no other way than to charge it for the promotion of the company—that would cause the first balance sheet to be a heavy one in the way of expenses, and there is no way of getting out of it unless the company agreed that the capital should be reduced.

JOHN DANIELS . I am a public accountant of 53, Sutherland Street, Pimlico—I first became acquainted with John Miller on the 16th November, 1882, he left a message for me—I called on Mr. Bordman, a solicitor whom I had known for twenty years, and from what he said I went to Mr. Miller's office, 12, Westminster Bridge Road—the name of the Permanent was the only name up there—I saw John Miller and Neal, they showed me a lot of books and a balance sheet partially prepared, I simply amended it according to the books—I went through the books of the Permanent Life Office, some of those books had the heading British Imperial, which had been altered to Permanent—I altered the balance sheet according to the figures, and added it up—the signatures to the balance sheet are those of the defendants—I was not present when William Miller signed it—it purported to be a balance-sheet for 29th June, 1882—the books I had examined all started from November, 1881, I took it to be about seven months—I merely acted as auditor to check that balance-sheet—according to the books it was right—the 199l., 362l., and 76l. are supposed to be balances of their particular funds—in the second schedule the 638l. which they make is supposed to be set off amongst the items mentioned in the assets column; it is all gone—the result of the balance-sheet is that at the end of June, 1882, the agents owed 85l., and outstanding premiums were due of the amount of 513l., cash in hand was 87l., office furniture worth 225l., printing things 179l., that just leaves the 87l. in hand, out of which 28l. is due to claims not yet paid—the company going on at that time was a question of living from hand to mouth as the weekly subscriptions came in—there was not a farthing of money except the 87l.—I had nothing to do with the number of policies out—I was put down as auditor of the company—this was the only audit I had to do, and the only time I ever saw Miller—I did not know I was advertised as the auditor, I simply made this document as the result of my audit—I never saw a banker's book or any banking account.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I believe I had free access to all the company's books—everything I called for was produced—I examined all the books and certified them correct, I felt all the accounts were correct or I should not have signed—Mr. Neal assisted me—no one interfered with me in the slightest—I found the money paid for claims perfectly correct with the exception of a few mistakes in adding up the columns, as I corrected them they were correct—I examined the vouchers,

the majority were laid before me, I will not swear all were—whatever I asked for was supplied—you assured me there was a lot of liability before you took over the Company, you were obliged to credit yourselves with that, having taken over the liability—speaking from the books I am aware D'Aeth had shares allotted to him—I do not know the number—I know of no other way of disposing of those shares than by styling it promotion expenses—in restarting the company no doubt it would be necessary to have new prospectus forms set up, electrotyping the formes would cost a lot of money, but it would be wise for after use and economical, they would last for a number of years—on the faith of my signing the balance-sheet you signed it—responsibility undoubtedly rests on the auditor—I am not a judge of whether parties are criminally liable if he leads them. (MR. POLAND here intimated that it was not put forward that the balance-sheet was a false one, but that it was correct.)

Re-examined. I was shown stereo, plates of a prospectus and formes, and so on, cast metal things—I do not know how much they cost—I cannot say to whose pockets the money went.

GEORGE BENJAMIN COOPER . I am cashier of the Agra Bank, 38, Nicholas Lane, Lombard Street—from October, 1879, to April, 1883, John Miller had an account there in his own name—I can find no trace in the books of the bank of any account of the Permanent being kept there—John Miller's account was operated upon on the 19th April, 1883, and is still open technically, it has never been formally closed—on 19th April there was a balance to his credit of 1s. 3d.—I have a correct copy of his account from the time of its opening—the cheques originally drawn on the account were signed by John Miller, and then by a memorandum of December, 1881, we had only authority to pay cheques bearing the signatures of John and William Miller; and after that time to April, 1883, cheques were signed by John and William Miller—authority was never given to John Miller to overdraw the account—from time to time it was slightly overdrawn.

Cross-examined by John Miller. There was no account of the Permanent with the bank, I cannot say if authority was given to the Permanent to open one—I am not aware that on the 5th of January, 1882, the bank agreed to accept the Company's account. (The prisoner read a letter from the bank stating that they had no objection to an account being opened)—the account was not opened—it would be a useful and wise step to take to have the cheques signed by William as well as John to prevent forgery—I am only aware from the manager's statements that you called to see him on the 18th December to caution him against cheques on account of a cashbox robbery—I am not aware of any cheque being presented at the bank for 65l. purporting to be signed by you after the cashbox robbery—I have made inquiry since the last examination and find that you called in December, 1881, about your cashbox being stolen—after the 18th no cheques were to be paid unless bearing your and William's signatures—I think it was a very proper step to take to prevent further forged cheques being cashed afterwards.

Re-examined. I knew nothing at the time of the cashbox being stolen, John Miller came and said something to the manager, not to me—I did not hear what he said—in consequence of that cheques were afterwards to be signed by John and William.

HUGH WILLIAM JAMIESON . I am in the service of the Central Bank

as an accountant at the head office, 52, Cornhill—I have searched the books of the bank for the last twenty years to see if any account has been kept there of the British Imperial, there has not been—I made similar search with regard to the Permanent, and can find none—I also searched to see if John Miller had an account there, I could not find that he had one.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I believe Mr. Bordman, solicitor, is a customer at the Blackfriars branch of our bank in his own name—I have not seen any letters from Mr. Bordman asking us to accept the account of the Permanent—I cannot say such application was not made—we get the returns from the branch office.

BENJAMIN DAVIS . I live at 62, Beckway Street, Old Kent Road, and am in the service of a brewery—I have the letting of the house, No. 72, Southwark Bridge Road—that house was let to John Miller about three years ago, and occupied by him—I used to call for the rent—I believe I have seen Neal there—Miller left that house to go to 12, Westminster Bridge Road.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I cannot tell you now what date you took that house—I don't know if I can find the date—I always got my rent when I called for it—I had no trouble—I heard no complaints—I expressed regret when you left—there are a number of places in the Southwark Bridge Road used as offices—I can't say if you could get a cheaper office; you could get a smaller house if you wanted to economise.

By the JURY. I had no agreement with the house.

GEORGE ELL . My father carries on business at 288, Waterloo Road, and is a wheelwright—I assist him in business—he has the letting of 12, Westminster Bridge Road, the rent of which is 75l. per annum—John Neal took that house from September, 1880, and continued there till May, 1883—I have been there from time to time for the rent—I have seen him, John Miller, John Richard Miller, and Neal there—I am not quite sure about Charles Miller—I don't know Lawrence—I don't remember William Miller—I am quite sure of the other three—the rent was originally paid up to June, 1882—in October I put in a distress for rent for part of the quarter due at June—I seized and distrained upon goods at 12, Westminster Bridge Road, and 68, Duke Street—32l. 10s. was due for arrears of rent up to Michaelmas—he paid 5l. on account of June, and this was the balance on June and up to Michaelmas—the things seized were a printing-machine and other goods; the distress was paid out—68, Duke Street, is adjoining—after that distress, was paid out the rent got into arrears again, and we put in another distress for the rent up to Christmas—we released the distress on condition of his at once giving up the house—we were paid up to Christmas; the quarter up to March was not paid—he agreed to that arrangement, and gave up possession in May—when I have been there from time to time I have found the name of the company up at the place; the Permanent was on a brass plate on the door—I dont know what name was up in Duke Street—in Westminster Bridge Road it was a house with a shop under it.

Cross-examined by John Miller. The back doors of, I think, three houses divided the back door of 12, Westminster Bridge Road from 68, Duke Street, which would be the proper address for what was used as the printing office—for one and a half years I had no trouble; you paid

regularly—you gave an explanation as to why things were different from when you first came there—I did not hear any complaints against the company before you left.

CHARLES DANIEL CANNON . I was manager to Mr. Richard Thomas, the occupier of the office, 40, Gracechurch Street, some time ago—during that time our office at 40, Gracechurch Street, was let to Miller in May, 1883—the business conducted there was called the Commonwealth Insurance Company—a slip of paper was pasted on the door with the words, "The Commonwealth"—during the time John Miller came there he occupied the office; I also saw there Charles William Miller—the other prisoners may have been there; I should not like to swear to them—some of the people who came there asked for Neal, some for Harmer—it was a 12 months' tenancy I think—on 1st August, 1883, Mr. Thomas received this letter from John Miller, stating that on account of the expenses and the very little business done at the offices he must give them up and seek to come to some arrangement as to the terms on which they could be given up—the rent was 50l. a year—this is the agreement, dated 4th April, letting it to the Leicester Industrial Insurance Company, and on it is a memorandum dated 5th May transferring the interest from them to John Miller on behalf of "Permanent," and then comes John Miller's signature—with the letter of 1st August was this document in John Miller's writing, with a request that we would paste it across the door: "Commonweath Friendly Society, Chief Office, Victoria House, Camberwell Road. To members and others. Notice is hereby given, that for better working the chief office is removed from here to the above address. Mr. Thomas Harmar, secretary.—1st August, 1883. "In consequence of that, on 2nd August I went to Victoria House, Camberwell Road, and saw Miller, and told him we did not care about releasing him on such notice—he owed us 7l.—he said he would pay 3l. 10s. at the latter end of the week, and 3l. 10s. a fortnight afterwards; he would give 10l. to be released from Saturday by a bill drawn on the Commonwealth and secured by Mr. Miller—I wanted Harmar's address; he said he would not give it, and then he said Mr. Harmar was about removing from near the Crystal Palace—I agreed to take the furniture for 2l. 10s.—when the time came for that agreement to be carried into effect he came; he said he could not give any security, as his security was not worth anything.

Cross-examined by John Miller. You said things had not turned out with regard to Leo Street place as you thought they would—it was the fairest thing you could do to say you could not pay the rent, and ask us to release you—whether your bill would have been of any service depends on whether you were inclined to pay it or not—you could not pay it if you were arrested, but you were not arrested then.

Cross-examined by Charles William Miller. You fitted up the place at 40, Gracechurch Street, putting up some partitions, and doing carpenter's work there—I never saw you do anything else.

HENRY ROSS . I Jive at Hoo Road, Kidderminster, and am a wool sorter—I was canvassed by an agent named Morgan, and I commenced subscribing to the British Imperial in October, 1880—I was then living at Knighton, and afterwards moved to Kidderminster—I paid 7 1/2 d. a week for a policy for 12s. a week in case of sickness, and 12l. in case of death, and also 6l. at my wife's death—I paid 7 1/2 d. for part; I do not

remember what I paid for the rest of it—this is my book of the rules of the British Imperial, 12, Westminster Bridge Road—latterly I used to pay the agent, Mr. Chalk, at Kidderminsters—I don't know what has become of him—on 6th April, 1882, my wife died; in accordance with the rules I got a certificate of her death, and sent it with the policy, and two books that our subscriptions were entered in, in one of their envelopes, to 12, Westminster Bridge Road, by post—no subscriptions were in arrear; two weeks had been paid in advance—I got no acknowledgment of the books and policy and certificate of death—I wrote again, and telegraphed; I could get no answer—I then communicated with some solicitors at Kidderminster—I never got any payment for my wife's death—I then ceased to subscribe—at the time I paid the money I believed this British Imperial Was a solvent friendly society, with funds in the hands of the trustees—I should not have gone on paying week by week unless I had thought it was all right.

By the COURT. The policy and papers were not returned by the Dead Letter Office.

By the JURY. Mr. Chalk left Kidderminster—he sent my money to the head office because he told me he sent in his resignation and his books—I don't know why he left the neighbourhood—I believe his affairs were considered to be in a prosperous state—I saw him telegraph and I saw him send once to 12, Westminster Bridge Road.

JAMES MALT . I live at 101, Green House Street, Wigan, and am agent for the Liver Friendly Society of Liverpool—I became a subscriber to the "Permanent" on 31st October, 1881—this book (produced) was then given to me; it records the payments I made—I paid 2d. a week down to 24th July, 1882, for a policy on the life of my daughter Mabel Helen, who was a year old when it was made—she died 27th July, 1882—I gave notice of it to the Permanent office, 12, Westminster Bridge Road, accompanied by a certificate of her death—6l. was the full amount insured for twelve months, but as she died in six months 4l. was due—I did not get the money; I took County Court proceedings—I got judgment and execution against the company, but no money—at the time I paid the money from week to week I believed the company to be a genuine and solvent one, and that I should get my money if an accident happened to the insured—I was appointed agent to the society for Wigan I believe by Neal—I cannot say for certain, it was by writing; I have lost it.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I received receipts from your office for money I sent—I haven't got them here—from my judgment I can swear John Miller received it.

Cross-examined by Neal. I won't swear I was appointed by you because I have not got the document—I think it was you—when I resigned you came to my house and pressed me to keep on, and offered me better terms, and I declined to receive them.

JOSEPH DRYNAN . I live at 5, Botolph Road, Bow, and am a clerk—I was canvassed by James Doran, an agent of the British Imperial, in March, 1881—I subscribed 3d. a week to insure 12l., 6l. on my mother's death—she died on 5th August, 1882—I gave him the certificate of her death and the subscription books and policy, and filled up the identity forms—I got no money—I appealed to Doran; he did not pay me—I went to the office, 12, Westminster Bridge Road, and saw Neal, and said

I had come after the money due to me—he said there was no occasion for me to trouble myself about it, for the money would be sent down—I applied several times afterwards; the money was not sent—I went again six or seven times altogether, to the office—I saw Neal on nearly every occasion—I told him all the particulars, and I said I should put it in the hands of a solicitor—he said "It is no use doing that," and that he would send the money—it never came—besides calling, I wrote to Mr. Brett, the solicitor, and he wrote two letters, but got no reply—I could get no money—I got no notice that in October, 1881, or before, the British Imperial had been transferred to the Permanent, and when I got there I was surprised to see Permanent on the brass plate on the door—when I subscribed I believed the British was still in existence, and a solvent office carrying on a regular business, and that the main funds were entrusted to trustees for the purpose of paying claims.

Cross-examined by Neal. I should think I saw you every time—I saw a younger man than any of the prisoners, but you were there as well.

WILLIAM NOSSITER . I am a licensed waterman, living at 30, Lord Street, Landport—I am Charles Nossiter's father, he died on 14th August, 1882—I administered to his estate, and some one forwarded his policy to the Permanent claiming 10l.—I received this letter in reply: "I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th, which shall receive attention. Yours, J. Miller"—I got no money—I went to a solicitor, Mr. Feltum, and put the matter into his hands.

ISABEL TAYLOR . I am the wife of John Taylor, and live at 13, Bel-mont Terrace, Harrow Road, Hastings—I subscribed to the Templars, the British Imperial, and the Permanent, beginning on 17th May, 1875, 11d. a week first and then 10d. a week, when I found my own doctor—this is my policy, signed J. Wells and by other persons—J. Wells is J. Miller—I knew him living at Brighton as J. Wells in connection with the Templars—on 12th December, 1877, my husband became ill, and I received sick pay up September, 1882—in the meantime I had received notice by this letter of 13th May, 1881, signed John Miller, that the Templars had been transferred to the British, (This letter was addressed to Mr. Taylor, and requested him, as an agent of the Pearl had been speaking against their society, to send a testimonial to the benefit he had received from it.) My husband did write—he did not mean it to be made a testimonial of—on 20th September, 1882, we had continued our subscriptions, and we sent our books up—we did not get the last two back, and no more sick pay—we received sick pay up to 2nd September, 1882, and could not get any after that—we wrote repeatedly—on March, 1883, I got this letter on a form of the Permanent; it purports to be signed by Neal, dated 22nd March, 1883: "I will lay your matter before the directorate at their next meeting and let you know their decision"—we got no money at all—my husband was still very ill, in the same condition as he had been before, and was entitled to pay—I could get no money after 2nd September, 1882—in the meantime I saw J. Miller at Hastings on October 22nd, 1882, in conversation with my husband at our house—I could not hear what was said—I followed him from my door to a shop, and when I saw he had a book in his hand with "Permanent Life" written on the top, I said "You are the very man I want. Is your name Wells?"—he said "No"—I said "Is it Miller?"—he said "No"—I said "Why have you not answered our letters about my husband's sick pay?"—he

said "Oh, the society has ceased to work owing to the misappropriation of the funds at Brighton"—I told him that he ought to have written, but the only answer he made was, the society had ceased to work—I said I knew him to be Wells from Brighton, and I believed him to be Miller in London—he said I never told a bigger falsehood in my life—when they transferred us from the Templars to the British a young man came round and asked our consent—we knew we had been transferred to the Permanent because they paid us from the Permanent—I thought the British Imperial and Permanent were all one—up to 20th September I believed that the British society was a genuine society with a solvent business and keeping funds for the purpose of paying.

Cross-examined by John Miller. My husband commenced to receive sick pay about a week after 12th September, 1877—we had great trouble in getting it after you transferred the society from Brighton to London, and after writing you sent a young man to ask our consent to transferring us from the Templars to the British Imperial—we did not hear for a long time that there was an upset, and that the directors were sued at the Court—we had the money made up to us and continued to receive it till September 1882—we used to make up our book every six weeks, and send it up with 5s.—you used not to send every week—when I sent the book you were supposed to deduct the premium and send us the remainder of the sick pay—I do not know that other life assurance agents spoke against the society in the town—my husband sent you a letter in answer to yours, but he did not say you might publish it—you told me on 22nd October, 1883, the company had ceased to work—I did not say "Oh, John Wells has started a loan company in Brighton with the money"—I said I had seen it in Lloyd's News, and that I believed it was you, and "If you do not take care you will find yourself in the hands of the police"—you did not say I had never made a greater mistake in my life, you were in a great hurry to get away—I said at Southwark Police-court "I believe you had started a loan society in Brighton with the money"—you made no answer.

By the COURT. The amount of the sick pay is 3s. 9d. a week.

JAMES ROGERS . I am a porter and live at 82, Latimer Road, Liverpool—about July, 1881, I insured the life of my child Arthur in the British Imperial—I paid one penny a week and was to receive 50s. at his death—he died on the 1st November, 1882—I paid my subscriptions to an agent named Ashley—I gave him the certificate of death to be forwarded to London—I received no money—I took out a summons against the Permanent Fire and Life Assurance Society—no one appeared to that summons—I believed this was a genuine concern—I obtained judgment, and that was all I obtained.

WILLIAM ROGERS . I am a timekeeper, and live at 5, Lilac Grove, Liverpool—I joined the British Imperial in October, 1881—I paid one penny a week, and was to receive 6l. 11s. on the death of my wife—I was transferred to the "Permanent," and received a fresh book—my wife died on 14th November, 1882—I had paid my subscriptions up to that time, and one week in advance—I gave Ashley the policy, the book, and certificate of death—I did not get any money—I took out a summons in Liverpool County Court—no one appeared, and I obtained judgment and costs—I got an execution warrant, but there was nothing to levy upon;

when I parted with my money I believed the company was a genuine one.

JAMES HARVEY . I am beerhouse keeper of Carlisle Street, Sheffield—in August, 1880, I subscribed 1s. a week to the British Imperial Society to an agent named Dunn—20l. was to be paid at my death, 18s. a week in case of sickness, and 2l. on the death of my wife—on 23rd August, 1881, I was taken ill, and applied to Mr. Jessop, who was the new collector—at first I was paid, but after a time payment ceased—I placed the matter in the hands of Messrs. Clegg, my solicitors—Jessop then paid part, but not all—on 12th November, 1882, my wife died—I handed him certificate of death, book, and policy, to be sent to London—I did not receive any money, and my solicitors took proceedings in the County Court—the society did not appear—I got judgment, but nothing else.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I had been ill ten or a dozen weeks—I do not think I received as much as 8l. from the society—I was paid sometimes 2s. or 3s. at a time—I did not make any complaint to the office of any irregularity on the part of Jessop—I complained to Jessop himself—he wanted to say that I was not very well when I joined the society—he said something to the effect that he had a certificate from the medical man that I had suffered three years ago from disease of the bowels—at the Southwark Police-court I acknowledged that I was suffering from debility.

CHARLOTTE LONSDALE . I am a widow and live at 95, Kinglake Street, Old Kent Road—my husband subscribed 1s. 2d. a week to the British Imperial and afterwards to the Permanent—18l. was to be paid at his death and 18s. a week in case of sickness—he died on 18th November 1882—he had been ill about 12 weeks before his death—he received 18s. a week for all except the last two weeks—I took the book, policy, and certificate of death to the offices, 12, Westminster Bridge Road—I saw Neal, who said I should have a cheque forwarded on Thursday, but it did Not come—I went to the offices about five times—I saw John Miller twiee, and John Richard Miller once—John Miller told me there was going to be a Board meeting that night and I should hear the next day—I did not hear, and I called again at the office and found they had left—I also wrote, and received in reply four letters—I never received any money—I believed the company was a genuine one.

Cross-examined by John Miller. When I received the 18s. a week I considered the company was a genuine one—my husband was paralysed—Mr. Paulton brought me a paper, which I signed—I did not read it.

MARY ANN GREEN . My first husband's name was George Harris—I live at Charlton, near Moreton-in-the-Marsh, Gloucestershire—I am now the wife of Arnold Green—my first husband subscribed 11d. a week to the Permanent Society—10s. a week was to be paid in sickness and 10l. at death—he died on 20th November, 1882—I sent the certificate of death with the policy and book to Mrs. Sturt, but I never got the money although I applied several times—ultimately I placed the matter in the hands of my solicitor—I received several letters on printed forms, and that was all I did receive.

Cross-examined by John Miller. My husband entered the society in June, 1881—Mr. Williams enrolled him—he received sick pay for a fortnight, and then he was ill again and I only had 5s. instead of 1l.—when

I received the fortnight's pay I considered the society a genuine one—Mrs. Sturt did not inform me that certain parties were wrecking the company.

SARAH WILSON . I am wife of Josiah Wilson, and live at Lawston, in Cambridgeshire—in the beginning of 1875 I entered my two children in the Templars' Society—I paid 2d. a week each—that was to be for seven years—I paid my subscriptions regularly—in November, 1882, the sum became due—I never heard anything about the British Imperial—when the endowment became due I applied for the money through Mr. Tart, of Lawston—it did not come—I wrote to the office, and received a reply signed by John Miller saying the case would be attended to the latter part of next week—it was not attended to, and I wrote again—I did not get the money—when I paid the money for this endowment I believed the company was a genuine one.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I never heard any complaints in my district against the society—I did not understand that I was on the British Imperial.

WILLIAM JOHN HARRINGTON . I am a painter, and live at 1, Fisher's Lane, Turnham Green—I paid 9 1/2 d. a week to the Permanent, and was to be paid 14s. a week in sickness and 14l. at death—I paid up to October, 1882—the last two payments were made to Charles Miller—he told me he was a fresh agent, and that he had taken Mr. Bransgrove's place—I had an uncle who subscribed 1s. 3d. a week—20l. was to be paid at his death—he died in November, 1882—when Charles Miller called on me I told him of my uncle's death and asked him for a death form to fill up—my uncle's name was Charles Lyrett—I went to the office, 12, Westminster Bridge Road, and saw John Miller—I took the books, the policy, and certificate—I told him my uncle was dead and I had come to receive the money—he looked at the policy and book and said I was to have a death claim—he said it was a regular swindle, and he refused to pay—I called again, and told him the undertaker wanted his money, and he said he would investigate it—he said I was to pay the undertaker—I said "I cannot pay him before I get the money from you"—he said "We have so many of these sort of cases up here"—I told him I should put it in my solicitor's hands, and he said I could do what I liked—I put it into the hands of Mr. Marshall, of Hammersmith, but I did not get the money.

Cross-examined by John Miller. My uncle was ill nine or ten months—there was a little bother occasionally about getting his money, but he got it pretty fairly—during the time he was receiving this money I never heard him say the society was not a genuine one—I should consider it a very good one to pay for thirteen months—I cannot give you the date he joined—he was at one time in Brompton Hospital.

Cross-examined by C. W. Miller. I do not know that the reason of your calling on me was in consequence of irregularities in Mr. Bransgrove's account—I asked you to sign a death claim and you said "Send it up to the office"—you did not say "Bring it to the office and if it is right for me to sign it I will"—when you called again I told you some one else besides my wife had called at the hospital for the doctor's certificate, and it was refused—you did not persuade me to make up the differences with Mr. Lyrett and have the money between us—I never saw you afterwards—I can swear you never made that suggestion to me—my uncle left a will.

HENRY BUTLER . I live at 16, Regent Street, Brighton, and am a police constable of the borough—I subscribed to the Templars from December, 1873, to December, 1880—I was transferred to the British Imperial and received a book, and in November, 1881, I was again transferred to the Permanent—I subscribed 2d. a week on an endowment policy for ten years—at the end of that time I was to receive 4l. 7s. 1d.—my book was signed by Wells, the manager—Wells is the present John Miller—Bendle, the agent, called for my last subscription, and took the policy away—he said I should get the money in a few weeks—I wrote to the office and received two replies, but got no money—when I was transferred I was told the companies were amalgamated and they would be much stronger—I paid my subsciptions believing the society was a bond-fids one, and that the money would be paid to me.

By John Miller. It was never represented to me that there had been any losses.

JOHN POLLARD . I live at 5, Gloucester Street, South Lambeth, and am a boiler maker—in October, 1880, I subscribed to the British Imperial—in 1882 I was transferred to the Permanent—I paid 1s. 1d. a week to insure 18s. a week—about a fortnight before they stopped I got this policy in the Commonwealth—it says "Chief office, Victoris House, Camberwell Road, registered pursuant to Act of Parliament"—when I first made these payments to the Commonwealth I believed it was a friendly society registered pursuant to Act of Parliament—I believed everything was going on honestly and fairly—I also believed the Permanent and the British Imperial were genuine societies—I met with an accident to my eye, and I received sick pay for twelve or thirteen weeks, and then the collector ceased to call—I called upon him him and he referred me to the office in Gracechurch Street—I went there three times but could find no one there—I went to Camberwell, but could find no one there—I wrote a threatening letter, and John Miller called and paid me every halfpenny that was due—he said that the society was going on nice and comfortably, and everything was going on straight—he asked me to dign this paper, which I did—I had nothing to do with being transferred.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I thought it was fair and honest for you to pay me my money—you took me over to the "Commonwealth"—I had nothing to do with being transferred.

WILLIAM HOUGHTON . I am a railway agent—I joined the "Templars" in May, 1875—this is the policy; it is signed J. Wells—at that time I was living in Yeovil—I paid 11d. a week, and was to receive 15s. 6d. in case of sickness—at first I paid the agent, but afterwards I sent the money by post to Westminster Bridge Road to the secretary—I received a notice of the transfer from the Templars to the British, but I did not get a fresh policy—I went on paying, and then I got a book with the name of the "Permanent" on it—I used to get receipts through the post signed by Neal—I continued to pay until February, 1883—at the beginning of 1883 I was ill for two weeks and a half—I wrote to the head office and made my claim, but I never got a farthing—I got these two replies to my letters—this has done me an irreparable injury, because no other society will have me now—at the time I paid this money to the British I thought it was a safe and genuine concern—what made me think so more was because in 1880 I had two weeks' sick pay—I believed

the "Permanent" was a regular insurance office with capital to pay people who took out policies.

SAMUEL DICKIN . I am a furniture manufacturer at Wolverhampton—in July, 1881, I became a subscriber to the Permanent—I paid 9s. a week for an endowment policy on my aunt, Anne Carrier, to receive 100l. at her death—I also subscribed 2s. 6d. a week for an endowment on the life of James Newberry, to receive 26l. 5s. at his death—I also subscribed 9d. a week for a policy on John Foyn, also 1s. 7d. for Phœbe Daniel—my aunt died on 19th February, 1883, and I sent to London a certificate of death, but I never got a single farthing—I got several replies stating my applications should receive attention—when I paid this money I thought the Permanent was a company carrying on a legitimate business with accumulating funds for the purpose of paying the policies as they became due; in fact, I left the "Royal Liver" to come into it.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I insured seven lives in this company—two of them were not related to me; the others were—I insured those lives for the money to bury them—I did not do it as a speculation—I insured Ann Carrier's life for 100l. to bury her—I did not want 100l. for that purpose—Isaac Gold was the agent who took these cases—he took them at different times—they were all examined by a medical man—I am not aware that the medical officer of that district signed papers for people without seeing them.

LYDIA REEVES . I am the widow of Reuben Reeves, and live at Brighton—he subscribed to the Templars, and was afterwards transferred to the British, and then to the Permanent—he paid 1s. 1d. a week, and was to receive 14s. a week when ill, 5s. for his son Frederick; and 12l. was to be paid at his death, and 4l. at Frederick's, and 2l. 10s. if I died within five years—my husband died on 20th February, 1883—Mr. Swaysland, the agent, came to my house and took the certificate of death, the policy, and the collecting-books, and forwarded them to the office in London—these letters were sent to my solicitor—I never got the money.

Cross-examined by John Miller. My husband was ill two weeks before he died, and he received his pay—I remember there were some disputes at Brighton—I remember Mr. Houston, one of my neighbours, being summoned to the Court—I don't remember anything particular about it.

WILLIAM LAW . I am a carpenter, and live at Abingdon—in 1881 I subscribed to the British Imperial—this is my policy—the premium was 11d. a week, 12l. to be paid at my death, and 6l. on the death of my wife, and 12s. a week when sick—I never missed paying the money—in February, 1883, I became ill—I tried to get my sick pay from the agent, bat did not get any—I then wrote to the office of the British Imperial—I got no answer and no money—I took proceedings in the County Court, and got judgment—I did not know I had been transferred to the Permanent—I believed this was a solvent society, carrying on its business in the ordinary way of a friendly society, and that it had got a capital of 100,000l., as mentioned on the envelope.

Cross-examined by John Miller. The 100,000l. was mentioned on the envelopes of the British Imperial—I won't swear that it was—I noticed "100,000l.," but not the "Permanent"—it is "British Imperial" on the policy, and that is what I went by—it may be the "Permanent"—I

knew I had seen it somewhere—I did not know anything about the "Permanent."

ANN BURGESS . I am the widow of James Burgess, and live at 12, Prince of Wales Crescent, Kentish Town—we first of all subscribed to the British Imperial, and paid 10d. a week on a policy to secure 13s. a week in the event of my husband's sickness, and 12l. in case of death—Mr. Golding, the agent, took that policy away—some time before that I had been transferred to the Permanent—I paid down to March, 1883—my husband died on the 9th March—I informed Mr. Golding of that and made a request for the payment of 12l.—he was good enough to pay me 6l. out of his own pocket—on 2nd April I received this communication from the office—that came in this envelope, on which is printed "Permanent Life and Fire Insurance Company, Limited. Capital 100,000l."—not getting the money I went to 12, Westminster Bridge Road, and saw Charles Miller—I told him I had come to see about my money—he said he did not know anything about it, but that the secretary would be there presently—I waited some time but he never came—I asked Gharles Miller where he lived, and he said at King's Cross—I said if he lived at King's Cross he had moved since Saturday, for he did not live there then, as he was living in the Camberwell Road—he told me he used to live at 157—I went there and saw John Miller—I asked him why I did not get the remainder of my husband's death money—he told me to go home and keep quiet and I should be paid, or something to that effect—I was not paid and I took out a summons in the County Court, which there was I difficulty in serving—I found out Charles Miller's address, 9, Leo Street, and went there and saw him—he said he knew nothing about the matter, that some letters had been sent there and he had passed them on to 157, Camberwell Road—I have never received the other 6l.—I believed this was a genuine society.

Cross-examined by John Miller. My husband was laid up previously—he died somewhat suddenly—he always had his sick pay—I never heard of any one in the neighbourhood who had not his sick pay—I never heard any complaints about the company.

Cross-examined by Charles Miller. When I called at 12, Westminster Bridge Road you were behind the counter—I do not know what you were doing—I cannot say that you had your apron on—you told me the manager lived at King's Cross and the secretary lived at Shepherd's Bush—I said on Saturday he lived at 157, Camberwell Road, and you said he used to live there—I will swear you did not say it was your brother I wanted—I never knew who you were until I found you out in Leo Street—you told me letters were left there to be called for—I might have spoken to your wife; she kept a little sweetstuff shop—you came in from the back yard to see me—I cannot say if you had your tools in your hand at the time.

SARAH BERRY . I am the wife of Samuel Berry, who is a mail cart driver, living near Barnstaple—I insured the lives of my two children in the British Imperial—I paid 3d. a week, and on the death of one of them I was to receive 2l.—I was transferred to the "Permanent," and I continued my payments in that—one of my children died on 22nd March, 1883—I sent up the certificate of death and got a formal reply—I received 11s. 6d. from Mr. Curtis, the agent, and that was all I got.

ELLEN MARTIN . I am the wife of Charles Martin, and live at Hallows

Street, Old Brentford—I insured three of my children in the "Permanent" in August, 1881—I paid 9d. a week for my husband, and 1d. a. week for each child—I paid to three different agents, Chalkley, Bransgrove, and Charles Miller—I was transferred to the Commonwealth—my husband has been laid up, but I have not been able to get any money—I believed this was a regular friendly society, and registered under the Act—Charles Miller assured me it was as true as it could be.

GEORGE ALLEN . I am execution officer at Southwark Police-court—on several occasions I have had executions against the Permanent Life Office, 12, Westminster Bridge Road—on 14th February, 1883, I put in execution on a Judgment from the Liverpool County Court, at the suit of Rogers, for 9l. 7s. 9d.—there were no effects—on 1st March there was another one at the suit of James Harvey, of Sheffield, for 14l. 9s. 6d., and then there were no effects—on one occasion I saw John Miller, and he claimed the goods as his personal property, and I was not able to levy against the "Permanent."

JOSEPH STUBBS . I am a carman and greengrocer, at 23, Cross Street, Blackfriars Road—I was made a trustee of the British Imperial, but I had no trust—I was trustee from the latter end of 1879 to the early part of 1882—I had also been paying in money as a member—the meetings were attended by John Miller, his son William, and Neal—I received 2s. 6d. for attending each meeting.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I do not know that money was put in the Post-office Savings Bank in my name—I did not sign a paper to draw the money out—I went to Blackman Street on one occasion for a few pounds—I joined the British Imperial early in 1879—my wife died, and I received 10l. from the society—during the time I was connected with it I heard no complaints—I ceased my connection with the British Imperial because that business was taken over by the "Permanent"—I wrote that I wished to resign—I have not a copy of that letter—I had no particular reason, but I wished to get out of it.

Re-examined. I think I was trustee for 5l. in the savings bank—I am not quite sure about that.

THOMAS HARMER . I live at 3, Palace Road, Upper Norwood—my father is a greengrocer, and I assist him—I first knew John Miller when I was lodging at Mrs. Aldridge's, at Peckham—he asked me to sign this paper—it is dated 2nd May, 1883—some time before that he told me he was getting up a society, and asked me to sign my name as secretary—I said I did not mind signing it—I was introduced to him by Mrs. Aldridge as her uncle—I never went near the offices at 40, Gracechurch Street—I believe I went to Victoria House once—I did not know policies were issued with my name on—at the request of John Miller I signed a letter as secretary to the Postmaster-General for the letters to be addressed to Victoria House, Camberwell Road—I was to receive 5s. a month for attending one night a month—I was never shown any of the policies or the cards—I know nothing of friendly societies.

Cross-examined by John Miller. A notice was sent to me respecting the meeting and asking me to call—I expected if the society became a success to have some place in connection with it—I do not know what a prospectus is.

ST. JOHN WONTNER . I am a solicitor of Ludgate Chambers, Ludgate Hill—I am acting in this matter for the Treasury under the direction

of the Public Prosecutor—a number of papers have been handed over to me—amongst them is an agreement of 7th May between Mrs. Rust, William Miller, and John Miller, of 12, Westminster Bridge Road—that is an agreement for 157, Camberwell Road—John Miller covenants to be answerable for the rent—I also find an agreement of 20th September, 1882, between John Miller and the Permanent Life Office—that is a letting by John Miller of 12, Westminster Bridge Road to the Permanent at 8l. 10s. a month—then there is an agreement of 5th May, 1883, by John Miller taking the offices in Gracechurch Street for the "Commonwealth"—there is also a minute book of the Permanent—the first meeting in it is 6th October, 1881—there were present John Miller, William Miller, Neal, D'Aeth, Quelch, Monteith, and Graham—on that occasion there was an alteration of the articles of association so as to enable the directors to hold offices of profit, and it was resolved that John Miller, William Miller, Monteith, Graham, and Quelch were to be the first directors—John Miller was to be managing director, William Miller manager, and Neal secretary—on 23rd November, 1881 it was resolved that the following salaries be paid to the directors weekly: John Miller five guineas, William Miller three guineas, Neal three guineas, John Richard Miller three guineas, George Miller one guinea, Quelch two and a half guineas, Graham two and a half guineas, and Charles Miller 1l. 5s.—Graham resigned on 24th January, 1882—by the minute of 5th April, 1882, J. and W. Richard were to be paid a guinea a week for the use of their printing plant—on 1st June, 1882, J. R. Miller and H. Lawrence were appointed directors—after that date J. R. Miller and Neal attended the meetings—I produce several letters from Neal—J. R. Miller ceased to be a director on 8th February, 1883, and he was then to have a salary of 25s. a week.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I am not sufficiently conversant with the accounts to be able to state that the salaries were never received—I find from a casual glance at the books that salaries were drawn by the directors weekly, also travelling expenses, and a variety of other things—the money seems to have gone as fast as it came in—there is no doubt that the books show that the expenditure exceeded the receipts—according to the Act of Parliament you are not entitled to expend more than 40 per cent, of the receipts in the management, but you have expended 120 per cent.

By J. R. Miller. You appear to have attended seven meetings as director—the last date that you appear in the minutes is the 7th December, 1882.

WILLIAM CHAMBERLAIN (Police Inspector). In the autumn of 1882 I remember a number of complaints being made against these societies—I remember Ludwig and the other persons being charged at the Lambeth Police-court in October, 1882—I arrested them on a warrant obtained by John Miller—after cross-examination they were discharged—I saw John Miller and told him of the numerous complaints that were being sent to the police—I said to him "I have no doubt if you don't close the office you will be prosecuted"—I think that was in December, 1882—on the last occasion he said "Yes, things are very bad; me and Mr. Bordman, the solicitor, have been thinking of a scheme, and we are going to start afresh; if anything turns up in this place I shall stop it and get out of it altogether"—that was Westminster Bridge Road—he said he had

made the Permanent from a friendly society to a company, as he found the law was very stringent, and a few could make it very awkward, and as a company they could not prosecute him—on the 26th August I arrested Neal in Leo Street, Kent Road—I told him "I have a warrant for your arrest for conspiring with Miller and others, for frauds in connection with the Permanent Life and Fire Insurance Company"—he said "Well, I have not had much of the money; I am now at work at a builder's with Charles Miller, who got me on there. I have a wife and three children at home, and there is not a penny in the house, I have hardly any bread for them to eat. I have been with Miller nine or ten years. I have acted as secretary, and as agent in several of the friendly societies, and in the Permanent Company. I have been drawn into this. I could see things were going wrong, I sent in my resignation to John Miller in July last. He declined to accept it at first and said I was a fool. Knowing it was all wrong I insisted on resigning. He now owes me 9l. or 10l."—at that time Charles Miller came up, and Neal said "Mr. Bordman and Miller have dragged us into it. Bordman has been to Bridport, Taunton, and other places making speeches in favour of the society when he knew it was going wrong. He was the cause of those men being arrested (referring to Waldron, Ludwig, and others) because they told the truth. Bordman and Miller drew up the information against them. I do not care to do it, but I don't mind telling the whole truth about the matter"—I searched 157, Camberwell Road, and found a large quantity of papers—I went to Mrs. Marriott's house, the place John Miller occupied, and I got there a large number of other papers and books and printing presses in working order for printing Commonwealth papers.

By the COURT. The two Richards were the two brothers John and William Miller.

Cross-examined by Neal. When I arrested you I took you to your house, No. 58—I expressed my surprise at finding you so poor—you showed me a lot of pledge tickets and said you had pledged things to pay the claims of the company and to live—you said Miller owed you 9l. or 10l. for salary—I gave your children some coppers because I could see there was nothing to eat.

Cross-examined by Charles Miller. When I arrested you Neal did not say you had nothing to do with it, and he could not see what I wanted you for.

GEORGE WALDOCK (Police Sergeant L). On 26th October I followed John Miller from 157, Camberwell Road—he got into a tram-car—when near the Elephant and Castle I said "I want to speak to you"—he said "I cannot stop now, I am going somewhere"—I said "I am a police-officer, and you must get out"—he got out, and I told him I was going to arrest him on a warrant for conspiring with others in obtaining money under false pretences—on the way to the station he said "I have defrauded nobody, nor obtained any money"—on the same day I went with Chamberlain and Jupe to 157, Camberwell Road, and found there a number of papers relating to different societies, which I handed to Mr. Wontner—the same evening, about 8 o'clock, I arrested John Richard Miller at 157, Camberwell Road—I told him the charge—he said "What about my brother George, are you going to have him as well?"—I said "There are others mentioned in the warrant"—he said "What about my brother William in America, are you going to have him? and what

about Bordman, are you going to have him? he is as bad as any of them"—he also said "I did not do much in it. I was employed there as clerk, like my brother George. I have got nothing to do with it now. The old man has been round several times and made a disturbance because I would have nothing to do with the Commonwealth"—I went with him to his house in Well Street, Camberwell—I said I was going to have a look round his place, and he pointed to under the window—I found a number of things and an eagle stamp referring to the Eagle society.

Cross-examined by J. R. Miller. You had a boot and shoe shop at Well Street.

HENRY JUTE (Police Sergeant L). On 26th October I took Charles William Miller in custody in a street near Leo Street—I told him he would be charged with Neal and others in conspiring and obtaining sums of money from several persons with intent to cheat and defraud—he said "You have made a mistake, you should have apprehended John Miller and his son William; they are the biggest rogues. I was employed in the office doing odd jobs, and if old John Miller is trying to put me into it I will round and tell all I know. I had a plate up over the fanlight for the Commonwealth society, and received letters for the old man, but I was advised not to have anything more to do with it, and I stopped them being sent there"—he then said "Have you got Jack Miller?"—I said "No"—he said "He lives down in Well Street, Camberwell, and keeps a boot and shoe shop. He is as bad as any of them. What about Bordman, the solicitor, have you got him?"—I said "No"—he said "Well, he ought to be with us, he knows all about it. The poor men they tried to prosecute were innocent, and it was concocted between them to get these poor men into trouble because they told the depositors how they were being swindled. If you want William he is out in America, and the old man has sent out the certificate of the Permanent Assurance to him, and he is starting it out there. Bordman and he concocted the balance-sheet before the men were arrested."

Cross-examined by Charles Miller. I arrested you, and not Waldron—I spoke to you first—he was with me—you had your tools and a basket with you—I will swear I did not say the old man had said that you had all robbed him.

Witnesses for the Defence.

HENEY RAMSEY (Examined by J. R. Miller). At the latter part of 1879 I was secretary of the Templars' and General Sick Benefit Society—I cannot say who the committee were at that time—I was summoned to the Court for refusing to show the books to William Miller—the committee of the Templars were brought up at the same time for misappropriating 360l.—the affairs of the Templars and General were not at all satisfactory, and I handed over the money and books to the Board, and they appointed John Miller, so that the business should be transferred to London, which was done, and the money which was in the post-office savings-bank was drawn out and handed over to him—it was about 80l.—you did not pay me four guineas—I made a return of money I received during the time I was secretary.

JOSEPH ANDREW GRAHAM (Examined by Charles Miller). I remember your coming to 12, Westminster Bridge Road in 1881—the Permanent Company was just beginning to work—you had odd jobs of all kinds to

do there, and you were housekeeper as well—you also used to work in the printing-office—you did not have anything to do with the papers and books whilst I was there, from October, 1881, to 1882.

Cross-examined by J. R. Miller. You were in Scotland when I went to the office—there were about ten people employed there.

Cross-examined by Ned. Two or three people took charge of the books of the Permanent Company—William Miller and yourself—you had charge of the cash-book and entered the returns as they came in—you used to travel.

Cross-examined by MR. POLARD. I was a director from October, 1881, until 17th January, 1882, and then I gave notice that no policies were to be issued in my name—my name used after that date would be entirely without my authority—J. R. Miller at one time managed the office at Glasgow.

JOHN STEDWELL DRAGE (Examined by C. W. Miller). I am an insurance broker, and have an office in Craven street, Strand—I don't remember when you came up to London—the Permanent Life Office did not commence until the latter end of November, but everything was arranged and going on to work—you were employed as a carpenter and housekeeper and in the printing-office—during the time I was there I never saw you have anything to do with the books or papers.

WILLIAM HENRY GOLDEN (Examined by Charles William Miller). I was frequently at the office 12, Westminster Bridge Road—I was one of the agents—you were employed there as carpenter and housekeeper—I saw you cleaning and repairing the premises; you were also employed in the printing office—I never saw you engaged with any of the books—I had no idea that you knew anything of the company's affairs.

Cross-examined by MR. POLAND. I was the agent in Burgess's case—all the money I collected I sent to the office—I did that about eighteen months, up to April, 1883, when I resigned because I could not get the claims paid—I sent up altogether about 89l.

Cross-examined by John Miller. I paid Mrs. Burgess 6l. on account of her claim, and I charged that in the accounts of the company—I did not pay it out of my own pocket.

THOMAS HARMER (Examined by John Richard Miller). My name was used by John Miller, a secretary of the Commonwealth—I never knew you to collect for that society—I believe the first time I saw you was at the Southwark Police-court.

Cross-examined by Harry John Neal. I never saw you at Camberwell Road—the first time I saw you was at Southwark Police-court—I do not believe I ever heard your name in connection with the Commonwealth—I am quite certain.

Re-examined. I never heard your name mentioned in connection with the Commonwealth—the first time I saw you was at Southwark Police-court.

GEORGE MILLER (Examined by John Richard Miller). I believe it was on a Friday evening when I heard of John Miller being arrested—I told you of the fact at 72, Wells Street—that is about ten minutes' walk from Camberwell Road—you said you would go round and see what your mother was going to do—whilst you were gone Inspector Chamberlain came to 72, Wells Street and your wife told him where you had gone—you and John Miller were not on friendly terms for some time before

the arrest, and that was in consequence of jour refusing to have anything to do with the Commonwealth.

By John Miller. Since your arrest I have been the sole support of my mother and brother.

By Charles Miller. I was in the office at Westminster Bridge Road—you were employed there principally as a carpenter to do odd jobs, but you used to collect occasionally, and you have been sometimes to Somerset House to get policies stamped—you had nothing to do with the books or papers.

By Neal. You used to do a deal of travelling for the company and were often away from the office, and then William Miller used to take charge of the books—the only book you had to deal with was the cash-book.

John Miller, in his defence, said that he had not conspired to defraud, he had desired to pay every one, and for years had done so, and had it not been for the machinations of other persons who did all they could to ruin the society he would have continued to do so; the business had been completely wrecked by outside persons who, having been agents of this society, started business in various towns in England. There was a paper called the Commercial World which had done everything it possibly could to destroy the business of the society. As to obtaining money under false pretences, all he could say was that he had not in any way acted differently to other societies, and he had not the remotest idea that in what he did he was offending in any way. He was now a beggar through the acts of others who were living in clover from what they had taken from this society.

John Richard Miller, in his defence, said that he left a good situation by the advice of his father to come to London and work at the insurance business. His father promised to put him in a good position, and he had no idea he would have placed him in his present position. He placed every confidence in his father, who would not knowingly lead him astray. Although his name appeared in the books as a director it never appeared in any of the prospectuses, and he did not think and evidence had been brought forward to show that he had wilfully conspired to defraud any one.

John Harry Neal, in his defence, contended that the charge against him had not been proved; whatever he had done was with the best intention of paying every claim. For years all claims had been paid, and the society had received great praise for so doing.

Charles William Miller said that he was only employed as a carpenter at Westminster Bridge Road, at a salary of 25s. a week, and his wife had to clean the offices. He had nothing whatever to do with the society's books and papers. He thought it was going on in a straightforward manner, and never had the slightest idea there was anything wrong about it.

JOHN MILLER— GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

JOHN RICHARD MILLER— GUILTY of conspiracy only. — Nine Months' Hard Labour.

NEAL GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-387
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

387. WILLIAM HENRY POOK (34) , Forging and uttering an acceptance to a bill of exchange for 55l. 16s., with intent to defraud.

MR. AVORY Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended.

HERBERT BREWER . I am manager of the Clapham Junction branch of

the London and South-Western Bank—we have on our books a customer named Annie Brownell, who opened an account about July 25—she and the prisoner came together—the account was signed in her name, but he said "I will be the one that you will see the most of"—she said nothing—he said she was his sister-in-law—this is a certified copy of the account—it was opened by the payment by the prisoner on July 25 of 100l. by a cheque on the London and Westminster Bank, Temple Bar—the account was drawn up in Annie Brownell's name—I find the name of Pook very frequently on the debit aide of the account as the payee of the cheques—I saw the prisoner in October, he asked if we would discount bills and place the same to his account—I said we would do so provided they were accepted by good people—I do not know that he mentioned any one as the probable acceptor—I received this letter dated November 8—I cannot remember if I saw the prisoner afterwards about it—I had not seen him write at all—I replied to the letter, and saw the prisoner about a week afterwards—he came to know if the bill had been placed to his account—I had received this bill for 55l. 16s., accepted by Thomas Walker, by letter—I received this letter before I received the bill, and then I received the bill by letter; and then the prisoner called and asked if it had been placed to his account—I said it had been discounted in the usual way—I had received no other bill (The letter of November 8, 1883, was signed William Pook, dated Martina Cottages, Camberley, Hants, and requested that the enclosed might be placed to Miss Brownell's credit, that a cheque book might be sent to him for her, and that the witness would let him know if he would place an acceptance for 55l. to her credit accepted by Thomas Walker, Heath Cottages, Camberley, payable at the Capital and Counties Bank, Alder shot Branch, where he had had an account for years). This is a copy of my reply: "Nov. 12,1888. Dear sir,—We can place T. Walker's acceptance to Miss Brownell's credit, providing a lien of 30l. be kept on the account; form enclosed for her signature. Tours, H. Brewer." (The letter of November 14, 1883, said that the acceptance would be sent on, and requested that satisfactory answers would be given to any inquiries about an acceptance Miss Brownell had given to a man, and about one he had given for a few pounds, as the money would be paid in to meet it; and was signed William Pool.) I received the pencil memorandum enclosing the bill on November 24, "Dear Sir,—Please place enclosed to credit, and oblige, Yours, William Pook"—the bill is "Camberley, November 24, 1883. Three months after date pay to our or my order 55l. 16s., for value received."Signed Annie Brownell, to Mr. Thomas Walker, Capital and Counties Bank—I placed that to the credit of the account—it was drawn upon afterwards—before I did so I made inquiries of the Capital and Counties Bank at Aldershot, respecting Mr. Thomas Walker—on Nov. 26 the balance of the account was about 20l.—I received this letter on December 15, it is in the same handwriting as that of November 8 to the best of my judgment. (This was dated December 15, 1883, 24, Queen Street, Maidenhead, and requested Mr. Brewer to inquire and let Mr. Pook know whether he could discount an acceptance for 80l. or 85l. of Walker and Co.'s, of Camberley; and also the same with regard to an acceptance for 50l. by Mr. C. Jeep, of Stafford Villas, Canfberley; and was signed W. Pook for Annie Brownell.) This (produced) is a copy of my letter of Dec. 19 in reply to it. (This stated that they could discount C. Jeep's acceptance and also Waler and Co.'s: if endorsed Thomas Walker they would require the lien raised to

50l., and a letter from Miss Brownell authorising that amount being left on the account.)—on 15th January I received a further letter in the same handwriting apparently, enclosing the bill (produced) for 80l. (This was dated 24, Queen street Maidenhead, and signed William Pook for Annie Brownell. He sent Walker and Company's acceptance at three month for 80l., and would write about the other in a few days.)—on January 16th the prisoner called, and I returned him the bill for 80l., as it should have been endorsed underneath Mr. Thomas Walker's name by Annie Brownell that is where my name appears twice over—that bill is "January 4th, 1884. Three months after date pay to my order 80l.," addressed to Miss Annie Brownell, and accepted payable at the Capital and Counties Bank, Aldershot, and the endorsement is Annie Brownell, Thomas Walker, and Annie Brownell again—he returned it to me in a letter dated 16th January with the endorsement of Annie Brownell on it—I went with the bill to the Counties and Capital Bank, Aldershot—I received there a report from the manager with reference to the bill, in consequence of which I sent the bill to our head office, and from there a police-court summons was issued against the prisoner—the matter was placed in the hands of the police—I received the report from the manager of the Capital and Counties Bank on the 18th of January—I did not see the prisoner after that till I saw him at the police-court.

Cross-examined. When he came in July he said the account was to be opened in her name, but that in all probability I should see him most, as it was going to be worked by him—he said Miss Brownell was his sister-in-law—I believe he said the account was to be opened for a small drawing account, and afterwards for taking a public-house at Norwood—that was not at the first interview—on a subsequent occasion a lease was actually produced and shown to me, and I understood from what he said that they were anxious to purchase it without delay, that the licence might be transferred at the present licensing sessions—I was not told her father had died and her relations had made up a sum of money to put her into business—the cheque on the Westminster Bank was drawn in favour of two ladies named Brownell, and a third name; I knew nothing about the third being one of the trustees—I was told about the matter before the bills of exchange negotiations, and understood that was why the money was wanted—the bill for 56l. has not been presented at the Capital and Counties Bank to my knowledge—I have had no notice to present it—Hubbard, Son, and Eve act as solicitors to the bank, not to our branch—they are not here—they would act on instructions from the head office, they are not represented there—I have seen Hubbard, Son, and Eve's signature once, I should say this was theirs to this letter: "24, Bucklersbury, London. Dear Madam,—Your letter to the London and South-Western Bank has been handed to us. We are instructed to say that, having regard to the criminal proceedings that are pending, the bill cannot be presented as you wish"—we hold 33l. as the lien against the bill for 55l.—on the 26th November the prisoner called on me about the letter—I believe my deposition was read over to and signed by me. (This stated: "In consequence of my letter the prisoner called on me on the 26th November and produced the bill now shown and marked "A")—he called again on the 16th January, the bill had come back before by registered letter—when I said in my deposition "He called again and produced the bill for 80l.," I must have been wrong—I received

a telegram on the 19th January from Miss Brownell, "A great mistake, do not discount bill, return by post at once, reply that you have done so paid."

Re-examined. That was received after I had received a communication from Aldershot—the lease was only produced for us to make an advance on if we would, that was in October—I think we did not make an advance—to the best of my judgment I should say all the letters signed W. Pook, and the body of the bill are in the same hand-writing and also the signature to the acceptance.

By MR. PURCELL. I have not given evidence before on questions of handwriting.

By MR. AVORY. It is my business every day as bank manager to observe handwriting and compare the writing of our customers.

THOMAS WALKER . I live at Camberley near Aldershot, and am a barrister-at-law—I have a son also living there named Edward Walker, who trades as Walker and Co.—the prisoner married my niece—this bill for 55l. 16s. was not accepted by me—I gave no person authority to accept it in my name.

Cross-examined. I and my son live in the same house at camberley—the prisoner married Arabella, sister of Annie Brownell, who is unmarried—a sum of money was subscribed by the family for the two sisters—it was not intended to start them in a public-house originally—the defendant and his wife and sister-in-law were at camberley about the middle of November living near and in constant communication with me—I don't participate in my son's business, nor in making up the books, or anything of that sort—it is a peat firm—I was anxious to assist Annie Brownell—I might have assisted them with my signature if it had been put to me—I was not asked to give my signature, and did not; I should nave had no objection to if I had been asked.

Re-examined. I would have done it to assist Annie Brownell—the subscription for the two sisters was made a year and half ago—they were both single then, the public-house affair turned up after the marriage—I would rather have given them money than a bill—the endorsement Thomas Walker on the back of the other bill for 80l. is very much like my writing, I did not endorse it—the manager of the Capital and Counties' Bank only showed me part of a piece of paper—it was like this.

EDWARD SHAW (Inspector V). I received a warrant for the prisoner's apprehension on 24th January, and went to Queen Street, Maidenhead where I saw the prisoner in the street—I said "Is your name Mr. Pook?"—he said "Yes"—I said "I hold a warrant for your arrest"—as he was running I said "You had better go with me to the police-station"—we went there—I read the warrant to him—he said "Very well"—I said "What have you about you?"—he produced a bunch of keys and other property and said, "This is the key on my office," pointing to a key; "If you go to my office, on the left-hand side of my drawer you will find some cheques, they are all right"—I went to the office—"Brownell and Co." was over the door—it appeared to be a kind of auctioneer's or agent's office—in the drawer I found 16 or 17 cheques and three cheque-books, and he gave me an address in the same street—at his lodgings there I found a paying-in book of the bank—I did not see Annie Brownell there, I saw her sister, the prisoner's wife at the lodgings.

THOMAS WALKER (Re-examined by MR. PURCELL). This bill for 56l. has

not been presented at the Capital and Counties Bank to my knowledge—a debit has been put into my pass-book for its amount; the book is not here—I am not the prosecutor in this case.

EDWARD WALKER . I am Thomas Walker's son, and carry on business as Walker and Co., peat dealers—this bill for 55l. 16s. purports to be accepted by my father; it is like his writing—I gave no one authority to accept it in his name—I could not give authority to anybody else to accept in somebody else's name.

Cross-examined. I have not very often accepted bills for my own business, but I have accepted three or four bills for friends—about September and November the prisoner and his wife were living at Camberley—I saw a great deal of them while they were there—I heard they were going to buy a house—I would have been willing to assist Annie Brownell in carrying out her object—the defendant wrote letters for me two or three times in my room, probably, signed Walker and Co.—we discussed matters together—my father was connected with the business—if a bill accepted by Walker and Co. had been presented to the bank I would have met it in due course.

Re-examined. The prisoner may have written letters at my office on the other side of the table—I may not have seen him—I am acquainted with his handwriting—I am not an expert—I should think these letters to the South-Western Bank were probably in his writing—the bills for 55l. 16s. and 80l. I should not like to swear were in the same writing as the letters, it is like it—Annie Brownell was staying with the prisoner and his wife at Camberley—I believe they went to Maidenhead from there—I did not say the bill for 80l. was my acceptance—I don't remember giving anybody authority to accept a bill for 80l. in my name—the manager of the Capital and Counties Bank brought a piece of paper and showed me the back of it: it was this colour, and doubled up in this way—I saw what purported to be my signature on the front of the bill—I may have seen the whole of the bill; I don't remember—I was shown originally the front, it was doubled up.

GUILTY of uttering .— Judgment respited.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-388
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

388. WILLIAM HAFEN (64) , Unlawfully obtaining from Edward Cousins one bushel of potatoes and 1l. 15s., with intent to defraud.

MR. RHODES Prosecuted.

EDWARD COUSINS . I am a greengrocer, of 80, Peckham Eye—I know the prisoner—on 8th January he came into my shop and ordered a bushel of potatoes and certain articles which I gave him—he gave me this cheque (produced), saying "I haven't sufficient money upon me, I shall have to give you a cheque"—I said "It will have to be a very small one"—he said "Yes, it is only for 2l."—that is the amount of the cheque—he wrote it all out; it was only crossed, nothing more—I said "I haven't any banking account"—he said "Oh, one of your neighbours will change it for you"—I said "All right, I will get one of them to pass it through"—I gave him goods to the amount of 5s., and 1l. 15s. change, taking the cheque to be a genuine one—I should not have given him the goods and change if I had had the slightest idea it was not a good one—I got a neighbour of mine, Mr. Latkin, to put the cheque through for me, and on the Wednesday, the 9th, it was returned marked "No account"—subsequently I saw the prisoner, and asked him the meaning of it—he

said he could, not understand it—I said he must understand it very well, because it was written on "No account"—he asked me to let him see it—I said "You can see it, but you cannot handle it"—he said "If I don't see it I don't know what to do with it to put it right"—after that I applied for a warrant the next day, but it was too late—I communicated with Sergeant Viney, and subsequently gave the prisoner into custody—I saw him write the name—he lives in my neighbourhood—the endorsement is my signature.

Cross-examined. I came to your house on the 20th, the Sunday, after the cheque was returned, to see if you were about—I saw you—I made no agreement to wait till Friday, 25th, to see if you paid, and if so I would return the Cheque; you said you would pay it on the Friday—I did not say that if you could not pay on the Friday you should write on the Thursday and inform me—you were an occasional customer of mine.

CHARLES VINEY (Detective Sergeant P). I received a warrant for the prisoner's apprehension on Saturday, 12th January, and arrested him on the 21st, Monday—I saw him in the Underhill Road, East Dulwich, and said, "Mr. Hafen?"—he said "That is my name"—I said "I am a police officer, I am going to apprehend you on a warrant for obtaining 2l. on a cheque"—he said "Who has taken the warrant?"—I said "Mr. Cousins, a greengrocer on Peckham Bye"—he said "He is a bad man, he was at my house yesterday"—I said "Yes, I know he was, if I had known what time he had been coming I should have come as well"—he said "You cannot apprehend me for this, it is a mistake"—I said "I have the warrant and I must execute it"—I took him to the police station, the charge was read over to him, he made no reply—I told him the cheque had been returned marked "No account"—he said "I have money at the bank"—I said "I have been there and I have been informed there is no money"—he said "I have money there."

ALFRED WILLIAM ORAM . I am a clerk at the London and County Bank, Woolwich' Branch—this cheque is drawn on one of the forms issued by our bank—the signature is not one of any of our customers—the name is V. Hafen, we had an account with a W. A. V. Hafen which was closed on 25th June, 1877—this cheque is dated 8th January, 1884—I have extracts here from the books.

Cross-examined. Your account was overdrawn on 29th August, 1876, 10l. 11s. 6d.; it was never settled, and on 25th, June, 1877, the bank cleared the account from the books—you had notice, I believe, because the matter was put into the hands of a solicitor, I believe—it is not the custom of our bank when an account is closed to send the customer notice of it—I have got certified extracts from our books here—I was not at the bank at the time your account was overdrawn.

Re-examined. Nothing was paid into the account subsequent to its being overdrawn—I cannot say whether the prisoner and W. A. V. Hafen are identical.

By the Prisoner. I don't know if the cheque is one out of your cheque-book, it was issued too long ago—I have been 18 months at the Woolwich branch of the bank.

By the JURY. No cheques have been paid since the account was closed;. I don't know if any have been presented—I examined the entry with the books.

The prisoner, in hit defence, stated that, having had no notice, he did not

think his account was closed, and a gentleman having promised to pay money into his account at the bank within 24 hours, he had not had the slightest intention to defraud. He had never recovered from an attack of paralysis which had injured his memory, and often made him forget what had happened. The prosecutor had arranged with him on the 20th that if the money was paid on the 25th, or even later, no steps would be taken, and he was going to fetch the money when arrested.

ALFRED WILLIAM ORAM (Re-examined). A cheque for 10l. was returned to him in December marked "No account"—no notice was then sent with it that the account was closed.

GUILTY. Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of age and infirmity. — Six Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-389
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

389. EDWARD BROCKINGTON (19) , Robbery with violence on Charles Cable, and stealing certain of his moneys.

MR. RHODES Prosecuted; MR. BLACKWELL Defended.

CHARLES CABLE . I live at Pollock Road, New Kent Road—on Saturday night, 26th January, I was walking along Deacon Street—the prisoner was playing a cornet there—I said to him it was a very cold night, and asked him to come and have a drink—he went with me, and after I had treated him he said "I wish you would go with me to see my wife, she is expecting to be confined to-night"—I said "I don't know your wife; why should I go?"—he said "I should like her to see you, as you have been so kind to me, and it is only just across the street"—he took me up Lion Street and then throttled me and nearly choked me and took 5s., which was loose in my right-hand trousers pocket, and a rule; the rule he returned to me—the boys from the baker's shop chased the prisoner and called out "Stop thief!" and caught him—I was groaning and a female came to my assistance—I did not fall.

Cross-examined. I am a drapery and general agent—I am hard of hearing on both sides; I could hear what the prisoner said—I had been to have a Turkish bath in Newington Butts, and had had three or four glasses of liquor—I spoke to the prisoner first; he was playing; I am fond of music, and it was a very cold night, and I asked him to have a drink—I do not ask every one in the street on a cold night to have a drink—I gave the prisoner two or three glasses and had two or three myself—I was not very friendly with him—we had no dispute—I walked with him to see his wife—I had 9s. 6d. when I went to the Turkish baths; I had just come from there—I had about 5s. when I met the prisoner—I said before the Magistrate I couldn't tell exactly how much I had.

MARGARET AKAST . I live at 66, Lion Street, New Kent Road, and am the wife of William George Akast—on the night of 26th January I was going down Lion Street and saw the prisoner and the last witness struggling on the other side of the road; I thought they were larking; when I had gone a little way Cable called out "Police!" and "Help!" and groaned—I went back a little way and into the road, and I saw the prisoner struggling with the old gentleman, and trying to take his shirt-studs out of his shirt, and he did it—I turned round and said "Oh, you vagabond, you are robbing that old gentleman"—the prisoner turned round and said to me" You b——b——, I will do for you"—I ran up the street into the baker's shop, and the baker's boy ran out after him, and then more followed—I am quite sure the prisoner is the man I saw.

Cross-examined. The baker's wife knew me and told the Policeman where I lived, and he came to me—I did not talk to Cable at the police-court I never saw him till I was there—I heard him give his evidence—it was pretty dark in Lion Street on this night, for it was such a terrible night; it was cold and the night of the dreadful storm—I only saw him try to get one stud out because I came up—I said stud before—I heard them struggle before I heard the old gentleman cry—I thought it was a lark till I heard him call "Police," and "Help," and then I thought something was up, and the old gentleman was struggling with him—the second time he was trying to get away—it was about 9.45—the prisoner had a cornopean in a green bag; it was under his arm during the struggle—the instrument was very small.

WILLIAM NASH (Policeman P 216). I was on duty on Saturday night, 26th January, in the neighbourhood of Lion Street, and received a complaint from Cable, who was pointed out standing 50 or 60 yards away, at the corner of White Hart and Setting Road—from what he said I went towards the prisoner, who ran away up White Hart Court—I ran after him—seeing he was outdoing me I called two boys who were just by and they ran after him—ultimately I saw him brought back by another constable—Cable then said to him, "You scoundrel, you have taken all the things out of my pocket; you have taken this rule out of my pocket," pulling this rule out and holding it up—the prisoner said, "Yes, but I gave it to you back again"—I then told the prisoner that he would have to go to the station on that charge—he threw himself down and became very violent, and kicked and made an attempt to bite me—we were about half an hour before we got him to the station, whereas about seven or eight minutes would have done if he had walked—we had to get the assistance of other constables, one of whom was kicked in the back—we had to give the prisoner the frog's march.

Cross-examined. I saw the prisoner standing about three minutes' walk from lion Street, and about 40 yards from where I was standing—the prisoner had been drinking, and the prosecutor was the worse for drink.

HENRY MOORE (Policeman P 231). I was in the Walworth Road on 26th January, at 9.40 at night, close by Lion Street—I heard cries of "Stop thief," and saw a crowd of people running—I ran also, and saw the prisoner running in front of the crowd—I stopped him at Newington Butts, about 200 yards from where I first saw him—I said, What are you running for?"—he said, "I do not know"—I said, "What are the people running after you for?"—he said, "I don't know, if it is not for my cornet," which he was carrying at the time—at the same time a boy in the crowd said, "Yes you do know; you tried to rob an old gentleman in Lion Street"—the prisoner did not reply—I stepped up to him, and the last witness came up and said, "That is the man that I have been after"—I took him back to Lion Street, where the prosecutor identified him as the man—on the way to the station the prisoner was very violent, and we were obliged to give him the frog's march—at the station, while waiting in the reserve room, the prisoner said, "If you allow me to speak to the prosecutor I will give him back what I have taken from him.

Cross-examined. I did not make a note at the time—I am not supposed to do so—we have no strict orders to do so in these cases; in cases of stabbing or murder we should—I have been eight years in the force—I

never heard it was my duty to make a note of every conversation I had with a prisoner—two or three other officers in plain clothes were sitting in the reserve room at the time the prisoner said this—Nash was there—I said in reply to it, "You can't speak to the prosecutor now, it is too late.

WILLIAM NASH (Re-examined). Between 6s. and 7s. in silver and coppers was found on the prisoner, which was given back, with some pawn-tickets.

GUILTYof an assault with intent to rob. — Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-390
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

390. WALTER FLEMING (18), GEORGE BROCKINGTON (19) and JAMES BROCKINGTON (32) , Robbery with violence on William Norman, and stealing from him a pair of trousers and other articles, to which FLEMING PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. RHODES Prosecuted.

WILLIAM NORMAN . I live at 28, Townsend Street, Old Kent Road, and am a potman—on the night of 29th January or morning of 30th, I was returning home through Townsend Street; I had gone a short distance round the corner when Fleming struck me a blow under the chin which lifted me off my feet into the road—I got up; he gave me another blow, and then the other two prisoners came up from the house, No. 4, and struck blows at me—I had a parcel under my left arm containing trousers and other things—Fleming gave me a blow in the ribs—James Brockington snatched the parcel and took it a short distance and handed it to George—I had not seen them before—they attacked me together—Fleming knocked me down again; James caught hold of me by the waistcoat and held me up by the wall—I caught hold of Fleming and shouted out "Police!" and "Murder!" and Sergeant 31 M came up—I lost my hat, and picked up a wrong one in the struggle—at the station I identified James as wearing my hat—I did not see him take it.

Cross-examined by George Brockington. You struck me—the row commenced just outside No. 4, not opposite the brick wall.

ALBERT MADER (Policeman P 31). About 12.40 a.m. on 30th January I was in the neighbourhood of Townsend Street, and heard cries of police several times—I then saw Norman and Fleming struggling in Townsend Street about 30 yards up—I ran up; Fleming ran away; I ran after him and caught him—Norman ran up and said "I charge this man with assaulting and robbing me"—the other two prisoners were not present then—Fleming pretended to be drunk—Norman was covered in mud and bleeding from the mouth—on the morning of the 30th, about 9.15, I met both the Brockingtons at their house, 4, Townsend Street—I went to take back a hat covered with dirt, which I had taken from the same house between 2 and 3 o'clock that morning, thinking it was the prosecutor's, who said he had lost his hat, and gave me a description of these men—I handed the hat to George, and said "Is this your hat?"—he said "Yes; what the b——h——had you right to take my hat away?"—that hat James was wearing when I apprehended him—it was Norman's—I arrested James on 5th February, about 11.30 a.m., in the New Kent Road; he was standing by himself, and turned round and observed me coming and ran away—I gave chase, and apprehended him, and with assistance took him to the station—I told him he would be charged with highway robbery with violence—he said "You have made a mistake"—

I said "No, I have not"—on the way to the station he said "I will tell you the truth: I own I was there, but had no hand in it"—about 9.30 on the night of the 30th I arrested George Brockington—I told him the charge—he said "You are wrong; you have made a mistake."

Cross-examined by George Brockington, I had a description of you the night the robbery took place—I did not apprehend you the next morning, because I did not know whether the prosecutor would attend the Court—I told the Magistrate it was because I always knew where I could find you—I had that reason too.

Cross-examined by James Brookingham. I did not apprehend you that morning for the same reason—I did not talk to a female witness for half an hour while you and your brother stood at the street door—you did not say "I merely parted Fleming and Norman, who is a neighbour."

JULIA THORNTON . I live at 6, Townsend Street, Old Kent Road, and am the wife of Joseph Thornton—on Tuesday night or morning of 30th Jan. I was aroused by cries of murder and police—the cries seemed as from a person being held or knelt on and not able to call well, and the cries became so faint they could not be heard well—I jumped out of bed, threw open the window, and saw three men on the opposite side scuffling together and George running towards his own door No. 4; and he stopped, and as he stopped he kicked something into the passage opposite his own door, I could not see him carrying anything—James was holding the prosecutor by the throat pressing him back against the wall—there are houses only on one side, on the other is a blank asylum wall which he was against—Fleming struck him—I called police and murder several times, and when James heard me calling he crossed on to my side and crept up along the wall and slipped into his own house, No. 4—Norman ran after him in the middle of the road calling "Police"—Fleming ran after him to prevent him going into the house and struck him again—the police came and chased Fleming, and Norman ran also—I have no doubt about the identity of the prisoners; I have seen the Brockingtons before, but not Fleming, I have no doubt about him.

Cross-examined by George. On 30th January you came to abuse my husband for assisting the police—I went down to the station and brought a policeman to have you locked up—I did not mention anything about the case overnight, it was not for me to do it—I was summoned to Lambeth Police-court for assaulting your mother—it was she assaulted me—I was not bound over to keep the peace for six months—she burst ray door open twice and threatened my life—that was after we had given the police information and allowed then to come through my house and over the wall to arrest the prisoners.

JANE PRESTON . I live at 3, Townsend Street, and am the wife of Charles Preston—I heard cries of police and murder on Tuesday night about 12.30, I heard the cries again, and then got out of bed and opened the window, and saw two or three men scuffling—I cried out "You brutes; I will put you away to-morrow at No. 4"—two or three Brockingtons I think live there, the father, and James, and George—I saw James and George in the scuffle, I saw George kick a bundle into No. 4, and go in, and a little while after James followed him in—I came in and shut down the window, and next morning after I had gone to work George insulted my landlady, Mrs. Oulton, and asked her the b——f——what did she know what happened on the night before, and the next night

James brought his woman and told her to hit my landlady, and she gave her a black eye in place of me for halloaing out of the window.

SARAH FARRELL . I live at 9, Townsend Street, and am the wife of William Farrell—about 12.30 on the night of 30th January I heard, cries of police, I got out of bed and gently opened the window and saw several men struggling in the road, I thought at first it was a fair fight—I recognised James because I saw him go into the house, he walked away—when I opened the window I called out to them to let the man alone, I saw them knock the man down, and James took a dark paper parcel, I think, from the prisoner; it looked as though they had him on his head; it may have been a bundle; James parsed it to George, who was in his shirt-sleeves, his coat was on our window-sill, and he made off with it in the direction of No. 4—I did not know him, but I recognised the other one—James then turned round and kicked Norman into the road, and his hat fell when he did it—Fleming struck Norman, who picked up his hat and made off after the other two, and James said "Give him a blow," and Fleming gave him a blow and sent him on his back—then he said "Here is the police," and went in the door—I called out "They have just gone in No. 4"—the police followed and caught Fleming and took him to the station.

Cross-examined by George. I did not see you kick the parcel, you made off with it—I could not see you go in No. 4—you threw your coat on my window-sill as you ran off in your shirt-sleeves after the fight.

James Brockington's Statement before the Magistrate. "I was going indoors and saw Fleming and the prosecutor fighting in the road, and parted them, and shoved the prosecutor on the pavement, and Fleming down the road, and picked up my hat, put it on, and went indoors."

Witnesses for George Brockington.

SOPHIA WEATHERS . My husband, Thomas Weathers, is a costermonger, and is unable to work; I get my living in the same way—on 29th January you came home about ten o'clock at 1, Hart Street, East Lane, Walworth, I think it was the 29th, and went to bed; you left at eight o'clock next morning, you never went out before that time, I swear it—I was in the house, and my husband can swear to it—there are two rooms upstairs and two down, I know he was in his room all the time—the door was shut, the prisoner has no key, he has to knock.

Cross-examined. The prisoner has lodged with me four years on and off—this was four weeks ago last Tuesday—the prisoner had to come up here and I kept the date at the time—it is three weeks since I was at the other place.

By the COURT. I sleep on the first floor—George sleeps on the same floor at the back—this was on Tuesday—he slept there every night off and on—he comes and goes at certain times—Townsend Street is about a mile from my place.

WALTER FLEMING (The Prisoner). I have pleaded guilty to the charge—I am a printer—I can swear you were not there on the night of the robbery.

By the COURT. I don't know the Brockingtons—when me and Norman were struggling James parted us—I took the parcel and threw it away when the constable ran after me.

George Brockington's Defence. My mother lived in Townsend-Street some time, and these witnesses always have summoning cases against

her. Fleming says he ran away with the parcel himself and threw it over the wall.

James Brockington, in his defence, argued that he should not assault and rob a young man living close by him and whom he knew perfectly well. He denied that his brother was near the spot, and stated that he saw Fleming and Norman fighting and parted them, and that the charge was only spite on the part of the neighbours.


GEOEGE BROCKINGTON then PLEADED GUILTY** to a previous conviction in October, 1882, and JAMES BROCKINGTON** to one in December, 1819.— Five Years' Penal Servitude each. FLEMING also—Five Years' Penal Servitude.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-391
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

391. MARY MATTHEWS (58) PLEADED GUILTY ** to unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin, after a previous conviction of a like offence in January, 1880, in the name of Mary Abbey.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-392
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

392. CHARLES GODFREY (18) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of David Bryce, and stealing a blanket, quilt, and cap, his property. Second Count, receiving.

MR. PURCELL Prosecuted.

EMILY BRYCE . I am the wife of David Bryce, a labourer—I occupy the ground floor of 1, Vine Yard, Blackman Street, Southwark—about twenty past ten on night of 1st February I went to take his supper to my husband, who was at night-work—one of the windows of my room had the glass broken and covered with a piece of paper—the room was safe and secure—I took the key with me—the blanket and quilt were on the bed, and my husband's cap was hanging on the bedpost—I came back about one o'clock—I found the piece of paper on the window broken—the window was further broken and wide open—I missed this blanket, quilt, and cap—they are my property—I value it at 5s.

JAMES SMITH (Policeman M 206). About 1.30 on morning of February 2 I met the prisoner in Newcomen Street, carrying this counterpane—I said "What have you got there?"—the prisoner said "It is my old grandmother's, and I am taking it to Walworth"—I said "You are looking stout; unbutton your coat"—he did so, and this blanket was very neatly wrapped round his shoulders, with the ends tucked into his trousers—I said "You will have to go to the station"—he made no reply—at the station the inspector on duty asked him to account for the articles—he said "I have been drinking all day and don't know where I got them from"—after being charged, on going back to the cell, he said "I know who gave them to me, but I am not going to get him into trouble"—I found the cap in his left-hand pocket—he made no reply to the charge—the place where I saw him was about half a mile from where the burglary was committed—he was coming from the direction of the house.

The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he met a man with a bag, who said that he had to walk 10 miles, he did not want to take the things with him, and threw them down; he then picked them up, and the policeman stopped him. He had been drinking all day or he should not have taken them.


He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction in May, 1881, in the name of Denis Regan.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

Before Robert Malcolm Kerr, Esq.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-393
VerdictNot Guilty > directed; Guilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

393. WILLIAM BROOKS and JAMES SCOTT , Breaking and entering the warehouse of Henry Allsopp, with intent to steal.

MR. RHODES Prosecuted; MR. WARBURTON Defended.

WILLIAM F. HYLAND . I live at 2, Elm Cottages, Prince's Road, Richmond, and am storekeeper to Messrs. Allsopp and Sons at their stores in the Kew Road, Richmond—on Saturday evening, 16th February, after the stores were locked up, I concealed myself in them—about a quarter to 7 Brooks came in with three stone jars—I asked him how he came in and he said by a key—I asked him who gave him the key, he said "My friend Scott"—he showed me the key—there is a yard and stable gate outside the stores—he would have to come through a gate to get into the yard—I asked him how he got through the gate, he said with Scott's key, and broke into the building—he had two keys, both Scott's—I was then going out of the stable gate, and met Scott coming in—I asked Scott in Brooks's presence what he knew of this affair, he said nothing—I asked him what he knew about the keys—he said he knew nothing about the store's keys, but the gate key he had given to Brooks—I asked him what he knew about the bottles—he said "What bottles?"—he was not acquainted with anything of the bottles at all—I detained them in the stores—I next went to James Lownds' house, the collector, leaving the prisoners outside—he came back with me—Brooks would have no business in the stores at that hour—there was no light there merely a tire half burnt out—Brooks brought some matches with him and struck a light—there were casks of ale and stout there, several tapped, with the keys left in the taps.

Cross-examined. I came to Richmond on the 21st of November, and have been there about three months—I never take railway porters or any one in at night, only when they have to make up the fire—I have said I was found on this night with a railway porter friend there, we had been there about a quarter of an hour when Brooks entered, another man was with us—I could bring them in—Brooks sometimes lighted the fire and was occasionally employed about the place; he was Mrs. Maxwell's gardener—I do not know how long he had been there—Lownds is here—he is above me—we don't pay Brooks, we give him a drink of beer; never to take away with him—he used to work a good deal bringing in things—I never gave him beer to take away—I can say he never had it given him—I was rather scared when he struck a light and discovered us there—Scott has stuck to his first story about the bottles all through—he said he had given Brooks one key, and that was for business purposes—I have said nothing before to-day about two keys—I can't say if my friend told Brooks that if he told the truth it would be better for him—I can't say how long Scott has been in Messrs. Allsopp's service; it is a very long time, and he has borne a very good character all through—he was kept continuously in their employment after this was discovered till Monday evening—he gave information to the prosecutor on three occasions as far as he could—Brooks might have to go and light a fire for me, not for Scott—I have gone into the stores with Brooks after closing hours—it would be regular for me, not for Scott—I have not been in their employ at Richmoud so long as he has—I don't owe Scott anything—I do not lodge with him; I

did at one time—I owe him no arrears for board and lodging—Scott came to his work on that Monday and remained all day till 8 o'clock—if Brooks was there the men would ask him to do odd jobs, and he would do them—I won't be certain if he said on the Monday "I will wait about till I am wanted in case I am wanted."

Re-examined. I concealed myself about 6.45, expecting Brooks and some one with him, and the porters were with me concealed for my protection—Brooks could not come in the evening to light a fire unless he hid been asked because he could not get in—he had no business in the stores—if he was paid in beer he had no right to help himself—it was given to him in a mug; he was not allowed to carry any away.

GEORGE LOWNDS . I live at 1, Sherland Villas, Twickenham, and am a collector to Messrs. Allsopp—on this occasion I had instructed Hyland to watch the stores—on the following day, the 17th, I went to the stores and saw three jars—Hyland handed me a key and reported to me—Brooks would not have the slightest business at the stores at that time, not for lighting fires or any other purpose; he received no payment—when he came he could have a glass or tankard of beer if he liked—I questioned Brooks on the following Monday, he told me they took the three jars down with the intention of filling them; that he got in by Scott's key into the yard, into Messrs. Allsopp's premises, and the other key he found in the man's room, which is connected with the stable—there are two keys—they were both produced to me—I asked him whether they intended to fill the jars—it would have been possible for him to do so—it appears he struck a lucifer and found the men concealed.

Cross-examined. Scott has been in Messrs. Allsopp's employment for years, and has always borne a good character—I only know by hearsay that Brooks is Mrs. Maxwell's gardener—on the Saturday I gave instructions to watch—I was out of Court when Hyland gave evidence—I told him he might take a witness to watch too if he liked, I didn't mention anybody—I am not on good terms with Hyland—I know nothing of his bringing railway porters there—Scott adhered to his statement that he had given the key to Brooks for business purposes—I saw Brooks on the Saturday night, I did not speak to him—on the Monday I asked him if. I wanted him where could I send to for him—he came back in an hour afterwards and asked if I wanted him any more—I said "No," as I had made arrangements and could send for him—that was after the breaking and entering—I saw him twice about the place on Monday—I can't say he did odd jobs about Messrs. Allsopp's premises, he was continually there; he would have beer as a gratuity if he came there—I can't say what he did, or how long he has been off and on there.

WILLIAM HYLAND (Re-examined). Brooks was on the premises and Scott outside on this night—when I went out he had no jars or keys with him—Brooks had Scott's key of the gate, Brooks said Scott gave it to him.

ALDRIDGE (Inspector V). I am stationed at Richmond—on Monday afternoon, February 18, I went to Messrs. Allsopp's yard in Kew Road—I saw Brooks, Lownds, and Hyland there—I told Brooks he had been accused of going to the stores on Saturday night, the 16th, with three stone jars, and asked him if there was any explanation he could give why he was there—he said "Yes, I should not have gone if it hadn't been for Scott; I went for the purpose of filling three jars with beer, one I

was to take home, one Scott was to have, but what was to be done with the third I don't know"—Lownds gave him into my custody—I took him to Richmond Station, where he was charged—about 8 o'clock in the evening I saw Scott at Messrs. Allsopp's office in the Kew Road, I told him Brooks was charged with breaking and entering Messrs. Allsopp's stores and was locked up, and I was sent to take him into custody for being concerned in the same charge—he said he knew nothing of the case—I took him to the station.

The COURT considered that there was no case against.


BROOKS— GUILTY.—Strongly recommended to mercy on account of his good character. — Four Months' Hard Labour.

25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-394
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

394. THOMAS CONSTABLE (23) , Stealing a pair of sculls, a lock and chain, and a mop, the property of Robert Brooks, in a boat on the Thames.

MR. RHODES Prosecuted.

ROBERT BBOOKS . I live at Sandiland, Richmond—on 16th February I rowed up from London to Richmond, and left my boat with the anchor down, and locked all my tools up in the boat—at 9 o'clock on Sunday morning I came to it again; the lock, bolt, chains, sculls, and everything was cleared out—I got another pair of sculls and rowed up to a barge, the Rescue, lying just above—I saw one of my sculls lying broken in the bottom of the barge, with the bolt and lock attached to it, hidden under the wash-board, as though purposely concealed—the prisoner was one of three on board—I rowed ashore, called a constable, and took him off to the barge—I said to the prisoner "They are my sculls"—they said they knew nothing of them.

PINFOLD (Policeman V 419). On Sunday morning, 17th February, I was called by Brooks to the barge Rescue, moored near Mortlake—I saw the sculls (produced.), which he identified as his property—I took the prisoner and the other two men to the station—after I had given my evidence on Monday the prisoner told the Magistrate that he took the sculls out of the boat to get on board the barge, and that the others knew nothing at all about it.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I should like it settled here."

Prisoner's Defence. I said the others knew nothing about it so that we all three should not be sent away. The sculls, mop, lock, and chain were all fastened together, and they took them to get on the barge again; they would have been put back afterwards.


25th February 1884
Reference Numbert18840225-395
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

395. CHARLES HALL (31) , Robbery with violence on Francis Gabriel Rigaux, and stealing a watch, his property.

MR. RHODES Prosecuted.

FRANCIS GABRIEL RIGAUX . I live at 57, Pilgrim Street—on Saturday night, Jan. 19, I was in the Walworth Road about 20 minutes to 12 coming home from the theatre—I went to have a look at a fight in a court by the Black Prince public-house—I got wedged in, and felt a slight touch on the left side, and found my chain hanging down—I caught the prisoner's hand, and saw the watch glittering, and it passed to three or four hands—I caught him by the throat—I was hustled, but held him till he was taken.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I had hold of your left hand in which the watch was.

By the Court. I distinctly saw—I was only hustled; I was not struck.

JOHN TOWN (Policeman B 456). I was called to the Black Prince about midnight on Saturday, 19th January, and found the prosecutor there holding the prisoner—he gave him in charge for stealing a watch—I took the prisoner to the station.

Cross-examined. I made inquiries at a place you have been at work in, and they said you were a very good working man.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I was intoxicated, and did not know what I was doing."

Prisoner's Defence. I know nothing about it; I am innocent of the robbery.


He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction on 9th August, 1875, at Clerkenwell, in the name of George O'Neil.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.


View as XML