Old Bailey Proceedings.
4th February 1889
Reference Number: t18890204

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
4th February 1889
Reference Numberf18890204

Related Material


Sessions Paper.








Short-hand Writers to the Court,








Law Booksellers and Publishers.



On the Queen's Commission of



The City of London,





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

Held on Monday, February 4th, 1889, and following days.

BEFORE the RIGHT HON. JAMES WHITEHEAD , ESQ., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir ARTHUR CHARLES , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; Sir JAMES CLARKE LAWRENCE ., M. P., and WILLIAN JAMES RICHMOND COTTON , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q. C., Recorder of the City; JOSEPH SAVORY , Esq., STUART KNILL , Esq., GEORGE ROBERT TYLER , Esq., JOSEPH RENALS, Esq., WALTER HENRY WILKIN ., Esq., and HORATIO DAVID DAVIES , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; and Sir WILLIAM THOMAS CHARLEY , Knt., Q. C., D. C. L., Common Serjeant of the said City; Her Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer, and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

EDWARD JAMES GRAY , Esq., Alderman,








A star (*) denotes that prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—a 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 4th, 1889.

Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-189
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

189. SACKVILLE MONTGOMERY (26) and GEORGE HERITAGE (21) , Unlawfully committing an act of gross indecency with each other.

MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted; MR. F. FULTON Defended Montgomery; MR. BESLEY Defended Heritage.

The prisoners received good characters.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-190
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

190. EDWARD RICHARD STURGEON (23), PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously forging and uttering an order for a cheque-book, also to forging and uttering cheques for £200 and £25.— Judgment Respited.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-191
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

191. EDWIN SMITH (35) , Unlawfully obtaining by false pretences from John Dalamore £12, and from Tempe Kelsey £12, with intent to defraud.

MR. MEAD Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

JOHN DALAMORE . I am assistant to John Francis and Sons, grocers, The Broadway, Streatham—on Saturday, the 15th September, the prisoner came in with this cheque for £12 on the Eastern Branch of the London and Westminster Bank, signed E. West—he asked if we would cash it for Dr. Barnes—Dr. Barnes is a medical man and one of our customers—I know him perfectly well—I know no one of the name of E. West—I cashed the cheque—afterwards I sent it by a friend to the bank it was drawn on, and I had a telegram back on Monday morning saying "No account"—the cheque is now marked "No account"—on the 5th of December I went to Bow Street, and recognised the prisoner from a number of men.

Cross-examined. I did not at the time recognise the man who brought the cheque as having seen him before—we were very busy in the shop—there were other assistants—they did not take any particular notice of the man—I took the cheque to the cashier; I don't know if he noticed the man—no one else is here from the shop—it was over three months afterwards that I went to Bow Street—I gave a description to the police—the man who came in the shop was clean, well-dressed, gentlemanly-looking, with a black coat—an officer, Weatherley, I think, told me to attend at Bow Street, as they had a man in custody whom they suspected of passing cheques—I was there two hours doing nothing before I saw the prisoner, and then I was taken into the room and saw about nine men—some of them were working men, not all—I could not say if the prisoner had then been a week in custody, or if he had been brought from Holloway, or was wearing dirty linen or looked as if he came from the cells; I looked at his face; he was in the centre of the group—I only walked round them till I got to the prisoner; it took me from one to two minutes—the shop was lit with gas when the cheque was cashed—he was in the shop two or three minutes at the most, altogether—he had a low hat on—the men I saw at the Police-court had hats on—I recognised the prisoner chiefly by his features.

Re-examined. He was not dressed so smartly as he is now—he had a felt hat—I looked more at his face than his clothes—four or five of the nine or ten persons were dressed in working men's dress, I should think—I did not particularly notice one side of the room; after I got to the prisoner I did not trouble to look at the others; I looked him up and down, and he answered my description.

GEORGE FREDERICK BARNES , M. D. I live at Baiden Terrace, Streatham Common—I am a customer of Francis and Sons—I did not send this cheque to them to be cashed on 15th September—I know nothing about it—I know nothing of E. West—I never authorised the prisoner to go there.

Cross-examined. I don't know the prisoner; he is a perfect stranger to me.

TEMPE KELSEY . I live at High Street, Bexley, Kent—on 22nd September I was at my brother-in-law, Reuben Message's, butcher's shop at High Street, South Norwood—about 8 o'clock the prisoner, I believe, presented to me this cheque for £12 on the Eastern Branch of the London and Westminster Bank; he said, "Dr. Churchward's compliments, and can Mr. Message oblige him with change?"—I knew Dr. Churchward was a customer of my brother's, and I cashed the cheque—the man left the shop directly—on the Monday I paid the cheque into the bank; it was returned marked "No account"—I know no person of the name of E. Lancaster—I saw the prisoner again, when I went to Bow Street at the beginning of December, among a number of men—I turned and said I was not perfectly sure, and then I picked him out as the man to the best of my belief.

Cross-examined. I did not take particular notice of the man who gave me the cheque—we were not very busy—he was hardly in the shop four or five minutes—I don't swear positively to him now—I was waiting with Dalamore for two hours before we saw him—I did not look at the men's clothes so much—I don't think the prisoner was the best dressed man among them—I stood in the middle and looked round, and then turned

and said I was not quite sure—I expect I had looked at him twice or three times before I said that.

ALBERT CHURCHWARD . I am a doctor of medicine in practice at Selhurst Road, South Norwood—I am a customer of Mr. Message's—I know nothing of this cheque or of Mr. Lancaster—I did not authorise the prisoner to take any message—this cheque is drawn by J. Churchward—I have a brother of that name; he is here.

Cross-examined. The prisoner is entirely a stranger to me.

JOHN CHURCHWARD . I live at Anerley, about two miles from Message's shop—I know nothing of this cheque, except that Miss Message brought it to me when it was returned unpaid—I did not authorise the prisoner to take it.

EDWARD JOHN WINTER WOOD . I am a cashier at the Eastern Branch of the London and Westminster Bank, Whitechapel—we have no customers of the names of West or Lancaster—I should say these two cheques are from the same cheque-book; they are the same number—I cannot say to whom the book was issued; I think it was 25 years ago.

JOHN BELWOOD WHITE (Police Sergeant). On 5th December I was in Holborn with Sergeant Leach when the prisoner was apprehended—I saw Leach touch him—I did not hear what he said—I crossed the road at the moment, the prisoner darted away, fell down in the middle of the road, and Leach apprehended him—he was taken to Bow Street Station—I searched him, and found on him these five cheques, three bills of exchange, and this piece of paper loose—The cheques were on the National Bank, drawn in the names of Charles Knowles, T. Weldon, and Caldecott)—The paper was as follows: "After you have found addresses, post yourself outside their houses and make a note of the tradesmen that call there"—I caused Mr. Dalamore and Miss Kelsey to be at the station on the remand on 12th December—I placed the prisoner among eleven or twelve others—he was rather shabbily dressed then, in dark clothes and a round felt hat; not as he is dressed now—both the witnesses picked him out—I told him he would be charged with uttering these five cheques, also the two in question—he replied, "I must think where I was on those days."

Cross-examined. I and Leach were acting together—I was not examined before the Magistrate, I was in Court—these cheques were put in evidence by Leach, either on the remand or the first day before the Magistrate—we had time to see what documents were found in the prisoner's possession before he was charged—I am not sure whether the bills of exchange were put in before the Magistrate; the letter was produced but not read; it was included among a number of memoranda found on the prisoner—I don't think they were initialed by the clerk—I did not ask Dalamore to come to Bow Street Station to identify the prisoner; I saw him there about 10 in the morning—he was there two or three hours before he was brought in to identify the prisoner—it took us a quarter of an hour to get the men that were brought in; they were volunteers—it is very difficult to get them to come in sometimes—we got as many as we could similar in appearance to the prisoner—I had had a description of him—I know several Wards—I know a policeman of that name—I don't know his brother; I don't know that he has a brother—I decline to say whether I had had any communication with a man named Ward before I arrested the prisoner; I had had information—the prisoner when arrested was in company with Dr. Thorburn—before that

I had seen him with another person; I object to mention the name—he was never in the Police force to my knowledge.

ALFRED LEACH (Police Sergeant). On 4th December, at 2 p.m., I was in Holborn—I saw the prisoner, touched him on the shoulder, and said, "Smythe, a friend of mine wants to speak to you across the way"—he said, "That's not my name"—on Sergeant White coming up, I said to the prisoner, "We are police-officers from Scotland Yard; and shall arrest you on suspicion of uttering forged cheques"—he darted off and ran in the middle of the road, where he fell under a donkey that was passing; I caught him and put him in a cab, and Dr. Thorburn, who was with him at the time, also got in, and we went to Bow Street—no Solicitor or Counsel appeared for the prosecutor at the Police-court.

Cross-examined. No Solicitor or Counsel appeared for the prisoner—all the documents found on the prisoner were not put in evidence on the first onset; Mr. Bolton, a solicitor, asked for certain documents, and they were produced; those related to the charge of £150—the Solicitor for the Treasury asked for the letter; until then I had not put it in, because it was not the case I was dealing with—it had not been mentioned—we arrested the prisoner in consequence of the description we got and from information received—Ward was the person I had seen with the prisoner; he is not here—Miss Kelsey spoke to the prisoner to the best of her belief, but would not be positive—Dalamore was quite sure—three or four officers attached to Bow Street went out and got the men to come in and stand with the prisoner; they were respectable persons, not labouring men—a number of other persons saw the prisoner.

Re-examined. The defendant has been out on bail since last Sessions.

Witness for the Defence.

EMILY SMYTHE . I am a schoolmistress—the prisoner is my brother—he has been employed by the Treasury and in several Government offices—he bears a good character, this is the first accusation that has been brought against him—I remember the evening of 22nd September—the prisoner called at my house in Maida Vale that night shortly after seven—I have a reason for fixing the date—he stayed with me till about eleven—he wanted me to put him up for the night, but I could not, as my pupils had arrived on Wednesday, the 19th—that is the reason I remember the date—I was not called at the Police-court—my brother was not presented there.

Cross-examined. My brother is now a commission agent—he has no office—he has been living in Battersea lately.

Re-examined. He writes for sporting papers.

WALTER EASTLAKE . I am in partnership with my father as a contractor in building materials at 46, Great College Street, Camden Town—I know the prisoner—on 15th September I was at the Coach and Horses, Holloway, about quarter to five, and saw the prisoner there—he remained with me till about 11.30—he was in my company the whole time, pending his leaving me once or twice to go and be shaved, for about ten minutes—he told me he had gone to Mr. Garner's, the barber's next door—we left the Coach and Horses about 6.30 or seven, and went and played billiards together—I was not called at the Police-court.

Cross-examined. We went and played billiards at Mr. Hay's, a tobacconist's in Holloway Road—I did not know that the prisoner was

charged with this till he came to me one day and told me the circumstances of the case—he asked me if I recollected a certain occasion of our playing billiards together, and going to a music-hall and to the Agricultural Hall—I did, and I told him so—we did go to Deacon's Music-hall, and then to the Agricultural Hall—this was on a Saturday—I know it was the 15th September—my attention was first called to the date about a fortnight ago—I fix it in the first place because it is a very unusual thing for me to go to a music-hall, and on 17th September, the Monday following, I moved from my residence in Drayton Park to my present address—I very seldom play billiards—I think I had played with the prisoner three or four times before—I met him by accident on this night—I had seen him two or three months before.

JAMES WILLIAM GARNER . I am a hairdresser, of 212, Holloway Road—I have known the prisoner since last summer, he has been a customer since then—I recollect the St. Leger being run last year, on 12th September—on Saturday, 15th September, the prisoner came to me between five and six to be shaved, he looked in twice, the second time was between six and seven; I was having my tea at the time, and I was very busy.

Cross-examined. I have been in the habit of shaving the prisoner since last June—I don't know where he lived—I might have shaved 50 persons that evening, I could not tell their names.

Re-examined. I had seen the prisoner on the Monday before the St. Leger; he came and had a chat and told me to back Seabreeze.

EDWARD HAY . I am a tobacconist, of 87, Holloway Road; I have a billiard licence; I know Eastlake and the prisoner—I remember their playing a game at my billiard-room on Saturday evening, 15th September; I cannot give the exact time, but I should think it was about seven or eight.

Cross-examined. I remember it because it was the St. Leger week, and I had been at Doncaster nearly all that week—I went alone, I stopped at a private house; I cannot tell the name of the person; it was a lodging; I slept there three nights—I had only seen the prisoner three or four times before—he had played billiards once before, I think, I am not certain—several other persons were playing billiards on this night, Chevers, Andrews, and others—the prisoner first asked me to come here last week—that was the first time my attention was drawn to the matter.

The prisoner received a good character.

Witness in reply.

H. T. WHITE (recalled). I have had no opportunity of making inquiries with reference to the prisoner—I found documents on him which had been stolen—I have made inquiries about the property—I know that he has had a number of stolen cheques in his possession.


There were other indictments against the prisoner, for which see New Court,Wednesday.

NEW COURT, Monday, February 4th, 1889.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-192
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

192. JOHN EDWARDS (45) , Feloniously uttering a counterfeit shilling.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

MARTHA FLETCHER . My husband is a dairyman, of 21, Am well Street,

Clerkenwell—on January 16th, about 5 p.m., I served a man with a glass of milk, price 1d.—he gave me a shilling—I tried to bend it with my teeth; I could not, but my teeth sank into it—I went to my husband in the stables and showed it to him and to Mr. Graefe, and then went back to the shop and told the man that it was bad—I don't think he said anything, but he gave me a good shilling—I gave him the change and he left—I handed the bad one to my husband—this (produced) looks like it.

EDWARD FLETCHER . On 16th January I was with Mr. Graefe in my stable—my wife came and showed me a bad shilling—I kept it, and went to the front of the shop, and saw a man inside—he came out and walked away, and Mr. Graefe and I followed him—the prisoner came from the other side of the way and walked about 30 yards behind him on the same side—the prisoner turned round many times and looked towards the shop—we went on the same side as the shop and they on the other side—they walked in that way about 200 yards, and turned down a street—they appeared to speak, but I could not hear them—the prisoner stopped and turned back; I seized him, and the other man ran away—I ran after him, leaving the prisoner with Mr. Graefe, but lost sight of him, and returned to the spot and found a policeman with Mr. Graefe and the prisoner—I told the policeman that the prisoner was with a man who passed a bad shilling in my shop—he said he did not know me or my shop, and had never been near it—the policeman told me to walk behind to the station to see if he dropped anything, and when about half way there the prisoner made a little struggle, during which he dropped two shillings from his left hand—I saw them fall, and picked them up and took them to the station, and gave them up—when the charge was made the prisoner said he did not know me, and had not been to my place, and did not know anything about the coins, and did not drop them, and did not know anything about the other man.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You said, "If you think I have been with anybody, search me"—the constable had hold of your' right hand; and after you had dropped the coins you complained of his hurting you—you were behind the other man first, but afterwards joined him and walked shoulder to shoulder.

MAX GRAEFE . I am a dairyman, of Wood Green—on January 16th I was with Mr. Fletcher in his stable; Mrs. Fletcher came in and produced a bad shilling—I went to the front of the shop with Mr. Fletcher, and saw a man in the shop; he came out, and we followed him—he walked five or six yards, and then crossed the road—we were on the shop side—I then saw the prisoner, who I had not seen before—they joined company a good distance from the shop, and appeared to be speaking, but I could not hear them—we got up to them in Baker Street; and Mr. Fletcher laid hold of the prisoner, handed him over to me, and went after the other man, who ran away—a policeman came up—Mr. Fletcher then came back and charged the prisoner with being concerned with the other man in passing bad coin—on the way to the station he tried to struggle, and the policeman asked me to catch hold of his left hand; I did so, and had hold of him when he dropped the two shillings.

Cross-examined. I did not take them instead of letting you drop them, because I did not know you had got them—I heard you ask the constable to search you.

PETER BARNES Policeman G 289). I was on duty in Baker Street, and

saw Mr. Graefe holding the prisoner—Mr. Fletcher came back and made a statement, and the prisoner said, "Search me and see if I have any more"—I said, "I cannot search you in the street"—he said he did not know the other man, and did not know Fletcher's shop—going to the station he put his hand into the ticket pocket of his overcoat, and at the same time tried to throw me down—I asked Graefe to catch hold of him in case he dropped anything; Graefe caught hold of his hand, and he dropped two shillings from his hand on the pavement; Fletcher picked them up, and gave them to me at the station—he was charged there, and said he did not know the other man, and did not drop the shillings—he was asked his address, and said he had no fixed abode—I also received from Fletcher this coin (produced), which had been uttered—I found 6d. in the prisoner's ticket pocket, into which I saw him put his left hand, and in his trousers pocket three sixpences, two shillings, and eightpence, all good.

Cross-examined. Three or four persons can walk a breast on the pavement there—I did not take the coins from you because I had hold of you with both hands.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to H. M. Mint—these coins are counterfeit, and one of those dropped is from the same mould as the one uttered.

The prisoner in his defence stated that he did not know the other man, that he merely stopped to allow the witnesses to pass him when they seized him; he denied attempting to throw the policeman or dropping the coin.

GUILTY .—He then >PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of a like offence at this Court in October, 1886. Judgment respited.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-193
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

193. WILLIAM JACKSON (19) and HENRY DAVID SCOTT (19) PLEADED GUILTY to attempting to burglariously enter the dwelling-house of Frank Newman with intent to steal.— Six Months' Hard Labour each.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, February 5th, 1889.

Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-194
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

194. GEORGE THOMAS (22) PLEADED GUILTY to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Wm. Manning Barker, and stealing 13 boxes of cigars and other articles worth £20, having been before convicted of felony— Eighteen Month' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-195
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

195. GEORGE JOYCE (21) to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Alfred Jno. Turner, and stealing a coat and other articles— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]And

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-196
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

196. CHARLES WILLIAM PEACOCK (27) to several indictments for forging and uttering orders for the payment of £30, £50, and other sums, also to unlawfully omitting certain particulars from a book of Jno. Gagan, and another, his master's.— Five Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-197
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

197. THOMAS BARRY was indicted for a public nuisance by causing an obstruction of the highway.

MR. POLAND, Q. C., and MR. GORE Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended.

GUILTY . To enter into his own recognisances of £100 to appear for judgment if called upon.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-198
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

198. FREDERICK LINDLEY PLEADED GUILTY to a like offence.— To enter into a like recognisance.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-199
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

199. ELIZABETH HAWKINS, For unlawfully publishing a libel of and concerning Cornelius David O'Connor, to which she pleaded a justification.


The alleged libel consisted of a statement made to a Missionary, in answer to a question put to the prisoner, and was taken down in writing by him, and signed by the prisoner.

MR. AVORY contended that the statement made by the prisoner was equivalent to a complaint made to a Constable, and was privileged, and that as it was written down by the Missionary it was not published by her (Delaney v. Jones. 4, Espinas; Layand Lawson. 4, Adolphus and Ellis, and Smith and Wood; 3, Campbell).

After hearing MR. FULTON, the Recorder ruled that it was a privileged communication, as it was a complaint made of a public officer far misconduct in the discharge of his public duty, and that there was no publication, as the Missionary wrote the statement down without taking the exact words. Under his direction the Jury returned a verdict of


OLD COURT, Wednesday, February 6th, 1889.

Before Mr. Justice Charles.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-200
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

200. JOHN SIDNEY COTTAM (32) , Feloniously, and without lawful excuse engraving upon a copper-plate a note purporting to be a £5 note of the Bank of England.

MR. POLAND. Q. C., with MR. WOODFALL Prosecuted; MR. GILL Defended.

JOHN CONQUEST . I am a detective of the Metropolitan Police—on 19th December I went with Constable Collins to 85, Harrison Street, Gray's Inn Road—a child was coming out at the door—we went in and went up to the second floor—we knocked at the door; it was locked; it was opened a little way by the prisoner, who tried to close it again—we forced our way in and overpowered him—he was smothered with a greasy, oily, black substance, wet, his hands were quite wet with it—I said, "We are police officers"—I then went to the window under which a bench was erected, and picked up this plate—it was on the bench with a magnifying glass on the corner of it—I said, "What is this for?"—he said, "We are getting out a scheme for Christmas"—we then began to search the room—there was a line across one corner, upon which were hanging several notes, one or two were quite wet—I picked up one and showed it to the prisoner—he said, "We were going to have 'A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year' put on the back of it"—I said, "Who do you mean by 'we'"—he said, "I work for the other man"—I said, "Who is he, what is his name?"—he said "Mr. Devon"—I said, "Where does he live?"—he said, "I don't know, I picked him up at a public-house in Clerkenwell"—I then continued searching the room—on the right-hand side of the room was a largo copper-plate printing press, two old chairs without backs, on one of which was a large pad of blotting paper saturated with water, between every few leaves were pieces of paper cut to the size of the forged notes—I produce them—there were about six—in all I found about 50 pieces of paper—on another chair were six printed notes lying—seven were

hanging on the line, and three were in a cupboard, sixteen in all; they were all damp, except the three in the cupboard—there was" also a quantity of other blotting-paper—in the cupboard I found a quantity of paper of the same kind as the notes are made of—on the bench under the window, in addition to the magnifying glass, were these thirteen engraving tools, three bottles of liquid, three oil-stones, three sticks of charcoal, one small melting pot, a large piece of whitening, a tin of printing ink, a cup and brush, with some of the ink in it, wet, one piece of beeswax, a piece of indiarubber, four leather pads, one wet, two lead pencils, and a memorandum book—on the mantelpiece was a catalogue of copper-plate printing machines, in which was an invoice; there was also a memorandum book, a red book, in which is this entry, "Mr. Devon commenced rent 8th December, 1888; three shillings per week for second-floor back at 85, Harrison Street, of Mrs. Hawkes. Dec. 15, paid 3s."—the invoice was dated December 15, "Received as under from Benjamin Winstone and Sons, one second-hand copper-plate press, 18, one copper-plate ink, and one blanket; received S. Cottam"—I found some copper-plate ink on the mantelpiece, and a piece of blanket round the roller of the machine—there was some wet blotting paper on the machine, which had the appearance of being in use—there was a fire in the grate, upon which was a flat iron—the room was generally fitted up as a workroom, no bed or any furniture—I found no materials for printing Christmas and New Year's wishes, no type, nothing of the sort—there was no other person in the room besides the prisoner, myself, and Collins—two other officers came in later on—when he was charged he said, "I suppose I had better not say anything now"—I charged him with having this plate in his possession and the notes, and feloniously forging the same—he gave his address "Triangle Hotel, Smithfield"—about a week before his apprehension I went to Mr. Lemarcraft, 5, Green Terrace, Clerkenwell—I there saw a box with the prisoner's name on it, and in that box I found this indenture of apprenticeship.

Cross-examined. I was first spoken to with regard to this matter about five weeks before the prisoner was arrested—I had not been to 85, Harrison Street before 19th December—I had had observation kept of the house by Collins occasionally—I had been there once or twice, but not to keep any observation for any length of time—I had not seen any other man there—when I went there on the 19th I did not go over the house; it is an eight-roomed house, let out in tenements, a number of people live in it—the lock on the prisoner's room door was an ordinary one—nobody slept in that room—I think the prisoner told me that Devon had been there with in a few minutes—I handcuffed him at once on going in—he gave us every assistance, as I took up the several things he said, "That is so-and-so," and he said, "You will find the invoice of the press in the book"—the first thing he said was, "This is a scheme being got out for Christmas"—I can't say that I have ever seen such things got out for Christmas, I have seen cheques as advertisements of different firms—I have produced the whole of the notes I found—I made a note of his exact answer the first opportunity I had—he did not say that it was intended to be written on the back of the notes, "Wishing you many of them"—I think they are good imitations of Bank notes; on comparison with a real note of course there is a difference; I don't think I should take one of them in their present state, there is no watermark on them, the paper

is thicker—I think I went to the window to see whether there was a watermark; it is a very light room, no blind, but it is not overlooked, the houses at the back are 50 or 60 yards off—the line on which the notes were was in the corner of the room, and could not be seen from the window.

HENRY COLLINS (Detective). I went with Conquest to this house—the room door was closed—I knocked, it was opened, and I saw the prisoner—he tried to close the door, but we forced our way in—we handcuffed him while we searched the place—a fire was burning, and an iron was on the fire—I found this piece of gelatine with the tracing of a £5 Bank of England note on it in the cupboard, which was closed, but not locked—a latchkey of the house was on the mantelpiece—I assisted Conquest in taking possession of all the things except the press; we left that behind.

Cross-examined. As soon as we told him who we were he made no resistance—I had a look at the notes—I have not had experience of such notes in their present unfinished state—he said they were going to get out a scheme for Christmas, and to have "A Merry Christmas" put at the back.

MARY CAROLINE HAWKES . I live at 16, Gainsford Street, Kentish Town—I rent the house 85, Harrison Street—on 4th December last the prisoner came to my house with another man; I did not know them—the prisoner said, "I have come about a room in Harrison Street"—it was a back room on the second floor that I had to let—I said, "What do you want it for?"—he said he wanted it to do some small work; as a sort of workshop for a few hours in the day, from about half-past nine in the morning till the evening—I said, "I hope it is not a business that is noisy"—he said, "Oh, no, quite different, a very light business, merely drawing and tracing"—I asked him where he had been living before—he said in Clerkenwell—the other man with him said the prisoner was living with him at 42, Spencer Street, Clerkenwell; they both said that—I objected at first to their having the room, but he said it was such a very nice, light window for his work, and it was so handy to take his work home, that he worked for some printers in Gray's Inn Road, either Tiley or Riley, I could not be positive—he gave his own name as Devon—he paid eighteenpence as a deposit for half the week up to Saturday—I took the rent-book afterwards, with a key of the street door, and gave it him—he had then been there over a week—I knocked at the door—he did not come directly, and I went into the next room, some time after the door was opened, and I said, "Here is your key, Mr. Devon," and he said, "I am much obliged," and took it from me—he said, "Your rent, madam"—I said, "My rent is not due till Monday"—he said, "I have no change but this," putting his hand to something like paper; I did not see what it was—this is my rent-book, in which I entered his name and the time the rent commenced, 8th December—there was no more due till the 15th—the book is my daughter's writing.

Cross-examined. I did not make any note of the conversation, but I remember it very well—I am quite sure I did not mix the names—I fancy the other man said that his name was George Cottam or Cotton, but I know the prisoner said Devon—I asked the other man his name, because he came as the reference—the prisoner said he should not sleep on the promises—the house is let out in tenements; about 20 persons live in it.

JAMES WILLIAM MARTIN . I am clerk to Messrs. Spicer Brothers, paper makers, New Bridge Street, Blackfriars—I know the prisoner—on 17th December he came and asked for samples of loan paper—that is a sort of paper not very often asked for—I asked if he wanted the hand-made or the machine-made—he selected the hand-made—this (produced) is some of the loan paper that I sold him—he bought three quires, for which he paid 8s. 3d.—he took it away with him—he gave the name of Greeley—I have our book here, in which that name is entered—the notes produced are printed on loan paper.

Cross-examined. The loan paper is used for share certificates—I don't remember him saying that he wanted to show it to somebody—he first took two samples, and returned in two hours and bought the bulk.

ARTHUR BENJAMIN WINSTONE . I am a partner in the firm of Winstone and Son, printers' engravers, Shoe Lane—on 15th December the prisoner came and spoke about a copper-plate press—some were shown him, and he selected one and paid 10s. on account—he signed this paper "Sidney Cottam," agreeing to purchase it for £6, to be paid on 22nd inst or before the 25th—this invoice is on One of our forms—Harris took the press to the prisoner, and brought back this receipt, "Received, Sid. Cottam"—he was introduced to us by Mr. Allen, one of our representatives, as Cottam.

Cross-examined. I could not swear to the prisoner, but to the best of my belief he is the man.

FREDERICK ALLEN . I am commercial traveller to Messrs. Winstone—I have known the prisoner about twenty years—I have only seen him twice; in both cases at Shoe Lane—his father was manager of the engraving department at Messrs. Waterlow's—it was through the father that I knew the prisoner—to the best of my recollection I only saw him once before the purchase of the press, about six or eight months ago—on 15th December he came and said he had some work that was urgent, that must be done at or about Christmas, and he wanted me to intercede for him for a copper-plate press, that he had a sovereign to pay, and would I kindly facilitate his getting it on easy terms from Messrs. Winstone—he reminded me that I knew his father—I introduced him to Messrs. Winstone.

Cross-examined. He said he wanted it at once—I think the work he did was ornamental work, but I never saw his work.

ALFRED HARRIS . I am a fitter, in the employment of Winstone and Son—on 15th December, about eleven in the day, I took a copper-plate press, a pound of black copper-plate ink, and half a yard of blanket to 85, Harrison Street, Gray's Inn Road, with this memorandum—I inquired for Mr. Cottam—I saw a man on the stairs—I made inquiries, and afterwards took the things to the second-floor back room, where I saw the prisoner—he directed me where to stand the press, and to fit it up—after I had done so he asked me to cut the blanket and fit it to the roller—I said it was not my business to cut the blanket, and I refused—he said, "Will you cut them"—I said, "If you will show me the plate I will cut them"—he did not show me the plate, he told me to go to hell—it would be necessary to get the size of the plate to fit to the size of the roller—I asked him to sign the memorandum for the things I delivered, and he did so—this is the press.

Cross-examined. Before anything was said about the plate I had several times refused to cut the blanket.

FREDERICK LEMARCRAFT . I live at 5, Green Terrace, Clerkenwell—the prisoner lodged in my house last October—I was not at home when he came, but a black box, a portmanteau, and a hand-bag was brought to the house—he was there a month, till 6th November, I think—he left the box behind—on 16th December Inspector Conquest came, and we opened the box the prisoner had left, and in it was this indenture of apprentice-ship. This was dated 1st November, 1870, (by which Sidney Cottam put himself apprentice to Philip Hickson Waterlow for seven years, to learn the art of an engraver.)

Cross-examined. The box was not locked—my wife put the papers into it and corded it up.

CHARLES MILLS . I live at Chesterfield Terrace, Dulwich—I have been in the employ of Messrs. Waterlow and Sons at London Wall—I knew the prisoner when he was there as an apprentice for seven years—he did not remain in the service afterwards—he was there learning the art of engraving—I am an engraver.

Cross-examined. He was apprenticed to learn the art of an ornamental engraver, that is distinct from a letter engraver; there are three branches of engraving, letter, writing, and ornamental; this is letter—I have seen him two or three times since he left—I have never known notes produced for the purpose of valentines or things of that kind.

Re-examined. After he left Messrs. Waterlow's I heard that he was designing—part of this note is ornamental engraving.

CHARLES WILLIAM GREEN . I am a commercial engraver, of 1 and 2, Poultry—I have been an engraver for the last 25 years—I have examined all the things produced—if a bank note was placed under the piece of gelatine one of these tools would be suitable for scratching on it a facsimile of a Bank of England note, something could then be smeared over it so as to take the impression from the gelatine on to a copper plate, the plate being covered over with a thin coating of wax—powdered red chalk is generally used—a tool would then be used to scratch through the wax on to the plate, and so make a facsimile there—I have seen the impression taken from the plate—the gelatine is a much better imitation of a note than the copper-plate—when the plate is prepared with ink you can then print off—a piece of blanket is used to press the paper on to the letters through the roller, the paper being damped—these notes appear to be impressions from this plate—the tools are engravers' tools.

WALTER JOHN COE . I am principal of the bank note printing department of the Bank of England—the Bank arranges for their own special paper to be made for them—it is very carefully guarded—the Bank print their notes on that paper as they require them; no one unconnected with the Bank is allowed to print or imitate their notes—this gelatine has a much better imitation of the note than the plate, it is a very good imitation—these notes are printed from this plate—this impression was taken from the plate in my presence—there are certain small marks on the genuine notes that are not on these—to the eye these are fac-similes of a genuine £5 Bank of England note—the Britannia in the corner is defective—I know nothing of the prisoner.

Cross-examined. The Britannia is very bad from an expert's point of view—the watermark is put on in the course of manufacture—I have seen notes produced for the purpose of valentines—I should not mistake these for genuine notes.

Re-examined. The notes I have seen for valentines have been smaller than the genuine note—I have seen a valentine the size of a genuine note—some years ago the Bank seized some.

INSPECTOR CONQUEST Re-examined). I have been to Gray's Inn Lane to see if I could find printers of the name of Riley or Tiley; I could not find any such firm.

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-201
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

201. JOHN SULLIVAN (21) was indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's inquisition with, the manslaughter of James Ellis Cooper.


SARAH DALE . I lived at 11, Penny Fields, Poplar, with my nephew, James Ellis Cooper, a dock labourer—on 18th January, a little after six in the evening, he went to the Rose and Crown to fetch some beer, two doors off—my daughter Lucy was at my house—she was going for the beer, but my nephew stopped her and went instead—he returned in about two minutes with the beer and the change—his nose was bleeding—he made a statement, and about an hour afterwards he went to bed—he vomited a good deal before he went to bed—he complained of dreadful pains at the back of his head—next morning a doctor was called in—he got worse and died at twenty-five minutes to three—he was in great agony, and complained of his head all the time—on the Saturday morning I saw that his eye was black, and a slight scratch on his nose—my daughter Lucy had given evidence against the prisoner some time last year for breaking a plate-glass window.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. The deceased had a fit three years ago—Dr. McAndrew attended him—it was a fainting fit—he was discharged from the army six years ago—he had fever in India, but no sunstroke.

Re-examined. He was in India two years, and was invalided home in ill-health—the climate did not suit him—he has been with me six years; he has been in employment for the last three years working as a labourer in the docks—his health has been very good during that time—there was nothing the matter with him on this night to go to the Rose and Crown.

MINNIE LITTLE . I am barmaid at the Rose and Crown—on the evening of the 18th January, about half past six, Cooper came in for some beer—the prisoner and Barbara Corcoran were in the bar—I served Cooper with the beer—after serving him I turned to go into the parlour—I heard a noise on the floor—I turned round and saw Cooper staggering backwards into the corner with his hand to his right eye—the prisoner was about a yard and a half from him—I had not heard anything, only the noise of feet on the floor—I heard no words between Cooper and the prisoner—Cooper went out—as soon as he had got to the door Corcoran followed him, and the prisoner threw the ale out of the glasses on to the floor and went out—they were two glasses of mild and bitter that the prisoner had called for and had been drinking—before Corcoran went out, and while the prisoner was there, I said to her, "What has he done?" and she said, "He has struck Cooty"—that is a name Cooper went by.

Cross-examined. The bar is a small one—you did not knock him down, you sent him staggering into the corner.

BENJAMIN MORGAN (Policeman K 408). At twenty minutes to nine on Sunday, 20th January, I was in the West India Dock Road with Carpenter—I there saw the prisoner in company with other persons—I told him he would be charged with assaulting a man at the Rose and Crown beer-house in Penny Fields on the night of the 18th; that since then the man had died—he said, "I know nothing about the assault; I don't know the man; it is a fair get up for me; I went after a handkerchief I had left for a few pots of ale at the Commercial Tap, and I paid for it on Friday night; I was not at the Rose and Crown that night"—I took him to the police-station, and there he again said, "I was not in the Rose and Crown that night"—at that time he was perfectly sober.

WILLIAM CARPENTER Policeman K 61). About half-past six on Friday night, 18th January, I was called by Mrs. Dale—I went to Penny Fields, and saw Sullivan outside the Commercial Tap—he had his coat off—several of his mates and two women were with him, trying to get him away—this was 20 or 30 yards from the Rose and Crown—Barbara Corcoran was among the women; she was assisting to get Sullivan away; they got him away—on Sunday, the 20th, I was with last witness when he arrested Sullivan—in going to the station he said, "I don't know anything about the assault, I don't know the man; it is a fair get up for me; I went to the Commercial Tap to get a handkerchief for 1s.; I was not in the Rose and Crown that night"—at the station in the reserve room he said, "It is that woman with the four eyes; it is a fair get up for me; they get me for everything; once a dog gets a bad name it is sure to follow him"—I know Lucy Allen, a cousin of the deceased—she wears spectacles—I never heard the prisoner call her that name.

BENJAMIN MORGAN (Re-examined). I know Lucy Allen—I have heard the prisoner speak of her as "Four eyes"—that was on an occasion when she gave evidence against him.

THOMAS HARVEY , M. R. C. S. I am in practice at Montague Place, Poplar—about twelve at night on Saturday, 19th January, I was called to see Cooper—he was in bed, with his head bandaged—he was complaining of severe pain in his head, and was apparently suffering from concussion of the brain—I prescribed for him—there was a contusion over the right eye—I did not see him again before his death—on the 21st January I made a post mortem examination—the cause of death was effusion of blood between the dura mater and the left hemisphere of the brain—that might have been caused by a blow over the eye—I found nothing else to account for it—the man had evidently a weak heart; I did not consider him a strong, healthy man—I had never seen him before—I know nothing of his having fits; there was no indication of his having had sunstroke.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "When I was in the Rose and Crown Cooper came in the side where I was, on purpose to make a row, I could not exactly say about striking him. About 12.25 I came out of the Rose and Crown. I got about twenty yards, someone came behind me, hit me in the face and knocked me flat and senseless."

Witness for the Defence.

BARBARA CORCORAN . I did not tell the barmaid that the prisoner said he struck Cooty.

Cross-examined. I am not a friend of the prisoner's—I was not out with him on this night—I met him outside the Rose and Crown, he asked me to have something to drink, and I went in with him, he called for something to drink—he was drunk; I simply went with him because he knew my brothers—while standing there I saw Cooper, I knew him as a neighbour, he is called Cooty; the prisoner asked him would he have something to drink—Cooper replied, "No, you have just come from a place where they ought to have kept you"—I did not understand then what he meant—Miss Little was not just going to the parlour then, she stood at the bar with her hands on the bar—she could hear everything that went on; she did not turn to leave the bar in my presence—I was not there when the prisoner struck Cooper—I did not see Cooper leave the bar, I left before him, leaving Cooper and the prisoner there face to face and Miss Little in the bar—I went out on hearing high words; I did not hear what the words were—I went out and went straight indoors; I live right opposite—late that night I was out with my two brothers, I was not in company with the prisoner outside the Commercial Tap—when the police came up the prisoner had his coat off; it is not true that I was assisting to get him away—after twelve that night I was in the Rose and Crown with my mother and father and my two brothers—the prisoner came in—he spoke to my brothers, not to me—the prisoner left, I remained there about ten minutes, and left then with my mother—I did not speak to the constable outside the Commercial Tap—I did not say, "Don't take Sullivan into custody," or any words to that effect—I did not see Carpenter outside the Commercial Tap that night, or Egan—I did not speak to them—we had not drunk the beer the prisoner had ordered.

Evidence in Reply.

WILLIAM CARPENTER recalled). I saw Corcoran outside the Commercial Tap at 6.35; the prisoner was there—Corcoran said, "Don't lock him up; we will get him away"—Egan was there at the time.

WILLIAM EGAN (Policeman K 181). I was outside the Commercial Tap on this evening, about twenty-five minutes to seven—I saw Corcoran there and the prisoner; she said, "Don't lock him up; we will get him away."

GUILTY . A number of convictions for assault and one for burglary were proved against him—Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, February 5th; and

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, February 6th, 1869.

Before Mr. Common Sergeant.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-202
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

202. WILLIAM GOOD (27) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing, while employed in the Post Office, a letter and contents, the property of H. M. Postmaster-General. He received an excellent character—Six Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-203
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

203. MICHAEL ZWERBACK (20) , to breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Samuel Abraham, and stealing two jackets, 4 1/2 yards of tweed, and other articles, his property.— Six Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-204
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

204. SUSAN ASHMAN (18) , Stealing a watch, a watch case, and part of a watch chain, of Max Englehart, from his person.

MR. JONES Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

MAX ENGLEHART . I am a merchant, and live at 38, Westmoreland Place, City Road—on 30th January, about 12.30 a.m., I was at the Angel, Clerkenwell, just at closing time—a gentleman and two ladies went in, and I followed them; the prisoner was one of them—she asked me for some port, and I gave her some—we went out together—I said, "I am going home"—she said, "You can go this way"—I said, "I am living in the City; this is not my way"—we were then going towards King's Cross, and turned into Warren Street—I had my back to the wall of a house, and she opened my overcoat—I buttoned it up again, and she did so again, very quick, and suddenly took out my watch and pulled it away—she was something like falling on the ground, and I came also a little to fall; and there came a fellow who gave me a push, and I fell and she fell with me, I upon her; and during that time the fellow was looking for the watch on the ground, and then he ran away quickly—my watch cost £9, and I dare say it was worth £7; it was in this leather case (produced)—I called "Police," and two constables came and "fixed" the girl—I looked on the ground, and could not find the watch; but we found the case—there was no glass to my watch—I did not see any glass on the ground, but I found a little glass in my hand next day, which I took out—the prisoner bit my finger, and I could not get rid of her—I am always sober.

Cross-examined. I sometimes come to London; but I do not live here—I was only a few minutes in the public-house, because it was closing time—we were walking together from 12.30 till the police came at 1.20—I only had a few shillings about me—she did not attempt to take that, she asked me how much money I had, and I said, "I have only a few shillings"—no man knocked up against me as I left the public-house, nor did we pass anybody—I did not take out my watch to see the time when I got out, nor in the public-house, but she may have seen my chain in the public-house, because it was warm, and my coat was open there—I said to the constable, "She has got my watch; if she has not got it she has given it to the man who has gone"—I never saw it in her hand—I was walking about with her three-quarters of an hour before she attempted to steal it—I gave her no money; she asked me to go home with her; but I had no intention—I could not get away from her—she had not always hold of my arm—I felt my watch safe before I left the public-house—the prisoner did not cry out when the man rushed up.

Re-examined. I am accustomed to feel my watch—I last felt it safe before I went into the public-house very likely—I felt her pull it away after she opened my coat—my watch-glass always broke, and I had no glass to it for two months; and I carried it without a glass in a leather case.

JOHN BOY (Policeman G 198). On 30th January, about 1.20 a.m., I heard cries of "Police," and ran and found the prosecutor and prisoner struggling on the ground—he said, "She has got my watch; if she has not got it she has given it away; the man has gone"—he was very excited, jumping about the place—I searched for the watch and chain—I could not find it, but No. 165 found the case and some glass—I took the prisoner to the station; she said nothing in answer to the charge—the prosecutor was quite sober.

Cross-examined. No watch or chain was found on her—the female

searcher is not here—the prosecutor spoke half German and half English—Warren Street is a dark street off Chapel Street; it is not on my beat—I am not aware that there are improper houses there; they are shops, which were closed at that time.

ANDREW MASON (Policeman G 165). On 30th January, about 1.20 a.m., I heard cries of "Police," ran to the spot, and saw the prosecutor and prisoner on the ground, the prisoner undermost—he said, "She has got my watch; a young lad has gone past, and she must have given it to him"—I searched for it, but only found this leather watch case two yards from them, which he identified; some broken glass was lying by it, which I thought was the glass of the watch.

Cross-examined. The case was shut—the prosecutor said that he and the prisoner had been standing in a doorway in a dark street—many people do not go through Warren Street at that time of night.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-205
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

205. JAMES REED (22) , Stealing a watch, a chain, a locket, and a pencil-case from the person of John Howson.

JOHN HOWSON . I live at Eskdale, South Norwood—on 14th January, about six p.m., I was on London Bridge, and when I had got half way across I was impeded by a knot of young fellows—it was rather dark—I tried to avoid them, but got packed in and could not get one way or other—I then received a rather sharp blow on my breast, followed immediately by a sharp jerk from my waistcoat, and missed my watch—the prisoner was close to me in front, swinging round, and I saw the tail of my coat fall from his arm; I grasped him with my left hand, and said, "You have taken my watch"—he struggled, and said, "Let go, let go"—I felt his coat tearing, and a policeman came—my watch and chain, locket, key, and pencil-case were worth £40—the bar of the chain was all that was left.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. My right hand is crippled, and I seldom use it except for writing—your arm was under my coat—I wore an over-coat, two buttons of which were still buttoned after I lost my watch.

THOMAS WHITE (City Policeman 726). I was called and saw the prosecutor holding the prisoner—the prosecutor said, "He has stolen my watch"—the prisoner said, "You have made a mistake, I am innocent"—I took him to the station, where he said that the prosecutor slipped, and he caught him to prevent his falling against a van, and pointed to mud on his shoulder—nothing was found on him.

Prisoners Defence. There was a great crowd, I could not pass without touching or pushing against some one. I am perfectly innocent.

J. HOWSON (Re-examined). I did not slip as the prisoner states—I was not on the kerb—the prisoner was not between me and a van, he was in front of me on the left—I was so jammed in that I could not slip.

Cross-examined. If I did not slip it is a mystery to me how my coat got all over mud—it looked very much as if it was put there purposely—it was a very round patch, about three inches, at the back of my left shoulder.

GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY* to a conviction at the Thames Police-court on 13th July, 1888.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-206
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

206. GEORGE TIMES (36), and JAMES CARNEY (29) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin, having other counterfeit coin in their possession.

MR. TICKLE Prosecuted, and MR. PURCELL Defended TIMES.

MATILDA PRITCHARD . I am barmaid at the Northampton Arms, Essex Road, Islington—on December 19th, about nine a.m., I served Carney with some ale—he gave me a florin—I saw something suspicious about it, but gave him 1s. 10d. change, and then showed it to the postman, who thought it was good, and I put it in the till—there was no other florin there—I afterwards took it out, and the postman bit it and said it was bad—Carney took it and gave me another for it—he said that he was drunk last night, and thought he must have got it at the Angel—he then asked his way to the Angel, and the postman directed him—he left and the pot-man followed him.

Cross-examined by Carney. You were there five or ten minutes—I did not see you leave.

HENRY STEPHENS . I am postman at the Northampton Arms—I saw Carney served—the barmaid showed me a florin—I felt it, but my hands having been in soda water I could not judge of it—I gave it back to her and she put it in the till—she afterwards gave it to me again, I bit it, and my teeth sank into it; it bent easily, and I gave it back to her—she put it on the counter and told Carney it was bad—he said he got change for a sovereign at the Angel—he asked the way to the Angel, and I directed him, and followed him about 100 yards; he stopped a few moments and returned past the house, and went as far as the Lord Clyde, where he joined Times; that is about 300 yards from our house—they walked together down Englefield Road, and I saw something pass from one to the other—as they passed the Lord Raglan public-house Carney looked inside the door and came out again, and then went to the Perseverance in Southgate Road and looked in there, and then they went to the Mildmay Tavern—Carney went in, and Times was outside—I went into the house and cautioned the barmaid, and then heard Carney ask for a florin for three sixpences and six pennyworth of coppers, he did not get it—he pushed open the partition, saw me, and went out—I left the constable to follow him—Times walked up on the other side of the road and jumped on a tram—I ran after it and whistled, it stopped about 200 yards further on, and I got on, and rode about 200 yards—Times got off at the corner of Newington Green, opposite Mildmay Read, and stood on the Green watching Carney being followed, and then went along Poet's Road, walking very sharply—as soon as he turned the corner I ran to the corner, but was not in time enough to see him turn the corner, and I ran past the mews and saw him just coming out; I expect he could not get through—he went through several streets to the White House, Highbury New Park, where I called a constable's attention to him—the way he went round took me from a quarter to nine to 9.40—I ran in front of him, stopped him, and said, "I charge you with being concerned with another man in passing counterfeit coin"—he said, "You have made a mistake"—he was taken in custody, and about two o'clock Bishop showed me six coins, and took me to the same yard where I had seen Times come out, and showed me a place there.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I gave the same evidence substantially on the last occasion; the jury heard all I had to say, and were locked up for an hour or two, and were unable to agree to a verdict.

—the two men were strangers to me—I have heard since that before Times was taken two other men were apprehended—I was shown another man at the station besides Carney—I do not know that that man was kept two hours at the station; but it was discovered that it was a mistake, and he was let go—when I came out of the Mildmay Tavern, Times stood outside watching the constable following Carney—I am perfectly certain that man was Times, and if twenty juries disagreed it would not alter my mind—I pot on the footboard of the tramcar, and got off at the same time that Times did—I passed through about seven streets, all private houses—I was following Times for half an hour, and never lost sight of him except in turning the corner.

Cross-examined by Carney. I have the florin—I did not disfigure it—I could hear from the link that it was not the same one that you first gave the barmaid—I saw the money in your left hand—Times stood at the corner, by the lamp-post—when you came out you did not join him.

Re-examined. I have no doubt that Times is the man who Carney joined after he left the Northampton Arms, and the man I followed walking with Carney to the Mildmay Tavern and to where I gave him in custody.

JAMES NEVILLE . I am barman at the Mildmay Tavern, Ball's Pond Road—on 19th December, about 9, Carney came in for half a pint of ale, and soon after he asked me for a florin in change for silver and copper—while he was doing so Stephens spoke to me, and I then refused.

Cross-examined by Carney. I did not serve you—I saw money in your hand, silver and copper—you were in the house two minutes.

ARTHUR BISHOP (Policeman). On December 19, at 9.15, Stephens spoke to me in Ball's Pond Road, and I saw Carney and a lot of people about—I followed Carney to Mildmay Park into Mildmay Road for quarter of a mile—another man came up and they walked together—another policeman and I arrested them and took them to Dalston Police-station—on the way Carney said, "I had three or four two-shilling pieces, but I changed them all for good money"—the other man was let go after the inspector had made inquiries—I then went to Upper Street Police-station and saw Times in custody—from what Stephens said I went to a mews off Poet's Road, and found these six counterfeit florins wrapped in wet tissue paper, ten yards down on the right-hand side, five of them were together, and one by itself—the five were all the same date, 1880—I pointed out the spot to Stephens—they were under a piece of timber which rested on a brick—I could not see them without searching—that was at 2.30—the prisoners denied all knowledge of each other at the station—I found on Carney four sixpences, one shilling, and six pennies.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. Stephens pointed to two men, but they must have parted before I identified which two he meant—the other man accompanied the prisoner I was following, and I thought he was a con federate—we kept him an hour and a half—I found the coins four or five hours after Times was apprehended; the paper was wet—it was not raining at the time—the timber weighed two hundredweight, but the coin could be put under it without lifting it, as it was on a brick—I do not remember seeing Times at all.

Cross-examined by Carney. I was from one to two hundred yards behind you—you looked round several times—you had a pipe in your

mouth—you were not drunk—I did not say, "Tell me all about it, and I will let it be light for you."

Re-examined. I had to raise the wood before I could see anything under it—Carney is one of the men who Stephens pointed out—I went a quarter of a mile before I saw the other man who I took—they were both taken to the station on suspicion, and Stephens came and identified Carney; there was no likeness between Times and the man who was let go.

JAMES WHITEHEAD . On December 19th, between nine and ten, I was near Highbury Park Tavern—Stephens pointed out Times to me, and then ran in front of him and stopped him—Stephens told me something, and Times said it was a mistake—I took him to the station, when he was charged with being concerned with another man in uttering counterfeit coin—Bishop brought Carney in, and they said they did not know one another—I found on Times two florins, three shillings, and fourpence halfpenny.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. Times said he did not know what he was being taken for, and that Stephens had made a mistake.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . These six florins found in the mews are counterfeit; five of them are of one date, and mostly from the same mould.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I have not seen the coin that was uttered.

Wednesday, February 6th.

HARRY LIONEL HART . I live at 54, Newington Green—on December 19th, about 10 a.m., I saw a man, who I believe to be Times, come out of the mews in Poet's Road—I went with Bishop to search the mews about two o'clock, and saw him find the six coins produced under some timber, which we had to raise.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I picked Times out from others at the Police-court, and I believe he is the man, but I do not swear to him—I was not called before the Magistrate.

RICHARD KILLICK . I live at 6, Roupell Street, Lambeth, and am treasurer of the Comical Fellows' Club, of which Times has been a member in the name of Godfrey, for nine or ten years—on December 17th Carney came to me, and I paid him 6s. on behalf of Godfrey or Times, two florins and two shillings—he said that one of the florins was bad, and wanted another for it—I thought it was not bad, but gave him two shillings for it—after he left I examined it more minutely, and discovered that it was bad—the coins I gave him had been counted by two people besides myself, and no bad money was discovered.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. Inspector Davis called on me, and I came here on January 7th and saw these two prisoners in the courtyard, and came to the conclusion that Carney was the man I saw on December 17th—I had not the least doubt about it—he was a perfect stranger to me when he came—mine is a boot-shop—he came about midday—I do not remember that anyone else was there—when a man sends for sick pay a cheque is sent by the secretary by post—Mrs. Killick is not here—she paid Godfrey sick pay on a former occasion—when I say it was the 17th I am not speaking from memory—I know it was Monday when Carney came for the money—I was recouped.

Cross-examined by Carney. I do not think she was in the shop when you came—the inspector did not give me a description of your clothing.

Re-examined. Carney had nothing to do with my society—he could not get the order except from Godfrey.

The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Times says, "I know nothing about this man at all; he knows I am innocent. I have got 25 years' good character from my two last employers." Carney says, I "do not know this man; he is a perfect stranger to me. I did not know the money was bad."

Witnesses for Times.

JOSEPH DAVIS (Police Inspector). I am in charge of this case—I have made inquiries about Times, and cannot ascertain that he has ever been charged or convicted of any offence whatever—he referred me to the Comical Brothers, and I saw the secretary, who referred me to Mr. Killick—if Times had not done so I never should have gone there.

Cross-examined. Times lives at 9, Chapel Street, Islington—I cannot find anything against him—he was employed at the Lambeth Baths for ten years up to eighteen months ago, since when he has kept an eel-pie shop at Greenwich me the name of Mr. Marsh; and in June last he went to 9, Chapel Street, which he conducted as a brothel in the name of Godfrey; he was there when he was arrested, living with a woman who is separated from her husband.

Re-examined. The Jury who disagreed heard about the brothel—the landlord of the house is not here; but I have a witness here who lives opposite.

By the JURY. He was discharged from the Lambeth Baths in consequence of being irregular, and a character was refused him.

RICHARD KILLICK (Re-examined) I placed the coin on a shelf—I took it up to the Lodge, when we found it was bad, and they recouped me for it—it was cut into several pieces and burnt—the cheque was sent by post—Times was still on the sick fund.

Carney's Defence. I had no smaller change in my pocket to pay for the beer. I am not a member of the Comical Brothers. Times had two florins in his possession, and I had none. He knows very well he never sent me for the money. The man who he sent and his wife have left Godfrey's house. The barmaid put the coin in the till, and I had the change in my possession ten minutes. I think you will see that this is a got up affair between Stephens and Bishop.

TIMES NOT GUILTY .—CARNEY GUILTY of uttering only .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, February 6th, 1889.

Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-207
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

207. EDWIN SMITH, Feloniously uttering a forged warrant for the payment of £150. See page 314.)

MR. HORTON Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

ALFRED MASON . I am senior clerk at the Union Bank—on 26th November this letter, purporting to be signed by Messrs. Pitman and Sons, was handed to me—it requests that a cheque-book may be handed to the bearer—I handed a cheque-book, No. C. L. 95001 to 95500, to the person who presented the letter—I do not remember who that was—this cheque (produced) is one out of that book.

Cross-examined. I have been in the habit of supplying Mr. Pitman with cheque-books—the order bears his name and address—I know his writing perfectly; this is a good imitation of it.

WILLIAM PITMAN . I am a solicitor, and a member of the firm of Pitman and Sons, practising in Queen Victoria Street, City—no part of this cheque is in my writing, or in the writing of any member of our firm, and does not, so far as I know, come out of any cheque-book in our possession—this order is not signed by me, and is not in my writing—it is a very good imitation of my signature—I do not know the writing of the body of the order at all—the paper must have come from our office; it exactly corresponds with a sheet of our paper—I knew Mr. Selby, a solicitor, some years ago—I believe he is not alive now.

Cross-examined. I have about six clerks in my office—the prisoner is a perfect stranger to me—none of my clerks have been to identify or to see the prisoner to my knowledge.

ROBERT FREDERICK INKPEN . I am manager of the Chancery Lane Branch of the Union Bank of London—on 27th November, 1888, this cheque was brought by a boy, Armour, I believe, to the bank with this note addressed to the manager in a fastened down envelope. The note said: "Please to cash enclosed cheque as follows, and oblige, yours, etc., JOHN SELBY. £20, 5; £10, 5 = £150")—I opened the envelope and found the note and cheque inside—I put some questions to the boy, and directed one of the clerks to accompany him to Holborn; he took another one with him, I understand—I retained the cheque—I afterwards communicated with the police—the boy gave his name and address.

JAMES ARMOUR . I have just turned fourteen—I live with my parents at 95, Lamb's Conduit Street—about 10 o'clock on 27th November I was going to Lincoln's Inn Fields—the prisoner spoke to me at the Bedford Row end of Hand Court, and asked me if I would take a note to the Union Bank—I asked where it was—he said, "You will find it, it is the corner of the turning; be quick back because I want to get a bit of dinner," and I ran off—he said he would wait in a public-house for me at the bottom of Hand Court; I left him at the public-house door—he told me that if they asked me where I came from I was to say from Mr. Selby, of Bedford Row—I asked him what number—he said, "They won't ask you that"—I went to the bank—I left there to meet the prisoner again, accompanied by two gentlemen, who walked about five yards behind me—I did not find the prisoner when I got back to the public-house—I gave a description of him to White, the police officer—I next saw him at Bow Street in a little room; I picked him out of ten others—I have no doubt he is the person who gave me the note.

Cross-examined. He was a stranger—I had never seen him before—a tobacconist's is on one side of the Holborn end of Hand Court and a public-house on the other side—it is not 50 yards long, I think—he had on a light tweed suit and a low felt hat; he looked like a gentleman—I have been in attendance here since the Sessions opened—White and Leach have not been speaking to me about the matter—I remembered much better when I was before the Magistrate—it was nearer eleven than ten that I met the prisoner—White had been to see me once at my own house before I was taken to Bow Street, and I gave a description to him—I never gave a description to Leach—White told me to come to Bow Street to identify the man—I could not say when I gave the description to White;

it was about a fortnight after 27th November—I do not remember how soon after I gave the description I was asked to go to Bow Street to see the prisoner; I did not take the dates—it was not the same week that I went to the bank I am sure—"White called at my house and told me to come to Bow Street the next morning about half-past ten, and that he had caught the man—he did not walk with me there—I was an hour or an hour and a half at the station before I was called in and saw the prisoner—I was in Court listening to the cases going on—White saw me when I got to the station—the prisoner when I identified him was not dressed as he is now, but was very shabby—I was in Court this Sessions when the prisoner was tried on two other charges—I heard the detectives describe his clothing as very shabby—one of the men from whom I picked the prisoner had a surgical bandage on his head—I knew he was not the man—I had seen him in the witness-box while I was waiting in Court—I do not think more than one had a bandage—I had not seen any other of the men in the Court—they were not gentlemen, nor dressed as gentlemen—the man who asked me to cash the cheque had the manners, speech and appearance of a gentleman—there was a marked difference between him and the men I saw at the station; although shabbily dressed the prisoner was the most gentlemanly man there.

ALFRED LEACH (Detective Sergeant). On 4th December, 1888, I saw the prisoner with another man in Holborn—I was with another officer—I touched the prisoner on the shoulder and said, "Smythe, a friend of mine opposite wants to speak to you"—he said, "That is not my name"—Sergeant White came up, and I told the prisoner we were police officers from Scotland Yard, and should arrest him on suspicion of uttering forged cheques—the prisoner darted off and fell in the roadway under a passing donkey—I conveyed him in a cab with the other person to Bow Street—in the waiting-room there he pointed to the other person and said, "Release that gentleman; I am the b——y thief"—he was very excited—when Armour came to the station the prisoner was placed with nine other men, and Armour unhesitatingly said, "That is the man that gave me the letter to take to the bank"—the prisoner was shabbily dressed, with a greasy sort of dark coat and old brown hat; he looked dissipated—White took the description from the boy, and found the documents on the prisoner.

Cross-examined. The boy gave me no description—I did not see the boy till he was brought to Bow Street—I arrested the prisoner from the boy's description and from information received—I was working with White—he was on it a week before I was—to the best of my belief the description given by the boy of the prisoner was circulated in the same week that the robbery took place—I cannot say how long after the boy went to the bank the description of the prisoner was in the hands of the police—I did not see Armour at Bow Street till he had identified the man—I cannot say where he waited; the usual course was adopted—there was a general resemblance between the prisoner and the men he was put with—there might have been a man with a broken head and surgical bandages waiting to go into Court; there was not with the other man; I am not sure of it—one of the men did not get in the witness-box and give evidence with a surgical bandage on—we received information the night before this—in consequence of the information we went to the neighbourhood of Holborn, Hand Court, I believe—we went there several mornings,

at no fixed time—before I saw the prisoner with Dr. Thorburn I saw him with Ward; Ward's name is in the prisoner's pocket-book—I decline to say if Ward gave me information; Ward will come if you want him—I must decline on public grounds to give the name of the person that gave information—I saw Ward in Holborn about half an hour before I arrested the prisoner coming out of a public-house—White was behind me then—I was about fifty yards from Ward—I did not follow the prisoner and Ward—I waited thinking some other man was going to join the prisoner—Ward hung about—I did not arrest the prisoner while he was there—I had not seen Ward that day before he went to Holborn—I had seen him before I went on that day to arrest the prisoner—I decline to say if Ward has ever given me information about criminal matters—he has not a brother in the police force to my knowledge—I believe he is not the policeman Ward's brother—I take no responsibility for the identification; I do a little for the arrest—after their suspicious behaviour in Holborn I asked Dr. Thorburn to come to Bow Street—he made no objection—he is a doctor; his name also is in the prisoner's book—a lot of forgeries had been committed, and I asked him to come—I did not know him—I did not take him into custody; I asked him to come—I should not think he was the worse for drink; he was very excited—he had been about ten minutes in the public-house—he may or may not have been drinking—I was first spoken to by the solicitor to the Union Bank on the 5th December, when they came to prosecute, and I gave evidence at the Police-court—I produced the cheques on that day—I had other documents found on the prisoner which I did not produce—the prisoner was tried on two other charges of uttering this Sessions, and acquitted—a number of other persons have been called to identify the prisoner—I should think on that day seven others came in consequence of our action, and said he was not the man—in case of forging cheques we send for all the people—no person from Mr. Pitman saw the prisoner before his committal, except when they gave evidence in Court, as far as I know—so far as I know there are no other charges against him on the files of this Court.

Re-examined. The seven other persons were persons who had been defrauded by somebody by forged cheques, and I took them to see if the prisoner was the man who had defrauded them—the defence in the case in which the prisoner was tried before, was an alibi.

HARRY WHITE (Detective Sergeant). I have been nine years in the police force—in the latter part of November I saw Armour, who made a statement to me, and gave me a description of the prisoner, which was circulated the same day—on 4th December I was in Holborn on the other side of the way to Leach—I saw him stop the prisoner who was with Dr. Thorburn; I crossed over the road; directly I got on the pavement the prisoner darted away; he fell down in the middle of the road, and Leach secured him—we thought Dr. Thorburn might be concerned with the prisoner, and he went to the station—the inspector knew him as a respectable man, and he showed us his cheque-book, and he was allowed to go; before he went the prisoner said, "Release that man; I am the b——y thief"—I went and saw the boy about his coming to Bow Street—I told him he would see a number of men, and if he saw the man that handed him the note he was to place his hand on him—he went to Bow Street—before the identification took place he was shut up in a room; I know he was there for some few minutes—I believe I saw him come—I believe I saw

him in the Detective Inspector's room; that was a very short time before he went into the room where the number of people were—officers went out and fetched persons in from the street; no unusual course was adopted—the boy picked the prisoner out.

Cross-examined. I and Leach are attached to Scotland Yard; we are officers of the Criminal Investigation Department—I was not examined at the Police-court—we each take responsibility for the identification—I went to Armour's house three times I think; I saw him twice—I went to him the night before he was brought to Bow Street—I am not sure if he gave me a description of the man in the same week that the cheque was passed; it was within a few days—I did not see him on the day of the uttering nor the next day—the bank spoke to me about it the very day, the 27th—I am not sure if they gave me the boy's address on that day; I should think most likely they did—I went to his address in consequence of what they said to me—I believe I got the description within the week that the cheque was uttered—I told Armour I had got a person in custody whom I believed was the person who had passed the cheque—I saw him the next day when he came to Bow Street; I have no doubt about it—I don't know if I saw him when he called at half-past ten—I am not sure how long after I saw him there he picked out the prisoner—I don't think it was within an hour—I cannot say if it was an hour and a half—I cannot say if I saw him in the detectives' room, I had so many people to see there—I believe the boy was in Court hearing the cases; while he was waiting the men from whom the boy was to pick out this man were brought in from the street—the identification was conducted in the ordinary way—I believe there was a man with a broken head and a surgical bandage; I do not know who that man was or where he came from—the men from whom Armour identified the prisoner were fellow prisoners and two, three, or four men invited to come in from the street—very likely the fellow prisoners had been locked up the whole night, and were probably recovering from the effect of debauch; it is a most difficult matter to get people to come in and stand—I found these cheques on the prisoner—seeing Dr. Thorburn in company with the prisoner I thought Thorburn was up to no good—I meant that he should come to the station, he was under compulsion, and it was not till he had satisfied the inspector that he was respectable that he was allowed to go—the prisoner was not the worse for drink; he was greatly excited—I don't think he said at that time that Ward had put him away; he did afterwards—I don't think he mentioned Ward's name at the station; he did not say Ward had planted the things on him—I was not in the station the whole time; I was in and out of the room—he was twenty-two hours at the station before he was charged; we had to get the evidence—I know Ward; he is here, and can be put in the box if necessary.

Re-examined. I asked Thorburn to go to the station, and he consented.

Witnesses for the Defence.

HENRY THOMAS . I live at 49, Capacity Road, Walham Green, and am a licensed victualler's manager—I know the prisoner—on Tuesday, 27th November, he called on me about half-past ten—it was the first day of Croydon Steeplechases—I believe the prisoner reports races and athletic meetings—I had a conversation with him about going to Croydon, and arranged to meet him at Walham Green Broadway—I am sure about the date and time—I did not meet him, because my wife was out at the time

—I told him if she should come back in the meantime before 11 I would meet him.

Cross-examined. Croydon Races last two days; it was the first day—I have known the prisoner about three and a half years—I knew him as a commission agent, betting for other people; that is how he gets his living now—I believe he has written for sporting papers—I cannot tell to what extent, or whether it has formed a substantial part of his means of living—I first knew him as a customer when I was managing the King's Head—he was not an intimate friend of mine—I have met him at different race meetings—I was not going with him as a personal friend—I arranged to go with him at eleven o'clock as a friend—I back horses to a very small extent—I do not make a book—I am out of employment at present, and I was on 27th November—the prisoner came to my private house—my wife is a dressmaker—I am a commission agent myself—it is two years since I got my living as a licensed victualler's manager.

Re-examined. I attend race meetings and back horses, and get com missions for it—I was a licensed victualler's manager for seventeen years for various persons—I left my last employment through ill-health.

By the COURT. I was first asked to come as a witness here after 5th December, on the first remand—I was at Bow Street on the first examination—the prisoner's sister came and told me that he was going to be charged with uttering a forged cheque, and inquired if I knew of his movements on 27th November—I said I did—he was with me about for five minutes at half-past ten, just long enough to make the arrangement—whether he was at Walham Green or not I don't know; I did not go—I am sure about the time, because I went to look at the clock—he said, "It is now about half-past ten; I will meet you at "Walham Green Broadway at eleven"—that was not the first time he had made an appointment of that kind with me; he has called on several occasions; he was in the habit of calling and making arrangements to go with me to race meetings; it was not a strange thing that he should call on me on this day.

By MR. GEOGHEGAN. Legitimate flat racing ends before 27th November, and this was the first steeple chasing; that helps me to fix the date.

BENJAMIN INGLEDEW . I am a publican, of 108, King Street, Hammersmith—I have known the prisoner two or three years—I remember the Croydon Meeting in November, 1888—the first day's racing was Tuesday, 27th November—I do not very often go racing myself—on Monday, 26th, the prisoner called in between eight and nine in the evening—he said he was going to Croydon—we had some conversation—in consequence, I arranged to meet him next day at Walham Green, at the King's Arms, at eleven o'clock—you can get from Chelsea to Croydon, I think—I believe special trains run to these races; the last special train would leave Croydon about half-past eleven or twelve; but I could not go—on the 27th I met the prisoner at this public-house near the station at eleven o'clock—the King's Arms is twenty or thirty yards from the station; it is where the omnibuses stop—it would take half an hour or forty minutes to go by cab from "Walham Green to Bedford Row—on Tuesday, 27th, I saw the prisoner at eleven o'clock—I told him I should not be able to go to Croydon, as I had an appointment to meet my brother at Charing Cross at twelve—I and the prisoner went and had a glass, and

stopped talking a few minutes, and I left him—I fix the day by the Croydon Races, and because I had a letter from my brother saying he would see me.

Cross-examined. My brother's letter came by the last post after I made the appointment with the prisoner—I told the prisoner on the Tuesday I could not go, because I had a letter from my brother—I got on an omni-bus and left him in the public-house—I was with him from eleven to quarter-past—the prisoner stopped in the public-house the whole of that quarter of an hour—I did not notice anyone else in the public-house—the prisoner did not go out of the house while I was there—the railway-station is close to the public-house, but you cannot see from one into the other—I have been a publican five months—before that I was driver for the London General Omnibus Company—I left to take this public-house, for no other reason—I was not discharged—before I resigned I had a summons—my employers gave me a reference.

Re-examined. I was summoned for racing; I got off it—I had to prove a good character before my license was granted; the police spoke in my favour when I applied for it.

By the COURT. I had known the prisoner between two and three years—I had not been to races with him before; he used very often to ride with me when I was driving round Walham Green—I used to give him a sovereign or half a sovereign to put on for me on races; he did several commissions for me—he came to my house and said he was going to Croydon—some three weeks ago his sister called and asked if I remembered anything about the 27th November—I told her what I have told now—after that she told me the charge—I said he was with me on the 26th and 27th—I did not know his sister was a schoolmistress till she called on me.

MR. GRIFFITHS and MR. HERBERT repeated in substance the evidence they had given at the previous trial.

GUILTY Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-208
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

208. MARY ANN O'CONNOR (36) , Stealing a watch chain and medal from the person of Atkins Smith.

MR. YOUNG Prosecuted.

ATKINS SMITH . I am a licensed victualler, and keep the Britannia public-house, Bishopsgate Street—on 24th January, about eleven at night, the prisoner came in and wanted to be served, but I refused on account of her being intoxicated—I tried to put her out; she resisted—there was a struggle; she laid herself down on the floor—after I put her out to the door my attention was called, to my watch-chain having gone—I called to someone to detain her, and the police came—the chain was broken from the watch swivel.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. The chain might have been broken as I was holding you; I never felt you take it—you were very drunk.

EDWARD MARRIOTT (City Policeman 419). On 24th January I was on duty in Bishopsgate Street, and about eleven I met the prisoner running, with several people after her, shouting "Stop thief"—I stopped and took her back to the Britannia—the prosecutor charged her—while I was examining her hand I heard something drop from her left side, and I found it was this chain, which the prosecutor identified—she was very drunk.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-209
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Corporal > whipping

Related Material

209. WILLIAM GREEN (19), WILLIAM BLAKE (19), and ROBERT WILKINSON (19) , Robbery with violence on Edward Savage, and stealing 5s., his money.

MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.

EDWARD SAVAGE . I live at 46, Blaenfontaine Avenue, Shepherd's Bush, and am a screen maker—about twenty minutes past 12 a.m. New Year's Day I was in Norland Road, Notting Hill—I was sober—I went into the Stewart's Arms, where I saw the three prisoners—I was too late to be served—I came out and went towards the Uxbridge Road—I had got about twelve yards from the public-house when I was suddenly knocked down by a blow on the mouth, which felled me to the ground; I could not say who did that; several men were there—Blake seized me by the throat and held me so that I could not move—this stick which I had in my hand, dropped down, and while I was on the ground Green picked it up and beat me about the head with it; he gave me from six to twelve blows and hurt me very much—Wilkinson rifled my pockets while I was on the ground—when I went into the public-house I had about sixteen shillings in my pockets—I was five shillings short when I got home—a man named Edwards came up and the prisoners made off—Edwards took me to his house and temporarily attended to my injuries, and then I went home—I was confined to the house for about a week—I did not give evidence till the 9th January—I was under the care of Dr. Maxwell.

Cross-examined by Green. I did not strike you in the mouth first.

Cross-examined by Blake. I think I made a mistake, I think you held me down and Wilkinson robbed me.

WILLIAM WILLIAMS . I live at 3, Mortimer Terrace, Norland Road, and am employed at a laundry—I was in this public-house on New Year's Eve—I saw Edwards and his wife there—the prosecutor came in; he looked sober—the three prisoners followed him out; I heard a cry outside the door; I hurried out and saw the prisoners violently assaulting him—Green was hitting him about the head with the stick—I heard the smacks as it hit his head—I being a cripple could not help the prosecutor—Blake rifled his pockets and Wilkinson had him by the throat—the constable came up and all three made off—Savage walked across the road; he was in a bad state, his head all smothered in blood—Edwards met him.

WILLIAM EDWARDS . I live at 25, St. George's Road, Notting Hill, and am a carman—I was in the Stewart's Arms on New Year's morning—I saw the prosecutor go out—when I went out I saw him lying on the ground—I took him to my place and washed the blood off his face—he had this stick when I picked him off the ground; the handle was smothered in blood—I believe the prosecutor handed it to the police—he was all smothered in blood.

Cross-examined by Blake. You came out of the public-house ten minutes before I did—I saw no one but the prosecutor and the crowd on the opposite side.

ROBERT MAXWELL . M. R. C. S. I live at 44, Askew Road, Shepherd's Bush—on the afternoon of New Year's Day I saw Savage at his house, 14, Blaenfontaine Avenue—he had two contused wounds, one on each temple, his lips were swelled, and he had a contusion at the outer angle of the left eye—this stick would cause such injuries—heavy blows would

have to be used—he was under my care for one week; he is all right now.

ROBERT MARKHAM (Police Sergeant X). On 1st January, about a quarter-past ten, I was with Brown—I saw Green and Blake in Norland Road—on seeing us they ran away—I arrested Green; Brown arrested Blake—I told Green I should take him into custody for being concerned in violently assaulting a man in Norland Road, and stealing 5s. from him—he said, "I know nothing about it"—I took him to the Police-station, where he said, "I never saw a stick, and did not strike him."

JAMES BROWN (Policeman X 421). I was with Markham; I gave chase to and arrested Blake—I told him I should take him into custody for being concerned in assaulting and robbing a man of 5s.—he said, "Not me, I was not there"—on the way to the station he said, "It would have been all right if Green had not hit with the stick; if anybody had the money it was Wilkinson"—on the 4th I went about eight o'clock in the evening to 40, Clement's Road, Notting Dale—I saw Wilkinson, and told him he would be charged with Green and Blake in custody for being concerned in assaulting and robbing a man in Norland Road—he made no answer—on the way to the station he said, "I suppose I shall get two stretch for this," that means two years.


GREEN then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony in June, 1886; and BLAKE** to one in June, 1887. WILKINSON**— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour each and Twenty Strokes with the Cat each.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-210
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

210. JAMES BENNETT (17) , Robbery with violence on William English, and stealing a sleeve lint and 2s. 6d., his property.

MR. PIGGOTT Prosecuted, and MR. HUTTON Defended.

WILLIAM ENGLISH . I live at 572, Holloway Road, and am a clerk—about a quarter past 1 a.m. on New Year's Day I was going down the Holloway Road; it was very foggy—the prisoner asked if I wanted a light from his torch—I refused, telling him I was close at home: I was within four doors—he persisted a third time, and then his torch suddenly went out, I turned round and felt myself seized by my left arm—he tried to trip me up, and the second time he succeeded—I called for help—two constables came; one took him off me and asked me if I had lost anything—besides tripping me up, the prisoner put his left arm round my neck, and his right arm in my trousers pocket, from which I afterwards missed half-a-crown—my purse was still there—I missed a solitaire, which broke away in the struggle.

Cross-examined. I was quite sober—I had had a glass or two—I left off business at four o'clock and went home about five o'clock—I came out again about half-past seven—I went to some friends, who wished me to go to a midnight service—I left them outside the chapel; they wished me to go too—the prisoner was not the only boy with a torch—I could see no one else in the street when he caught me by the arm—there may have been other people in the street—I did not feel the grasp on my arm till the torch went out—when the police came up I found myself struggling with the prisoner—my purse was quite safe—I had no watch or chain on—my sleeve link came off in the struggle; I don't know how.

Re-examined There is no foundation for saying I was drunk—I knew what was about—I did not lose sight of the man who attacked me.

CHARLES HARDY (Policeman 7359). About a quarter or twenty minutes

past one on New Year's morning I was on duty in the Manor Road—I heard the prosecutor cry for help—I ran down the Manor Road, and saw the prisoner and prosecutor on the ground struggling—the prosecutor was lying on his back, the prisoner was kneeling on the lower part of his body, with his left forearm across the prosecutor's throat—I took hold of the prisoner, and the prosecutor made a complaint that he had lost half-a-crown—I asked the prosecutor if he would charge him; he said, "Yes"—I was going to take him to the station, and the prisoner dropped this sleeve-link, corresponding with the one in English's other sleeve—the prosecutor was sober and quite sensible.

Cross-examined. I could not say if he had been drinking—he admitted he had had a little to drink, but I should not have known he had—I cannot say how far I was from the prosecutor when I first saw him, the fog was very thick—they were both struggling on the ground when I came up—the prosecutor did not charge him till I asked him if he would.

BENJAMIN GRIFFITHS (Policeman Y 557). I was with Hardy—I heard the prosecutor crying for help and police—I went down Manor Road, and found him on his back, the prisoner's arm across his throat, and he was kneeling on the prosecutor—we took the prisoner off—the prosecutor got up and said he had lost half-a-crown out of his pocket; that the prisoner had thrown him down and taken half-a-crown from him—then the prisoner threw or dropped a sleeve-link out of his hand—the prosecutor had the fellow one on.

Cross-examined. The prosecutor was sober—I could not say if he had had anything to drink—I should say he was sober.

The Prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate, said that the Prosecutor, who was very drunk, asked him to take him home; that he was doing so when he fell down; that the two policemen picked him up, and he then made the charge.


The prisoner received a good character.— Six Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, February 6th, 1889.

Before Mr. Common Sergeant.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-211
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

211. EDWARD HODSON (32) PLEADED GUILTY to six indictments for stealing plush, cashmere, silk, and other articles, the property of William Whiteley, his master; also unlawfully falsifying a ledger of his said master, with intent to defraud.— Twenty Months' Hard Labour. And

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-212
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

212. EMILY WHITEHEAD to unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child.— Six Weeks' Imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-213
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > no evidence
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

213. GEORGE MARTIN (26), and ADA MARTIN (24) , Feloniously forging and uttering six receipts for the payment of money; George Martin having been convicted in September of conspiracy to defraud, also to endeavouring to obtain a cheque for £50 by false pretences.


MR. BESLEY, for the prosecution, offered no evidence against ADA MARTIN.


OLD COURT.—Thursday, February 7th, 1889.

Before Mr. Justice Charles.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-214
VerdictGuilty > insane
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

214. JULIA GEOEGINA SPICKERNELL (37) was indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's Inquisition, with the wilful murder of Mabel Constance Spickernell.

MR. GILL Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

MARY ANN GOLDRING . I live at 93, Milton Road, Stoke Newington—I lodged in the house of which the prisoner's husband was my landlord—I knew the prisoner very well—she was living there with her husband and four children—the youngest child was Mabel Constance, nine months old—the prisoner was nursing it at the breast—during the time she was nursing it she complained of pains at the back of her head, and said she felt very peculiar at times—on 29th December, about eleven in the morning, I was in my room on the basement—the prisoner's three elder children were in a room on the ground floor—the prisoner knocked at my door and called, "Mrs. Goldring!"—I said, "Tea, dear"—she said, "I wish to speak to you a minute"—I said, "I will be there in a minute"—she said, "No, come now"—the door was not opened at that time—I opened the door, and then saw her; she looked very strange—she said, "I have something to show you"—I said, "Very well, dear, I will be there in a minute"—she said, "No, come now"—I said, "Very well, I will come now"—I said to my servant, who was with me, "Go on with your cleaning"—the prisoner said, "Oh, let Ada come too"—when we got to the kitchen door she said, "I have done it"—I said, "You are excited; done what?"—she said, "Give me Mr. Goldring's razors"—with that she screamed—I ran out of the house and called Mrs. Cavalier, a next-door neighbour, and Dr. Spencer was sent for—I afterwards went back to the house and went upstairs with Mrs. Cavalier and the doctor—the prisoner was locked in a back room—I left Mrs. Cavalier and the doctor there and went downstairs.

Cross-examined. The prisoner also told me that she had very bad nights.

LUCY CAVALIER . I live next door to the prisoner—on 29th December I was called by Mrs. Goldring, and went with her to 93—from what was said to me I went upstairs and knocked at the door of the prisoner's bedroom; it was locked; I knocked several times, and asked her to open it—she said, "Wait a minute, I will directly"—she came out of the room and said, "Come in here, and I will tell you all about it"—I sat her on a box by the side of the drawers, and she said, "I have done it; the devil made me do it; he has been following me about up and down stairs the last five weeks"—I asked her what was troubling her—she said the work had been troubling her a great deal; she tried to do the work and could not—she seemed very excited—after a few minutes she got quieter, and I then went into her room; I there found the child in a pail of water placed head downwards, and covered by the water; I took it out and laid it on the bed—it was fully dressed.

Cross-examined. When she complained about the work she put her hand up to her head, saying, "Chop it" once or twice.

EDWARD RICHARD SPENCER , M. R. C. S. On the morning in question, about eleven, I was called to this house—I went upstairs and saw the

prisoner in the doorway of the room—she rushed towards me in an excited manner, and spoke to me in a most excited, incoherent manner, in a loud excited voice; I could not understand what she said—she was greatly excited and rushed towards me, holding out both her hands, as if in the act of clutching me by the face or throat—I immediately took hold of her wrists and threw her to the ground, partly falling and partly holding her, and there I held her; she became temporarily insensible for about three or four minutes—I then took her up, and took her into the front bedroom, and put her into a chair—she partially came round, and requested that I should give her a rope to hang herself, again speaking in a very excited state, putting her hands to her head, repeating, "Let me hang myself, let me hang myself"—I left her in charge of the women, and immediately went into the back room, and saw the child on the bed; the clothes were saturated with water; she was perfectly dead; the body was warm, and the clothes were warm from the warm water in the bucket—I believe the whole body had been put into the water—there were no marks of violence on the body.

Cross-examined. I had attended her in several confinements—as far as I was able to judge she was always a kind and affectionate mother—I should imagine that in this case mania arose from over-lactation; I have known of such cases as long as nine months after confinement; it commonly supervenes speedily after—there are three kinds of puerperal mania: one which comes on in the puerperal state before the child is born, another which comes on during the state of labour or soon after, and another kind which is recognised as the insanity of lactation; she was still suckling her child at this time—it is common to get this condition in women of delicate constitution, who have borne children rapidly, and have a profuse supply of milk, especially after loss of rest or anything likely to exhaust the nervous system—pain in the head is one of the symptoms that would occur—I said before the Magistrate, "I have no doubt that when I saw her on Saturday last she was temporarily insane," that was the opinion I formed at the time, observing her conduct and demeanour.

By the JURY. I believe that at the time she did this she was unconscious of the act, that she was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act.

THOMAS JACKMAN . I am a divisional surgeon of police, and live at Stoke Newington Road—in consequence of information, on Saturday, 29th, I went to Milton Road, and saw the prisoner, and examined her and questioned her—I found her state of mind to be undoubtedly insane—homicidal mania occasionally arises from over-secretion of milk; no doubt in this case it was so—I formed the opinion that she was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act she did.

PHILIP FRANCIS GILBERT . I am medical officer of Holloway Prison—I saw the prisoner there on the morning of 30th December, with a view to forming an opinion as to the state of her mind—I saw her on very many occasions—I formed the opinion that she was insane when I first saw her—I knew that she had drowned her child.

By the COURT. She was intensely dejected; she took no notice of her surroundings; she was moaning and rocking herself to and fro; it was with difficulty I could make her speak; when she did, she sobbed and said she had been an extremely wicked woman, that she had gone through hell, that she had been a wicked wretch all her life, and was unfit to five—besides

this, she was under the delusion that she heard a voice that came from the devil, continually accusing her of doing nothing but taking care of herself—she complained of intense headache, that whatever she was doing she heard this voice accusing her of self-indulgence, and so on; that it kept her awake at night—for some few days it was difficult to get her to take food—what I saw was consistent with a form of insanity arising from excessive lactation—I do not think she was able to appreciate the nature and quality of the act she had committed—it is a form of insanity which passes away—she has very much improved since she has been me prison; she is now well, in my opinion; mentally she has recovered; she shows no indication whatever of insanity now.

GUILTY of the act, but being insane at the time .— To be detained until Her Majesty's pleasure be known.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-215
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

215. THOMAS MURPHY (42) , Feloniously wounding Walter Whittimore, with intent to murder. Other Counts, to do grievous bodily harm, and to resist his apprehension.


JOHN GOUGH (Police Sergeant X). I have had experience in the preparation of plans—I made this plan of St. Charles' Square and the neighbourhood; it is correct and according to scale.

WALTER WHITTIMORE (Policeman X 379). I have known the prisoner about 12 months; I saw him about three weeks before the 14th December—on the 14th I was on special patrol duty in plain clothes—about 11 I was in the end of Basset Road, leading into Salter's Fields—I saw the prisoner and another man about fifteen yards from me; I was close enough to recognise him by the light of a lamp—they were, standing still on the pavement; they crossed and walked up Basset Road to the corner of Chesterton Road, where I had another opportunity of seeing them by a great lamp—I followed some twenty or twenty-five yards behind them, into St. Charles' Square, till they came to No. 58, which has a little garden in front; the other man went first into the garden, and after a few seconds the prisoner followed—I crept along very gently on my toes, and got into the front garden; I then saw the prisoner and the other close to the front door; I caught hold of the other, and said, "What are you doing here?"—the prisoner was close by him, just on my right, and the other man dealt me a blow at the side of my head with his fist; we then had a struggle, he striking me and I striking him—I had got my staff—I got hold of him by the throat, and had just got him back, overpowering him, when the prisoner hit me on the back of the head with something, I don't know what, it was not his fist, it was a very hard blow indeed—I still kept hold of the man, and I struck at the prisoner with my staff, but did not hit him—I nearly fell backwards, still retaining my hold of the other man, when the prisoner came towards me; I struck at him again, but did not hit him; I then heard a report and saw a flash, and felt a sensation right up my left leg, at the same time a voice said, "Take that, you b——," which I believe to be the prisoner's—he was standing about two or three yards from me at the time, in the direction the flash came from; I still had hold of the other man, and I am positive he had not shot me—the prisoner then rushed at me, and I was thrown backwards, and I remember no more until I recovered in the Infirmary—from the time I went into the garden till the shot was

fired was not more than three minutes—the struggle took place just in front of the door, on the concrete or some hard place—the night was rather foggy, it had been foggy, but it had cleared off then—I had heard fog signals—the Great Western line runs within 200 or 300 yards—I had never spoken to the prisoner, but I knew his name, and knew him well—I afterwards saw him at the Infirmary in the presence of Inspector Morgan, the superintendent, and several others, and gave an account of what had taken place.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I am positive you are the man that wounded me—I cannot say who was the first man I spoke to after I was wounded—I might have spoken to someone in the garden; I don't remember it—I don't remember anything till I was in the Infirmary—I never spoke to you in my life—I never said to you, "All right, Murphy, the first chance I get I will get it up for you."

CHARLES EDWARD COOKMAN DEANE . I live at 58, St. Charles' Square, Notting Hill—on Friday night, 14th December, I got home about 11.20—I went upstairs, and then into the dining-room on the ground floor—I heard some whistling outside, but took no notice at first—I then heard groans—I immediately went out and found Whittimore in the garden, lying on his back on the grass-plot opposite the dining-room window—I could see him, but not very well, because of the mist; it was rather foggy—I took his whistle and blew it, a constable came, and I went for medical assistance.

Cross-examined. I spoke to the constable when I came out, and said, "What is the matter?" and he said, "I am a detective, I am shot; blow my whistle."

WILLIAM BROOKMAN (Policeman X 406). On the night of 14th December I heard a whistle, in consequence of which I went to 58, St. Charles' Square, and found Whittimore lying on his back—I got assistance, and took him to the Marylebone Infirmary.

Cross-examined. He spoke to me and said, "Is that you, Jack?"—I said, "Yes"—he said, "I am shot; get assistance"—I said, "Where?"—he pointed towards his left knee—I blew my whistle, and in the meantime Mr. Deane went for a doctor—I did not see any men knocking about, only two cabmen.

By the COURT. He was in a groaning state when he said this—the doctor said he was unconscious—this was only 100 yards from the Infirmary.

WILLIAM BEAMONT . I am a boot and shoe maker, and live at 21, St. Clement's Road, Notting Dale, about half a mile from St. Charles' Square—I have known the prisoner about fourteen years; I have seen him about once or twice a week during the last six months in the vicinity of Notting Dale—I know Whittimore by sight—I heard through the inspector that he was shot—on Friday night 14th December I saw the prisoner in St. Clement's Road; he was alone, standing opposite an eel-shop, from seven to a quarter-past—a man came up and said something to him, I did not catch what it was—Murphy replied, "Yes," and put his hand under his left breast coat, and said, "I have the barker; if he barks he will b——y well bite"—he pulled out a small revolver, saw me, turned round and said to me, "Who the b——y hell are you looking at?"—with that I walked away, and both of them went towards St. Katherine's Road.

Cross-examined. I am positive you are the man I saw on the 14th—I read the account of this in the newspaper on the Sunday following; I spoke to a neighbour, and wondered whether it referred to you—I do not know the detectives connected with this case; I have not received any money for coming here—I did not appear at the Police-court on the first remand, because I did not know I was wanted till the police came for me—I am not the deputy of a common lodging-house—I have never been convicted of felony—I have known you about fourteen years; I lost sight of you for a considerable time.

JAMES BOSS (Policeman X 450). On 15th December I was in the Harrow Road—I saw the prisoner, and said, "I shall arrest you on suspicion of having shot Police-constable Whittimore on the evening of the 14 th"—he said, "Oh, b——wars what will they get up for me next?"—I took him to the station.

Cross-examined. You went quietly; I know you well.

DANIEL MORGAN (Police Inspector X). This matter was first brought to my notice about half-past one on the morning of the 15th; after that everything was done under my direction—I saw the prisoner after he was arrested on Saturday night, the 15th, about eleven—at that time I had information as to Whittimore having been unconscious—I asked him if he was aware of the charge—he said, "Yes"—I said, "You are charged with shooting at Police-constable Whittimore, with intent to murder him, about half-past eleven or twelve last night; it is a very serious matter, you need not say anything unless you like; the affair only happened last night, you can give any account of yourself you like, where you were, or who saw you; I will take you to that place in order that your statement may be corroborated at once"—I then said, "Where do you live?"—he said, "In St. Clement's Road, I think 46"—he then made a statement, which I took down in writing in his presence; this is it: "I slept last night at Notting Dale, I think 46, St. Clement's Road, but I can point out the place. I went home about eight o'clock last evening, and did not go out alter. My wife was with me, and we went to bed about half-past nine, and did not get up again till nine this morning. We occupy the front parlour; we nave been there since Sunday night, the 19th. Signed, 'Thomas Murphy'"—I then took him to St. Clement's Road; he pointed out a room to me—I saw a woman there, Eliza Balster, and in the prisoner's presence I told her that he was in custody on a most serious charge, and without receiving any intimation from the prisoner, I should be glad if she would tell me all that had occurred on the previous night, where he was, and all about him—she then said, "I have known Thomas Murphy about seven months, and we have lodged here a week; he was at home with me from seven o'clock, and we were in bed together from that time till eight o'clock this morning. I am quite sure he was not out between ten and twelve last night; I am not married to him"—I then told her that he would be brought up at Hammersmith Police-court on the Monday, if she would like to attend—I have not seen her since—on the following morning, Sunday, I took the prisoner to the Infirmary—at that time he had been told the charge, but was not actually charged; he was simply detained, as I did not know exactly what the state of Whittimore was—Whittimore saw him at the Infirmary—I asked him to make a statement in his presence, which he did, and I

wrote it down—the prisoner said it was untrue—I produce the trousers which Whittimore was wearing; they were handed to me at the Infirmary there is evidently a pistol-shot mark just above the left knee in front—I searched the prisoner's room, but found nothing.

Cross-examined. You gave your right name and address.

JOHN REUBEN LUNN . I am a surgeon of the Marylebone Infirmary—Whittimore was brought in on the night of the 14th December—when I saw him he was unconscious—he had a swelling behind his head, and a bullet-wound just above the left knee, in the joint, rather to the inner side—the blood-tumour, as we should call it, at the back of his head would be produced by a blow; sudden violence, considerable force would be required to produce it—the brain was slightly concussed—that might have been from the shock or the blow, or both combined—I probed for the bullet; it is there still—I know its position exactly—it is undesirable to attempt to remove it at present—it probably will remain there always—then he will be lame—the bullet entered just above the knee joint—I saw the man's trousers—probably the shot was fired close to where the bullet entered—he was under my care at the hospital for about a month—he has attended as an out-patient since—the shot may have been fired by the man he was struggling with—having hold of the man by the neck, it would have been quite possible for the man to have inflicted the wound in that way.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate was: "All that I have got to say is that what Police-constable Whittimore has sworn is false, and likewise the other witness, Beaumont. I went home that Friday night about eight o'clock, and did not leave my room till nine o'clock on Saturday morning. I am innocent of this charge." The prisoner repeated this defence, and added, the police had a grudge against him, and had intimidated his witness.

GUILTY ** of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and of attempting to resist his lawful apprehension.

He also >PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at this Court in February, 1887, in the name of Ebenezer Brown.— Ten Years' Penal Servitude.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-216
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

216. JAMES GOGGIN(45) , Feloniously wounding Maria Goggin, with intent to murder her. Second Count, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

MR. HUTTON Prosecuted.

MARIA GOGGIN . I live at 18, Fitzroy Place—I am the prisoner's wife—on Sunday morning, 6th January, between twelve and one, I was with the prisoner—he had been lodging away in the Euston Road—I have been married to him twenty-six or twenty-seven years—we lived together except when we quarrelled—I was sitting by the fire, and my son was asleep by the side of the bed—I stood up to make some arrangements, when my husband jumped up, exclaiming, "Clear out"—I retorted rather snappishly, "You had better clear out yourself"—I found myself stabbed—I did not notice more knives than are usually about—I fainted—the police came—the prisoner had been drinking very hard for a week.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. For three weeks you gave me one five shillings—I was not drinking, and had not the means—you have seen me worse for drink, but that is no reason you should kill me—I was perfectly

sober—your dinner was ready—you would not eat it, but went back to the beershop and brought back some herrings, and were more cheeky than ever—you denied the charge.

JOSEPH GOGGIN . I live at 18, Fitzroy Place—I am the prisoner's son—on Sunday morning, 6th January, I was in the room with father and mother—I was sitting by the side of the fireplace—my mother was making one bed, and my father lying on another—father woke up and said, "I'll show you how to use the knife"—he took a knife from his pocket, opened the blade, and made a rush at mother and stabbed her—mother fell back—I went to take the knife away—here it is (produced)—my brother fetched the police—mother was taken to the hospital and father to prison.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I heard you say "Clear out"—you said, "I deny the charge."

By the COURT. Mother was sober.

THOMAS BAWDON (Policeman S 234). I went to 18, Fitzroy Place on 6th January, about 12.30—when I entered, the prosecutrix fell back against me, and would have fallen on the bed had I not held her—she was unconscious—I had been fetched by the prisoner's son—I laid the woman on the floor and sent for assistance; a doctor and a constable—I staunched the blood, and bound her round the body—the prisoner was lying on the bed as if stupefied by drink—when I entered the prisoner said, "All right, governor, you are not wanted here; there is nothing the matter"—I took the prisoner into custody—I saw a knife on the table.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I told the Magistrate, after you said there was nothing the matter you went to sleep—I did not hear you say you did it.

CHARLES O'SHEA (Police Sergeant). I was called in, and saw the prosecutrix lying on the floor, bleeding—I directed the prisoner to be taken to the station—when the charge was read over the prisoner said, "I am innocent"—he had been drinking.

LOUIS EDWARD BEER . I am a surgeon, practising at 23, Hampstead Road—I was called in about 12.45—I saw the prosecutrix lying on the floor—I examined her—she had an incised wound, three-quarters of an inch long and a third of an inch deep, on the left side of the neck; it had ceased bleeding—I dressed the wound and sent her to the hospital—the wound was not dangerous—it could have been done by the knife produced.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. If considerable force had been used the wound might have been deeper—the knife is blunt.

The Prisoner in his Defence said he could not have used such a weapon, the wound could not have been caused by it; he had no intention of inflicting bodily harm, much less to murder her; he was not sober; but his home was not comfortable, do what he might, and he slept from exhaustion after an attack from her when she scratched his face, in which attack she might have been accidentally wounded; but the knife was made bloody by the constable and doctor having it when they attended to her; he was a respectable working man, and had been punished worst of all by being shut up in idleness.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding Three Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-217
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

217. WILLIAM GLAZIER (19) , Feloniously wounding Susan Ashman, with intent to murder her. Second Count, to do her grievous bodily harm.


SUSAN ASHMAN . I am a single woman, of 22, White Lion Street, Clerkenwell—about 5.30 on Thursday, 24th January, I was in Pentonville, near the Bell Inn—the prisoner asked me where I was going, and I told him to mind his own business—he punched me in the face, knocked me down, and stabbed me in the back of the neck—he kicked me in the side—I heard him say something about intending to do something—I fainted—I found myself at a private chemist's in the Pentonville Road.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not say I would fetch a lot of City Road lads to pay you out—you had £45, which I was told you worked hard for—you gave it to your sister, and she gave me £20 to go and live with you; you counted it out in your sister's room—I went to Yorkshire with another young woman; I never thought any harm of it—your sister gave a young woman 3s. and a supper the same night—I have been charged with stealing a watch, and acquitted.

ELIZABETH WALLIS . I am a single woman, of 24, Half-Moon Crescent, Caledonian Road—on 24th January I was in Pentonville, about 5.30—I saw the prisoner and the prosecutrix talking, when I heard her call out, "I am stabbed"—then I saw the prisoner run away—a constable took the prosecutrix into a doctor's.

JOHN ALEXANDER MILLER . I am a surgeon, practising at Percy Circus, Clerkenwell—as police surgeon, I examined the prosecutrix at the station—she had an incised wound an inch long and a quarter of an inch deep at the back of the neck—it was not dangerous—a small muscular wound—a sharp instrument, like the knife produced, would cause such a wound—it was handed to me by the police; I found blood on the blade.

EDWARD KING (Policeman G 310). I arrested the prisoner on 24th January in the Red Lion, Warner Street, Clerkenwell—I told him I should take him into custody for stabbing a girl outside the Bell Tavern, King's Cross—he said, "Is she dead?"—I said, "No"—he said, "Do you know her?"—I said, "No, I do not know the young woman"—he said, "That is the one that put me away for six months, and I would do the same to her again if I had a chance"—I asked him if he had a knife in his possession, and he said he threw it away.

CHARLES CURTIS (Policeman G 329). I heard cries of "Police" and "Murder" outside the Bell public-house—I ran up and saw Ashman bleeding at the back of the neck—I took her not a shop, where a stitch was put in, and I conveyed her to King's Cross Road Police-station—a man handed me this knife—there was blood on the blade and handle.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate was: "I say nothing. I mean to have my own back when I come out. I have my sister as a witness."

Witness for the Defence.

SARAH LONG . The prosecutrix never gave me anything—I never saw her till she came from Yorkshire—I did not have £20 out of £45 from the prosecutrix—I know nothing about it—you robbed your father of it.

Prisoner, in defence, said the prosecutrix put him up to it, to live together, and then robbed him and ran away, When he met her next he asked her about it; she tried to get away, and said she would fetch a lot of City Road boys to pay him.

GUILTY* of unlawfully wounding . He also PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at Clerkenwell in October, 1887 the robbery of his father, Adam Glazier— Four Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-218
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

218. MARY FRANCES GEORGE (50) , Feloniously throwing a corrosive fluid upon Philip George and another.

MR. PAXIL TAYLOR Prosecuted.

ELIZA MARIA WILLSON . My maiden name is Willson, my married name is Lawless—on the 12th May last I was living at 35, Munster Square, with the prisoner's husband, Philip Henry George—I had been living with him since the last week in the previous July—I knew he was a married man parted from his wife—I knew the prisoner as his wife—on the 12th of May I had a very bad cough, and went to bed in the evening—Mr. George made some tea for me—I had one cup, and as he turned to get me another the prisoner opened the door quickly, and threw something—it put the lamp and the fire out, and left us in the dark—Mr. George called out, "On, Lizzie, I am blind"—I jumped out of bed to see what was the matter—I received the remains on the back of my head and on my arm, only a few spots on my face—I ran into the area—she took hold of me—I called out "Police" and "Murder"—Mr. George held her down—when I got downstairs the second time Amber was there—I put on some clothes, and followed them to the station—I was there examined by Surgeon Mawle—when we returned we found this tin on the dresser—the milk-jug was on the table—I did not see Mr. George throw anything at the prisoner.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. Your husband and I were not on the top of the bed.

PHILIP HENRY GEORGE . I am the prisoner's husband—I lived with her at 35, Munster Square till May, last year—in July I commenced to cohabit with the last witness—on 12th January, about 5.30 p.m., I was having my tea—she was lying in bed—as I was standing the door opened, and my wife came in with a pint beer-can, and said, "Now I will do for you," and added filthy language—she flung the contents of the can fair at me—it contained vitriol—I screamed out, "I am blinded. Fetch the police"—I opened the area door and holloaed out"Police"—she followed me, and then went back in the kitchen—I followed her—she tried to put her fingers into my eyes—I got her down, and held her till the police came, when I loosed her, and she sat on the bed close to the table, and dipped her fingers into the milk-jug, and rubbed her face with it—the vitriol went into the milk-jug and all over the table and bed—I did not throw any acid at her—I was too blind to see anything; but called out "Police" all the time—I went to the Police-station, and was examined by Mr. Mawle.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. We were not lying outside on the bed—I had nothing to throw at you.

Re-examined. I had no beer-can in the room before the prisoner came in.

JAMES MAWLE . I am a surgeon, in practice at 56, Albany Street—I saw Henry George and Eliza Willson, about 6.15, at the station in Albany Street—the prisoner was not present—I examined them—on the prosecutrix I found two large surface wounds on the buttocks, caused by a corrosive

substance—there were smaller patches down the backs of both thighs—Mr. George was suffering from similar injuries, but far more severe in character, on the whole face, both ears, the lining membrane of both eyes, the right shoulder, both forearms, and hands—the sight is not likely to be injured permanently—those injuries were also caused by a corrosive fluid—I afterwards examined the prisoner—she had symptoms of the corrosive fluid having been upon her, by the poisoning of the skin on the face and ears, but in a very much slighter degree—my impression was that the poison had been applied to the face while the eyes were closed, and that the effect was removed by washing it off quickly with a neutral substance, such as milk.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I applied the same treatment to your face—olive oil.

WILLIAM AMBER (Policeman S 316). On January 12th I was on duty about 6.15 in the Euston Road—I was called to 35, Munster Square—I saw the prisoner and Mr. George and Willson in the front kitchen—the prisoner was sitting in a chair bathing her face from a milk-cup—Mr. George was standing with his hand to his forehead—he said, "She has thrown vitriol over me"—she said she was turned out of the house—I took them all to the station, and sent for a doctor instantly—the prisoner was charged in my presence—she said, "He has thrown some over me as well"—I took the prosecutor to the hospital—I went back and found vitriol on the walls, over the furniture, on the tea-table, and on the bread on it, in the milk-cup, in this can, and all over the place.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. He threw some over me, that is how he got it on his hands.

The Prisoner, in her defence, said she went to ask her husband about her daughter, and seeing the prosecutor and her husband on the bed, picked up what came to hand, not knowing what it was; that her husband had deserted her and her daughter, and insulted and ill-used them.

PHILIP HENRY GEORGE (Re-examined). I am a zinc-worker—spirits of salts are used in my trade, not vitriol.

JAMES MAWLE (Re-examined). The composition of spirits of salts is carbonate of ammonia and spirits—there is no sulphuric acid in it, but both are corrosive—I have analysed the fluid, and find it was the sulphuric acid of commerce.

GUILTY .—Recommended to mercy by the Jury on account of the provocation she had received.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Thursday, February 7th, 1889.

Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-219
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

219. LAGIER LAMOTTE (41) , Stealing 150 shares of the New York and Erie Railway Company; and within six months 100 shares in the same company; and within six months 170 shares in the Norfolk and Western Railway Company, of William Newall and others, his masters; and JAMES WILLIAM ARTHUR GERMANY feloniously receiving the same, to which


MESSRS. H. AVORY and GRAY Prosecuted; MR. POLAND, Q.C.,Defended Germany.

WILLIAM NEWALL . I am one of the firm of Vivian, Gray, and Co.—

the prisoner Lamotte has been in our service thirteen and a half years—it is our practice to give out securities on loan, and it was Lamotte's duty to give us the securities, and to see that the loans were all in order—the securities were entered in the loan-book, which should show not only those which are out on loan, but those which are in our box—the book is in Lamotte's writing—the main facts are also entered in the ledger, but not the whole of the figures—the prisoner Germany was in our employ for about a year or eighteen months—I think he left about June, 1886—he was our authorised clerk; that means authorised to deal for us on the Stock Exchange—I am not quite certain whether when Germany was with us Lamotte had charge of our securities and loan-book, but if he had not he used to take out securities under my direction, and he attended generally to the loans—October 26th was the account-day—this entry on October 26th of 500 Erie shares is Lamotte's writing; and also this entry on October 12th, the previous account-day, of 450 shares; and on November 14th 500 Erie shares; and 500 on the 29th—on October 12th there is an entry, "Pember and Boyle, 1,100 Eries"; on August 26th 1,800 Eries, in Lamotte's writing; on November 14th 1,480, and on November 29th 1,480—under the name of Sheppard, Felly and Co. on October 12th 900, and on 26th October 900, on 14th November 950, on 29th November 950—on 29th November I was looking through the book and noticed that though it was apparently balanced, some of the figures were wrong, which made me doubt the balance; I spoke to Lamotte about it, and put the figures right; I found he had given two firms too much security, and went to them the same day and obtained information from them—next morning when I was going out of the office Lamotte stopped me and said he wished to speak to me; I went back with him into the office, and he made a statement—he went out of the office in the afternoon, at my desire, and brought back this list of the numbers of some Erie shares; only the figures and the numbers on the right were then on it—the name "Germany" was not on it; that is Mr. Vivian's writing, and so is the writing below—we afterwards missed from our box some Norfolk and Western shares, for which we are agents in this country, and the holders of shares send them to us for registration; Lamotte received them when they came in, and it was his business to enter them in the registration-book as received—this is the passing through book, and there is no entry in it on 16th November of 170 Norfolk and Western shares being received for registration from Gosling and Sharpe—on 14th November here are 190 Norfolks received from Arthur Anderson; the numbers are given here in Lamotte's writing—I made out this document (A) from the books—the securities so numbered ought to have been in our box on November 14th, and, I presume, on the 80th—I cannot tell whether they were there on the 30th—I never Authorised Lamotte or anybody else to take those shares out, or to take them to Germany—I have never dealt with Germany on the Stock Exchange—after Germany left us he went to another firm, and left there and started for himself as a broker about a year after—I drew up with Mr. Abrahams the list E, and have initialed it as correct; it shows two lots of 50 Eries and one lot of 100, received from Stoop and Chancellor, the two lots on 26th October, and 100 on 14th November—that is one of our clerk's writing—I took the names and numbers from the book—the 100

Eries to Chancellor are Nos. 71765 to 71774, and correspond with those in the list brought by Lamotte—78282 appears in both lists, and also 82567 and 82568, 88163 and 83194—the total number of Erie shares missing is 400, and 170 Norfolk and Westerns—I am aware of the rule of the Stock Exchange, that any member doing business with a clerk is liable to expulsion—the rules are known to clerks as well as members—on the Saturday following the account, December 1st, I sent to Germany's office for Mr. Ray—he came; I had an interview with him at my office, and on Monday, December 3rd, I applied for a warrant against both prisoners, and gave my evidence before an Alderman at Guildhall.

Cross-examined. I have two partners, Mr. Gray and Mr. Vivian—after Germany left us he went to another house, and afterwards became a member of the Stock Exchange—he would have to be recommended by a member, in some cases by three members, and to find two securities in £500 each—he did some business in the same market as ourselves, in the American market—these Eries and Norfolks are American securities—we had every confidence in Lamotte—on the Friday when he confessed to me that he had stolen various securities, he stated that he could go to the brokers and get me the numbers of the Eries—he went out, and after some time returned with a paper with the numbers of about 360—he then told me he had been dealing with the broker in the name of his brother-in-law, Mr. Robertson—I insisted on his giving me the broker's name—he at first said the broker was not so much to blame—Lamotte was a very efficient clerk—he had great experience in our business, which is a very large one—he is very well connected, and I understand he is entitled to a reversion of some property—he suggested on the Friday that he should go and see his uncle at Brighton, and see if he could make some arrangement with him to help him to make an arrangement with us—I consented to that, and he came next day, Saturday, and offered me £200 in part payment of our loss, and said he had not found his uncle, as he was at Usk, in Wales—I did not take the £200, and he put it in an envelope and handed it over to Mr. Grant—I allowed him to go away again; and on Monday, the 3rd, a warrant was obtained, and he was arrested at Usk on the Tuesday—I cannot tell whether there is such a person as Mr. Robertson, his brother-in-law, but there is a Mrs. Robertson—almost all firms do speculative transactions for customers—they buy stock which is not to be delivered; and if the stock goes up at the end of the fortnightly account the person has won, and the broker pays him the difference, if not he receives it—often when he is a loser he makes an arrangement with the broker to carry over the account to the next account-day, to see if it gets a little better, and the broker has to arrange that on the Stock Exchange, and the client has to bring in securities to cover the debit balance, and the broker makes use of the securities till the next account-day—the difference between contangoing and selling is, that in contangoing you can get the securities back at the same price, or an equivalent; it is not a sale out and out—of course that costs money—it is sometimes difficult for a broker to arrange to carry over, if the broker is supposed to be shaky—Erie stock is very convenient for contangoing—I never had any dealings with Germany after he was in business on his own account—when a broker fails in the Stock Exchange we call it a hammer—Germany was hammered on Saturday, 1st, or Monday, 3rd—one of the officials calls the attention of the members

by hammering, and Mr. Grant takes charge of the affairs, and settles matters; he is the official assignee, and has the books to wind up the affairs.

Re-examined. His doing so depends upon whether there is anything to do it with, and whether he can get the books. I used to see Germany in the American market nearly every day, but never heard of his doing any business for Lamotte's brother-in-law, nor did I ever see Robertson—we were agents for the Norfolk and Western Railroad when Germany was with us, and he knew that—we frequently had Erie shares in our possession at that time—it was only on my consenting to Lamotte going away that he gave me the broker's name—I said, "Germany must have known what he was doing when he was dealing with you," and Lamotte said, "Well, I think he must have known."

By the COURT. The customers of brokers are confidential, more or less, but it is very often the practice of brokers to discuss some of their clients.

WILLIAM VIVIAN . I am a partner of the last witness—I was present on November 30, when Lamotte made a statement—he went out of the office, and brought back this list of Erie shares—a conversation took place about the broker's name, and I made this memorandum, "Germany" at the back of the document—I heard nothing about Norfolk shares being missing that day, but next morning (Saturday) I went to the Stock Ex change, and discovered that these Norfolk shares were missing—I then saw Lamotte again—I called at Germany's office on the Saturday, and found he was not there.

Cross-examined. I was present when Lamotte said he had been doing business with the broker in the name of Mr. Robertson, his brother-in-law—he said first that he did not want to give up the broker's name because he was innocent—I said, "Do you mean to tell me you think he is innocent?"—he said, "I can't help thinking he must have known"—that was the Saturday morning, not at the same conversation—I have heard that while Lamotte was with us he came into some property on two occasions; I understood it was about £4,000—the Stock Exchange Committee act very strictly, and if it became known to them that a broker had been dealing with a clerk he would run the risk of being struck off the list of members for breaking the rules—if the broker was a defaulter because he was not able to meet his engagements, if he found he had been dealing with a clerk, that would be reported to the Committee—if Germany had entered Lamotte's name in his books, and had got into trouble, and the name had been found there, it would have been a very serious matter for him.

Re-examined. I told Lamotte that I had heard in the market that there were other shares besides those he had taken—he said, "Yes, 350 Erie shares; I did it to help Germany"—I said, "Do you still say you think he is innocent?"

CHARLES MOORE . I am clerk to Vivian, Gray, and Co.—I was with them in November—this entry of 100 Eries on November 14th is in my writing.

JOSEPH SORTAINE AVERILLO . I am clerk to Stein and Co.—it is part of my duty to check the securities that go on loan—I made this list of the Erie shares of Vivian, Gray, and Co.—on 26th October I had 400 shares, on 15th November 400, on 29th November 400; on 12th October I had 400—as a rule, Mr. Lamotte bought the shares from Vivian, Gray,

and Co.; a list of them was sent the night before—I remember the list being received on the evening of the 28th, and on the 29th Lamotte came to the office.

FREDERICK HEATH BOTTON . I am a clerk to Gosling and Sharpe, bankers, Fleet Street—on November 15th I took 17 certificates of 10 shares each of the Norfolk and Western Company to Vivian and Gray for registration, and delivered them, I think, to a clerk—I took with me a letter from our client—I left them there, and got a receipt.

FREDERICK CHETWIND STAPLETON . I am manager to Pember and Boyle, stockbrokers, and have charge of the securities held by them on loan—I made this list—on October 12th, 1888, I had 1,050 shares from Vivian, Gray—he receives the securities and I enter them—on October 26th 1,150, on November 14th 1,230, and on November 29th 1,230—on each account I received a list from Vivian, Gray and Co.—Lamotte has been in the habit of bringing the securities.

GEORGE COURTENAY RAY . I have been clerk to Germany since January, 1888, at first with a salary and commission, and about July, 1888, there was a fresh arrangement by which I was to have half the profits—I advanced some money—I have seen Lamotte in Germany's office, and outside when I went there—there were three accounts open in Germany's books with which Lamotte had to do—an account headed "W. Germany" was opened on August 29th, 1887—that was the first entry in the ledger—I have seen no earlier ledger—the entry was "W. G.," which was afterwards enlarged into "W. Germany"—the whole of that account is purely speculative as far as I know, but there is one entry of stock delivered—there is another account in the name of H. P. Robertson, which was used for contangoing stock, after which the balance created in Robertson's account was transferred to the account of W. Germany—there were no entries in my time in Robertson's account, except those of stock contangoed and transferred to the other account—the H. P. Robertson account commenced in September, 1887, when the books show a balance against Germany, which had to be cleared off in some way, and there was a transfer from Robertson to Germany, which left a balance of £13—Lamotte gave the instructions for the entries which appear in the account—I never saw any communication from any other person which had reference to that account—I never saw H. P. Robertson, or any communication purporting to come from him—Lamotte brought in the stock which from time to time appears in Robertson's account—with one or two trifling exceptions it all consists of Erie shares; there are two other stocks mentioned in this ledger at the beginning of October, 1887; of course there are other ledgers—after that date there are no other shares brought in to be contangoed but Eries—I saw Lamotte bring some of them in; he handed them to me or to Mr. Germany—there was sometimes a credit and sometimes a debit balance, and a debit balance was always cleared off by shares being transferred by Lamotte—he never paid cash to clear it, to my knowledge—when there was a credit balance a certain number of shares would be taken up to diminish the cover—various cheques were drawn and paid to Lamotte; they were debited to the account—cheques of even amounts were handed to him for the difference, not for the actual balance due to him—if £130 was due to him, a cheque for £100 might be given to him, not one for the amount due, because the account was settled by returning shares—in

some cases cheques drawn to Germany were made payable to cash—these (produced) are some of the cheques—Germany banked at the Imperial Bank—one of these cheques to Germany for £100 is endorsed by Lamotte, it is dated October 22nd, 1888—I have given Lamotte my private cheques in exchange for Germany's, and these (produced) are some of them—I understood that Mr. Robertson was Lamotte's brother-in-law, and that it was a joint account; as far as I remember I heard that both from Germany and Lamotte; I understood that Mr. Robertson was a joint speculator backing Mr. Lamotte up—I have heard that from both; the only time I can fix was when in conversation Mr. Lamotte said that his brother-in-law, Mr. Robertson, had a joint interest in the account—I understood that Mr. Robertson was living up West, and I think Germany told me that he was a banker; that was three or four months before the failure—as a rule contract notes are made out for every bargain made for a customer, and contract notes were sent to Lamotte up to July last year to his private address, Tornfield Road, Shepherd's Bush—I am not aware of any contract notes being sent after July—a number-book and a ticket-book were kept, and the two together then ought to show the shares brought in—I have gone through the H. P. Robertson account, and put down the shares brought in and the shares returned; that shows a total of 890 Erie shares contangoed on the Robertson account, or sold with an agreement to buy back at the same price—it shows 690 Erie shares given back—I believe it to be accurate; I went through it twice—at the end of the October account of 1887, those 100 Erie shares are carried over, and on the following account-day 150 Erie shares appear to have been carried over—I cannot trace in the books where the 50 shares came from, they are not in the ledger—when they come in they ought to be entered to the credit of the account—when Lamotte brought in the shares, some were entered in the name of H. P. Robertson and others as coming in from W. G.—on 24th October £300 was the actual amount owing on the two accounts of Germany and Lamotte, and on 26th October Lamotte brought in 150 Erie shares; they were taken to the Imperial Bank, Germany's bank—150 Norfolk shares were taken with them—those were mine—that was for a loan—£1,415 was the amount deposited, and £1,250 was the amount borrowed—if I took the Norfolks away it would leave about £720—Germany's account at the bank was credited with the £1,250, and he drew on it—as far as I know no entry was made either in the Robertson or Germany account of the receipt of those Eries—on November 14th I was not in London, but the books show that those 150 shares were taken out of the bank, and the loan paid off—I believe the books show another 100 Erie shares brought in on the same day—on November 14th there was a loan from the bank of £400, which was paid off next day—that would be about the amount you would get on 100 Eries—I see by the credit-book that 100 Eries came into the bank on the 14th—this is the contra entry to the 150 Eries contangoed—the second mark in pencil would include the parcel marked November 13th—there is no entry on October 26th of those 150 coming in—ticket 628 says, "100 Eries, W. G., Imperial Bank"—that is Lamotte's—they appear to have been taken to the bank, and on November 15th they were taken out—the whole 250 were sold before the 15th; the 14th was the account—they were credited to H. P. Robertson's account—I find no entry in the ticket-book of any of those 150 coming

in on October 26th—the ticket shows the numbers of those 100 shares which came in on November 14th—they are 71765 to 71774, and were sold to Mr. Heath—on the same day 100 Eries were sold to Mr. Josephs, and 50 to Mr. Godfrey, but in point of fact they went to Forbes—the 250 shares sold produced about £1,448, which was credited to the Robertson account—that was transferred to Germany, and left a credit balance of about £700—£700 worth of shares were sold more than was necessary to clear the balance; that balance remained on the account—I judge that Germany was bankrupt on October 26th, 1888—he was in want of money, but I think he got over the November 14th account without wanting any money—he had the £700 to help him—some of the Norfolks of October 26th were mine—I knew he wanted them, and I lent them, and the following account commenced on Tuesday, November 27th—there had then been two fresh dealings, I think, but the markets had altered, and after allowing for the £700 to Lamotte's credit, there was a balance of £1,750 on the wrong side—that was produced solely by the alterations in the markets—I saw Lamotte; and Germany told me he had seen him, and would arrange with Mr. Robertson for the necessary stock to help him over—Lamotte came and brought some Norfolks on the account-day, and I heard him instruct Mr. Germany to bring in 170 Norfolks and 350 Eries—the 350 Eries were to help Germany over the account—if I recollect rightly, Lamotte said he would cry quid pro quo, and he was offered one-third of the profit by Germany—Lamotte asked if Germany had spoken to me about it—he brought the Norfolks in on the account-day, the 29th, but before he brought them the stock-jobbers with whom the stock had been contangoed had been to the office inquiring for them—I was present when Mr. Dare or his clerk came, and Mr. Duporry—the conversation was with me—they came again later in the day—Germany sent for them—I heard what passed; Germany said that it was box stock of his father's, who was away, and he could not get at him, and I think he said letters had miscarried—I had Norfolks in my hand which Lamotte had brought in—I think I said that I had instructions not to deliver them unless Germany could tide over to-night—Germany said that they were mine, and I confirmed that—I declined to deliver them unless they held back Germany's cheques—I handed over the Norfolks, and an arrangement was come to—this was Thursday, and they were to hold over till Saturday morning—on the 30th Germany was about in the Stock Exchange—on Friday afternoon between three and four o'clock Lamotte came to the office, and in consequence of what he said I gave him some information out of the ticket-book, and he took away this list of numbers of Erie shares—Germany was not in the office then; he came in soon after, and I told him Lamotte had been to get the numbers of some Erie shares—I understood those to be the numbers of the shares which had been delivered to Robertson—that did not purport to be the numbers of all the Eries—I did not know what Robertson wanted them for—Lamotte came back in about half an hour, as I was going out, and said he wanted to see Mr. Germany—I said, "Won't I do?"Germany being out—he said, "No, I must see Mr. Germany alone in the upper corridor"—I sent for Germany, and he went up to where Lamotte was—I saw him afterwards, and thinking it was strange, asked him what it was about—he said, "Oh, it is nothing" or words to that effect—I

thought Lamotte looked ill, he was wearied and pale; I only saw him for a short time—I remained in the office till six o'clock, the books were then locked up, and I locked the door, leaving no one there—I had seen Germany three-quarters of an hour before, and he said he should be there next morning—I went there next morning at 9.15, and found all the books were gone except the private ledger and address-book—Germany did not come, and I went to the bank and found that £300 was missing, which had been drawn out by this cheque produced) in Germany's writing—I then drew out the balance, £210, and went to Germany's private address at Brixton, but he was out—on the same Saturday he was declared a defaulter, and Mr. Grant took possession of his affairs, and at his request I handed him the £210—on, I believe, the next Wednesday morning, I received this post-card from Germany at my private address, "I have been cruelly advised; now I shall do what I consider right; all the books will be sent to the assignees, and I, if mentally fit, come Saturday"—I found the books there when I got back—ticket 634 (produced) gives the numbers of the Norfolk shares brought in.

Cross-examined. "When I went into Germany's service in January, I knew Lamotte as clerk to Vivian, Gray, and Co., and I knew that the Germany account and the H. P. Robertson account were practically his—I understood that it was a joint speculation of his and his brother-in-law's, Lamotte being the experienced man who was doing the speculations—he told me once that it was so—I understood that his brother-in-law was finding the money—I was told that Lamotte had a private banking account at the West-end; at Hansom and Bouverie's, I think—Lamotte's visits to the office were perfectly open; there was no secret arrangement to my knowledge—there were two clerks, at one time—when he brought in any stock as cover, he gave it to me, and if Germany was there he gave it to him, or to the clerk; there was no secrecy as to the clerk—I was present when the 170 Norfolks were brought in, and I believe they were delivered to me—the numbers would not be entered till they were taken out to be delivered; I actually entered them before I took them out, in the ticket-book—I had some Norfolks myself, and lent 50 to assist in the October account—I have heard Germany say that Lamotte's account, which he was working, was not a profitable one for him—I knew that he was going to leave Vivian, Gray, and Co.—Germany's total commission, roughly speaking, from November to November was about £260, and then there was a small profit on carrying-over, which I cannot calculate—they were the ordinary brokers' commissions—from July last I shared the commission, and my share came to about £60—when the balance was in Lamotte's favour, cheques were drawn in his favour; the first entry in the old ledger is £500 paid to Robertson's account—the Stock Exchange accounts are fortnightly, and at the end of every fortnight accounts were made out to show the position of Lamotte's affairs, whether for or against him—the contract notes would show what the account was, and would agree with the books, and if Lamotte did not want contract notes our books would show what the state of affairs was—if Lamotte did not choose to trust Germany without having a contract note, it made no difference, the account would be just the same—there were other clients of Germany who did not have contract notes—the price of the stamp on contract notes was raised in May, 1888, from 1d. to 6d., and a double stamp must

be used for carrying over—I believe he suggested that he did not want contract notes—we had received Erie shares from other customers—Germany had a good many debts out, he would have been more than solvent if they had been paid—every broker is personally liable, and if a person owes him money, he would come to trouble if he could not arrange to carry over—I assisted him, and I am a creditor—on the second day it is more difficult to contango stock than on the first day—the Norfolk stock had not come in, and therefore there would be more difficulty in doing it—if people on the Stock Exchange are led to believe that the stock, instead of being borrowed came out of his own box, they are more ready to trust him—I had not the slightest notion that the 150 Norfolk shares had been improperly come by—he either said that they were his own or his brother-in-law's—I had not the smallest notion that they had been stolen by him from his employer—what I did was to prop up Germany's credit—I thought if he carried over to the next account he would probably come right—in this account "I," the Erie shares brought in at the different times are shown in the first column—100 were brought in in September, 1887, and in November 50 went out—those shares had been contangoed by Mr. Germany, and after wards got back for equivalent value and bodily returned to Lamotte—on October 24th there was a debit balance of £300 on the Lamotte account—at that time there were a good many outstanding transactions to be carried over to the next account—150 Eries were brought in by Lamotte—the value of the Eries would be about £750, and Germany could get a loan of about £750 for the Eries brought in by Lamotte, and the 450 would remain as loan for the accommodation of Mr. Germany—he carried over that account successfully—whenever he became a defaulter an investigation must have shown that it was Lamotte's account—I have not been able to find the actual numbers not entered in the ticket-book, they were taken direct to the Imperial Bank, and when they came back the same numbers would be on them still—on November 14th, when the loan was paid off, the 150 came back into Mr. Germany's office, and on the same day it appears Lamotte brought in another 100 Eries; those two added together made it 250; those were contangoed on November 15th, which gave a credit balance of £700 for Mr. Germany to carry over to the next account, and then the balance was £1,750 on the wrong side by reason of change in prices—before they were contangoed the numbers were entered, and if they were stolen from Vivian, Gray, and Co. they could be traced by the numbers in the book—when Lamotte came to get the numbers he said that he wanted them for Robertson, and I let him have access to the book, knowing it was his own account—I never had the slightest suspicion that the Erie shares had been improperly come by—I had heard from Mr. Germany that Lamotte was going to bring in 300 or 350 Eries to enable him to tide over the account—I heard the conversation in which Lamotte said, "If I assist you with 300 or 350 Eries I must have a quid pro quo"—I understood that those were to come from Robertson—I think it was Germany who proposed for the benefit of the loan of the 350 Eries; Lamotte was to have one-third of the profits—Lamotte saw Germany in the afternoon, but did not tell me what had passed; the books were taken away the same night—the post-card is dated the 4th, that would be Tuesday; the books were brought back the next day, and he surrendered himself after he heard that a warrant was out

against him—on the Friday morning when Germany drew out the £300 the balance was £540—I drew out £210, leaving £9 balance; the balance on the morning of the 28th was £463—I had no doubt at any time that the story Lamotte was telling was the truth.

Cross-examined. As to Germany's failure there is nothing of which he need be ashamed; it was brought about by people who owed him money not paying it; there was more than £1,700 owing to him; some of them had actually increased in the last account, and some of them had been standing—shares were taken up in some instances which were not taken back—I never looked to see whether Lamotte brought back the same shares which had been given to him; it never struck me, but I should say they were not—I cannot remember whether they were ever handed to the clerk in my presence—there were two clerks at the time of the failure, one had charge of the books, and the other, if he had anything to do, would go away and do it—an investigation would not show that these shares were being brought in by Lamotte—it did not occur to me to ask where Mr. Robertson kept all these securities—I do not know that this account of Lloyd and Barnett's was closed in June, 1888, but I never heard after that of his having a banking account—I do not remember Lamotte suggesting that contract notes should not be sent, to save the stamp—there were one or two customers to whom contract notes were not sent; in one case, I think, it was the clerk to another stockbroker—the commission earned was about £260, and less than £100 for carrying over—I do not know of any balance being paid to Lamotte till this year; he had the benefit of the credit balance as cover—the last time I heard of the loan of £100 owing by Germany to Lamotte was at the beginning of last account—the third of the profits was to be upon every transaction—I do not think he made it a condition to bring the Eries in; he did not say he would bring them in if he did not have it—I understood he said he must have quid pro quo if he brought them in—it was arranged he should have one-third of the business—that was on the occasion when I heard him say he was about leaving Vivian, Gray's.

By MR. POLAND. It was said at the time that Lamotte would be leaving his employers, and he would join Germany in business, and he was to have one-third of the profits of the business.

By MR. AVORY. That was the same conversation that I was speaking of—I was a creditor; I would rather not say to what amount.

GEORGE ROGERS GALLAGHER . I am loan clerk to the Imperial Bank—we made loans to Germany against stock as security, £1,250 on 26th October and £400 on 14th November, on Erie shares.

EDWIN EUSTACE JENKINS . I am clerk to Godfrey and Co., stockbrokers—on November 14th I received 50 Erie shares from Mr. Germany, five certificates of ten shares each, and paid for them.

Cross-examined. They were the outcome of a contango.

REYNOLD JAMES RUTTER . I am clerk to Messrs. Heath, stockjobbers, of St. Stephen's Chambers—on Nov. 16th I received from Germany 100 Erie shares represented by ten certificates; I did not take the numbers—I gave a cheque for £570 for them, which was cleared through the Imperial Bank.

ARTHUR JOHNSON . I am clerk to Joseph and Son, of 1, Shorters' Court—on November 14th I received from Germany 100 Eries, represented by ten certificates—I paid for them by a cheque for £570.

WILLIAM DARE . I am a stockjobber, of 13, Copthall Court—on November 28th I arranged with Germany to contango 150 Eries and 170 Norfolks; that was the second day of the account, which is not the recognised day for contangoes—he said that it was box-stock, and I took it that it was some which he had in his security-box; he said it was given to him for differences which might not be paid on account day—nothing was delivered in the morning; and I believe my clerk went to his office, and later in the day Germany sent for me; I went to his office, and he said, "I have sent for you to say I am short of £1,900, and I want you, with other creditors, to help me over the day, when I can pay"—I said, "But you have not delivered me the stock"—he said, "The Eries have not come"—I saw he had some stock on the desk, and said, "What is that?"—he said "170 Norfolk Preference; I cannot deliver them to you; they are Mr. Ray's," and Mr. Ray said, "I cannot consent to part with such shares unless you will consent to help Mr. Germany over—I said, "I cannot consent unless the other creditors will agree"; and I believe he went into the Stock Exchange—later in the afternoon I went to his office, and at the door met Mr. Ray with the 170 shares in his hand—he said, "I am going to deliver these shares to you; I have arranged with the other creditors to help him over," and I agreed—I said at his office, "Where are the Eries coming from?"—he said, "They are coming from my father; I have written to him, but I suppose the letter has mis carried; I am going to find his address and telegraph to him to-night"—I paid £1,674 10s. for the Norfolks, my partner drew this cheque for it produced), and my clerk entered the numbers of the shares in a book—the 150 Eries were never delivered—I did not claim the balance.

Cross-examined. It is not more difficult to contango stock on the second day than it is on the first—I should be less willing to do it if he borrowed the stock than if he had taken them out of his own box.

Re-examined. Contangoing stock does not suggest that a man is in difficulties—I asked no question as to where it was coming from—I made no difficulty about contangoing it.

LOUIS DU FOREST . I am a stockjobber, of Copthail Court—on 28th November I arranged with Germany to contango 200 Erie shares; he said it was box-stock; I was not disposed to do it, because the carrying over day being the day previous, the account was actually settled—I met Mr. Dare on the 29th, and asked Germany how it was he had not delivered those shares; and he said they were box-stock; he said it was not his stock, it was his father's, who he had not been able to find, and the letter had miscarried—I agreed with some of the other creditors to hold over my cheque till Friday or Saturday; and I did so.

Cross-examined. If I had known that the Erie shares were to be got by a clerk in a stockbroker's office, I would not have had anything to do with it; nor if I had known that the clerk was speculating for himself or for a relation.

IZIAH AQUATI . I am housekeeper at Warnford Court—Germany had offices there—on Friday, 30th November, after 7 p.m., a boy came down from the first floor with some office books—I stopped him and asked what they were—he said he had them from the first floor—I said, "Come back with me and show me"—he went back with me to the office, and I saw Germany there, and asked him if he gave them to him—he

said, "Aquati, it is all right," and the boy went down stairs—Germany did not lock the door; we left it open for the night—he did not come next morning.

CHARLES RUST . I keep the Pier Hotel, Folkestone—on Saturday, 1st December, Germany arrived there about 3 p.m.—he stayed the night and left about 3 p.m. on the Sunday—I saw him on the railway platform about 7 o'clock, when a train was due for London—he signed the book when he left, and gave his address 49, Harbour Street, Ramsgate.

Cross-examined. I knew him as Mr. Germany—his wife and two children were with him.

WILLIAM WEIGHT (City Detective Sergeant). On 3rd December, 1888, a warrant was entrusted to me, upon which I took Germany on Wednesday, 5th December, at Warnford Court.

Cross-examined. Information was given me on the Tuesday night that he was coming to surrender himself, and I waited there till he came—he said, "I have my books, which I have brought back in a cab, will you allow me to put them in my office?"—I did so, and a porter brought them up—I read the warrant to him for receiving the shares, knowing them to be stolen—he said, "I am innocent, and I wish to surrender."

Re-examined. His private house was watched on the Monday and Tuesday, and we did not find him, and about ten o'clock on the Tuesday night I followed a person who I understood was his wife, and Moser, a private inquiry agent, to Clapham Common, and a third person, who I do not know—I spoke to Moser on Clapham Common.


LAMOTTE, who was recommended to mercy by the Prosecutor—Nine Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, February 7th, 1889.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-220
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

220. ROBERT OVERLAND (18) , Stealing a gelding, cab, and set of harness, the property of William Morse.

MR. GEOGHEGAN Prosecuted.

WILLIAM TURNER . I live at 2, Johnson Street, Somers Town, and am a Hansom's cab-driver, badge 1180—on Sunday evening, January 20th, I left my cab on the rank outside Fulwood's Rents, Holborn, in the prisoner's charge, and told him I thought I should be away five minutes, and went into a coffee-house—he put the nosebag on the horse—I said I would give him twopence—he is not an attendant, but, as far as I know, an odd man on the rank—I came out in about twenty minutes, and the prisoner and my horse and cab had disappeared—I went to Bow Street and made a report, and then went in search of the horse and cab—about 11.40 I saw the prisoner by the Café Monico, in Piccadilly Circus, about two yards from the door, with my horse and cab—he had just got off, and was waiting by the horse's head—when he saw me he stayed there—I said, "I shall charge you with stealing my horse and cab"—he said, "I will walk down with you to Bow Street, if you like"—I said, "I will save

you the trouble, you will have to walk down with a constable"—he ran away—I took possession of my horse and cab—I was driving home up Tottenham Court Road about 12 o'clock, and saw the prisoner on the pavement—I said, "I want to speak to you"—he ran across the road and towards New Oxford Street—I shouted, "Stop him," and I saw a constable stop him—I gave him in custody; he said nothing—I went with them to Bow Street—he has no cabdriver's licence to my knowledge—I gave him no authority to drive my cab—I only knew him by sight by his loitering about the rank.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. It was 8 o'clock I left you in charge of the cab; two other cabs were on the rank then—one of my fellow servants came to me at Piccadilly—he said nothing about your sending him to me; I was talking to a constable.

Re-examined. I think, at the station, the prisoner said something about a lady and gentleman being in my cab; he did not when I gave him into custody, nor at the Police-court—from where the cab was standing to the coffee-house is two or three yards—he did not come and tell me a lady and gentleman were in my cab.

By the JURY. I never allow odd men to drive my cab; there is a great penalty for it—I should be liable to have my licence cancelled.

WILLIAM HEAD (Policeman E 71). On Sunday night, 20th January, was on duty in New Oxford Street, at the corner of Tottenham Court Road—I heard cries of "Police," and saw the prisoner running from Turner—I stopped him—Turner came up immediately after, and charged the prisoner with stealing his horse and cab—I took him to Bow Street—when formally charged at the station, he said, "If Turner had not said anything about fetching the policeman I should have given him 4s.; but now that he has made such a row about it I shall give him nothing"—he said nothing about a lady and gentleman being in the cab—on the morning of the 21st, in the corridor of the Police-court before he was brought before the Magistrate, he said a lady and gentleman got on the step of the cab, and he drove away with them.

JAMES LAND . I am foreman to William Morse—this horse and cab and harness belong to him—he let them out to Turner; their value is £60.

By the JURY. Cabmen do not lend their horses and cabs to one another, or let strange men drive them; they are not allowed to.

THOMAS DRURY (Policeman Y 247). I believe if a licensed driver allows an unlicensed driver to drive his cab he renders himself amenable to the law, and would be liable to a penalty; and I believe the driver is liable to have his licence cancelled.

The prisoner in his defence said that after Turner had left his cab, a lady and gentleman got in; that he looked about for Turner, and not seeing him, drove the lady and gentleman to Victoria; that he drove another fare part of the way back, and then looked into the coffee-house for Turner, but could not find him; that he drove one or two other fares; that when Turner saw him at Piccadilly and went for a constable Turner's fellow servant advised him to go away and see him to-morrow; and that accordingly he went off, and that when he ran across Tottenham Court Road it was to avoid being run aver by an omnibus.


OLD COURT.—Friday, February 8th, 1889.

Before Mr. Justice Charles.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-221
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

221. MARY ELLEN REYNOLDS, Feloniously shooting at Charles Thompson Ford, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. OVEREND Prosecuted, and MR. BERNARD COLERIDGE Defended.

CHARLES THOMPSON FORD . I am an auctioneer and bailiff—in pursuance of instructions I received I went to Aumerle Lodge on 3rd January to levy a distress for rent—I knocked or rang at the front door, nobody came to the door; after waiting a few minutes a young woman came from the rear of the premises to the front door where I was standing—I asked her if Mr. Reynolds was at home; she said he was not, he was at Birmingham—I said, "Is Mrs. Reynolds in?" she said, "Yes, Mrs. Reynolds is in, I am her sister;"Mrs. Reynolds afterwards appeared at the first-floor window at the back of the premises; I had then gone round to the back—I told the sister my business, and demanded the rent of her in the usual course, and I proceeded to make out my notices of levy—Mrs. Reynolds appeared at the window with a revolver in her hand, and said, "If you interfere with anything here I will shoot you down dead;" not thinking the revolver was loaded, I went on making out the notices of levy—I was about fifteen yards from the window; my two witnesses were with me—immediately following her threat I heard a loud report, as if of a bullet; I looked up at the prisoner, and saw she had the revolver in her hand, pointed at me, and there saw smoke issuing from the muzzle—I am quite sure it was the prisoner who fired, no doubt about it.

Cross-examined. It was about ten minutes or a quarter to four—I do not think it was foggy, I don't remember about that; I won't swear it was not—well, it was not a foggy night, I remember now—the house stands in its own grounds; there is a shrubbery in front, but it is perfectly clear at the back; it is some distance from the main road—I am not aware that the house had been attempted by burglars more than once; I had not heard it, or that there had been burglaries in the neighbourhood—the railway passes close by the house; trains are frequently passing—I was accompanied by two men; they kept me in sight, they were a short distance behind—I had a short conversation with the sister, Miss Yardley, as to my business—I did not attempt to serve her with any process; I had no process to serve—I opened my bag and took out some papers, and told her I should distrain—I did not attempt to place any of them in her hands, nor did she refuse—there was a large mastiff at the side of the house, on a chain; she did not rush to it; she did not threaten to let it loose on me if I came near; I swear that—I did not take her arm and twist it—she did not scream; she rushed round to the back door—I did not rush after her; she ran, and I walked—I saw no male in the house—I wanted to get in, and I thought possibly I should have a chance of getting in—she was too quick; she rushed in at the back door, and bolted it—I believe the back looks out on an open space with a duck pond—it was not dark—we cannot distrain after sunset—I think I was standing almost directly opposite the door; I may have been a little to the right, I am not sure—there is a meadow to the left, with trees in it—when I got round to the back door the prisoner appeared at the window, I should think that window was about two feet broad, it is a very small window, I think scarcely room for two persons to look out at the same time—the

prisoner did not say, "If you dare to touch any one on these grounds, you answer to me," nothing of the sort—I was not trying to get in at the back door; I really cannot tell what I had done with my bag—I think I had put it down on the ground, as far as I remember, I think at the back; I think I had stood it down beside me, but I will not swear to it—I knew what I was doing perfectly, but the prisoner had threatened me; I was anxious to do my business as soon as possible—the other two men came up as soon as I got round to the rear of the premises, before that I had beckoned them; they came up almost immediately—I went round to the rear, they were not actually in my company till then—I believe the prisoner and her sister are about the same build—they were both complete strangers to me—there was no light in the room from which the window looked, it was broad daylight—I am not aware that the sister took up the revolver; I did not see it in her hand; I will swear she did not have it in her hand in my sight; the prisoner had it all the time, so far as I saw—I did not say to the prisoner, "Oh, I have seen popguns before, I am not afraid of them"—nothing of the kind was said by me or either of the witnesses—I did not say, "Oh yes, my fine lady, I have seen popguns before to-day, you do not frighten me with that"—the prisoner's sister did not take up the revolver and discharge it in the direction of the meadow—I did not see it in the sister's hand at all—I did not hear the bullet strike; I am rather deaf in one ear; I heard the report, that was loud enough—I did not look afterwards to see where the bullet struck, I was afraid to remain on the premises—I did not look afterwards, I dare not go near the premises; I sent a clerk down, and he was threatened—I know Inspector Andrews—I went direct from the premises to Harrow Station, where I saw Inspector Andrews, and I told him what had occurred—I did not tell him that the revolver had been fired in the air, nothing of the sort.

Re-examined. The two witnesses accompanied me, instead of one, because I thought I might require them; it was my duty to make an inventory—I am not quite sure whether it was the prisoner or her sister who said, "Where is Mr. Freake? he dare not come near the premises, he is afraid to come here"—Mr. Freake is the landlord to whom the rent was due—I told her I was going to the police-station to get protection for the men—they said they did not care for policemen or anybody else.

JOHN PORTER . I live at 41, Queen's Road, Walworth—I am a retired inspector of police—on 3rd January I was with Ford at Aumerle Lodge—I saw the prisoner up at the window at the back of the house overlooking the grounds—she had something in her hand, threatening to shoot Ford—I heard her say, "If you attempt to touch anything here I will shoot you"—she pointed it direct at Ford, and fired—I was looking at her at the time—I heard the bullet strike something.

Cross-examined. There was a wooden paling 6 or 8 yards behind where Ford was standing—the revolver was pointed at Ford when it was discharged—I can't say whether the bullet struck the paling, there are trees there; I can't say whether it struck the paling or the trees—I have not examined the paling, I had enough to do to examine myself—I did not consider I had any duty to do in that way—I had never seen either of these women before—the window is a very small one and low—I did not come up until Ford had got round to the rear of the house—I do not know that the premises have been entered and the goods sold—I was

standing on the left of Ford as the woman was looking out, and as Ford stood facing the window.

RICHARD FORD . I live at 2, Shepherds Place, Upper Kennington—I am an assistant to Mr. C. T. Ford—on 3rd January I was with him—I saw the prisoner at the back of the house—I heard her say to Mr. Ford, "If you attempt to touch anything here I will shoot you dead"—I was standing about two, or it might be three, yards from Ford, more facing the window, on the left—I kept my eye on the window—I saw a revolver or pistol in her hand—her hand was leaning low on the window-sill—the pistol was pointed at Ford; she discharged it—I saw the pistol at the moment it was discharged, and I saw fire come from the mouth of it.

Cross-examined. There are some poultry-houses there—I was a little distance from them, and about fifteen or sixteen yards from the window—this was about ten minutes to four—there was a little fog, not much; a little cloudy—I had never seen either of the women before—we three men were standing together, but some yards apart—Ford was standing in the middle of us—as he was facing the window I was on his right, and Porter on his left—the prisoner pointed the pistol at Ford, and in a few moments she fired—I won't say mat she aimed it direct at him and shot at him—I did not hear the bullet strike anything.

Re-examined. I had not the least difficulty in seeing the prisoner clearly.

WILLIAM MARTIN . I am agent to the landlord of Aumerle Lodge, and an officer of the Sheriff of Surrey—I found the premises in possession of the County-court for rent on the 19th—I went on the premises by request of Mr. Ford—I afterwards found a trunk there on the 11th, the day Mr. Reynolds was arrested—I opened it and found in it this revolver, and a box of cartridges on the dining-room table, of the same gauge—I handed the revolver and cartridges to Inspector Andrews on the 14th.

----ANADREWS (Police Inspector) Martin handed me this revolver and a box of cartridges—I found that they fitted—I also tried the revolver and found it would carry from 300 to 400 yards.

Cross-examined. Mr. Ford came to the station during the night and requested the police's attention to the premises—he said he had been to the house to distrain for rent, and that a woman had threatened to shoot him from one of the bedroom windows—he did not mention the name of the woman—he did not say how she had discharged the pistol; he made a general statement—he said, "At the same time she fired the revolver into the air."

Re-examined. I did not ask him as to what had happened when she threatened to shoot him—I treated his attendance at the station merely as a request for police protection, which I acted upon, and a constable was sent there during the night; not to the house, but to be in close proximity in case a breach of the peace occurred—his statement as to the, woman firing in the air was quite voluntary—the other two witnesses Porter and Richard Ford did not come to the station with him—he came alone.

Witnesses for the Defence.

GERTRUDE YARDLEY . (I am the prisoner's sister—I was living with her and Mr. Reynolds at this house—they had occupied it since the 5th of January—the house had been broken into by burglars, and it has been attempted since our occupation—it was in consequence of that

attempt that the revolver was bought by Mr. Reynolds—Mr. Reynolds is a commercial traveller; that takes him very frequently from the house—in his absence my sister and I and a maid are usually the sole occupants—the house stands in its own grounds, and is solitary—I knew there was some dispute between the landlord and Mr. Reynolds, but what it was I did not know—on 3rd January Mr. Reynolds had gone away on his business—it was a very foggy, dark day—the front door was kept locked on the inside—about four that day I was outside the front door alone—the witness Ford came to the front demanding entrance; I had never seen him before—he took hold of my arm and twisted it—we had a large dog chained close by—I got away from the man and went to the dog, and said, "Touch me now if you dare"—the dog barked, and Ford stepped back, and I ran round to the back of the house—I was alarmed—he ran after me; he did not catch me; I was just in time to get in and bolt the door; he was only just behind me—I went through the house, and upstairs into a room which overlooks the back—my sister was there—she was saying to Ford, "If you touch anything here, you answer to me"—I did not see anything in her hand when she said that—the window is small—when I looked out I saw Ford, and two more men had come up; they were all perfect strangers—they were standing to the right of the window—there is a line of fowl-houses to the right; they were standing near them—I heard Ford, I think it was, say, "Oh, yes, my fine lady, I have seen popguns before to-day; you don't frighten me with them"—the revolver was then lying on the window-sill—I took it up and fired it off in the meadow, to the left where the trees are, quite in an opposite direction to where the three men were—I found afterwards that a tree was scarred by the bullet—it stood in the corner of the meadow—I should think the mark was about fifteen feet from the ground; I am not quite sure, it was high above any man's head—I said to Ford when I fired, "That is not a popgun"—one of the men said, "If that had been pointed at us, I should have been in the house before now"—they then went away—I think my sister said to the old man, "If I was a man of your years, I would have something better to do than go to my grave distressing people"—she knew they had come about a distress, because I had told her; Ford told me so, and I asked him what was the meaning of distress.

Cross-examined. I did not know anything about the distress—a burglary was attempted while I was in the house; they did not get in; I did not shoot at them; we had no revolver then—I was standing at the window, which I had opened, as the room was smoking, and a man put his body half-way through the window—when I went to the mastiff I did not let him loose at Ford; he would not have done any good if I had, because he is a very quiet dog—I closed the door to prevent Ford coming in, because I did not know whether he was telling the truth or not—I did not say to him, "Why does not Mr. Freake, the landlord, come himself?"—I know nothing at all about the dispute with Mr. Freake—I was not in the house when there was a distraint for £15 rent due on 5th December; there were men in the house, but I don't know what their business was—I know Mr. Reynolds' handwriting—this paper produced) is his signature—I don't know that he gave a cheque for the rent, and then stopped the payment of it—I don't know that at Christmas two quarters' rent was due—I did not know that Mr. Ford came to levy

for two quarters, not till he told me; he said he had come to distrain—I said, "What does that mean?"—he said, "To take possession,"I said, "What does that mean?"—he said, "It means to say that I am going to come into your house"—I told my sister—I think she carried the revolver to the window; it was there when I got there, but she never fired it—it was in the bedroom; she brought it from the bedroom, and I took it up and discharged it—my sister was charged with this on 3rd January—I did not then come forward and say that I had fired it, because they would not call me—I did not see the seriousness of the accusation before the second examination—I told the clerk at the Court that I had fired it—I was not called before the Magistrate; I have never told this story before on oath.

Re-examined. I screamed when the man twisted my arm—he opened his bag and took out a paper and wrote something on it, and turned to me and said, "I will serve you with one of these"—I said, "No, you won't"—he said, "Yes, I shall"—I said, "No, you won't"—he said, "I shall"—and with that he took hold of my arm, and then I ran away—I screamed loud enough for my sister to hear—my sister was had up on the 9th—I was at the Court but not in it; I was kept out; they would not allow me in because they said I was to be called as a witness—no one represented my sister there then—on the 23rd Mr. Dutton, the solicitor, was there—I went there with the revolver in my pocket, and took it back again.

JONATHAN FIELDING WALTERS . I went down yesterday to Aumerle Lodge with the prisoner and her sister; the prisoner has been on bail—I examined a tree, considerably to the left of the window from where the pistol was said to have been fired—I made a careful examination of the tree, and about fifteen feet upwards on a branch, a piece of the bark about an inch square had been taken off—it was such a mark as a bullet would have made—it had not the appearance of having been made the day before; I should say it might have been done a month, it was not fresh as if just scarred—the Reynolds are not living there now.

Cross-examined. I am clerk to the solicitor for the defence—the prisoner did not tell me since 3rd January that she and her sister were in the habit of practising with the revolver—I did not take a ladder to enable me to examine this mark, but almost immediately under the branch the ground was elevated by reason of some gravel being thrown up there, which made a sort of heap, and that would place me two or three feet above the level of the ground—I could see it perfectly clear.

INSPECTOR ANDREWS (Recalled). The prosecutor was a stranger to me—when he came to the station he seemed a little bit put out; he was not particularly excited, he seemed concerned about the men he had left there, and was anxious that the police should show some attention—he said that one of the women had threatened to shoot him, and at the same time fired the revolver into the air.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-222
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

222. MARY ELLEN REYNOLDS was again indicted for an assault on Charles Thompson Ford.

The facts were the same as in the last case.

GUILTY .— Fourteen Days without Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-223
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

223. ALFRED REYNOLDS (38) , Feloniously shooting at Frank Mears and James Kay, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. OVEREND Prosecuted, and MR. BERNARD COLERIDGE Defended.

JAMES KAY . I am an acting bailiff—on 9th January I was in possession at Aumerle Lodge, Camberley, the residence of the prisoner—Mears was acting with me as bailiff—on that afternoon, about half-past four, I saw Mears there—I looked towards the duck-pond and said to Mears, "There are three ducks missing"—the prisoner said to me, "By Heaven, if you don't get off my premises I will shoot you as dead as the duck found in my pond this morning!"—he was up at the back window—I was about fourteen or fifteen yards from the window—he said, "Are you going?" and he aimed at me, holding a revolver with two hands—I said, "If you will allow me time I will go"—I was gradually moving away to a corner, where there was a water-tank—he still kept aiming at me all the way—at last I made a rush and stooped down in the corner—he then came to a side window, opened it, and said, "If you put your head out of that corner I will shoot you dead"—I then heard him say to Mears, "Young man, I bear you no malice, but if you don't get off my premises I will blow your brains out"—I heard Mears say that he was a very foolish man for acting in that manner—he then went behind a tree, when the prisoner said, "I can see you; if you don't go beyond the range of my revolver I will shoot you dead. Are you going? I can shoot the head off a ten-inch nail at 100 yards"—Mears beckoned with his stick to me, which I thought was a sign to escape—I jumped over the fence into a field alongside the London and North Western Railway, and I then came into a small two-acre field belonging to the prisoner—he observed me, and he said to the lad employed on the premises, "Who is that, Jack? I see no one"—he said, "A man in the field"—the prisoner said, "Speak, or I'll fire"—I made no answer—I got about 20 yards off Mears—I beckoned to him to come along towards the gate, which he did—the prisoner was at the front bedroom window, which is at a corner of the house—I ran and got under some trees close to the gate—the lad employed on the premises was continually coming from the house down towards the gate where we were—the prisoner told the lad to go and see where those men were—at a quarter to seven I heard him, because we followed the lad as near as 30 yards from the house—we doubled up to hear the conversation between the two—the gate is about 140 yards from the house—the prisoner asked the lad, "Where are those two men?"—he replied, "Under a tree, near the gate"—the prisoner said, "Do you mean the wood?"—the lad said, "Yes, sir"—he said, "All right, I will very soon fetch them out of that"—we doubled back sharp and shifted our position, as we thought very probably he would fire at us—in about a minute or two he came to the window, and told the lad to stand on one side—at the same time I heard a report of firearms, and saw a flash of fire, which I believe was from the middle window—at the same time I could hear the bullet whistling through the branches and lodge in a tree within a short distance of where we were standing—next day I examined the tree, and found the branches were cut with the bullet; pieces were taken out of it, and the bullet went about three yards beyond the tree—that was on the 10th—afterwards, on the Monday, Inspector Andrews and myself made a further examination of the trees, and we found the marks where the bullet had lodged—we could not find the bullet—I am a

pensioned police-constable—I believe it to be a bullet mark—I left the premises about half-past seven.—a cab came to the house with Miss Yardley.

Cross-examined. I had prior dealings with Mr. Reynolds—on one occasion I summoned him—the summons was dismissed on account of the false evidence the prisoner got up—I had no grievance against him—previous to the summons he set a ferocious dog on me twice—I had a grievance on account of the injury he caused to my cow—I was only examined on one occasion before the Magistrate—I said before the Magistrate that the prisoner said to Mears, "If you don't go I will blow your brains out"—I believe the clerk took it down; the evidence was read over to me by the solicitor—I am not aware of any omission—it was not there—I did not give my evidence direct at the time; the Magistrate wished to adjourn for luncheon, and the clerk read the evidence over to me, and he wished me to state if there was any deficiency, and correct it—I found there was no mistake and no deficiency—I said before the Magistrate that the prisoner said, "If you don't go beyond the range of my revolver I will shoot you dead"—Mr. Tootal, the clerk, took it down—I also said that the prisoner said, "I can shoot the head off a tenpenny nail at 100 yards"—I followed the boy up and down between the gate and the house to hear the conversation—the boy was within hearing of all that I heard the prisoner say—I never went into the house until after the prisoner was in custody—I was in charge of the outdoor effects that were seized—Mears was with me all the time, and could hear all that I heard; we went both together on the grass, to within about thirty yards of the house—the railway runs near the house, trains were passing and repassing—I was there from half-past four till quarter-past seven—the firing took place about quarter of an hour before the cab arrived; it might be longer—I did not see the prisoner open the cab door to let the lady in; I was about ten yards from the cab—it was not dark, it was a peculiar light, between moonlight and dark—I distinctly saw the female in the cab.

Re-examined. I followed behind the boy because it struck me that if he could find out where we were he might fire on us.

FRANK MEARS . I live in Pembroke Road, Camberley. On the afternoon of January 9th I was in company with Kay, in the rear of the prisoner's premises, counting the ducks in the pond—I saw the prisoner several times—he never spoke to me—he opened the window, and accused Kay of stealing one of the ducks, and an altercation took place between them—he told Kay if he did not go off his premises he would shoot him as dead as the duck he found that morning—he told me that he bore me no ill-feeling whatever, and I had better go as well—after that, finding that I did not move, he said if I did not go by the time he counted three he should fire at me, and blow my brains out—he was then pointing a revolver at me—he was at the window upstairs—he counted one, two, and I then moved away to an adjoining tree, by the side of the house—he then came to a window overlooking the same tree—he saw me, and told me that he could reach me very well there, still pointing the revolver from the window—he said he never missed his mark, and if I took one step further towards his premises he should blow my brains out—thinking the tree not large enough to protect me from the shot, I moved to another tree about fifteen yards distant, still in a line from the house—after that he came to a window overlooking that tree—I then pointed with my

stick to Kay, and called to him to go away—the prisoner saw me make the motion, and told me if I made another move he should blow my brains out—at that time Kay had come into the meadow adjoining; I joined him—the prisoner asked a lad ho had there who it was in the meadow—the boy said he did not see anyone—he then called out "There is someone; speak, or I shall fire"—I did not speak; we moved away, as we thought, out of the range of the revolver, towards the gate—we returned from the gate towards the house several times—the prisoner was continually calling the lad from the gate to ask him questions about whether he saw anyone coming, which I took to be Mrs. Reynolds coming from Edgware—on one occasion, when we ran up behind the boy, he asked him where those men where, and the boy said, "At the gate under the trees"—it was then raining, and we had got under the trees for shelter—the prisoner said, "Which trees do you mean, the wood?"—the boy said, "Yes, sir"—the prisoner said, "All right, Jack, I will soon fetch them out of that"—in about a minute he said, "Jack, you stand out of the way;" and in about a minute or half a minute we heard a report, and saw the flash, and heard the whiz of a bullet through the trees where we had been standing—next morning we examined the tree, and found a branch scarred as though by a bullet, a piece was chipped off from the top part of the branch.

Cross-examined. I am a grocer, a shopkeeper—I was asked by Mr. Martin to go and keep Kay company, as he Was afraid to be there by himself, as a temporary broker's man—I have been a grocer all my life, working for different firms—at present I am working for myself—I was last an assistant to a grocer about five years ago for two and a half years—after that I went into the wholesale provision trade in Tooley Street—I left that to go into business for myself—I spent part of last year in gaol; that was for embezzlement—I came out last March—the night in question was a tolerably clear night, it rained up to the time the cab arrived—we were down by the gate when the shot took place—we were close behind the boy when we heard the conversation between him and the prisoner—the boy was close up to the house, we were by the gate; that is about 140 yards from the house—I could hear part of the conversation—there were no trains passing at the time, it was very quiet—I saw the revolver early in the afternoon, about half-past four—he was threatening me with it—we thought by going to the gate we were out of the range of the revolver—we did not go away because we anticipated some one arriving about 8 to stop there all night—I did not hear the prisoner send the boy to the gate to see if Mrs. Reynolds was arriving—he told the boy to say where we were—the boy was there at the time the revolver was discharged—he was in a position to see as well as I—he was not called before the Magistrate—I don't know why.

Re-examined. The police-station is a little over three miles from the house—it was my duty as a man in possession to wait till I was relieved—the day I came out of my imprisonment my old firm took me back into their employ.

----ANDREWS (Police Inspector). I produce the revolver; it was handed to me by Martin on 14th February, also the cartridges, which fit the revolver—I tried the range of the revolver; it carried over 300 yards—on the 12th I made an examination of the trees in the vicinity of the house—Kay pointed out the spot to me—I found three small twigs,

about five feet from the ground, broken off the branch of a fir tree—I cut them off, and produce them—about three yards to the right of that there was an impression on a small fir tree, which I cut off; it was about three feet from the ground—that tree was about 140 yards from the house; about six or eight yards from the gate—I arrested the prisoner—I had considerable difficulty in getting into the house—I attempted to force the door; it was subsequently opened by the prisoner, and I took him into custody.

Cross-examined. I did not search the house; Martin did—on the 12th I found Kay in possession of the premises—he pointed out the trees to me.

Witness for the Defence.

JOHN WINDOWS . I am 15 years of age—I was in the prisoner's employ—I was about the house on 9th January when Kay and Mears were there—I heard a conversation between them and the prisoner about a duck; he was laughing about it—I don't remember what he said—I remember Miss Yardley coming in a cab—the prisoner told me to go and watch for them Several other questions were put to the witness, but he could not he induced to say anything more).

The prisoner received a good character.

GUILTY .— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Friday, February 8th, 1889.

Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-224
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

224. HENRY FOSTER BURNS, Unlawfully preventing the free exercise of the franchise of the electors of the London School Board.

MR. DAVIS Prosecuted; MR. FULTON and MR. WARBURTON Defended.

REV. LEOPOLD PRYCKE . I am rector of St. John's Catholic Church, Islington—in November last a School Board election was about to be held, and I and other gentlemen formed a committee for the purpose of supporting Mr. Burke, Mr. Sharpe, and the Rev. John Henry Rose as candidates—it was agreed to issue a preliminary circular a fortnight before the election, of which this (produced) is a copy—we issued a second circular a week before the election, and I had the authority of the committee to put their names there—that was issued to the electors—Mr. Massey afterwards brought in this third circular, which was not authorised by us, and was issued without our knowledge or consent—no one had a right to use my name or those of the other clergy.

Cross-examined. I had not seen the election address of Mr. Bury or Mr. Storr—the Catholic party were anxious to secure candidates in favour of denominational education—we say, "We, your clergy, ask your votes at the coming election for the following gentlemen," and then twelve names" follow—the defendant's circular is the same, except that other names replace the names in our circular.

FREDERICK GIBBON . I am one of the firm of Gibbon Brothers, printers, of Finsbury Park—on 20th November we had orders to print cards for the School Board election from Dr. Burns and Mr. Storr—on Sunday, November 18th, I called on Dr. Burns to know whether I was to keep the type up any longer; he said that I was not to keep it up, but that he had another job—I went into his dispensing place, and he produced this

bill, and told me to get out 30,000 bills, and to keep it as near as I could, but to substitute his name, and Mr. Stort's and Mr. Herbert's, in the place of three names on this bill, and also to put his own name with Mr. Herbert's in blacker type, with a figure "2" and "L. K. Q. C. P." after his own name—on the other side there is something about Cardinal Manning; that is his writing—he did not say that I was to omit, "We, your clergy"—I carried out his instructions as near as I could, and delivered the 30,000 bills—he next came to see me after the solicitor had called—I had no complaint till then.

Cross-examined. I did not submit any proof to the prisoner; these pencil alterations are in his writing—my mind is a perfect blank as to what he said when he came to me—he said something—he asked me for the copy—I made some evasive answer—I had given it up to the solicitor's clerk, and did not like to say so—Burns may have said, "How is it you did not print the bills according to my instructions?"—he said, "His Eminence Cardinal Manning is favourable, and so is Father Lockhart," but he did not say that was to be in substitution of the words, "We, your clergy"—he told me to copy the bill as near as I could as to the type—he came in with two men whom I knew, bawling something out to try and got me to say something which would bring blame on myself—I heard the evidence of the two gentlemen who accompanied him, and heard them say that these questions were all put to me—I have great doubt that he complained that it was a negligent act on my part, but I cannot swear it—I have not been paid for the bills, and have threatened to put him in the County-court.

Re-examined. I have no animosity against him; as soon as I arrived at Clerkenwell Court he came and asked me to protect him by taking the matter on myself—I said, "I will say as little as I can, but I must protect myself"—that is what I have done.

JOHN EDWARD MASSEY . I live at 17, Chadwell Street, Clerkenwell—I am a ratepayer in Finsbury district—I vote for the School Board—on Sunday, November 25th, a copy of this circular was handed to me about five doors from Father Pike's church, in Duncan Terrace, by somebody who was distributing them—I handed it to the sacristan, and requested him to give it to Father Prycke.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-225
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

225. GEORGE SULLIVAN (38) , Robbery with violence on William Jeyes Stiles, and stealing a watch-chain, his property.

WILLIAM JEYES STILES . I live at 1, College Street, Islington—I was for many years a dissenting minister—on 14th January, about 10.45 p.m., I was alone in Bamsbury Street, close to my home—a man came up and began to fumble in my great-coat, and another man, who I could not see, put his hand over my mouth when I attempted to shout—the first man took hold of my watch-chain and gave it a great grip—it came away in his hand, and he made off—I gave chase, calling "Stop thief"—I did not catch him, but I spoke to a gentleman at the comer of the square, out of which there is no outlet—I went home, and then went with my wife to the Police-station, and while I was telling the Inspector what had happened, a number of people entered—the prisoner was one of them, and I said, "There is the man who stole my chain"—my chain was worth £1—portions of it are here.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I first saw you hanging about by my front door—you could not see my chain; my great-coat was buttoned.

ALFRED JAMES SPRATT . I am a hairdresser, of 83, Gibson Street, Islington—on 14th January I was in Milner Square, and saw three or more men struggling—I thought it was only horse-play, but a man put his fist on Mr. Stiles' mouth—I heard him make a stifled cry, and immediately afterwards he said, "You villain, you hare stolen my watch"—I spoke to the prosecutor, who was following, calling "Stop thief"—I overtook the man in Gibson Square—a gentleman brought him to bay, and we kept him till the sergeant came.

Cross-examined. I did not stop you at the time because, from the audacity of the thing, I thought it was only horse-play.

ALLEN GEORGE STANHAM . I live at 15, Milner Square, Islington—on January 14th, about 10.30 p.m., I was at the corner of Milner Square; heard a scuffle, looked up, and saw two or three men scuffling—I heard a stifled cry, and a man broke from the group, and came running in the direction of the square—just before he got to me there was a cry of "Stop thief"—he ran round on my side of the square—I followed him, and ran him down without losing sight of him for a moment—he was crying "Stop thief," and said he had been following the thief.

JAMES CHORLTON (Police Sergeant N 21). I was called to Gibson Square, and found the prisoner detained by the last two witnesses—he said, "It is a mistake; I only ran because I saw the others running"—when we got to the station Mr. Stiles was there, and said, "That is the man who stole my watch"—I picked up this chain next morning, a few yards from where the scuffle took place—the prisoner gave ms correct name and address.

Prisoner's Defence. "I was following one of the men, and one of the witnesses followed me and accused me. I was taken to the station, and the constable went up to the prosecutor and said something which I did not hear, and he turned round and said, 'I think that is the man.' I said, 'What?' He said, 'Who stole my watch.'"

W. J. STILES (Re-examined). I did not say that I thought the prisoner was the man, I said, "That is the man"—the policeman did not say a word to me.


He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at Clerkenwell on October 20th, 1888 .—Ten Years' Penal Servitude.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-226
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

226. JOHN PAPPS (63) , Forging and uttering an order for £30, with intent to defraud.

MR. TICKELL Prosecuted.

GEORGE HERMAN AUGUSTUS BEVAN . I keep the Blind Beggar public-house, Whitechapel Road—in May, 1882, I kept the Royal Devon, Bromley-by-Bow, when the prisoner was my customer for two or three years or more—about three weeks before Sunday, 28th May, I changed a cheque for him, which was duly paid; it was drawn by the London and Edinburgh Insurance Office in his favour, in claim for an accident—on May 22nd, 1882, he brought a cheque when I was too busy to attend to him, and he came again next day, brought this cheque, and asked me to cash it—he said it was drawn by the insurance office, the same as the other which I had cashed—it was payable to bearer, but endorsed "J.

Papps," in the prisoner's writing—I cashed it, paid it into my bank, and it was returned dishonoured—I made inquiries, but could not find him till January 18th, when I ran against him in Holywell Street, Strand—I stopped to look at him; he passed me very quickly, and turned up Wych Street—I followed him; he turned again, and met me a second time—I said, "I want you"—he said, "Do you; what for?"—I said, "You are John Papps, are you not?"—he said, "No, and never was"—I said, "Who are you?"—he said, "Fordham is my name"—I said, "I shall accompany you for a little while"—he turned into a urinal in the Strand, and I gave him in custody—I am sure he is the man.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. On the Saturday before I cashed this cheque you came in about ten p.m. and stopped about three minutes; I don't think you were there an hour—I don't know that I saw the cheque that night, I cashed it on the Sunday.

GEORGE COX . I keep the Wellington Arms, Bromley—the prisoner was a customer of mine—on May 27th, 1882, he came in and asked me to cash this cheque On the London Provident Bank for £33, payable to J, Papps)—I had not sufficient, and took it to my father and got him to endorse it; that would be an authority for my bank to cash it for the prisoner—I handed it back to the prisoner; he left, and afterwards came back and said he had received the cash for it—he was living two minutes' walk from me, and, I had known him nearly two years.

Cross-examined. You represented that you were a man of property, and I thought you were—I knew you were following the turf slightly—I did not bet with you, nor were you introduced to me for that purpose—you duped me out of £2 once by telling me you had a system by which you could not lose—I was in partnership with my father in 1882—I had no money from you when you returned to the house.

STEPHEN HILL SMYTH . On 27th May, 1882, I was cashier at the Bow Branch of the London and South Western Bank—on that day I cashed this cheque, which is endorsed "Thomas Cox"—he was a customer at the bank.

FRANK PERCY MEDRINGTON . I am secretary of the London Provident Bank, 51, Moorgate Street—I was there in 1882—we had no account in the name of T. Harrison, nor had anyone authority to draw on us in that name—both these forms came from a book issued to Mr. Hardwick, a customer; they are consecutive numbers—I never knew the prisoner—the cheques were presented and returned marked "No account."

Cross-examined. Mr. Hardwick is described as a tobacconist, he was not an estate agent—I never had notice of his losing any cheques.

THOMAS COX . I knew the prisoner in 1872 and two years previously—I endorsed this cheque—I have no doubt about the prisoner.

RICHARD WILDEY . Police Inspector). On 2nd June, 1882, I received these two cheques, and tried to find the prisoner for several months—on 18th January this year I saw him at Bow Street, and said, "Do you know me? I am Inspector Wildey; I am going to take you into custody for uttering a forged cheque to Mr. Bevan for £30 in May, 1882; you will also be further charged with uttering a forged cheque and obtaining £33 from Mr. Cox, of the Wellington Arms, about the same date"—he said, "Where is your warrant?"—I said, "I have not got one"—he said, "Why not?"—I said, "I don't want one, this is a felony"—he said, "Do as you please"—I took him to the station—he was asked his name and address; he

said, "I refuse, and I absolutely refuse to give any account of myself whatever"—he refused his name at the Police-court—I knew him by sight in 1882, and I have since ascertained that he has been going by the name of Fordham.

The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he received the two cheques as agent to Mr. Hardwick, and being Bank Holiday he could not get them cashed, and asked Mr. Bevan to do so, believing they would be honourably met; that he then left the country in consequence of his wife's misconduct, and did not return till her funeral, and that he objected to give his name and address, as innumerable debts had been contracted in his absence.


He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at Clerkenwell in November, 1870, of obtaining money by false pretences— Six Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-227
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

227. IVOR DAVIS (29) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Nathaniel Johns, and stealing a number of coats, waistcoats, and cloth, his property.

MR. DOUGLAS Prosecuted; MR. GRENFIELD Defended.

NATHANIEL JOHNS . I am a tailor, of 140, Lillie Road, Fulham—about 1 a.m. on Sunday, January 6th, I securely fastened up my house and went to bed—I was disturbed about 5.50—went down and found the door leading into the ante-room was open; I knocked against it as I went down in the dark—I had fastened it the night before—a glass panel in it had been cut clean out, and put alongside the door, so that anybody could open the door—an iron bar was wrenched away from the workshop window, a pane of glass broken, the catch removed, and the window lifted up—I missed coats and trousers, value £25 or £30—these goods (produced) are all mine; more are missing.

Cross-examined. I heard a noise in the night—my bedroom is a considerable distance off, and I am hard of hearing—I first saw the prisoner a week afterwards at the Police-court.

GEORGE WILSON (Policeman T 167). I took the prisoner on 8th January at 119, Escourt Road, Fulham, and found all these clothes in his room—I asked him whose they were; he said, "Mine"—I said, "Where did you get them?"—he said, "A gentleman sent them up from the country"—I placed a constable in the room while I took the prisoner to the station, where I again asked him how he got possession of the clothes—he said, "The same man brought me the clothes on Saturday night who gave me the tools in Dawes Road"—I had seen him in possession of some tools on Saturday night, January 5; that was before the burglary.

Cross-examined. He said he did not know the man's name—he named George Clark—I have not made inquiries about him because he did not know where he lived—I did not know the prisoner before January 5—I believe he is a respectable working man.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate was that a fireman on a boat, named George Clark asked him to take charge of the parcel of clothes for a day or two.

GUILTY Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-228
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

228. GEORGE JACOB (23) and EMILY JACOB (23) , Stealing four watches, two chains, and other articles, the goods of William Harris.

MR. HEDDON Prosecuted.

WILLIAM HARRIS . On 29th September I occupied part of a shop and a bedroom at 16, Station Road, Walthamstow—I rented them of the male

prisoner—I left my shop about 9 a.m. and the property securely locked up—I returned at 11 a.m., and all was gone—I communicated with the police—on 4th February, in consequence of a communication from Detective Egan, I went to 27, Comwallis Road, and there identified part of my property—that is the prisoner's father's address—I went with Egan to several pawnbrokers, and identified other parts of my property.

JOHN EGAN (City Detective). I took the prisoners on 19th January—I searched the male prisoner and his lodging—these are seven out of twenty tickets I found—I communicated with the prosecutor and with Sergeant Hider.

JAMES HIDER (Police Sergeant N). Egan communicated with me on 2nd February, in consequence of which, on 3rd February, I accompanied Harris to 79, Cornwallis Road, Upper Holloway, the address of the prisoner's father, George Jacobs, and identified some of these articles produced, as his, and the rest he identified on Monday, 4th, at Henry Lawrence's, pawnbrokers, Paul Street, Bloomsbury.

AMBROSE BARRETT . I am manager to Henry Lawrence, pawnbroker, of Paul Street, Bloomsbury—on Monday, 4th February, Hider brought the prosecutor, who identified his property—it was pawned by the prisoners on the 8th and 14th January, in the name of Jacobs—these are the tickets.

CHARLES BATES .—I am manager to Henry Foreman, pawnbroker, Holloway—a detective brought Harris, who identified these trousers and waistcoat; this is the duplicate—the male prisoner pawned them on 29th September, in the name of George Jacobs.

FRANK BUDGELL . I am assistant to Mr. Knight Bruce, pawnbroker, of Tottenham—on Monday last a detective brought the prosecutor, who identified the overcoat, jacket, and trousers produced—these are the tickets—they were pledged on 29th September and 22nd October.

WALTER CLACK . I am assistant to George Pocket, pawnbroker, of 62, Exmouth Street—on 25th October this ring was pledged with me in the name of George Johnson—this is the ticket.

GEORGE JACOB . I am the male prisoner's father—I live at 27, Cornwallis Road, Upper Holloway—three days before Christmas he came to my house—I went to his lodgings on Christmas Day—I removed some furniture and wearing apparel, and among them some of the goods produced—I was present at the marriage of the prisoners on Christmas Day.

WILLIAM SAUNDERS (City Detective). On 17th January, from what the female prisoner told me, I went to 62, Roupell Street, and found this marriage certificate produced Certifying the marriage of the prisoners on 25th December, 1888)—I showed it to her—she said it was hers.

GEORGE JACOB, in his defence, said the prosecutor, like himself, of ten went out and left the premises unlocked; and he only moved because he found the expenses too heavy.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-229
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > no evidence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

229. GEORGE JACOB and EMILY JACOB were again indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William James Swabey, and stealing a jacket and other articles, value £60, and £12 in money.

GEORGE JACOB PLEADED GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

MR. HEDDON offered no evidence against EMILY JACOB on this indictment.—

NOT GUILTY . Nine Months' Hard Labour on former indictment.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-230
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

230. JAMES HAY (30) , Unlawfully exposing himself to divers person.

MR. GILL Prosecuted.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-231
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

231. JOSEPH SYKES (20) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Charles William Sharman, and stealing an overcoat and other goods, and 78. 6d., his property.

MR. DE MICHELE Prosecuted.

SAMUEL PRIOR Policeman T 344). At 3.15 a.m., on January 11th, I was on duty in Stanley Road, South Fulham—I met the prisoner carrying a bundle under his arm—I said, "What have you got?"—he said, "Only an old coat"—I said, "Please show me"—upon opening the bundle I found a new pair of boots wrapped up in a ladys dolman—he had on three coats—I asked where he got them—he said the boots were his own, he bought them at a friend's house at Brixton that night—those boots and the jacket have been identified by the prosecutor—he said the jacket belonged to his mother, who had left it at Brixton on coming from a party at Mrs. Edwards, 33, Shottery Road, Brixton—I said I should take him to the station—he offered me some silver, I think about 4s.—I said, "Oh, don't do that"—at the station I found in the pocket of the jacket he was wearing a cruet-stand and some razors, also earrings, cigar-case, three brooches—those have been identified by the prosecutor—I also found these handkerchiefs and gloves upon him.

GEORGE DOWNIE Police Inspector T). I was at the station when the prisoner was brought in on 11th January, about 4 a.m.—before he was charged he said, "I bought the boots at Mr. Abbott's, in the Brixton Road, for 10s. 6d.," and that he got the jackets and several other things from Mrs. Edwards, of 33, Shottery Road, Brixton—I detained him, and made inquiries at Brixton by telegraph—he gave me an address—I subsequently told him the address could not be found, and that I should have to send him before the Magistrate—he said, "I think I can save you some trouble; you want to know where I got the things from, don't you? I met a man near Vauxhall Bridge, and he gave them to me"—a minute afterwards he said, "I gave him five shillings for them"—I said, "Do you know his name?" and asked him what things the man had given him—he said, "This jacket, the boots, and cruet-stand; the other things belong to myself"—I said, "Do all these things belong to you?"—he said, "The top one does not:" that was the gentleman's overcoat he was wearing on the top of the others—all have been identified.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. "All the things in the overcoat pocket belong to me" was not what you said.

CHARLES WILLIAM SHARMAN . I am a commercial clerk, and live at 5, Tredeskant Road, South Lambeth—I went to bed about 1 a.m. on 11th January, having gone round and found everything secure—I occupy the ground floor—I got up at 7.45 a.m. and found the kitchen door open; it was shut when I went to bed—the parlour door was open—I missed this coat that the prisoner is said to have been wearing; also this cruet-stand from the parlour, these boots from the kitchen—all the articles produced belong to me—the dolman belongs to my wife—I also missed 7s. 6d. from a box on the kitchen dresser, and three flower-pots from a round table by the window—I found them in the front

garden, near the parlour window, which had been closed, and the Venetian blinds let down.

CHARLES TOWVER (Detective Sergeant W). On January 11th, in consequence of information I received, I examined 5, Tredeskant Road—the parlour window-sill was scratched and chipped outside; the window was shut, but unfastened, the frame shining as if someone had crawled through it; some flower-pots were below, and a yard from the window on the ground—the Venetian blinds were down.

The prisoner, in his defence, said that he bought the articles of a man for 5s. in the street.

GUILTY .— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT, Friday, February 8th, 1889.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-232
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

232. GEORGE WATSON (29), JANE ELLEN WATSON (34), and JOHN READY (28) , Breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Lecky, and stealing two watches and other articles, her property.

MR. SANDS Prosecuted, and MR. PURCELL Defended George and J. E. Watson.

ELIZABETH LECKY I am a widow, living at 164, High Street, Harlesden—on Sunday evening, December 9th, I left my house securely fastened a little after six, and went to church—we came back a few minutes past eight—I found my street-door open—my daughter's dress was rolled up behind the street-door—two watches, seven bracelets, three lockets, one gold one, a small brooch, three neck-chains, a pair of gold earrings, two rings, a keeper, and a diamond ring were taken away, and this purse, which I left on the table in the sitting-room—there was something under a sovereign in it—the other property was some in the backroom, the bedroom, and the rest in the back parlour, which was used as a bedroom—some was in a jewel-case, and one watch was on the mantelshelf, and the other on the drawing-room table I believe—I cannot say where the other was left—I am perfectly sure this is my purse.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. My house was completely ransacked, and all the portable valuables taken away—this workbox of my daughter's was left on the floor—she kept it for letters and that sort of thing—I had had this purse about two months—I bought it at Roper's, a linendraper's at Kilburn; that is a large place—I asked for a purse, and a boxfull was brought me—I gave, I think, 1s. 6d. for it—I never saw one like it before—it was not broken or damaged in any way by my treatment—it does not bear my name or any mark—this railway-ticket, "Willesden to Barnsbury, 27th December," is not mine—there is no mark or anything to the purse that enables me to say it is mine—I have seen a purse as large as this before, but not like it—I feel certain it is mine—when I said it was mine I knew it had been found on the woman—I should have been as certain if it had been found on you—nothing else of my property has been recovered—I do not keep a servant.

Re-examined. I was asked if I should know the purse—it was shown to me and I said, "That is my purse"—I don't think I was told then where it was found.

NELLY TRANTER . I am a servant, at 66, High Street, Harlesden—about five minutes to seven on the evening of 9th December I was in the house, and I went to the door—I had heard the bell pulled three times, and the window tapped ten minutes before—I saw Ready at the gate; I did not see where he went.

Cross-examined by Ready. I swear you are the man—I picked you out from a good number of others.

By the COURT. I live next door to Mrs. Lecky—there are gardens in front of the house; the garden gate is about five yards from the door—Ready was outside the gate, which was shut; it was very often not latched—he was simply standing there, staring at me very hard.

GEORGE WHEATLET (Sergeant Police X). This purse was given to me on 27th December—I took it to the prosecutrix, about 5 p.m., who identified it—I returned to the police-station, where I saw the female prisoner—I cautioned her and showed her the purse, and said, "It has been identified as one stolen"—she said, "It was given to me by a gentleman for a birthday present on the 14th of April; he gave it to me before he went on board a ship, which was two or three days after"—she was afterwards charged in my presence with being concerned with the other two prisoners, and said, "I know nothing about it."

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. Roper's, the linendraper's, at Kilburn, is a very large place; no doubt they have hundreds of such purses—very likely hundreds can be found in different parts of London—no one is here from there.

RAY DOWLING . I am a female searcher—I found this purse in the female prisoner's pocket on 27th December.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I found this railway ticket in it.

SARAH ANN HAWKWOOD . I am a widow, of 47, Half Moon Terrace, Barnsbury—the two Watsons lived together as man and wife in my house from 20th November to 5th December.

SAMUEL MARSH Police Inspector X). On 31st December I examined the premises, 164, High Street—I found marks on the front door—I out this piece of wood out of the back bedroom door-post; I fitted this jemmy to marks on it—on 9th January this workbox was handed to me, marks on it correspond with the jemmy—the jemmy has been broken across and then across again, and this corner projects out—it fits the marks beyond a doubt—the marks on the front door were not sufficient for me to be able to swear to—I have not much doubt about them.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I infer that the top of the jemmy has been broken by previous use—it is a fracture that would not occur again once in twelve months or in 100 jemmies—I am positive the marks on the door-post and workbox were produced by this jemmy—the workbox was given to me on the 9th, and was fitted to the Jemmy on the 10th—I found marks on chests of drawers as well—I did not compare the marks with other Jemmies.

By the JURY. I sawed this piece from the door on 9th January—Inspector Smith handed me the jemmy on 23rd December, and it was impounded in Court on 9th January, at the same time that the workbox was first handed to me.

GEORGE SMITH (Police-Inspector X). On 23rd December, about 9.30 a.m. I found this jemmy in the back garden of 26, Nightingale Road, Willesden, about 400 yards from No. 164.

JOHN TICKNER (Policeman X 225). On Sunday evening, 23rd December, I was standing at the corner of Nightingale and Station Roads and I saw Ready and Watson leave the premises, 26, Nightingale Road.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-233
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

233. GEORGE WATSON, JOHN READY , and JANE ELLEN WATSON were again indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling house of Watson Webber and stealing various articles therein.

MR. SANDS Prosecuted, and MR. PURCELL Defended George and Jane Ellen Watson.

RACHAEL ACLAND WEBBER . I am the wife of Watson Webber, a shipping clerk—we live at Burbage House, Nightingale Road, Harlesden—on Sunday, 14th October, about half-past six, we went to church, leaving the house securely locked up—about half-past eight we returned—we found the door forced open and the lock broken—we missed two coats, a timepiece, money from a missionary box, which was broken open, three silver watches, a gold brooch and earrings, and three other brooches—a desk was broken open—I identify this gilt brooch with a common stone; I am sure it is mine—after the robbery I saw the female prisoner wearing It at Harlesden Police-court—she was called out of Court and I said to her, "I am certain that is my brooch"—she said it was not, that she picked it up a long way from here—in the Magistrate's office next day she said in my hearing that she had picked it up at Camden Passage.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. I had it given to me; its value is about 2s.—I never saw anything like it—it had no pin when I lost it—I have not seen any of the other articles—I went to the Court out of curiosity—no one asked me to go there—I knew some one was being charged with burglary in our neighbourhood—I went to see the prisoners—the female prisoner was not in the dock, but sitting at the back of the Court, and I saw my brooch—that was 27th December—there is no pin in it now, but the prisoner was wearing it with some kind of a pin in it—Inspector Marsh has had charge of it since the prisoner has been in custody—it was a little bent when I saw it in the room.

GEORGE WHEATLEY (Police Sergeant X). I was present at the Policecourt on 27th December—Mrs. Webber made a communication to me, and I called the female prisoner out of Court and asked her to allow me to see the brooch she was wearing, as it had been identified as one stolen from Burbage House on 14th October—Mrs. Webber was present—the prisoner said, "I found it in Camden Passage several weeks ago, but I cannot tell you when"—I took her to the station—she was detained—the day before she came to the station and said, "Is a man named George Watson here?"—I said, "He was here, but is not now," and I told her he was probably at Holloway—she gave her name and address as Jane Watson, 72, Queen's Head Street, Essex Road, Islington—the brooch had a common pin in it, with the head bent, and it dropped out—it was not a pin fitted to the brooch.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. It looked all right on her—she was in the body of the Court—there was no charge against her at the time.

SAMUEL MARSH (Police Inspector X). I produce Mrs. Webber's desk, which has marks corresponding to this jemmy.

GEORGE SMITH Police Inspector X). I found this jemmy in the back yard of 26, Nightingale Road, on December 23rd, about half-past nine.

JOHN TICKNER (Policeman X 225). About 9.30 on December 23rd I was at 26, Nightingale Road, and I saw Ready and Watson leave the rear of those premises—that was before the jemmy was discovered—only a passage divides the back garden of No. 26 and Wendover Road—it is about 100 yards from Burbage House.

SARAH ANN HAWKWOOD . The Watsons lived in my house as man and wife from the 5th to the 25th December.

ROSE EVANS . I am married, and live at 38, Bride Street, Barnsbury—the Watsons lived as man and wife at our house for seven weeks—they came rather more than three months ago.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-234
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

234. GEORGE WATSON and JOHN READY PLEADED GUILTY to burglary in the dwelling-house of Thomas George Vincent, and stealing a metal box. READY** having been convicted of felony in February, 1887. WATSON*†— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour each.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-235
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

235. WILLIAM STEVENS (29) and GEORGE HAWKES (30) , Robbery with violence on John Warner, and stealing 4s. 11 1/2 d., his money.

MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted; MR. PURCELL Defended Stevens.

JOHN WARNER . I live at 11, Edenham Street, Kensal Road, and am a labourer—about half-past twelve on the morning of January 9th I went from the Skiddaw public-house, which is not far from the Harrow Road, over to a coffee-stail, where I met the prisoners—I left the coffee stall by myself, and afterwards Stevens sprang on my back, and said he wanted some money, or else he would kick my ribs in—he knocked me down at the same time—he felt in my pockets and knelt on my right hand—Hawkes stood under the wall—I twice holloaed out "Police"—two constables came and caught the prisoners—I went to the station and charged them—before I was attacked I had in my pockets a Jubilee half crown and between 7s. and 8s.—afterwards I found that all I had left was 2s. 1/2 d.—I was sober—I had only had a pint of four ale—I went to the Police-court a week afterwards, but the case was called on and I was not there—I had come over so queer I had to go away.

Cross-examined. I went to the Skiddaw at half-past eleven—before that I had been to my sister's—I did not have something short to drink there—I was by myself at the Skiddaw—I did not tumble down when I came out—Stevens knelt on my right hand while he searched the other pocket—I said the money was my right hand pocket besides a few halfpence and 2s.—I do not know that after the prisoners were discharged Stevens found me in a public-house close by, drunk—the 2s. 1/2 d. was in my left hand trousers pocket—the money that was stolen was in my right hand pocket—I was not fighting outside the Skiddaw—I was not surrounded by several men to whom I had been standing drinks in the Skiddaw—I said at the Police-court, "I was not drunk when this happened; I he been drinking a very little, a very little upsets me"—I cannot say how long I was at the coffee-stall—I had my hand on the top of the pocket in which I had the money.

Cross-examined by Hawkes. You never touched me—I said at the Court I did not want to charge you—I lost 7s, or 8s.

By the COURT. My back was covered with mud—the constable saw Stevens get up and run away from me—I was paralysed down the right side before this.

JAMES PACEY (Policeman X 70). About two o'clock on the morning of 9th January I was with Crawley on duty at the comer of Chippenham Road in Elgin Avenue—I heard cries of "Police," and went in the direction and saw Hawkes leaving Warner; he was about fifteen yards from him—Stevens was bending over Warner, who was on the ground—Stevens ran across the road; I pursued him—when he got to the corner of Edbrook Road he began to walk fast—I caught him about twenty five yards from Warner—I asked him what was the matter over the way—he said, "I don't know, I have just come out of doors"—I said, "I know that is not true, for I have seen you three times before to-night"—he said nothing—I said, "You will have to come back with me"—I took him to Warner, who was still lying on the footway—I asked him what was the matter—he said, "I have been knocked down and robbed by two men"—I said, "Do you know this man?" (Stevens)—he immediately said, "That is the man that robbed me"—Hawkes was then further along the Edbrook Road—there is a low wall along one side of the road where Warner was on the ground—I took Stevens to the station—Warner went too—the other constable arrested Hawkes—when formally charged at the station Stevens said, "I know nothing about it"—on the road to the station Stevens said, "You have made a great mistake this time"—at the station Warner said he had lost some money; he did not know how much; he took out 2s. 1/2 d., I believe, from his pocket—he was greatly excited—I believe he had been drinking; he is a very old man, partly paralysed on one side.

Cross-examined by MR. PURCELL. He was not drunk; I believe he was very rational; he was under the influence of drink—the prisoners were discharged at the Police-court because he was absent; he had been complaining of being ill ever since, and he went away to get refreshment—he failed to appear on the remand, and he told me he had been in the Stingo, drinking with some men—that was so—I told the Magistrate he was ill—the Magistrate discharged the prisoners, with the remark that they could be rearrested—Stevens was rearrested when he came to the station-house for property that had been found on him, 2s. 10 1/2 d.—I took him about 60 yards from the Skiddaw—he did not tell me he had been to the Skiddaw, and had just come from there.

Cross-examined by Hawkes. Warner said he wished to charge you—you both asked him not to charge you, and Stevens said it should not occur again, and he would make it up to him.

By MR. PURCELL. I never said before the Magistrate that Stevens said he was sorry, and would make it up—this is the first time I have said it—I have been nine years in the force—I did not think it important at the time.

Re-examined. Mr. Paine was solicitor for Stevens at the Police-court—the prosecutor had no counsel or solicitor—I told my story as well as I remembered it.

JEREMIAH CRAWLEY (Policeman X 419). On this morning I was with Pacey, and heard cries of "Police"—I ran across the road, and saw Stevens over the prosecutor—Hawkes had just got across the road; he was walking from the prosecutor—I went after him and stopped him—I asked him what was up—he said, "Don't make it too hard for us; we are going to take the old man home"—I brought him to the prosecutor, who was lying on the path—the prosecutor said as to Hawkes that he did not do

anything; he only looked on—Hawkes said nothing in answer to the charge at the station—I found on him 6d. silver, and ld—on the remand at the Police-court the prosecutor did not answer—I had seen him about five minutes before outside the Court; he complained of being very ill, and said he wanted refreshment—the solicitor who appeared for Stevens asked for the prisoner's discharge when the prosecutor did not answer.

Cross-examined by Hawkes. You did not say, "Don't make it too hard for my wife if you go home to tell her about it," you said, "Don't make it too hard for me," and you repeated it at the station to the inspector.

Hawkes received a good character.


STEVENS GUILTY** of assault with intent to rob.— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Saturday, February 9th, 1889.

Before Mr. Justice Charles.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-236
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

236. ISAAC MITCHAM (25) , For a rape upon Martha Ann White on 12th November, 1884.

MR. BROMBY Prosecuted.

GUILTY .— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-237
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

237. LUIGI D'ANNUZIO (30) , Feloniously wounding Alessandro Cozzi, with intent to murder. Second County, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.


The evidence was interpreted to the prisoner."

ALESSANDRO COZZI (interpreted). I live at 12, Fleet Row, Holborn—I have known the prisoner about eighteen months—he lives at No. 11—before 22nd December we had some words—that evening, about ten, we went out for a walk, and talked—we went to a public-house—I had been drinking, but was not drunk—at Farringdon Road we stopped and talked, and then went on to Clerkenwell Green—we stopped and talked again—I heard a cart coming along, and as I looked back the prisoner stabbed me twice on the side—I have the same coat on—these are the marks—we had been saying that we were going home, and the prisoner had said, "We shall see each other later on"—at the Farringdon Road the prisoner had said some insulting words to me, and we did not make it up again—the prisoner was jealous of a girl that I love—he said, "How many girls do you want?"—I said, "I only want one"—he said some indecent word I cannot remember—when I was stabbed the prisoner walked by the Sessions House—I walked by the public-house, saw some blood, and fell down—the prisoner was running—I was taken home.

Cross-examined. The prisoner was jealous about a girl I want—he had not been keeping company with her—I asked him if he had spoken to the girl—his answer was, "How many girls do you want?"—I carry a little knife, but I did not take it out that time—I have not got it; it is at home—I know Chiccuni—I have never used threats to him against

the prisoner, nor to anyone; that I swear—I still have pain; I cannot do any work—I left my bed twenty-four or twenty-five days ago—ill-feeling is only natural, because he wounded me for nothing.

Re-examined. The knife I usually carry is a small penknife—I did not take it out on the evening of the 22nd—I did not threaten to kill the prisoner, nor anything of that kind—I made no attempt to take my knife out; I had it in my pocket—I did not make a blow at the prisoner with anything—I was standing when I was stabbed—the prisoner carries on no business—I know nothing about his going to Greenwich.

ROLAND SMITH (Policeman G 49). On 22nd December, about 11 p.m., I found the prosecutor lying on the pavement at Clerkenwell Green—a person came up who knew him—I took him home in a cab—at the house I saw he was stabbed in two places—I called in a doctor.

JOHN DAVOREN . I am a surgeon, practising at Wilmington Square, Clerkenwell—I was called to see the prosecutor about 11.30 p.m. on 22nd December—he was bleeding from a wound on the left shoulder, the upper and front part, half an inch deep and three-quarters of an inch long; also an incised wound over the region of the heart half an inch long—I did not probe it—the coat and vest were pierced—the mark in the overcoat and the other mark in the coat and vest correspond with the positions of the wounds—that over the heart was dangerous—he was bleeding profusely from the shoulder—his life was in danger—I was before the Magistrate on 24th December—the prosecutor was then in danger; he had been drinking—this knife would produce the wounds.

Cross-examined. The prosecutor was drunk—he was collapsed—he had almost recovered when I examined him last on 10th January.

JOHN ROBINSON (Detective Sergeant G). I apprehended the prisoner at Greenwich on 23rd December—I said, "I am a police officer, and I am going to take you into custody for stabbing Alessandro Cozzi at Clerkenwell last night"—he said, "He did try to kill me three times, so I thought I would kill him first. He did kick me twice, once last night, once two months ago"—he said that in broken English—I then conveyed him to King's Cross Road Police-station—on searching him I took from him this knife, and this six-chambered revolver, loaded with ball-cartridge in the six chambers.

Cross-examined. It is unloaded now—it was in his hip pocket—it is not new.

THOMAS DIGBY (Police Inspector G). I read the charge on Sunday, the 22nd, to the prisoner at the station, through an interpreter, of feloniously cutting and wounding Alessandro Cozzi, at Clerkenwell Green, on 22nd December—he said, "Cozzi struck at me first, he did not hit me; we invited each other to fight on Sunday evening; there are two witnesses to prove it. We talked again over it; he went very wild, pulled out a knife and struck at me, but did not hit me; it was a duel. I struck him with that knife"—this was the knife produced.

Cross-examined. The interpreter is here—he was not sworn—I read the statement to the prisoner through the interpreter and my notes.—

GUILTY .— Eighteen Months"Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-238
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

238. GEORGE WILLIAM MESSER, Unlawfully carnally knowing Emma Messer, a girl under 13.— GUILTY —Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT, Saturday, February 9th, 1889.

Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-239
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

239. EDWARD BROWNE (47), PLEADED GUILTY to embezzling £15 1s. and £27 1s., of Henry Forbes Witherby, his master. The amounts embezzled amounted to over £1,000.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-240
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

240. ALFRED JOHNSTON (69) , Unlawfully obtaining 3s. from Henry Westcott, 5s. from Alfred Denny, and 3s. from John Henry George Clegg, by false pretences.

MR. COLE Prosecuted, and MR. MALLINSON Defended.

WILLIAM HENRY WESTCOTT . I keep the Boat Builders' Arms, Rodwell Lane, Limehouse—on 28th December the prisoner came in and asked me if my window was insured—I said, "No, I am thinking of getting it done"—he said, "I am agent for the Plate Glass Insurance Office, Lime Street," and gave me the price, 4s.—I told him I generally got it insured in the Guardian, Fleet Street—he took out his rule and measured the window—he said he was superintendent of the office, and took 3s., which my wife paid him—he gave me the receipt.

By the COURT. He signed this receipt "J. T. Scott" after the money was obtained.

Cross-examined. Several persons were in the tap-room; he spoke clearly—I asked him where Lime Street was, and he made no reply—I told him I knew Lime Street, Birmingham—the fact of his coming from Lime Street did not affect my mind—he was respectably dressed, and I took him to be an insurance agent.

ALFRED DENNY . I am a house repairer, of 17, Blanche Street, Camden Town—on January 3rd the prisoner called and asked me if I should like my shop window insured—I said, "How much?"—he said, "Five shillings;" and gave me this book of the Plate Glass Insurance Company, 53, Lime Street, E. C., J. T. Scott, Superintendent—I told him to call again, and I would think over it—he called next day, and I gave him 5s.—I told him I was in the trade, and usually put my own windows in—he said, "Well, we have no glazier in this district, and if you like I will appoint you"—he signed this receipt "J. T. Scott, Superintendent" in my presence.

Cross-examined. He told me his name was Scott—so long as I was insured in a respectable office I did not care what office it was, or whether it was in Lime Street or elsewhere—it was not the hope of being appointed glazier that induced me to part with my money.

JOHN HENRY CLEGG . I am a merchant, of 85, St. George's Street East—on January 7th the prisoner came to my shop, 75, Chrisp Street—he presented this card, and said he was superintendent of the Guardian Plate Glass Company, and wrote on the back of it, "Walter Andrews"—I told him my windows were sheet glass—he said the Guardian took sheet glass; that they had no agents; that he came from the office to see a grocer in Chrisp Street, and seeing my shop newly opened he came in—I agreed to insure in the Guardian for 3s, 9d., believing his statement—he gave me this receipt—I told him I had a branch shop with only sheet glass, and if he would give me a price I would insure that—I after wards wrote to the company, and a gentleman came to see me—I then gave instructions to my manager; and next time I saw the prisoner he was in custody.

Cross-examined. He told me I should get the policy in twenty-eight days—he had a black coat on, and was equal in appearance to the super intendent of the Guardian who called on me—when I went to put the receipt on the file, it struck me as singular that the Guardian Company should not have a printed heading—this receipt was written—I parted with my money as I believed him to represent the Guardian, and I knew that to be a good office.

ALBERT WRIGHT . I live at 6, New Gravel Lane, Shadwell—the prisoner called at my place, and said he came from the Guardian Insurance Company—I had received a communication, and gave him into custody.

ALFRED HAWKER (Policeman H 22). I took the prisoner at Mr. Wright's, and told him it was for obtaining 3s. 9d. from Mr. Clegg—he said, "I am a respectable man, and Mr. Clegg will have to be very careful what he is about"—I took him to the station, and found on him a rule, part of a receipt-book, and a lot of papers relating to different insurance companies—he sent me to his lodging, 82 Grosvenor Street, which was correct.

FREDERICK JAMES AUSTIN . I am inspector of agents for the Plate Glass Insurance Company, 53, Lime Street—this is one of our prospectuses—the prisoner is not one of our agents—we have no superintendents—he had no authority to collect on account of the company, nor have we received any money from him for insurances—he is a perfect stranger.

Cross-examined. If he called at the office and I was out he would see a clerk, and be referred to the secretary—we frequently have men like the prisoner who bring proposals, and we allow them a commission—if you came and said "I have three customers for you,"I should take the money and give you a commission.

JOHN PEARCE . I am London manager of the Plate Glass Insurance Company, 71, Fleet Street—this is our prospectus—the prisoner has never been in our service as manager, superintendent, or clerk—I never saw him till he was at the Police-court, or engaged him to collect money—he has not paid me 3s. 9d. from Mr. Clegg—this is nothing like our receipt.

Cross-examined. I differ in toto with the last witness—I do not think it is a common practice in other offices to take a casual stranger coming in—if the prisoner came and I was not in, he would see one of the clerks—I know nothing of his having taken insurances to our office—the head office is at Manchester.


He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at this Court in October, 1884, in the name of Alexander Bullock, when he was sentenced to Five Years' Penal Servitude.— Six Months' Hard Labour, having first to serve the remainder of his former sentence.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-241
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown

Related Material

241. HARRY BENFIELD (17), WILLIAM COULSTON (17), and HENRY THOMAS TAYLOR (18) , Robbery with violence on Alice Cooper, and stealing a bag, a bunch of keys, an order for five shillings, and seven shillings in money, her property.


MR. FRITH Prosecuted.

ALICE COOPER . I am single, and live at 61, Albert Street, Regent's Park—on 23rd January, about 7.30, I was in Albert Street, and three

men came in front of me, hustled me, and pushed me against the fence—one snatched my bag, and they all three ran away—I was frightened but not hurt—I cannot recognise the prisoners.

FREDERICK COLLINS Policeman Y 380). On 23rd January, about 6.45 p.m., I saw the three prisoners together in Camden Road—I was with another constable in plain clothes—we kept observation on them for half an hour—the last witness came along with her handbag, and the three prisoners followed her—I saw someone I knew, and asked him to come with me—when they got into Albert Street they ran to her and pushed her against the railings, and Benfield snatched her handbag—he came towards us, and I got in front of him and told him I was a police-officer—he struck me on my jaw and kicked me on my ankle—he threw the bag down, and I took him—the other two ran in another direction.

Cross-examined by Taylor. You were not 30 yards behind the lady when the bag was snatched—you went in front of her.

THOMAS MANTON . I am a groom, at 31, Bedborough Street—on 23rd January I was in High Street, Camden Town—Collins called my attention to the three prisoners, and I followed them into Albert Street, where they went in front of the prosecutrix, hustled her against the railings, and one snatched her handbag; the others ran away—I chased Coulston about 300 yards, took him, and brought him back—he said, "All right, governor, I am satisfied; you have got me fair."

ALEXANDER MCMULLAN (Policeman Y 47). I was with Collins in plain clothes, and followed the prisoners—they got in front of the prosecutrix, and Benfield snatched her bag, and the others ran away—I chased Taylor about 200 yards, and caught him; he said, "All right; governor, you have got me fair this time."

Cross-examined by Taylor. You did not say, "Halloa, what's up?"

Coulston's Defence. I left home about six o'clock, and met Taylor, and then we met Benfield; we walked down Albert Street, he said, "Wait a minute," and stopped for a certain purpose, and Benfield and I walked on; we were about thirty yards from the lady then, and I saw him running away; we never touched her, Benfield knows that he did it by himself.

Taylor's Defence. We met Benfield, and went to Albert Street, where he stopped for a certain purpose; we walked on about twenty yards, and when we saw him running we ran with him.

Coulston Called

HARRY BENFIELD The Prisoner, examined by THE RECORDER). I have known the two men at the bar some years—on the 23rd January I met them in Camden Town, about seven o'clock, and walked with them—I was taken in custody for stealing this beg, and have pleaded guilty to it—what the two witnesses have said did not happen; the two other prisoners were thirty yards behind the lady, and did not take any part in it; if three persons swear that all three pushed her against the railings, and that I snatched her bag, that is all false.

Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I had a conversation with the other two lads at Marylebone Police-court before I was charged—I did not say, "You had better plead guilty, you know you were caught fairly"—if the constable says that it is untrue.

GUILTY [see next trial]. .

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-242
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

242. HENRY THOMAS TAYLOR was again indicted for robbery with violence on Eliza Morton, and stealing a purse, four postage stamps, a coupon, and 3s., her property.

MR. FRITH Prosecuted.

ELIZA MORTON . I am a servant, at 205, Great Portland Street—on January 13th I was in Euston Road, and the prisoner ran against me with great violence, taking my breath away, and stole my purse from my left hand—he ran down Fitzroy Place—on January 31st I saw him with six others at the station, and picked him out—my purse contained money and a photograph coupon—another man was with him, but he was the only one who came up to me.

FRANK COLLINS (Policeman). I saw a description and a printed information, and sent for the prosecutrix, who picked the prisoner out from six others.

Prisoner's Defence. I know nothing about the case, I never saw the woman.

GUILTY BENFIELD and TAYLOR— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour each.

COULSTON— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-243
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

243. ROBERT CHURCHMAN (31) and EDWARD CHURCHMAN (20) , Robbery with violence on Henry Slade Coleman, and stealing a watch and £4 5s., his property.

MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted.

HENRY SLADE COLEMAN . I am a gardener, of 64, Brunswick Road, Highgate Hill—on January 16th, about 10.30, I went into the Brunswick Arms—I had had rather more drink than usual, but I knew what I was doing—I saw the prisoners there, and a man not in custody; I knew them by sight—Robert asked me to pay for a pot of beer—I had some soda water, which sobered me—they followed me out, and said, "Don't be in a hurry, governor"—I said, "Stand clear, keep off"—one walked on each side of me, and when I got near my house a handkerchief was put to my nose, and I became insensible—I had no power to resist, though I knew what they were doing—they took my gold watch and purse, and four sovereigns and five shillings, and then put the purse back in my waistcoat pocket—this was Wednesday night; I saw my watch on the Friday morning at the police-station—I also lost a knife—they left me at my door—I communicated with the police next morning.

Cross-examined by Robert Churchman. I don't say that you used the handkerchief; but you took the money—there are shops in the neighbourhood, and people were about—I could not call for assistance because I was unconscious.

Cross-examined by Edward Churchman. I identified you at Dalston a week afterwards.

FRANCIS FREDERICK HENRY WYATT . I am deputy at the Flower Mews Lodging House, Upper Holloway—the prisoners lodged there, Robert for about four months, and Edward longer than that—on January 16th Robert came in between 12 and 1 o'clock—he paid some money for lodging, and sat down—he afterwards called me and said, "Harry, I want to speak to you"—I went into the office, and he showed me this gold watch, and said, "Do you want to buy one?"—I said, "I don't know, how much do you want?"—he said, "Ten shillings"—I said, "I have not the amount now, I will see you to-morrow"—I did not buy it—I had it—he went to bed—Edward was in the kitchen—Robert handed

me two sovereigns to mind till the morning—he said, "What time will you be here in the morning?"—I said, "I may not be here till after ten"—he said, "Well, give it to Jack;" and I gave it to Jack— I afterwards heard of the robbery, and gave the watch to the police—the lodging is 4d. a night.

EDWARD LUCCAN . I keep the Brunswick Arms, Brunswick Road—on 16th January Coleman was there drinking from, 10.30 to 10.45 p.m.—the prisoners and two or three others came in with him—they asked him to treat them to beer—he gave them two or three pots of ale—he wanted rum, I refused him—he had a bottle of soda water, paid for the drink, and left the bar to go home—the prisoners followed—I saw Edward there at twenty minutes or a quarter to twelve.

JOHN CRAGGS (Police Sergeant Y). In consequence of information received I arrested Robert Churchman at one o'clock a.m. at the Regency public-house, on 18th January, from a description Coleman gave—I told him the charge—at the station, when the charge was read over he said, "I know nothing at all about it"—I arrested Edward at 12.30 on 24th January in another public-house—he said, "All right"—when the charge was read over at the station he said, "I was in the Brunswick at half-past twelve." The Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate. Robert says: "I plead guilty to the money and the watch, but my brother was not there when the robbery was done. No handkerchief was used. I bid him good night before shutting-up time in the Brunswick." Edward says: "I was nothing at all to do with it."

GUILTY of robbery.—EDWARD CHURCHMAN**† PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell in January, 1883— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. ROBERT— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-244
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

244. THOMAS GAMM (22) , Feloniously assaulting Harry Koch, with intent to rob him.

MR. PAUL TAYLOR Prosecuted.

PATRICK HALPINE (Policeman R 185), On 19th January I was on duty in High Street, Shadwell, about 12.15 in the night—I stood in a dark doorway facing Albert Street—I saw the prisoner and a man not in custody standing by a lamppost; a sailor came by them, they made room, and as he was passing between them they got him up against a post and hustled him, and struck him on his eye and about his face; he staggered, but did not fall till the prisoner hit him again and knocked him down; and while he was down they rifled his pockets, and rushed across the road—he called out "Police"—I got the prisoner by the neck—the sailor said, "I will lock these men up for attempting to rob me, and knocking me about"—the other man ran away—I took the prisoner to the station—the prosecutor's eye was swollen up—I saw Donovan and Daly, whom I know, at the station—I had not seen them before on that night.

Cross-examined. The sailor did not strike you on the jaw—you did not say to him, "What is the matter with you?" as I crossed the road—the other man was with you when I blew my whistle—the prosecutor was sober—the Inspector put us in the back-yard while he was taking another charge, and I sat between the prosecutor and you, and told the sailor not to go against you in the yard—the prosecutor told Mr. Lushington he had

£2 10s. in his pocket, and that you put your hand in his right-hand pocket.

Witnesses for the Defence.

CATHERINE DONOVAN . I am single—I do not know the prisoner—on 19th January I was in Albert Street a little after twelve o'clock—I saw a sailor walk up and hit the prisoner on his face, and as the prisoner was hitting him back the police stopped him.

Cross-examined. I do not know how the sailor got the black eye—I live in Albert Street—I do not know where the prisoner lives—I have seen him before, but have not spoken to him—I am Irish—I work at Cross's, in Commercial Road—when the policeman came up I told him the sailor committed the assault—he said nothing in reply, but took him along.

ELIZABETH DALY . I am single—I know Donovan—I saw her on 19th January by Percy Street—I saw a young man standing at the corner of Albert Street, and another man walk over and attempt to hit him—I went home.

Cross-examined. I said before, "I was coming up Albert Street, I saw three or four men come up and strike the prisoner in the face," and "It was not such a heavy blow"—I meant an attempt to hit him—another woman standing there saw me there, and said I should have to come as a witness—she saw what I saw—she has not come to give evidence—I live in Albert Square—I never saw the man before—I should be surprised to hear the prisoner lived in Albert Square—the prosecutor had a touch of a black eye at the Police-court—I did not see the prisoner hit the prosecutor—I cannot account for his black eye.

PATRICK HALPINE (Re-examined). I did not see Donovan or Daly there—the sailor did not fight.


He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at this Court in October, 1886— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

THIRD COURT.—Saturday, February 9th, 1889.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-245
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

245. WILLIAM COLEMAN (24) and GEORGE POOLE (18) PLEADED GUILTY to burglary in the dwelling-house of James Sexton, and stealing a watch and other articles, his property. COLEMAN*— Twenty Months' Hard Labour.

POOLE*— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

For other cases tried in this Court this day, see Surrey cases.

OLD COURT.—Monday, February 11th.

Before Mr. Justice Charles.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-246
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

246. SAMUEL MORGAN (48) was indicted for feloniously forging and uttering a will, purporting to be the last will and testament of Caroline Morgan.

MR. HORACE AVORY Prosecuted.

The evidence was interpreted to the prisoner in Welsh.)

CHARLES BUTTON . I am the official shorthand-writer to the Court of

Probate of the High Court of Justice—I was present in that Court on 13th June last, on the trial of an action of Evans v. Morgan before Mr. Justice Butt—the prisoner was called as a witness, and sworn—I took notes of his evidence—this produced) is a transcript of those notes—I have my original notes with me—this document, purporting to be a will dated 23rd January, was shown to the prisoner when he gave evidence—it is the one he spoke of in his evidence—he was the defendant in the action.

EDWARD ELLICOT . I am a clerk in the Probate Registry Office, Somerset House—this document, marked A, purports to be the will of Caroline Morgan, dated 23rd January, 1888—probate of that will was granted to Samuel Morgan, the person there named as sole executor, on 16th February last—I produce the affidavit filed by the prisoner at the time for the purpose of obtaining probate read).

ROBERT KEITH ARCHIBALD GREEN . I am clerk of the papers in the Probate Registry—I produce the file of proceedings in the cause of Evans v. Morgan, including a number of affidavits sworn by the prisoner in that action, with the judgment of Mr. Justice Butt, revoking the grant of probate of 16th February, and pronouncing for the will of 5th January.

DAVID LLOYD . I am a solicitor practicing at Lamenter, Cardiganshire—I knew the deceased, Caroline Morgan; she died on 2nd February, 1888—I had previously acted as her solicitor, and for her family—on 5th January, 1888, I went to her house at Frondewi—I had a summons from her a few days before, to go to her on that day—she was then ill—I pre pared her will on that day, I got the instructions from herself verbally; this is the probate, and this produced) is the original will that I prepared on that day; it was signed by her in my presence, and was attested by me and my son; this is signed in her ordinary handwriting, except that it is a little more shaky on account of her being very unwell at the time—it is signed C. Morgan, she always signed C. Morgan—under that will neither the prisoner or his children derive any benefit The will was put in and read)—The son of the first-named executor is the person deriving substantial benefit under that will—I have here my written instructions which I had previously taken—after her death I took steps with a view to proving the will—on 23rd February, in consequence of something I heard, I went to the house of Miss Morgan, at Frondewi; I found the prisoner there in possession; after some negotiation with him I induced him to leave—I had two constables with me, I had asked them to meet me there as I was afraid there might be a breach of the peace—at that time he said nothing about any other will, but I told him I thought it was an extraordinary thing on his part to do such a thing—he said very little—I knew at that time that a will had been proved on 16th February; he was there in possession under that will—after that I commenced an action in the Probate Division for the purpose of setting aside the will which had been proved on 16th February—the prisoner appeared in that action as the defendant—I was present at the funeral of Caroline Morgan, I think on the 8th—the prisoner was there; I spoke to him—he said nothing to me about the will of 23rd January—I did not read the will of 5th January at the funeral—I knew the late Joseph Morgan, of Maister, well; he was uncle to Miss Morgan—he died on the 29th January—I know Caroline Morgan's handwriting—looking at

the will of 23rd January, I say that the signature is nothing like her handwriting—here are throe letters of hers to myself, which I know to be in her handwriting, and here are receipts signed by her, the latest being 13th January, 1888—the signature to the will has no resemblance what ever to them—I know Joseph Morgan's handwriting very well—I have seen the signature purporting to be his, to this will of 23rd January—I do not believe it is his signature—it is a fair imitation of it, except the initial M in the Morgan; that is not his usual M—here are some genuine specimens of his—this other document, marked H, I do not think is his writing—the prisoner produced that document in the Probate Court—it releases him from all claims I have against him—I heard the prisoner give evidence at the Probate Court—he gave it in English. The transcript of the notes of the prisoner's evidence was read, in which he detailed the circumstances under which the alleged will was executed; that on 23rd January he was sent for by the deceased, who was in bed; that Joseph Morgan was present, and that she signed the will in his presence, stating at the time that she had made it in favour of his (the prisoner's) children.)

ELIZA WILLIAMS (Interpreted). I live at Frondewi, Cardiganshire—I was servant to Miss Caroline Morgan for nearly two years before she died—she fell ill at the beginning of December—Jane Hughes, a nurse, came to stay with her after she was ill—Miss Ball was staying at the house in January—I remember the 23rd January last year, it was the day before she was taken with a stroke—Miss Ball was in the house that day—Joseph Morgan came to the house on that day to see Miss Morgan—no one came with him; that was about three o'clock—he went up to the bed room where Miss Morgan was—he was there about ten minutes—I saw him leave with Mr. and Mrs. Evans, of Pencurrugh; they had arrived about twelve—I do not remember whether they were there at the time Joseph Morgan arrived, they went away from the house for a time—I saw them leave at the same time with Joseph Morgan—the prisoner did not come to the house on that day—the visitors used the back door, the front door was kept fastened—no one could have come in at the back door on that afternoon without my knowing it—I did not see the prisoner at the funeral until I was on the road coming back—I did not see him at the house after the funeral; he had gone away—I had never seen him before that I know of—my mistress was very weak that day.

JANE HUGHES (Interpreted). I am a nurse—I was employed as nurse to Miss Caroline Morgan, from December, 1887, up to the time of her death—I remember her having a fit on 24th January, the day before I saw Joseph Morgan at the house between 2 and 3—I was in the bedroom when he came up, and the whole time he was there—the prisoner did not come into the bedroom at all while he was there—I did not see him at the house at all that day—Miss Morgan did not sign any document while Joseph Morgan was there—she was very weak, in bed—he was there about twenty minutes, perhaps less.

MARY ROWLAND . I am the wife of the Rev. Thomas Rowland, Vicar of Landdewibref—Miss Caroline Morgan was my cousin—I visited her twice every day during her illness; I was there the afternoon before she had the stroke—I saw Joseph Morgan there; I was in the bedroom at the time he was there—my cousin was very weak that day—she could not move without assistance, and we fed her with an indiarubber tube all day—I never saw the prisoner till I saw him with a solicitor's clerk

in Llandovery, the week after Miss Morgan was buried—I am quite sure he did not come into the bedroom at all while Joseph Morgan was there; I was there the whole time—I saw Joseph Morgan leave; I went with him to the top of the staircase—I think I know my cousin's handwriting—the signature to the pretended will is not hers, she never signed her name that way, she always signed C. Morgan.

CHARLES RICHARDS (Detective Sergeant). I apprehended the prisoner on 11th January; I said, "Your name is Samuel Morgan, of Lampeter"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "I am a police-officer, and am going to arrest you under a warrant, for uttering a forged will"—he said, "Is it Caroline Morgan's?"—I said, "Yes"—I then read the warrant to him—he made no reply—in reply to the charge at the station he said, "It is no forgery."

Prisoner's Defence. "I have nothing to say; they have told lies against me; I have nothing more to say."

GUILTY of uttering .— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

THIRD COURT.—Monday, February 11th, 1889.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-247
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

247. ROBERT JOHN THORN, Forging and uttering an endorsement to a cheque for £10 15s. 7d., with intent to defraud; also three other indictments for like offences . MR. HALLI, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-248
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

248. CHARLES MONRO (20) , Forging and uttering a receipt for £7 17s. 2d., with intent to defraud.

MR. LYNE Prosecuted; MR. WATSON Defended.

LOUISA CARR . I trade as the Seymour Floral Company, 1, Lower Seymour Street, Portman Square—the prisoner came into my service in January, 1888, and left on October 13th without notice, or telling me that he was going—his duty was to open the shop in the morning, and take in the letters, and place them on the desk till I came—he had 13s. a week, but no board—on 29th September I sent an account for £7 17s. 3d. to Lady "Walker at Liverpool—I never received any letter or order from her—this is the account I sent, and these two receipts to it are the prisoner's writing—the first is "Received, with thanks, for Miss Carr, H. C."; the second has a stamp, and is "Received, with thanks, for the Seymour Floral Company, H. Chapman, October 6th, 1888"—the prisoner had no authority to receive money—there is no one in my employ named Chapman—I have seen him write on several occasions.

Cross-examined. It was not his duty to write letters, but I have seen him frequently write addresses where plants were to go—only a young lady and myself are in the shop besides the prisoner—I sent in Lady Walker's bill again at the Christmas quarter, and then received a communication from her—the prisoner left on a Saturday, ten days after the order was sent—I paid him his wages—if he had told me on the previous Saturday that he was going to leave, that would have been the day for him to do so—it would have been my duty only, to send the receipt to Lady Walker—this is signed "For Miss Carr"—I never leave it to the young lady to sign receipts.

BENJAMIN MORGAN (Police Sergeant D). On 15th January, about 7 a.m., I was in plain clothes, and saw the prisoner walking in High Street, Marylebone—I said, "I am a police officer; about October 4th a letter, containing a Post-office order for £7 17s. 2d., was stolen from 1, Lower Seymour Street, where you were employed; I have traced that order as having been paid into your account at the National Penny Bank, Oxford Street, on 5th October; I am going to take you in custody for stealing it"—he said, "I know nothing about it"—I said, "You know where I mean"—he said, "Yes, I had an account there"—I took him to the station.

LOUISA CARR (Re-examined by MR. HUTTON). The writing of this receipt is not disguised in any way—there is no difference between the writings in these two receipts; they are exactly the same—he was not in the habit of making out invoices—he directed packages and made out lists.

EDWARD GEORGE SLATTER . I live at 22, Sydenham Avenue, Liverpool, and am private secretary to Sir Andrew Barclay Walker—on 3rd October I sent this Post-office order for £7 17s. 2d. produced), with the invoice, to the Seymour Floral Company This was crossed "and Co." and stamped "London and South Western Bank," endorsed "National Penny Bank, Oxford Street, 5-10-88")—I then received this invoice back, receipted but not stamped—I sent it back, and it was returned to me properly receipted—I kept the number of the order I sent; this is it.

CHARLES KING . I am a cashier at the National Penny Bank, Oxford Street—the prisoner kept an account there—this Post-office order was paid in to his account and placed to his credit—I cannot say who brought it.

Cross-examined. I knew him by sight from his coming there—I have taken money from him, but cannot say whether he brought this order or anybody else—anybody could bring his book and pay in money, but could not draw it out without forging his signature—a crossed order must go through a bank, and it could be got out again by forging the name.

LLEWELLYN PREEDY . I am a clerk in the General Post-office, London—I produce this postal order—it was paid in in the usual way through a bank—The prisoner's father gave him a good character, and produced several testimonials).—

GUILTY Nine Months' Hard Labour. (There was another indictment against the prisoner.)

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-249
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

249. ENOCH POWER, Unlawfully taking Charlotte Merrnott, aged 17 years, out of the possession of her father, in order that she might be carnally known by a man.

MR. A. GILL Prosecuted; MR. FULTON Defended.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-250
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

250. EDWARD HENRY KNIGHT (47) , Forging and uttering a receipt for £28, with intent to defraud.

MR. GILL Prosecuted.

The prisoner stated in the hearing of the jury that he was


upon which they found him


He then PLEADED GUILTY to three other indictments for forging receipts for £34 19s. 6d., £22 9s., and £27 10s, also to obtaining £9, £14, £5, £13, £15, and £9 by false pretences.— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, February 12th, 1889.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-251
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown; Guilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > penal servitude; No Punishment > sentence respited; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

251. DAVID RYAN (31), JAMES BURKE (25), HENRY CARTER THOMPSON (21), ELIZABETH DAY (23), and MARY ANN DAY (30) , Breaking and entering the shop of Jacob Marlow, and stealing wearing apparel, value £30, his property. Second Count, feloniously receiving the same.


MR."WALKER Prosecuted, and MR. ABINGER Defended Thompson.

JACOB MARLOW . I am a tailor's cutter, of 3, Cross Street, Rupert Street, Strand, and occupy a shop at 21, Clare Market—on January 10th, about 7 p.m., I left my shop locked with a key, and then padlocked—at nine o'clock next morning I found the door broken open, nearly all the clothes stolen, and 30s. from the till—all the locks of the counter were forced open—I informed the police, and afterwards went to Chester's, the pawnbrokers, and found Mary Ann Day detained—she was taken to Bow Street, where she gave Sergeant Partridge her address, 24, Mechlin Street—we went there and found two pawn-tickets, and a ticket off a garment of mine, merely a manufactuer's number—we went back to the station, and I afterwards accompanied Partridge to another room in Mechlin Street, not far from the other room, and found a lot of my goods, and this canvas wrapper, which I recognise—the goods came in it when I ordered them—I have examined these articles; they are all mine—I was at the station when Ryan gave himself up outside—I saw Baker on the following morning; he was wearing a suit of clothes which were stolen from me, and I recognised a coat which had been taken off him.

ALBERT PROCTER . I am assistant to Charles Edwin Chester, of 48, Stanhope Street, pawnbroker—this boy's coat was pledged on January nth, about 10 a.m., for 4s. by a woman; I can't say who—on the same day, at 7.10 p.m., the prisoner Mary Ann Day brought the man's jacket and a boy's waistcoat, and asked 8s. on them, and redeemed the coat—I detained her, and sent for the prosecutor.

----PARTRIDGE (Detective Sergeant E). On January 11th, about 8 p.m., I went with Ennaght and Mariow to the second floor of 24, Mechlin Street, a room occupied by Ryan and Mary Ann Day, who was at that time detained at the station—no one was there; the door was shut, but not locked—I searched and found these two pawnbroker's tickets, both dated January 11th, one for trousers and vest pledged at Bravington's, for 6s.; the other for a suit of clothes pledged at Best and Boyce, for 9s., and this other ticket at the back of the fireplace—on leaving the house we met Ryan just outside; before we said anything he said, "Have you been to my rooms?"—I said, "Yes; and I have found two pawnbrokers' tickets and a trade ticket, which I believe relates to property stolen from a shop in Clare Market last night"—he said, "They must have been put there by my old woman'—I said, "What do you mean?"—he said, "Mary Ann Day, who you have got at the station"—I said, "I shall have to take you to the station, and detain you till I have made further inquiries' about this"—at the station he said to Mary Ann Day, "This is a nice mess you are getting me into; you had better tell the truth about it"—she said, "You know all about it; you knew I had gone

to the pawnbroker's shop"—he said, "I know nothing about it"—she said, "Yes, you do"—about ten p.m. I went to 26, Mechlin Street, two doors off, to the second floor front room—there was no one there—the door was shut, but not locked—I saw a heap in a corner covered with this canvas bag, under which were forty-three pairs of trousers, twenty coats, and eleven vests—I took them to the station, and kept observation till one a.m., when Burke, Thompson, and Elizabeth Day went into the house together, and up to the second floor, where they were arrested in my presence—Thompson was told that he would be charged with being concerned in stealing the goods—he said, "I only stop here occasionally; I have a wife and two children living in Emerald Street, Theobald's Road"—Ryan is a tailor.

Cross-examined by MR. ABINGER. Thompson is a cabman—his license is endorsed for some offence—he and his wife live at the address he gave—I believe the two Days are sisters; I have seen them both, up and down Holborn late at night.

Re-examined. Thompson does not live with his wife and children—he goes there occasionally—Thompson's licence was here produced. It was endorsed, "Fined 1s. and costs for not wearing his badge")—cabmen are not paid wages—they pay to take the cab out.

JAMES ENRAGHT (Detective Sergeant E). On 11th January, at 8 p.m., I went with Partridge to 24, Mechlin Street, and about 10 p.m. to 26, Mechlin Street, second floor front, and saw the property—I was present when Thompson, Burke, and Elizabeth Day came there—Burke was wearing these new clothes, and this overcoat—I told Burke he would be charged with breaking into Mr. Marlow's shop; he made no reply—I took him to Bow Street, took the clothes off him, and put on others which I found in the room at No. 26.

Cross-examined by MR. ABINGER. They were all three arrested in the same room—there are several other rooms there.

CHARLES GETHAM (Detective Sergeant E). On 11th January I went with Partridge to the second floor front, 26, Mechlin Street, and saw all this property there—I went into the room when they were there—another woman was in the room, which does not belong to either of the prisoners—I said to Elizabeth Day, "You rent the second floor front here, and are living with this man," pointing to Thompson, "we are police-officers, and have found a quantity of stolen property in your room"—Day said, "I do not live there; I only stop with her occasion ally"—I took her to the station.

Cross-examined by MR. ABINGER. I found the property in the second floor front—the second floor back belonged to another Day—I believe Frances Day was there—Thompson's address is on this licence "Emerald Street, Theobald's Road"—I believe his wife lives there, and he has deserted her.

JAMES MOORE (Policeman E 444). I went with Partridge and Getham to 26, Mechlin Street, Drury Lane, and arrested Thompson; Sergeant Partridge told him the charge—he said he knew nothing about it—he said, "I do not live here, I only come here occasionally to visit Elizabeth Day; I live with my wife and two children"—he did not say where—I took him to the station.

Cross-examined by MR. ABINGER. The stolen clothes were found on the second floor—Thompson was arrested on the first floor—a girl named

O'Brien rents that, I believe, but I have not inquired—the landlord is not here—I did not inquire whose room I found the prisoners in—two women whose names I do not know were also in the room.

By the COURT. We had gone to the room above, prior to this—we found the cloth first, and about 1 a.m. we found the prisoners—they did not go into the room where the clothes were.

Re-examined. "We found the clothes at 10 o'clock—on the second occasion I did not go into the front room second floor at all, nor do I think any of the other officers went up—the two women were in the first floor back.

SERGEANT PARTRIDGE (Re-examined). I made a mistake about the back room; it was the first floor.

PRUDENCE HOWELL . I am in the service of Edwin Edgar Howell, a bookbinder, of 19, Mechlin Street—my husband owns the second floor of 26, Mechlin Street, and let the front room second floor to the prisoner Elizabeth Day, four months ago, at 1s. a night—she had it more than three months—I have seen the other three prisoners with Day, and I have seen men at her window, but cannot say who they were.

Cross-examined by MR. ABINGER. I have been married sixteen months—my husband's mother rents the whole house, and I collect the rents for her—Elizabeth Day goes out of an evening to look for her living; I believe she leads an immoral life—the first floor back is let to Frances O'Brien; she does the same as Elizabeth Day—the first floor front is let to Mrs. Bee; she has been there seven years; she does not do the same—I told the police that the first floor back was let to Frances, I did not say O'Brien—if you ask them, their names they will tell you a lie.

JOHN SMITH . I am a newsvendor, of Black Horse Yard, Holborn—on 11th January, about 5.40 a.m., I was going to Pimlico, and met Burke, Thompson, and another man, who I do not know, in Drury Lane, just before I got to Long Acre—Burke was pulling a barrow with some bags or sacks in it, similar to this, and said, "Halloa, Liverpool, where are you going?"—I said, "Not far"—he said, "Will you give me a lift with this barrow?"—I said, "Yes, where must I take it to?"—he said, "Take it round to Mechlin Street, to the archway," which is No. 26—I took it, and Burke walked with me, and Thompson walked about six yards ahead on the pavement—they did not give me anything—I left the barrow in Mechlin Street, next to the archway. No. 26—Burke said, "That will do," and they walked away—I knew Burke before, and I knew Thompson's face, but did not know him by name—I picked out Thompson at the station on Saturday from a number of men.

Cross-examined by MR. ABINGER. I was going to Pimlico to get my brother's pitch, where he does drawings on the pavement in chalk; he asked me to do so—I sold some papers last night—Thompson was on the pavement, six yards in front of Burke when Burke hailed me, he was in the road—the other chap was walking with Thompson—I had never seen Thompson before; he did not speak to me, nor did the other man, but I saw them, because Burke called out "Stop," and Thompson turned round.

Re-examined. Thompson was down Mechlin Street when I left the barrow.

JOSEPH BARNARD . I am manager to Mr. Bravington, a pawnbroker, of 27, Wardour Street; I produce a pair of trousers and a waistcoat

pawned on the afternoon of 11th January, by a female—I cannot say who, but this is the duplicate I gave, "Mrs. Grace, Lisle Street, 6s.; trousers and vest."

THOMAS GAMMAGE . I am assistant to Best and Boyce, pawnbrokers, of Theobald's Road—I produce a suit of clothes pledged on January 9th, about three p.m., by Mary Ann Day—this is the duplicate which would be given, "Suit 9s., Ann Green."

J. MARLOW (Re-examined). All these goods are mine, and were stolen from my shop.

Ryan's Defence. I went out and left Mary Ann Day in bed. I did a job at ten minutes to seven, and came home with a pair of trousers. When I got to the comer of Mechlin Street a woman said, "Do you know Mary Ann Day is locked up?"I said, "No, what for?"She said, "She has pawned some things."As I went down the street I saw Mr. Partridge and two detectives. I went straight up to them and said, "Is it right you have locked my old woman up?"He said, "Yes," and he should take me to the station. All I know is she has been pawning things in my absence, which I cannot help.

Burke's Defence. I know nothing about the burglary. I bought the clothes for 14s. 6d. As to seeing Smith that morning, I never saw him all that day.

Elizabeth Day's Defence. I lived at 26, Mechlin Street, on 10th January, and I knew nothing about the stolen property being in the room. I went home on Friday, 11th January, at 12.30 at night. I know nothing about these things being found in my room.


RYAN and ELIZABETH DAY GUILTY on the Second Count.

RYAN— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour .

BURKE— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

THOMPSON— Judgment Respited . ELIZABETH DAY*— Fifteen Month's Hard Labour , MARY ANN DAY— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

The Common Serjeant commended the conduct of the police.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-252
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

252. DAVID JOSEPH (43) , Breaking and entering the shop of Thomas Hart Marsh, and stealing two pairs of boots and six odd boots, his property.

MR. BAVLIS Prosecuted.

THOMAS FLETCHER (City Policeman 950). About 1.30 a.m. on Thursday, 8th June, I was in Leadenhall Street, and saw the prisoner walking; very quietly with noiseless boots on—I followed him through several streets into Fenchurch Street, and when he got to a window where there were no shutters, he looked in and then looked round to see if anyone was following him—I met a constable, and we followed him to Coolum Street, where he stopped and looked in at a tailor's window, where there were no shutters—we walked down the street, and he turned back; we followed him for an hour, and went up to him at another window at 1.45, and asked him what he was doing; he said, "I have to go to work in the morning, I can't go home to-night"—we took him to the station.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not see you do anything—you told me at the station that you could not go home, as some fellow had threatened to flatten you for charging a man with stealing a pair of shoes.

RICHARD CUSTERSON (City Policeman 730). I met Fletcher on this Tuesday morning, and followed the prisoner with him—I searched him

at the station, and found this hammer in his trousers pocket, this piece of paper, folded, in his jacket pocket, and three pawn-tickets in his waist coat pocket, one of which relates to a pair of boots pawned on 7th January, in the name of David Josephs, Chicks and Street, Whitechapel.

Cross-examined. You said you always gave 18s. for your boots; I asked where you bought them, you said, "I don't know, in Whitechapel Road"—I found a ticket on you for two pairs of shears; you said the man who gave them to you had gone to America.

THOMAS HART MARSH . I am a bootmaker, of 85, Bucklersbury—on January 5th, at 4 o'clock, I left my shop secure—I returned on Monday at 9.30, and found the shop in the hands of the police and the window smashed—two pairs of boots and six odd boots had been taken through the broken glass—I value them at £7 or £8—these are two of the odd boots and this is one pair.

JOSEPH JONES . I am a pawnbroker, of 31, Church, Spitalfields—on 7th January, at 8.15 a.m., the prisoner brought me these boots to pawn, but being odd ones I refused them.

WILLIAM GRIDLEY . I am assistant to Thomas J. Dooley, pawnbroker, of Whitechapel Road—I produce a pair of boots pawned on 7th January for 8s., by the prisoner at 10 a.m.—they have been worn a few hours—this is the duplicate.

Prisoner's Defence. I was looking through the window, but it was not my intention to do wrong. I was going to work in the morning. I am a hard-working man, and wish you to go into my character.

HENRY WINDEBANK . I was present when the prisoner was convicted, and had fourteen months for breaking and entering in the same way after a previous conviction.

Cross-examined. I saw you breaking into that place.


He then PLEADED GUILTY* to a conviction of housebreaking at Middlesex Sessions in August, 1887, after a previous conviction.— Twenty Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-253
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

253. PETER WALLACE (28) , Stealing a mare, a cart and harness, a cask of ink, and two cases of stationery of Francis Maybury.

MR. FRITH Prosecuted, and MR. LAWLESS Defended.

FRANCIS MAYBURY . I am a carman, of 7, St. Mary Axe—on December 20th I gave my carman instructions, and he left with a horse and cart he came back without them between 2.30 and 3 o'clock, and made a statement to me—I saw them at Arbour Square about ten that night—they were worth about £60; and he had to fetch two cases of stationery and a cask of ink; the value altogether was about £120—I have not seen the stationery and ink since—the prisoner worked for my grandfather some years ago as a carman, and I knew him by sight.

WILLIAM SANDS . I am employed by Mr. Maybury—on December 20th, at 1.15, I went with the horse and cart to Howard and Jones, Bury Street, St. Mary Axe, and got two cases of stationery and some ink—I loaded them and went to the Royal Albert Dock Depot, where there was a mass of vans—I got there about 1.45—I got off the cart for five minutes, and when I returned, I missed it—I do not know the prisoner—I went back and told my master.

ALFRED CRANE . I am carman to Samuel George, of Old Montague Street—on 20th December, about 2.15, I was in the Commercial Road,

and saw the prisoner, who I knew by sight, driving Maybury's cart with two cases in it—I am sure he is the man—he turned down Charles Street, Stepney, trotting very fast—he was about twenty minutes' trot from the Royal Albert Dock.

Cross-examined. I am certain it was Maybury's cart; in fact about two years ago I was outside a public-house when you took a pair of reins off a pony—I am not wrong—I should not do you harm if you had not done me harm.

By the COURT. I had seen Maybury's cart before—I know Sands.

STEPHEN WHITE (Police Sergeant). I took the prisoner and told him the charge—he said, "I know nothing about it"—the van was found by a police officer, and brought to the station—I know where it was found, that was about five minutes' walk from Charles Street—the cases of stationery have not been found.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I know nothing about Maybury's."


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-254
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

254. PETER WALLACE was again indicted with LEWIS MYERS (50) for stealing a cart, a mule, and a large quantity of paper lanterns, the property of Henry Duffield and another.

MR. FRITH Prosecuted; MR. LAWLESS Defended Myers.

JAMES ROW . I am carman to Mr. Greenwood—on December 31st I was at work with Mr. Duffield, and left his place, 27, Upper East Smith field, with a mule and cart between 7.30 and 8 a.m. with a load of cheese which I had to deliver in Whitechapel and in Tooley Street; I delivered that all right; I then had to collect a case of paper lanterns from the London and South Western Railway, Nine Elms, which I did between 12.30 and 1 o'clock, and received this statement produced) and the lanterns—I then drove to Mint Street, Sparrow Corner, and about 1.30 or 1.45 I met my brother, eight years old; I asked him to mind my cart and put the mule's bag on and the chain—in a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes I missed the mule and cart, and went to Leman Street and made a report—I saw them the day after in the Minories; there was a name on the cart, and Mr. Duffield has got it back—this produced) is a portion of the case.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. I had been in the employ nearly three years—I was discharged that night—we never carrv van boys—I never carried a similar case to this—I have not seen such cases sold in the streets—it would not be unusual for such a case to be sold for firewood.

MICHAEL REARDON . I live at the Victoria Coffee House, Upper East Smithfield, and am a carman in the employ of Henry and George Duffield—on December 31, about 1.45, I was in Leman Street and saw the prisoner Wallace, who I knew, driving a mule and cart with a case in it—I asked him whether he was the carman—he said he did not know, he had enough to do to look after himself—the name "Duffield" was in front of the cart—I said, "When did the governor take you on?"—he said, "Only a little while ago, I am going to deliver the case"—I then met the carman—I next saw the case at Leman Street Police-station—this is something like it.

STEPHEN WHITE (Police Sergeant). On 10th January, about 1 o'clock, I went to Lucas Street, Commercial Road, and saw Wallace—I said, "I am a police officer, and shall take you in custody for stealing a mule, a

cart, and harness, and a case containing a quantity of paper lanterns, the property of Mr. Duffield, on the 31st of last month"—he said, "I know nothing about it"—on the way to the station he said, "I have been treated very badly in this case by the receiver, and I am going to tell you all I know about the case; I took Mr. Duffield's mule and cart from Sparrow Corner, and drove it into a street near Petticoat Lane; I took the case to a private house, it was too large, we could not get it in at the door, and we were obliged to get it through the window; I told the man who took the case from me that it contained ostrich feathers; I went next morning and saw the man; he said he had examined the contents, and it was no good, and he did not even give me a glass of beer"—I said, "Will you point the house out to me?"—he said, "Yes," and took me to New Street, Petticoat Lane, and pointed to No. 9 and No. 11, and said he was not quite certain which house it was—I took him to the station, where he was confronted with Myers, and said, "That is the man who had the case from me"—I was then called away.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. He said he thought the man's name was Lewis who received the case, but he was not certain—there were two men at No. 9, one went away, and the other was taken and confronted with Wallace, who said he was not the man—that was about 2.30 the same morning; Mr. Read was in the station when that occurred.

Re-examined, I knew that Myers' Christian name was Lewis—one man declined to say who he was—there was no evidence against him, and he was allowed to go, and there was no reason for detaining the other.

EDWARD READ (Police Inspector H) On January 10th, about 4.30 a.m., I took Myers at 11, New Street, and charged him with receiving this case, which I had found in his house—he said, "I know nothing at all about it; my wife thought it was fire-wood"—the case would not go through the door, but it would through the window, which was very loose—I took him to the station, and confronted him with Wallace, who said, "That is the man who had the case; he helped me put it through the window"—Myers replied, "I never saw you before in my life"—Wallace said, " No, you do not want to know me after the way you have treated me; when I came down next morning you never gave me a penny"—Myers made no reply.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. There are about four rooms in Myers' house; his wife and children live there—I assisted in arresting one of the other men—I opened the shutters and got in, and found a man named Cooper, who volunteered to come to the station, and on being confronted with Wallace he said, "That is not the man; I never saw him before."

Re-examined. The case was concealed by a lot of old clothes, and Mrs. Myers was lying on them.

CHARLES DALDEN (Detective Officer H). On 10th February, about 4.30 I went to Myers' place, a ground floor front room, and found part of this wooden case, covered over with a lot of old clothes—in the back room on the first floor I found the remainder of the pieces which had been sawn off—I saw this mark on it in blue pencil, "28.12.88 up goods"—I cannot find the lid, it is destroyed.

Cross-examined by Wallace. The greater portion of these pieces belong to the case.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. The box was on its head as it is now with its inside up.

CHARLES PETTY . I am in the employ of Henry and George Duffield,

of East Smithfield—on 31st December, about 7.30 a.m., I gave our carman this white form, and orders to collect a case—he was to get the marks from the merchant, and the form now contains them, 86-12-1120 and a diamond and B in the right-hand corner at the bottom—I never saw the case—the lid of this case has gone, with the marks—that would be the part to saw off if it was desirable to destroy the marks—we do not know anything about these other marks—the cart and mule were worth £70, and the paper lanterns £7 14s.—we have not recovered the lanterns.

WILLIAM BLAKE . I am a porter at Nine Elms goods station—on 28th December I marked a case containing lanterns, "28.12, up goods," it came from St. Malo—the marking is here now—I left it at the police lock-up—this is it.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. The marks had not been attempted to be erased; I recognise the box by them.

SAMUEL AYLING . I am a porter at Nine Elms Station—on December 31st, about 12.35, I delivered to Duffield's carman a case of lanterns—this produced) is the delivery note—the markings are put down here, but the lid has been broken, and the markings have gone—I identify the case, but it has been cut down considerably—it is rather a differently made case to those which usually contain lanterns, and there is a double row of nails, and so there are in the battens, which is not usual with French cases.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. If it was to be used as firewood I should want it chopped up.

Re-examined. I should not use it as a bed.

Wallace's Statement before the Magistrate was that he drove the cart from Sparrow Corner to Houndsditch, where he was met by two men, and was away half an hour, and when he returned they had sold the contents of the case, and sold the case to a woman for a shilling, and left it outside her door. Myers said, "I never had any connection with the man, I don't know the man."

Witness far Wallace's Defence.

ANN AYRES . I am single, and live at 4, Fireball Court, Houndsditch; I buy old clothes and mend them up—on the Monday after Christmas Wallace brought this case to my house at 4.30 p.m.

Cross-examined by MR. LAWLESS. I was at 11, New Street, where Mrs. Myers lives, doing a day's work, and Myers brought the empty box to the door—it would not go through the door, and I told him to put it down, we would get it in ourselves—I was washing for Mrs. Myers, but Myers was not in the place that day—I gave the same evidence at the Police-court.

Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I was there when the case came—he said, "Is Mrs. Myers living here?"—I said, "Yes," and he tried to get it in—I did not notice any marks on the lid—she often buys cases like that—a little boy and I sawed the head off it, but I did not notice what writing was on it—we thought we would make firewood of it—we have a place to keep firewood, we do not keep it in the bedroom—we laid our clothes round it—I do not sleep there—I have not been to Holloway Prison, and have not seen Wallace since he has been there.

The COURT considered that there was no evidence of receiving against Myers.


Wallace's Defence. Myers had nothing to do with the case whatever, all I can say is I sold this case for a shilling to that woman who has just gone out; she was waiting for Mrs. Myers, I did not see Mr. Myers; I got a shilling for the case and twopence for carrying it home. I was hired to drive the cart from Sparrow Corner to Houndsditch. I left the case there, and went to a warehouse where I had got a job; I was there an hour, and when I got back to Cullum Street I did not see the two men, and all I could see outside the market was the empty case. I got 14d. altogether for it for firewood; Mrs. Myers paid me, and I left it outside her house.

WALLACE GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction at Middlesex Sessions on 3rd January, 1888.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-255
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

255. GEORGE FLECK(30) , Burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of John Needs with intent to steal.

MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted, and MR. FRITH Defended,

THOMAS MELLETT . I am assistant to Edward John Needs, a pawn broker, of 141, Euston Road—on 24th January I Was sleeping on the premises, and about 1.30 a.m. the lad who sleeps in the shop awoke me; I ran down to the shop, which runs out from the house, and from the sky light I saw three men on the roof of the shop—I could not see their faces; they were prizing up the roof in one corner—I ran out into Euston Road and called "Police!" and two men jumped off the roof into the garden, and ran away; I ran after one some distance, but lost him—I came back, and met a constable, and we found the prisoner in the area of No. 139, the adjoining house—the constable had to knock at the door and go through and get him out of the area—there was room for a man to get through the bars—I examined the roof next morning; it was prized up about a foot high for a yard long—there were marks of a jemmy on it, corresponding with this jemmy which was found on the roof—the shop is part of the dwelling-house—an attempt was made upon it about four weeks ago.

JOHN DUFFY (Policeman 35 S R) On 24th January, at 1.30 a.m., I heard cries of "Police" in Euston Road—Millett spoke to me, and I searched and found the prisoner in the area of No. 139—the people were standing outside, and they let me go down—he was lying down—I asked what he was doing—he made no reply—I shook him up, and he said, "I have come here to have a sleep"—I said, "How did you come?"—he made no reply—I told him I should take him in charge for breaking into the adjoining premises, with others—he said nothing—I fitted this jemmy into the marks on the skylight, and they corresponded—a man could jump from the roof of the shop on to the roof of a wooden shed, and then he would have a descent of six feet three inches into the area—he would have to go through an aperture ten inches wide.

Cross-examined. He was sober; he was not sleeping—he would have to drop eight feet if he was on the shop roof, to the roof of the shed—I found him there seven or eight minutes after I heard the cries.

THOMAS MEEDOM (Policeman 227 E). I made these plans produced)—the scale is one-eighth of an inch to the foot; the height from the ground to the roof of the shop is 12 ft. 7 in.; the roof of the shed is 8 ft. 8 in high; so that a man jumping from the roof would have to cross a distance of 4 ft. and drop 4 ft.—it would be easy to jump it—he

would then drop down 5 ft. 3 in on to the top of a box which was in the area—the railings are 6 ft. 3 in. high, and the aperture is 10 in., but the bars being small you could bend them either was—I got through in my uniform.

JAMES MALLETT (Police Inspector E). I took the charge; the prisoner made no reply to it, but afterwards he said, "I don't know how I got down the area"—he was sober—his hands were black.

Cross-examined. There is a distinct charge for being found in enclosed premises by night, sleeping—the strictest inquiries have been made with regard to him; he has been in Holloway since January 24th, and has been seen by warders and detectives, but nothing is known or suggested against him.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate. "I was drunk, and I don't know how I got there, I don't know any more about it than this rail."

T. MELLETT (Re-examined). The skylight does not open—the jimmy must have been put underneath to lift it—I stood under and heard them, and saw the boards lifted up; I did not see the jemmy come through, though there was a hole large enough to admit a man's body through.


NEW COURT.—Monday, February 11th; and

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, 12th, 1889.

Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-256
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

256. WILLIAM HENRY MANNING (38) was indicted for feloniously forging and uttering a deed of assignment, with intent to defraud.



HARRY DICKSON . I am a clerk in the service of Messrs. Taylor, Son, and Humbert, solicitors, of 4, Field Court, Gray's Inn—Mr. R. S. Taylor is the owner of Clement's Inn—up to May, 1887, we had a tenant, named A. F. Peacock, at 11, Clement's Inn—I produce the correspondence passing between my employers and Peacock and Rimell, a man supposed to be his reference as to the taking of the chambers—this agreement, of 24th May, 1887, purports to be between Richard Stephens Taylor and Francis James Rimell, letting this office at £60 a year, and is signed F. J. Rimell—the references were A. F. Benning, solicitor, of 7, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, and Silburn, solicitor, of 32, Watling Street—the rent was in arrear generally throughout the year; up to Midsummer, 1888, we had to distrain twice; the distress fetched a trifle over £1—the premises were never actually vacant—I know nothing of Benning being there resident; I never saw any of the tenants myself; it was all done by correspondence.

Cross-examined. I knew nothing of these people except by the correspondence.

JOHN JAMES WOODS . I am a tobacconist, of 210, Strand—in July last I had a room on my second floor to let—the prisoner, who gave the name of Debenham, applied for it—I asked for a reference, and he gave me Mr. A. F. Benning, solicitor, 12, Chetwynd Road, Highgate, and Mr. A. F. Peacock, 11, Clement's Inn, Strand—I wrote to them, and received these letters, and these two from Debenham—I wrote

saying I would accept him as tenant after I had received a letter from Peacock—they put the name of "W. Debenham and Co." on the doorpost, and the "Southend Steamboat Company"—I did not notice the name of Benning up there—I did not see Benning there—he was never accepted as our tenant of those premises—rent was paid after the prisoner's arrest by Mr. Bertie; he came and said his client was not able to go back, and he wanted me to release him from the agreement, and he would pay me.

Cross-examined. That was the Tuesday following the arrest, I think—I am managing clerk to Bolton Sands, solicitors—I have a lease of 210, Strand, and I am a tobacconist there—my name is up.

Re-examined. I do not remember the name of any Trade Protection Society being up there.

HENRY CAMM . I am a private in the Medical Staff Corps, now quartered at Landguard Fort, Felixstowe—in the autumn of 1885 my friend Mrs. Hilton had law business proceeding, and wanted my evidence—she introduced me to the prisoner as Mr. Silburn, her solicitor, of 32, Watling Street—he took my evidence—I might have seen him more than once in London—soon after it was arranged that he should become my solicitor—I had some outstanding debts, and I gave them to him to collect—he gave me no money with regard to them—after I had known him about six months, in the spring of 1886 I consulted him with regard to my late father's estate—I was then living at 7, Macaulay Buildings, Bath, a freehold house with a ground rent, which my father had left—my father died on 4th March, 1881, leaving by will the whole of his estate to my mother for her life; or till she should re-marry, and in the event of her death or re-marriage the estate was to be divided in equal moieties between myself and my sister Sarah Kate—the personalty was sworn at under £4,000—by the spring of 1886 my mother had left England, and there was a great deal of doubt as to where she had gone, or whether she was dead or married—I told Mr. Silburn the whole of the circumstances when I consulted him, and he had a copy of the document—he advised me to make a charge in Chancery upon the estate, which was eventually done—I told him I wanted to borrow money upon the reversion; I said, "What do you think you can get on it, £500 or £600?"—he said, "It is utterly impossible to say now, as the lease would have to be sold, and then we should know, but as it is I cannot tell you how much"—he said he would do his best—as my solicitor, he was charged with the matter—he came to Bath on one or two occasions—he went and saw the house, 7, Macaulay Buildings; that was about the middle of 1886—I wrote one or two letters to him nearly every week, addressing my letters to "Silburn, 32, Watling Street"—he always answered them in that name; I believe it was lithographed on the top of the paper—I have a slight idea of writing to Clement's Inn in 1887, but I cannot say if I had any notification of his moving there—on 25th July, 1887, I left Bath, and enlisted at Bristol in the Medical Staff Corps—I was quartered at head quarters at Aldershot from July till about October or November—at Christmas-time I was at Colchester—Mr. Silburn came and saw me at Aldershot—the first time he came to my but I was very surprised at seeing him—I got a pass from half-past two or three till a quarter to twelve—the purport of his visit was this business, the advance—he wanted me to sign some documents—we went out for a walk; I enjoyed

myself; we went into one or two public-houses—I was out with him till nearly nine o'clock—towards the end of the time, between quarter to eight and half-past nine, when we were in a public-house with drinks, he put a document before me to sign, and I signed it—I don't remember what the document was; it was white paper; I did not read it—I gave it back to him, and he took it away—there was not much time, because I believe there was some hurry with regard to his train, and it was some distance from the Royal Hotel to the station—the prisoner came again to Aldershot; he made an appointment, and I went to the station, but he missed his train—afterwards I went into the Royal Hotel (I always used to go there for the last drink as I went home) and I found him there—it must have been between eight and nine in the evening, because I always made a point of getting home by nine—the prisoner knew that—someone was with the prisoner; he introduced him as a Commissioner of Oaths—he called me into the coffee-room; we had refreshment, and then he produced a white document, such as this—I did not notice if it had a stamp on it—I did not read it—he told me it was relative to my affairs, and asked me if the house was freehold, or something concerning the lease—I signed the document; this is my signature—I cannot swear positively whether I saw the Commissioner do anything to the document—I handed it back—I believe I walked part of the way to the station with them both—that gentleman Benning) is the Commissioner—I left Aldershot at Christmas, and was quartered at Colchester up to May, 1888—during the time I was there I received one or two visits from the prisoner about the same business; he always brought documents to sign—I did not read the documents—on one occasion it was a very wet, stormy day; we took a cab and went into the country for a drive to see some of his clients—we came back about four or five o'clock—we drove from the Cups Hotel and back to it—we always signed the documents at the end of the day—I am certain that by the 27th January, 1888, I had left Aldershot, and was quartered at Colchester—Mr. Silburn had spoken to me at Aldershot of a Mr. Rimell—he told me he was a client of his, and if things were all right he thought perhaps he would be able to advance me some money—I think he gave me a sovereign that time; at most of his visits he gave me some money—up to 27th January the prisoner had advanced me in all £4, I should think; not more than £5—I had had no money advanced to me by Mr. James Rimell to my knowledge—Mr. James Rimell had advanced me no sum of £210, and no further sum of £790—I should not be here if I had had that money; I should certainly have left the army——the prisoner never brought me any parchment document to sign while I was at Aldershot or Colchester—the signature "Henry Camm" on this parchment document is not in my handwriting—no parchment document was executed by me when Mr. Benning, the Commissioner, was present—the only parchment document I have signed was a conveyance of my father's house of 7, Macaulay Street, Bath—I never authorised anyone to sign my name to this document—no such sums as £210 or £790 were ever advanced to me by the prisoner, Mr. Rimell, or anyone else—I left Colchester in May to go to Norwich; the prisoner knew where I was going—I did not know that the prisoner went in the name of Rimell—I never knew up to the time of his arrest of his going in any other name than that of Silburn—I wrote to him, and he came to see me at Norwich

in June, I think; he came on two or three occasions—I remember his coming in September and bringing a blank document for me to sign; he afterwards paid me £25—the document was like this (produced), but only the heading was filled up, this lower part was blank—I believe it was stamped, I am not sure—I noticed it was blank—he said, "I have a paper for you to sign, and we had better get it done"—this was in a public house in Norwich—I signed it—in the first instance I had some doubt as to this signature being genuine, but I have looked at it—I have never been at Brighton in all my life—I handed the document back to the prisoner after signing it in blank, and then I had to get back—I had several telegrams; I cannot say if I received this one (produced) before or after I signed this piece of paper in blank—I received this telegram on the date it bears ("3rd October, 1888. Meet me by 6.30 train.—Silburn.")—I believe I met that train; I saw the prisoner later on, after receiving the telegram; I don't know if I met him—I don't know if that was the time he paid me the £25 or not; it was about that time—I cannot say whether it was on that occasion, but one evening after banking hours he said, "I have some money for you, and I shall have to cash a cheque, and I will come up the first thing in the morning and give you some money"—he came next day and paid me £20 in bank notes, and I gave him a sovereign—he said with the £4 I had that would make it about right—he said he would give me another £100 next February—I wrote several letters to him before this, asking if it were possible to let me have the money; he said no, as my mother was away nobody would have anything to do with it; but when he was in Norwich he said, "I shall be having £400 or £500, and I will let you have the money myself"—he also said, "I am taking some rooms at Brighton for entertainments, and you might come down there, and I will give you £2 a week as a kind of manager and to play the piano"—I should have gone there this month—I agreed for £100, and he said about £80; I said I would take £80 because I wanted to purchase out of the army—he said, "Well, of course you will stick to your old arrangements?"—I said, "Oh yes; if you will only let me have the money"—I have always placed explicit confidence in him as my solicitor from the first time I knew him; until after his arrest I did not believe it; he treated me always in a gentle manly like manner, and I thoroughly believed I had a friend in him as I had no other friend—a receipt was given for the money—I did not read the receipt; he said, "That is a receipt," and I signed it, but I did not read it—this is my signature to it; I signed where he told me—my eye did not catch the words, "Camm to Rimell," because the doctor was just going the rounds, and I had not time; I just signed it This receipt was dated 9th November, 1888, for £55, to be paid in a month, and £100 when the matter was completed)—I had no notion when this document was given to me to sign that the prisoner had under this deed of assignment obtained and lodged in his bank £450, or £415 out of £450, which had been advanced—he said nothing of it to me; he told me he should be receiving £400 or £500 himself in a short time—when I signed this receipt I had not been informed, and had no notion of the deed of assignment, which purports to be dated 27th January, 1888.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I am 28 years old, nearly 29—my father retired—I was educated at Sydney College, Bath, now Bath

College—I have followed various occupations since I left school—first I went into farming; I was not successful—I went to Jersey for pleasure; perhaps once during my father's life—then I tried a tobacconist's shop for eight or nine months—I kept a public-house later on—I took a comedy company as Fun on the Bristol Company—I picked up a bad companion, and was not successful—I then went in for a loan society, Cameron and Co.—I lent money on and dealt in reversions for about twelve months, my mother's money—I got through £500 and more—these are some of the cheques produced—Calliper was my assistant—he is here—the public-house was some time afterwards—I did nothing between—it was at Sandhurst—I was in it a very short time, because the lease ran out and the landlord would not grant a renewal—then I went to Bath—I helped a photographer named Arnold—he was manager to Hawkes and Co.; they did business at Brighton and Bath—then I had to enlist, as I had run through what money my friends or my mother supplied—I kept irregular hours—my mode of life was the same as other young men—my wife got divorced from me—it was an aggravated case—I was going to petition, but as she brought the petition my solicitor advised me to let it go on—it was not defended—Mr. Ernest Fuller watched the case—I was introduced to the prisoner at his office in London—I told him how I was placed, and he advised me to make a charge on the property in Chancery, in order that the property might be secured—I instructed him to take all necessary proceedings—he did so—I did not give him any money for the purpose—that suit began in 1885 or 1886—I also gave the prisoner a few debts to collect for me; nothing else, only trifling things—I did not tell him to get his costs out of the reversion, when realised—of course I meant he should—a Receiver was put in, and I was turned out of the house at Bath—I had to go—I do not know whose motion it was through—I had to take one or two little things given me by my father before his death, and my sister had things from the house—as a last resource I enlisted in July, 1887—I was then 27—I declared I was 25 and four months—I have never had the register of my birth—after that I went to Aldershot—the prisoner came there—he said the expenses would be £400 or £500—I said at the beginning, "Of course, if you get this matter done, I will give you £100 for yourself"—he brought documents to me to sign; I read them—I had confidence in him, and did not trouble about them—I only thought he wanted my signature, which I gave, and thought it was all over—I was anxious to get money on the reversion, and signed anything—the signature to the reversion is a very good imitation of mine—I am certain one of the documents I signed was not this, as to the reversion—I know my writing fairly well, and I know this is not—the "m's" are different—this other signature is like mine—I swore at the Police-court that was not my signature—there is the blank space, I remember, and the date at the time I signed the paper—I cannot swear to it—I know there was a blank space—I swore the man who came with the prisoner was Rimell, and, after reflection, Benning—I made a mistake in my recognition of the man—I signed this declaration—if it was before Benning I do not remember—I cannot answer the question—I thought all was right—I can remember what he did, but not what he said—I have no knowledge of legal affairs—I do not think I signed more than one document that day—I cannot say whether this is

my writing an envelope)—my sister's writing is on the other side—I cannot remember if I then agreed to accept £300; I did not expect much after the costs—this is not my signature a receipt for £ 1 on account), the "C" slopes to the right more than mine—I won't say it is not, nor that it is—I signed innumerable documents—it is dated 25th February, 1888—I was then at Colchester—I always gave him receipts for those things—I said I would take £100—eventually £80—I believe by letter—document read, agreeing to accept £100 for reversion, the purchaser taking liability for costs)—I never heard that before—if I could have got £200 or £100 I should not be in the army now—I wanted to get out of the army—I was content to take £100 Read: "Self to Rimell, received £1, Henry Camm")—I cannot say whether that is my writing—the pounds were given me by Silburn—the prisoner brought them; he said, "You are short of money?"—I said I was—I think the prisoner told Rimell the facts, as my mother was away, and would not have anything to do with it—Manning told me he had put the reversion up to auction, but I had not seen it, and he said nobody would have anything to do with it after inquiring into the case—I never answered any advertisement with reference to this reversion—Mr. Silburn, I believe, has tried to find my mother, but I do not know of any advertisement—I advertised for Farrer, who is suspected of having married my mother—I do not know whether she is living—she would be 65 or 67—I got no answer to the advertisement—I advertised at Norwich in 1888—when I joined the army I was penniless—I did not owe much—I owed something to a solicitor named Howe, and to Mr. Fuller—I say the signature is a very good imitation, but is not mine—I meant that before—when Manning came to Aldershot we did business at a public-house, we had no other place to meet—Manning always paid—my sheet has not anything on it against me, and I hope to keep it so till I come out of the army.

Re-examined. We went to more than one public-house; Manning would ask me what I would have—afterwards documents were produced to sign—he told me no one would have anything to do with my reversion walking to Thorp from Norwich—when he came to pay the £25 was the last time but one he spoke to me about putting the reversion up to auction—I do not recollect some of these documents being put to me at the Policecourt—Silburn claimed the repayment of the small advances when he paid me the £25—I have identified Rimell as Benning; then I said I had some doubts—Benning was not at the Police-court till afterwards, when I at once identified him as the man I did business with—I had no intention of acting dishonourably towards the prisoner, and when I heard of his arrest I did not believe it; I trusted him all through—if he had handed me over the money for my reversion I would have been satisfied, and would have paid him for his trouble.

FRANCIS JAMES ROUSE . I am a clerk in the Probate Registry at Somerset House—I produce office copy, probate, and the will of Henry Camm, of 7, Macaulay Buildings, Bath, proved at Bristol on 22nd April, 1881.

ARTHUR EDWIN TAYLOR . I am a clerk in the Controller of Stamps Department, Somerset House—documents in 1887 were stamped within two months without penalty—the time since 16th May, 1888, has been reduced to thirty days—the document is initialled and then taken to another clerk to be stamped—without my initials the clerk will

not stamp—documents in blank would be taken straight to the stamping department—a penalty would be denoted by a stamp—upon the document—this Statutory Declaration of 23rd November, 1887, bears an embossed stamp of the Inland Revenue Department—the stamp is altered from day to day—that appears to be three months after its execution—there is no indication of any penalty—there may be a slip—I have no doubt this parchment was stamped on 27th March, 1888—the deed is dated 27th January—the initials are mine—looking at the consideration money the stamp should have been £5, instead of the £3 stamp on it—our attention is fixed upon the dates principally—we do not read the documents through—as to this declaration purporting to have been signed at Brighton on 22nd September, the same remarks apply to documents which are stamped in blank—the 23rd of October under the new rule would be one day out of date—the document could have been handed in in October, and filled in afterwards.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. Documents out of date are only passed without penalty upon application to the Commissioners for Inland Revenue—the application would come through us principally—there is nothing on the document to show that such application has been made—the document out of date was probably brought before having the Commissioners' name to it; then it would not have the mark, signed only; therefore we do not regard it as an executed document—£5 is the stamp for £1,000—a £3 stamp would cover £600—we are obliged to stamp upon the value which appears in the deed—the stamp upon £600 would be accepted provided the altered consideration from £1,000 to £600 applied in the deed itself—an alteration in collateral documents would not be sufficient—such a matter would come before the solicitors in the Adjudication Department—this date in this deed may have been altered from 1887 to 1888—deeds are prepared one year, and not executed till the following year.

Re-examined. With the original date upon it in 1887 the deed could not have been stamped on 27th March, 1888, without penalty—it is the duty of an attesting witness to attest any alteration in date—there does not appear to be anything to denote such an alteration.

HARRY HOCOMBE . I am a solicitor of 2, Chapel Street, Bedford Row—on 10th December, 1888, Manning came to my office—he said his name was James Rimell, of the firm of Debenham and Co., of 210, Strand, and of Brighton, auctioneers and surveyors—he said, "I have purchased a reversionary interest, and I am desirous of morgaging it," or words to that effect—we discussed the matter—I had before me short particulars of the reversionary interest, with the ages and amount, upon a half-sheet of notepaper, which he either handed me then or had sent to me—I said I did not think it would bear an advance of more than about £450—he said, "I would rather sell it"—I think the amount asked was £750 or £800—he said, "I will send you an abstract of my title"—at the interview he agreed to accept an advance of £450—he said the owner was Henry Camm—I am not sure whether he said so at the interview or subsequently—his clerk Fisher brought the abstract shortly afterwards—a correspondence ensued—I addressed my letters to James Rimell, 210, Strand, and the replies came from there signed "Debenham and Co.," and referred to "our Mr. Rimell"—it was first arranged that Mr. Richardson, and ultimately that Mr. Waltham, should advance £450 upon

it—Fisher brought this lease of 27th January; these two declarations; the Paymaster's certificate of fund in Court; office copy stop order on the fund in Court; and office copy of the will of Henry Camm deceased—an appointment of 23rd October was made for completion—I read the draft mortgage under which Mr. Waltham was to advance the money, prepared by Mr. Scholes, for perusal—there was a discussion about the costs in re Camm between me and the prisoner—I wrote and said that the mortgagee's solicitors wished to be satisfied as to the amount of costs, as it would depreciate the security if the costs were heavy—in answer I received this letter of 16th October, signed by A. F. Benning, and with the printed address, 210, Strand; the prisoner had mentioned Mr. Benning, and I had seen the name on the documents—Rimell said Benning was the solicitor in the suit of Re Camm deceased. The letter stated that the costs would not exceed £100)—on 23rd October the prisoner called at my office in the morning—I said, "Oh, Mr. Benning, Mr. James Rimell here is mortgaging the reversionary interest which he has purchased of Mr. Henry Camm for £450, and it becomes necessary, as I understand you are the solicitor in the suit of Re Camm, that you should satisfy the mortgagees' solicitor that the costs do not exceed £100"—at that time there was a balance of some purchase money to be paid into Court—Mr. Benning said, "Yes"—I alluded to his letter—he said, "Yes," and I handed the prisoner the engrossment of the mortgage for him to sign—I addressed the prisoner as Mr. Rimell—Mr. Benning was standing there—he did not say, "That is not Mr. Rimell—Mr. Benning would have taken the prisoner through a statutory declaration, but I said, "If you have been Mr. Rimell's solicitor, you cannot take it," and he said, "Oh, no," seeming to recollect—the declaration commenced, "I, James Rimell"—he was about to hand it to Mr. Benning, and Mr. Benning put forward his hand to take it (This was a declaration that the vendor had not charged or assigned his interest)—I said, "You cannot do it, as you have been his solicitor"—the prisoner read it through, said it was correct, and took it away—I said to Mr. Benning that I would be glad if he would attend the appointment to complete at two o'clock—he said he would—he did not attend—a telegram reached me during the completion—the prisoner read the mortgage at the first interview, and executed it at the completion at Mr. Scholes' office, in the name of "J. Rimell"—I attested it—Rimell gave the address, "2, Prince Albert Street, Brighton, in the county of Sussex, surveyor"—the £450 was handed to the prisoner by Mr. Waltham, less the mortgage costs, in my presence.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I did not enter into this matter in consequence of an advertisement—the security was mentioned to me in the first instance by my father—I think he saw the advertisement—the property Camm would become entitled to is about £1,250—I think £450 was as much as it would bear to sell—about 50 per cent, would be according to the Government tables—it would fetch between £500 and £600.

Re-examined. I was acting for the prisoner unfortunately—he never gave me any indication of ever having been a solicitor or solicitor's clerk—I received scale costs under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, £7 0s.

THOMAS WALTHAM . I instructed my solicitor to advance upon mortgage of a reversion on 23rd October last £450 to the prisoner—I was present.

FREDERICK HARRISON DINN . I am cashier at the Chancery Lane Branch of the Union Bank of London—I produce certified copy of the account of W. H. Manning—there is still a small balance; it was opened in March, 1888—on 24th October, 1888, there is a payment in of £415—Manning described himself in the address book as a solicitor, 11, Clement's Inn.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. In May the balance was between £220 and £260—in June from £191 to £400—in August, September, and October £100 to £415—in November between £200 and £265—it was a good current account for the time.

Re-examined. On 24th October, before the payment in of £415, the balance was £29 8s., then by 21st December the balance is £6 7s. 10d.—the cheques produced were given by the prisoner.

EDMUND SEALE . I am a tailor's cutter, of 2, Prince Albert Street, Brighton—in September Rimell took offices there as Debenham and Co.—Mr. Maxwell came first—I have since heard Maxwell is Terry—the name put up was "Debenham, Maxwell, and Co.," and "The London and Provincial Trade Protection Society" on the door outside—I never saw Mr. Rimell there—letters came for Mr. Rimell, which the detectives took—Manning used to come—letters came for Manning or Debenham and Maxwell—they were left till they called the next day—the letters were sent elsewhere by their instructions after the men were taken prisoners—I did not see what business was being done.

AUGUSTUS MORPHEW . I am a sergeant-major in the medical staff quartered at Norwich—on 22nd September I was at the Norwich Military Station Hospital—the book produced contains entries under different heads of persons employed in the hospital—on 22nd September I recognise Camm's writing—there are six entries—only four men and a sergeant were off duty at Norwich at that time—anyone on leave would have a pass—I have the counterfoils of passes for that day—there is none to Private Camm on that day, nor between 12th September and 29th November, or I should have had the counterfoil in my possession.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I know Camm's writing—I have been five months with him at Norwich—this signature does not appear to be carefully enough written for Camm—it is too leaning a hand and too confused [the £300 reversion]—I never saw his name written in such a muddled way as that [the receipt], it is all blots—it is over an adhesive stamp, and looks as if it had run.

HARDY TOPHAM . I am a commissioner to administer oaths and solicitor at Brighton—I have not seen Camm, who is present, as a declarant at Brighton—he was not there on 22nd September—the prisoner is like the person who made the declaration of that date—I have been subpœnaed here by both sides.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I was not called at the Police-court—I recognise the declaration by its being in a torn and dirty condition around the edges—I did not notice any alteration, or I should have initialled it—the declarant and the declaration were dirty—the signature "H. Camm" was on it when it was brought—it was not signed in my office.

EDWARD GRAHAM FISHER . I am a solicitor's clerk—in February, 1888, I was employed by the prisoner at 11, Clement's Inn, Strand—on the door were the names of J. H. Silburn, Debenham and Co., Peacock, the Musical and Dramatic Agency—the Steamboat Company was put up in June—the

earlier part of this declaration is Manning's writing, the numbered paragraphs are in mine—[Declaration of 23rd November, 1887]—the last two paragraphs are Manning's writing—the name is my writing, and to the 5th and 6th Paragraphs—the address is in Manning's writing and 7th and 8th paragraphs—I wrote by Manning's instructions—I cannot explain why it is dated 23rd November as the day of completion—I know Mr. Peacock's writing—this letter is written by him, in which Rimell is to succeed him as tenant, and referring to Benning and Silburn—people coming to see Silburn saw Manning—I do not know the writing in the body of the letter of reference—the signature is Manning's—this reference from 7, Quality Court, is Benning's writing—the "F. J. Rimell" in the agreement of 24th May, 1887, is Manning's writing—the two references from Benning for Debenham and Co. as to 210, Strand, are my writing by Manning's instructions, from 17, Commercial Road, Peckham, where I used to live—Debenham and Silburn I knew as Manning—Benning used to come to Clement's Inn daily in February—he used to occupy the room at the back of Manning's—the rooms communicated.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. February, 1888, was the first time I saw Manning—I continued at Clement's Inn till about the middle of July—I heard J. H. Silburn was a solicitor in business in the North of England—the business at Clement's Inn was done in his name—his London business was sold in 1888 to Smith and Ryden—I heard of that soon after I went there—Manning entered Smith and Ryden's service as managing clerk—I remained at 11, Clement's Inn till the distress was put in for rent—I heard of Manning's leaving Smith and Ryden's, and taking offices at Brighton with another gentleman as Smith and Maxwell, he did not tell me himself for some time—then I heard of his arrest—the police came to me—I do not remember the police saying they were considering whether they should charge me—I was told afterwards by Inspector Conquest that I stood a very good chance of being charged—Conquest asked me what evidence I could give—I am not aware that I was kept in custody one day—I was hard up when I went into Manning's employment—I had previously been a soticitor's clerk—the last place was with Messrs. Kerly, of Great Winchester Street—I left their service the previous November—I know Frederick Rimell—Mr. Manning acted for his brother—I believe I saw the declaration at Bow Street—I do not think it was before I gave evidence—I was at the Treasury about an hour—I do not remember being shown the declaration then—Conquest was there—I went there with him—the name Henry Camm is my writing, but the address and the description is Manning's—the signature of the declaration at Aldershot is Benning's—"Declared at Aldershot" is Manning's writing—I had not seen Camm till I saw him at Bow Street—I have no recollection of writing the declaration except judging from the writing—I do not think it was signed when I filled it up by Henry Camm or by Benning—I quite understand if it had I should have been guilty of forgery.

Re-examined. That does not make me doubtful that I did fill it up—that is Frederick Rimell (pointing to the person) of Green Lanes, Penge—I was sent by Manning to buy the furniture at the distress—I did buy it—I saw it afterwards at 210, Strand, where Manning was carrying on business as "Debenham and Co.," with "London and Provincial Trade Protection Society" on the door—the endorsement "J. H. Silburn" is from a stamp used in the office.

ARTHUR HOPE RYDEN . I am a partner of Mr. Smith, of 35, Lincoln's Inn Fields, solicitors—in January, 1888, I purchased the business which purported to be Selburn's—I negotiated with the prisoner—I paid him £500 for it.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I never saw Selburn; I wrote him once—I have some doubt about his being a solicitor practising in the North of England.

FREDERICK DINN (Re-examined.) This cheque for £500 was paid into the bank to Manning's account, with a £10 note [from Smith and Ryden ].

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. Manning did not pay out a cheque to Selburn—a cheque was drawn for £500—I cannot say if a cheque was drawn to Selburn for any sum less than £500—the custom is to return cheques to the bank.

JOHN CONQUEST (Police Inspector, Criminal Investigation Department). I arrested Manning on a warrant at Brighton on 17th November—he was detained by the Brighton police, not on this charge—I found a number of documents on him, and in his bag at his lodgings—the Treasury have them—among the documents was a letter from Mr. Hocombe, addressed to Mr. Rimell, 2, Prince Albert Street, Brighton—the other documents had reference to another case.

Tuesday, February 12th.

HENRY CAMM (Re-examined by MR. BOMPAS). These are my genuine signatures to cheques I drew and to letters and receipts—these are my letters to Mr. Hawkins with my signatures—I believe I swore again and again at the Police-court that I had not signed any parchment document; I did not say anything about the conveyancing deed at that time.

By MR. MATHEWS. This letter from the Colchester Soldiers' Institute was about the sale of 7, Macaulay Buildings—it was sold under an order of Court; the prisoner acted as my solicitor in the matter.

Witnesses for the Defence.

WILLIAM DE GREY BIRCH . I am in the Manuscript Department of the British Museum—for upwards of twenty-four years I have made the study and comparison of handwriting—I have been shown a number of letters purporting to be written by the witness Henry Camm—I have also been shown this parchment document with the signature of Henry Camm upon it—I have compared that with the admitted signatures, and I believe it is written by the same man who wrote those letters—I am prepared to give my reasons—I have analysed the handwriting.

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. In the parchment deed of 27th January, 1888, I see an alteration in the date, in the word "eight" of eighty-eight—I have not studied the prisoner's handwriting, I have only studied the signatures—I see two erasures in the words £210; it is scratched out with a penknife, not particularly carefully or effectually—I see some figures, 27-1-88, immediately under the signature—I should not like to say whether the "2" has been altered, it is not written so nicely as the others—it may possibly have been made out of the figure 1; it has that appearance—I should not like to swear it—I cannot tell in whose handwriting those figures are—the "8" in this receipt of 25th February, 1888, looks as if written by the same hand—if this is Manning's, the date on the deed would also be his—I find a seal on the deed; it has a monogram, "W. H. M.," which would be the initials of William Henry Manning—I was first consulted in this matter last Saturday; I was told that I should probably be called as a witness—I don't think I was given

any samples of the handwriting of Mr. A. F. Benning—I did not know that the accusation was made that the signature purporting to be that of Henry Camm was in the handwriting of Benning—I have not examined it with that object; I was not told that was an object I might have in view—looking at this letter of 16th October, I see dissimilarities in the "m's" between this and the signature to the deed; I see some similarities in the formation of the "H"—nothing distinctly characteristic—I should say the capital H's were not written by the same person; I see dissimilarities—I would not say that there is a space between the "H" and the "e" in the disputed signature; they are connected, but certainly apart—in these test samples (produced) of Benning's handwriting there is a break between the capital letter and the next—the tail of the "y" in "Henry" runs up above the line—I find that also in this receipt of Camm's of 26th February, the "y" in "Quality" runs up and then bends down; I think it a slight deflection; the "y" in "Chancery Lane" in the letter of 18th May is not altogether like it, it goes up in a bent way; there is no turning down, it is slightly curved—the "y" in "Henry" in the attestation clause has every appearance of Benning's—I do not see a strong dissimilarity between the "y" in "Henry" in the attestation clause and the "y" in Henry Camm's signature—I do not see a similarity between the "y" in the signature by Benning, and the "y" in the disputed signature—in the test signature there is a space between the two first letters—I have had none of Benning's a writing before me till this morning, nor any of Manning's except this account to Russell, that was shown me as the handwriting of Manning in part—I was told he had written the first part, down to the fold; not the date, that was written by somebody else—it was given to me that I might know this to be the handwriting a of Manning.

Re-examined. The question put to me was whether I saw anything to lead me to believe that this was not the signature of Camm—I was also asked to compare it with Manning's handwriting; I came to the conclusion that it was not written by Manning, and that it was written by Camm; I had not then been shown any of Benning's handwriting; I have now these two—I have pointed out various points in which I think there is a distinction between the two—that the capital letter is connected in one, though at a little distance, and that there is a blank space in the other—I now think the signature was not written by Benning—I have had 24 letters of Camm's, and, having examined them, I believe this signature was written by Camm—his is a rapid hand; it is not a good hand, I mean not the hand of an educated gentleman.

ALBERT FEEDEEICK BENNING . I am a solicitor and a Commissioner for Oaths—this is my signature to the attestation clause of this deed; the signature "Henry Camm" is Camm's; I saw him sign it—I was asked by the prisoner to go down to Aldershot to take a declaration—I went down with him, and while there I was also asked to attest the signature to a deed, which I did—that was in the coffee-room of the Royal Hotel—this is the declaration I took at that time; there is my signature to it and the stamp after—it is dated 23rd November, 1887; that is the date I did take it, no doubt; there is the date—I took the deed at the same time—I did not notice the date to the deed at all; my attestation would come on a different page—I did the two at the same time in the hotel—it is the most monstrous conception that I forged the signature of Henry Camm.

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. I came from Newcastle to London some six or seven years ago; I cannot give you the date; I should think it would be about 1879 or 1880—somewhere about that, as near as I can guess—my certificate lapsed once or twice; I forget the year—I had it out in 1887; up to 1887 it was out—I took it out in 1887, not at the commencement, shortly after—I have not taken it out since 1887. Q. "As a fact, has your conduct been under investigation ever since 1886 at the hands of the Law Society?" A. "I told you at Bow Street that there was a case pending, and it is a matter I take exception to your mentioning in a Court like this, because it has not been dealt with—it has not been under investigation since 1886; it is just coming on now—a charge has been made against me of allowing an unqualified party to use my name; there is nothing in it—a Master's report has been made against me—he has found that I did allow it, according to his lights—it has all been explained—I say I have no right to have these questions asked me, because they are to be dealt with at the Royal Courts, and anything I say now may be prejudicial to my case hereafter—I plead privilege, on the ground that what I have to say may criminate myself—it might; I don't think anything can criminate me; at all events, it might—I left Devonshire Chambers some two or three years back; I cannot give you the dates—I keep books as a solicitor, but they are not here; I have not made any reference to them since I was at Bow Street—it was about three years ago that I left Devonshire Chambers—I had no office for a time; I think I went from there to Quality Court; that would be about a year and a half ago, somewhere about the autumn of 1887—I suppose I was there for about six months—I then went to 11, Clement's Inn, and occupied a little room there, communicating with that of Manning—that would be in the spring of 1888, as near as 1 can remember—I suppose I was there not more than five or six months, off and on—that would bring me to the autumn of 1888; that is all my remembrance—I have had no office since—I never went to 210, Strand; I have called there, but had no office there—I have done nothing particularly since—I have known Manning some five or six years, I think—I knew him before he went to Clement's Inn—I have known Peacock a very short time—I did not know him before May, 1887—I gave Manning a reference in May, 1887, in the name of Rimell, as being satisfactory and solvent, because Manning came and asked me to give a reference for Rimell, a man I knew very well, and I gave the reference for Rimell 'and not for the prisoner—I went to his office in Clement's Inn simply to take affidavits—there was no idea of that sort at the time—I used to go there from day to day—Manning was then in occupation of those rooms—he had no other place of business at that time that I am aware of—it was in November, 1887, as near as I can remember, that he suggested to me to go to Aldershot—when I was examined before I said I could not tell; the matter had gone out of my mind—I told you at that time I was not accurate as to date—I cannot remember—I said it was in the early part of this year—that would not be so very long back—the early part of one year would not be very far from the latter part of another—I don't remember having said before the Magistrate that my visit to Aldershot was in the early part of 1888; I could not tell the time; I won't say I did not; I might have said so—whenever it was, I went down with Manning—it was somewhere about

eight at night that we got to the Royal Hotel—he asked me to go down to take a declaration—it did not strike me as in the least odd—we went into the coffee-room, and there saw Henry Camm—I believe the deed was first produced, I fancy before the declaration; I did not pay particular attention—the deed was signed after they had had some conversation together, of which I did not take any heed—I can't say whether the deed was read to Camm; he had it in his hand—when the declaration was signed my portion of the work was done; I had nothing further to do—my impression is that I did not go to Clement's Inn before the spring of 1888—the declaration was taken on 23rd November, 1887; I was at Clement's Inn at that time; I had left Quality Court—as attesting witness to the deed, I described myself as of Quality Court—there is nothing in that; I have often done it—I had only just left Quality Court, and any address was sufficient for it; there was no reason for not putting Clement's Inn—I knew Mr. Fisher some years back—he did not come to Clement's Inn till after I had been there—I could not tell you the time, I suppose it was February, 1888—I think that was the first time I saw him there—I don't know how the statutory declaration, dated 23rd November, 1887, came to be in his handwriting; I believe he did some odd work before he came there; he used to do occasional jobs for Manning—that is the only explanation I can give—the time was not impressed upon my mind—the declaration is in two different hands; I can see that very plainly—a portion of it at the top is in Manning's hand, Fisher's for some six lines, and then the other portion in Manning's—I really could not say that this is the document I filled in at the time I went to Aldershot; when the declaration was handed to me I simply signed it and stamped it, and that is the only thing to bring" it to my memory—Q. Explain, if you can, how that document, vouched by you as having been declared before you in November, 1887, is mainly in the handwriting of Fisher, who did not come into Manning's service till 1888. A. That I cannot; I had nothing to do with the drawing of the declaration, I simply took it—I cannot explain it—I pledge my oath that the deed and declaration were both signed by Camm at the same time—on my oath he signed it in the coffee-room of the Royal Hotel at Aldershot—I did not know that at the date purporting to be the date of the deed, 27th January, Camm was no longer at Aldershot; I did not know the date of the deed; it was never shown me—I did not know that he was then at Colchester—I know nothing more than that he signed the deed in my presence—it was my duty as a commissioner to look at the date of the declaration, and to see that the date was correct—I cannot tell you whether the 27-1-88 was there at the time I wrote my signature—I have looked at it in Court before—I wrote my signature as attesting witness there and then in the coffee-room from what I can remember—I explain the difference between the two dates to the deed and the declaration, simply that the date was not filled in the deed at the time it was executed—I can give no other explanation; I know nothing about its contents now—very possibly I was constantly at Clement's Inn in November and December, 1887, and January and February 1888—I was there every day for a time—I daresay that would be the time I was constantly going there—I knew Manning there as managing clerk to J. H. Silburn—I called him Manning—no other name that I know of—"Debenham and Co." was outside the door—I never knew exactly who Debenham and

Co. were—I pledge my oath to that—I gave a satisfactory reference to Debenham and Co. when they were going to 210, Strand, because Manning told me he was going to adopt the name of Debenham—I never meant to convey the idea that I never knew the name of Debenham—he told me then that was the name he wished to take the office in, I meant to say, when the name was put on the door of Clement's Inn—I was not Manning's reference at Clement's Inn—I was a reference for Rimell—I was Manning's reference as Debenham at 210, Strand—up to that time I did not know who Debenham was—at the time I gave the reference I knew he was going to trade under the name of Debenham—I don't know what as—my reference was simply that he was capable of paying the rent, and went no further—I have no more idea than you have why he was going there as Debenham—he went there in July—I was there altogether about five times, I think, and I only saw him about twice out of the five—I did not leave Clement's Inn until up to the time he left, or just a few days before—I was told that a distress had been put in at 11, Clement's Inn—the furniture was seized and condemned under the distress—I knew that Manning had left, owing rent, when I wrote the letter of 10th July; that would not make any difference as long as he paid his rent—I was quite under the conviction at that time that Rimell was the tenant—the mere fact of his not paying his rent is no evidence of his not being respectable—his funds would be all the larger—I hope I am still a member of an honourable calling; I have done nothing to forfeit it, I am perfectly certain of that—The letter of the witness was read, stating, "in regard to Debenham, I believe him to be a respectable and responsible person")—£30 a year was the sum mentioned in the letter to me—I never knew Manning to be going by any other name than his own up to that time—I don't know whether Mr. Camm addressed him as Silburn—he might; managing clerks are often called by their masters' name—he has been addressed as Silburn, but I thought nothing of that—I knew the name of Debenham, but up to that time I had no idea he was under that name; I thought it was somebody else—I never became in any sense a tenant at 210, Strand—Manning spoke to me about some negotiation with a Mr. Hocombe about getting an advance of money—I really forget at what time that was—it was not very long after he went to 210, Strand—he told me he was getting an advance from Mr. Hocombe—I did not clearly understand what it was—I distinctly pledge my oath to that—he told me that Hocombe required some assurance as to what would be the cost connected with the reversion—he did not suggest to me that I should represent the solicitor of the deceased's estate—I did not undertake to do so—he said, "Mr. Hocombe required an opinion from somebody who would be qualified to give it"—on 16th October I wrote a letter to Mr. Hocombe—it is on paper, with "A. F. Benning, solicitor, 210, Strand, corner of Essex Street," printed on it—that was printed without my knowledge and without my sanction; I never saw it till that very night when I wrote the letter, which I admit I did foolishly, because I had nothing to do with 210, Strand; therefore the letter ought not to have been on it—in spite of that I never took possession, or had anything to do with 210, Strand—I had not taken out my certificate then—I have not now—I knew what Mr. Hocombe required at the time I wrote that letter, that was why I put it in that way, "in my belief the costs in

re Camm will not exceed £100"—I don't know who Rimell was—I took it to be Frederick Rimell, who had the back room at 11, Clement's Inn—there are three or four Rimells; I did not know which it was—I might associate the Rimell with the Rimell of Clement's Inn; there is no reason why—I don't know why I was put forward as a person with knowledge and authority to speak on the amount of costs in re Camm deceased; it was simply because I happened to call on him that night; and he asked me to look through the papers and at the figures and what was done; and I declined at first to do so—when I wrote it in that form I was not solicitor in re Camm deceased, to my knowledge—I say if my name was ever used in re Camm it was done without my knowledge; that is what I intended to convey to you—this letter was not done without my knowledge—I was not putting myself forward as solicitor in re Camm deceased—Manning did not tell me on October 23rd that that was the idea on which he was to get the money—he said he was going up to Mr. Hocombe, and he wished me to go up and verify the signature to this very deed—that was how I came to go up there—I don't know whether he took the deed with him; he would have had it in his pocket; I met him, and walked up with him—when we got to Hocombe's I did not see any papers—I did not hear Hocombe address Manning that I am aware of—I could not say what he called him; I did not pay attention—I don't remember—it was not "Mr. Rimell" to my knowledge, I will swear to that—I heard the name Rimell mentioned, but it never occurred to me it was the prisoner—he was going to complete, as I understood—he took me there to verify the deed, as I understood—the assignment was to be made to Rimell—I did not hear Mr. Hocombe address Manning as Rimell—I heard the name Rimell, I do not know by whom spoken; I never paid any attention to the matter—I don't remember Hocombe asking me, "How about these costs, re Camm deceased?" or anything about the costs—I fancy you are making a mistake altogether about the interview—I want to know why I went there, I am quite as much in the dark as you are—I don't remember Mr. Hocombe asking me anything about the costs—I won't swear he did not, because I was not there five minutes—I did not say, "They will not be more than £100, in accordance with the terms in my letter"—the statutory declaration was produced, which was to be taken before me—when I said no papers were produced, I was referring to the deeds which were produced when I first went into the room—I saw something produced; I presume it was a statutory declaration; it was a paper—I did not see the contents of it—it was never in my hands, therefore I don't know the contents of it—I don't know whether Manning was going to declare it before me—I should not have taken it—Mr. Hocombe did not interfere, and say, "That won't do;" it was Mr. Hocombe suggested I could take it, as I was a commissioner—I don't know if the suggestion is true that I could not take it as I was Mr. Rimell's solicitor—I was never asked to take it—in my belief Mr. Hocombe said, "If the gentleman is a commissioner he might take it"—it was never taken by me—I do not see any signature to it—my attention was not called to Rimell's signature—I said I would come back later in the day in reference to this deed—I was to do nothing whatever that I knew of, simply because I had been asked by Manning to attend and certify this deed—another gentleman was to be there as well—I don't know what I was to come back for; I had nothing to do with the matter—I did not

promise; I said I would come back, I don't know why; that was the reason I did not go back—this is my telegram produced), it is to Mr. Hocombe—it says, "Detained at meeting," that is quite true, I was detained at a meeting in the City; it was no consequence my going back, therefore I simply sent the telegram as a matter of courtesy to Mr. Hocombe—I did not under take to go back; if that was all I was required for, it was not sufficient to go back for, and leave something else for it—I have seen this document (produced) once, and once only, when you placed it in my hands at Bow Street—considering I did not see any documents, I can't say whether this was one of the documents taken by Manning when he and I walked up to Mr. Hocombe's on the morning of 23rd October—I did not see any document—it is Fisher's handwriting—I knew Manning about five or six years; I did not know him before 1883; it would be about the commencement of 1883, I think—he has frequently been absent; he was absent for a specific time—when a man can pay his way he is respectable and responsible.

ERNEST WHITE . I am a solicitor's clerk, with Mr. Ricketts, of 3, Paragon, Bath—I have known the prosecutor Camm since a few months before the divorce case against him, which, I believe, was in 1885; I knew him up to the time of his enlisting in 1887—I was intimate with him when he was in Bath; I saw him every week—I have known him well—I am acquainted with his handwriting—I have produced a number of letters written by him and given them to the solicitor for the defence—I saw this deed yesterday; I believe the signature to be Camm's—among the letters I have there is one peculiarly resembling his signature—my firm has been concerned in a lawsuit against him—this is the letter that peculiarly resembles his signature; it is written in French chalk, I believe.

Cross-examined. I used frequently to see him in Bath—I believe he left in July, 1886—I believe I have seen him write in Macaulay's Buildings; I could not swear that I ever saw him write, but I believe I have—I saw him on some of his letters, and he admitted their authenticity—I have seen no more of him since 1887.

By the COURT. I believe I selected this one letter out of five or seven, as being like the signature to the deed.

ANNIE POOLE . I live at a farm near Gloucester, and am a cousin of Henry Camm—I lived with him and his wife for some time before the divorce—I am well acquainted with his handwriting; I have seen him write—the signature to this deed is his.

Cross-examined. I have had a quarrel with him, and have not been on good terms with him for some time—the signature is very like his.

Re-examined. I don't remember what the quarrel was about—I shook hands with him yesterday outside the Court—the quarrel was during my stay at his home.

SAMUEL CORDER SMITH . I am a police constable, of the City of Bath, 27—I was caretaker of the house of Mr. Camm's mother from May, 1886, to May, 1888—he was living in the house for about eleven months of that time—I became acquainted with him and with his handwriting—I have not seen him write—I have six letters which he has acknowledged as his—I think I could tell his signature if I saw it—I think the signature to this deed is his—I remained in charge of the house—Camm was turned out—he was asked to leave, and he had to go.

JOHN COLLINGWOOD CULPEPPER . I am a solicitor—I am not carrying on business at present—I know Henry Camm—he was never in partnership with me; I acted as solicitor for him when he was carrying on business as Cameron and Co., dealing with reversionary interests among other things—I have seen him write more than once, and have received letters from him—I believe the signature to this deed to be his—I have known him many years, since about 1880.

Cross-examined. I first saw the deed at the Treasury about ten days or a fortnight ago—I was in the room about three-quarters of an hour, and about five minutes looking at the deed—I next saw it five minutes ago—I am a solicitor—my name is not in the "Law List"—I have not taken out a certificate, from illness—I last took it out in 1886—I have not been ill ever since, for about six months—I did not take out my certificate for this year, because I am not in practice.

Witness in Reply.

GEORGE SMITH INGLIS . I am an expert in handwriting at 8, Red Lion Square—I had had before me from December last certain documents, which have been here called in question—I have made a comparison between those and certain others which have been handed to me for the purpose of comparison—among them there have been samples of the genuine handwriting of the prisoner Manning and the witness Benning; as to the latter only lately—I have also had these two small books in Manning's handwriting, which contain a number of dates in 1887—I have examined the signature of Henry Camm to this deed of assignment of January 27th, 1888—I have had for the purpose of comparison a number of the undisputed signatures of Henry Camm; about eighteen in number—in my skilled opinion the signature to this deed is not the genuine signature of Henry Camm—it is much bolder than the genuine writing—the "e" in Henry almost touches the "n" following—I have no doubt that the signature of the attesting witness and the words above it are the handwriting of Benning, and in my opinion the "Henry Camm "is in the same handwriting—the figures "27-1-88" are Manning's—I notice an alteration in the date 87, and an erasure at the place where the consideration 210 has been filled in—in the second sheet of the deed the figure 2 in 27 has been altered from a 1 into 2—the figure 8 in this paper of Manning's agrees with the 8 in the deed—the 8 in the deed is darker than that on the declaration—that may be accounted for by the different substances on which the two things have been written.

Cross-examined. The first person who came to me about giving evidence in this matter was the Solicitor to the Treasury—they gave me a book with seventeen or eighteen signatures of Camm's—it was an order book, B 50 I think it is called—I took them to be genuine signatures—I was not told that the signature to the deed was a forgery; I was told to give an opinion upon it—there is a difference between writing on parchment and on note paper—I should not call the writing in the order book a running hand, that on the parchment is a running hand—it depends on the skill of the forger whether running handwriting is more difficult to forge than one that has not so much slope—this "Henry Camm" is a good imitation—I could not have produced a signature nearer than that to it; I could not copy a signature like this without hesitation—with me the hesitation Of the pen would be seen in the signature—it does not suggest itself to me that the signature must have been practised a good deal,

because I see his natural hand in the attesting clause; I mean Benning's—I have seen several letters of his—I have seen the letter of 18th May, 1887, to Taylor and Humbert, and that of 16th October, 1888, to Hocombe, and his two test signatures in Court—I had not seen those test signatures when I made up my mind as to Benning having forged—I have based my opinion on the letters written by him and the writing here—I might not always be able to distinguish between Camm's real signature and the forged one; it might be so good an imitation—I was shown several letters admitted to be Camm's, and hesitated to say whether they were his or not—I can tell which of these is written by Camm.

Re-examined. I desire to examine and consider them before I give evidence on them—I did not feel inclined to pass my word with regard to those letters produced from the prisoner's custody—the first document given to me before I saw anything else was the deed of assignment, and my eye was at once struck by the "amm" in the signature to the attesting clause, and the "amm" in the signature to the document being bold, thick writing and similar—then I saw the letter of 16th November, written by Benning, in which the words occur "in re Camm deceased," and that convinced me it was Benning's writing; the slope is the same, and the "c's" and "a's" are identical—in the signature to the deed the last curl of the "m" runs upwards, and partly round, and turns somewhat back—I find that last stroke turns up and back exactly in the same way in the test names written by Benning at the Police-court—the letter "y" at the end of Henry runs up into the capital "C" of Camm; there is great similarity between it and the "y's" written by Benning in "Quality Court," in "Chancery Lane," in "May," in the letter to Messrs. Taylor, Sons and Humbert, in "Gray's Inn," and in the two test signatures, and in the attestation clause the "y" in "Chancery Lane" and that in the signature are in my opinion by one and the same person.


OLD COURT.—Wednesday, February 13th, 1889.

Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-257
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

257. JAMES HAMOZE COGHLAN (38) and ANTHONY FAWCETT PEACOCK, Feloniously forging and uttering a transfer of forty shares in the capital stock of the Kirkstall Brewery Company, with intent to defraud.


WILLIAM VALENTINE RYDE . I am a clerk in the employment of the Rent Collecting Society, 67, Norfolk Street, Strand—in 1887 we were acting as agents in respect of offices at 16, Tokenhouse Yard, where Peacock occupied offices—he went into possession about the middle of April, 1887, and continued till the end of that year—after that the management of the property passed out of our hands—I could not saw if Peacock's name was outside the door—the name of Foster was on the door of the office that Peacock occupied—I was there once or twice; not beyond that—application for rent was made to Peacock—I believe a solicitor's letter was sent on one or two occasions to get the rent—on November 7th, 1887,

we received this letter from Peacock—This stated that it was important for him to remove to near the Strand, and that he should be obliged if they would relieve him from the tenancy of the office, and that he had procured a tenant of the name of Vaughan, whose reference they had in respect of his occupation of a house at Kensington)—I had heard of Vaughan before, but had not seen him, I think—we had previously made inquiries about him, and as a result of those inquiries we declined to accept Vaughan as tenant.

MARY BUCKLE . I am the wife of James Buckle, of 6, Josephine Avenue, Brixton—in May, 1887, I made Coghlan's acquaintance under the name of Vaughan—about that time he came to stay at our house as a guest first, and remained afterwards as a boarder—at that time I and my husband had Peacock as our solicitor—we went to him at 11, Clement's Inn, and after his removal from there I saw him on several occasions at 16, Tokenhouse Yard—the name of Charles Foster and Co. was up there on one of the doors, and A. F. Peacock, Solicitor, on the other—I have frequently seen Coghlan there; he occupied Peacock's room; he told me he was on the Stock Exchange—I was going away with my husband into Yorkshire for a short holiday, but for some little time before I went I saw Coghlan and Peacock—at that time I was the principal proprietor of the Sale and Exchange newspaper, the publishing office of which was at 282, Strand—Coghlan brought me a letter which he said was from a gentleman who wished to purchase part of the news paper for £1,000; he read the letter to me, and the signature of the writer—I have forgotten the name; I thought it was honest and straightforward, and took no more notice of it—I saw the handwriting of the letter—I believed the contents to be true—Coghlan brought the book from the office showing the cost and profits of the newspaper—Coghlan said if I could get Mr. Buckle to advance me £500 for three weeks, this gentleman would pay him £1,000 in three weeks, and then he would return the £500—I said I would consult Mr. Peacock—I went and consulted Peacock, and he advised me to advance the £500—I mentioned the letter to him, he told me he had seen it before—I said, "We have not got the money"—he said, "Well, you know Mr. Buckle can get a further advance"—we had lent Peacock £100 on June 15th to accommodate him, by taking some deeds to Glyn, Mills and getting a loan of £100—he said, "Well, you can get the £500 by a further advance on those deeds that you have at the bank already if Mr. Buckle would agree to that"—I consulted Mr. Buckle, and he did agree to it if Glyn, Mills would advance the money—at the time another matter was under consideration between my husband and myself with regard to a deed of gift to me of some shares in the Lion Brewery Company at Brentford, and the Kirkstall Brewery Company at Leeds—it had been arranged between us that those shares should be transferred by means of a deed of gift—in relation to both matters we went and saw Peacock on 3rd August at 16, Tokenhouse Yard—Peacock had said, "Tell Mr. Buckle I shall want the shares, because I shall want to take the numbers before I can complete the deed of gift"—my husband accompanied me, taking the shares with him on 3rd August, to Tokenhouse Yard—we saw Coghlan and Peacock together in the same room there—Peacock said, "I want the £500 to-day to put in the Sale and Exchange until this gentleman pays the £1,000; I will go with you to Glyn, Mills, Mr. Buckle, to see if we can get an advance"—he went out with Mr. Buckle; I remained in the office with

Coghlan—they came back with a cheque which Peacock filled up and Mr. Buckle signed—Peacock said, "You had better make the cheque out to Mrs. Buckle," and I endorsed it and passed it into Peacock's own hand with the object I have stated—this is the cheque (produced)—he had no authority to deal with that cheque or its proceeds for any other purpose than that of the newspaper—Mr. Buckle then produced the shares and gave them to Peacock for him to take the numbers, so that he could complete the deed of gift to me—Peacock said, "Leave them with me at the present, I am rather busy just now"—Mr. Buckle said, "I am going away to Yorkshire"—Peacock said, "Very well, when I have done with them I will put them in my bank until you return, and then you can have them"—then Mr. Buckle handed the forty Kirkstall and thirteen Lion Brewery shares, and Peacock took them—Coghlan heard what was said by my husband and Peacock; he was in the same room—soon after we left—my husband went to Yorkshire on 8th August, and I followed him on the 17th—we went to stay with my brother—on 7th September the prisoners came to lunch at my brother's, and went out shooting for a little while—Peacock came back with a long letter from the same gentleman who had offered the £1,000—he read it to me—it said, if I would sell him the whole of my interest in the paper he would pay me £2,000 down—Peacock apologised for delay, but said he had been away—he left Coghlan and Mr. Buckle outside shooting—there was a reference in the letter to the earlier letter—I saw the letter—I do not remember the name of the writer—it was the same name as that of the person who purported to write the first letter, and it was apparently in the handwriting of the same individual—I said, "What do you advise, Peacock?"—he said, "By no means sell your interest in it, Mrs. Buckle; it will make you £1,000 a year in a very short time"—he said this gentleman, who was coming in, was a very clever fellow, and had been accustomed to newspapers, and would very soon make a very good thing of it—I believed him and took his advice, and retained my interest in it—I believed in the genuineness of the letter—Coghlan afterwards came back, and they left together as they had come—they were staying at the Fleece at Thirsk, I think—they said they were on business about a salt-mine at Middlesbrough, and they had called at my brother's on the way—I remained at Thirsk till 17th September, and then returned to London—at the end of September, or the early part of October, I saw Peacock at the Sale and Exchange office—I asked' him about the £500, and he said the gentleman had not paid it, but it would be all right—Coghlan told me about that time that they were spending about £5 a week in advertising; and I went to the office and spoke to Sharman, the editor, and got information from him—Coghlan had left our house then, I think, and was with his wife—he left at the early part of October, I think—quite at the end of October Peacock came to the Sale and Exchange office and said, "Mrs. Buckle, that villain Yaughan has got this place (meaning 282, Strand, the newspaper office) insured for £500 in his own name; before you leave this afternoon get a new lock put on the door so that he cannot come in, because he means to set fire to the place to get the money; he has also got the business into a great deal of debt"—I sent out for a locksmith on that day and had a new lock put on—an insurance policy in the name of J. Vaughan was in the drawer of the safe in the office—I tore it up and put it in the fire—this receipt for the payment of the premium of the insurance was given me—

at the same interview I said, "How about that money, Peacock; that £500?"—he said, "Well, I am very sorry to tell you, Mrs. Buckle, there never was such a man"—I said, "well, how about those letters?" and he said, "Those letters were concocted by Yaughan to get the £500 from Mr. Buckle"—I said, "They are not in Yaughan's writing"—he said, "He can write a dozen hands; in fact, I never met such a clever villain in my life"—I said, "How could you do it, Peacock, when we have trusted you so much and befriended you on so many occasions?"—he said, "Mrs. Buckle, if you will only trust yourself to me, I have done with that villain, and you shall not lose one penny of the money. We have bought a patent of a horse protector," and he said he should get £3,000 paid down in January, and he would then return the £500—I allowed the matter to stand over—on 10th January, 1888, Peacock handed me some shares in the Nylstroom Gold Mining Company as security for the £500 until he paid me—he handed me at the same time a transfer of the shares, signed by Coghlan—he said, "I will give you these to hold as security, but don't put them in the market; they are at a very low figure just now. I will tell you when to sell"—we did not receive any dividend from the Lion Brewery, and we could not understand how it was; I wrote, and they sent me a card to tell me that Mr. Buckle was no longer a shareholder—on 2nd March I sent my editor to the office of the Lion Brewery—he brought back certain information—on that I went to see Peacock, whom I saw coming up Norfolk Street with his clerk—his office was then in Norfolk Street—I held the paper which I had received about the shares being sold, in my hand, and said, "Good God, Peacock, what does this mean?"—he said, "What, Mrs. Buckle?"—he shook so—I said, "Those shares"—he turned to his clerk and said, "You can go on,. Simpson"—his clerk went on—Peacock said, "I will go on with you, Mrs. Buckle, to the office, and tell you all about it"—we went into the editor's room at 282, Strand; he asked the editor to leave, as he wanted to speak to me privately—the editor left—Peacock said, "I am very sorry indeed for you, Mrs. Buckle, you have had so much trouble, but it is that Vaughan who has led me into this; the shares are not sold; Yaughan broke into my drawer, took them out, and got money on them at the bank, and I knew nothing at all about it; but if you will tell me what the dividend is, I will give you a cheque for the dividend, and before the next dividend is due I will redeem the shares; for Gods sake don't name it to a living soul, Mrs. Buckle, or it will ruin me "—I promised him I would not—he gave me a cheque then for £22 15s—but it was so indistinctly written, his fingers shook so, that they refused it at the bank, and I had to get another one from him—I said to him, "Where are the Kirkstall Brewery shares, then?"—he said, "I am afraid they have gone the same way, but don't trouble; I will redeem them all before the June dividend is due"—he told me not to name it to Mr. Buckle or anyone; and I promised I would not—between the time of my coming back from Yorkshire and this interview in March I had asked him about these shares; and he said, "They are at the bank, and I forgot them when I was down"—he promised again and again to bring them—I mentioned it three or four times, and said, "Mr. Buckle would be more comfortable if you would get them, and give them to him"—he said he would do so, but he never did—I don't think I asked him about the shares between the conversation in October, when he told me he had

discovered what a villain Peacock was, and the 2nd March—I cannot say whether I did or not; I believe I did in November, and told him Mr. Buckle would be more comfortable if he got them; which he promised to do—I cannot say positively, but I believe that took place in November—I generally met him at 282, Strand; I have called at his office several times, and he has generally been out—after his request I kept the matter to myself—on 2nd March he told me the Nylstroom shares were worthless; there was no gold mine at all; that the affair was got up by Vaughan writing letters to Pretoria, where he said he had a brother, and he had someone there to repost the letters home, and that was how he formed the gold mining company with his own letters, and that when he had all the money subscribed, £10,000, he wrote a long paragraph and sent it out to Pretoria to be put in the paper there, announcing the death of his brother, and Peacock said he had a paper with the paragraph, and he could transport Vaughan any day on that account alone—he said Vaughan never had a brother there at all; the letters were nothing else but his own writing, and there was no gold mine—Peacock said he would be sure to pay the money himself back again; that he was getting a mortgage from Hewetson for £4,000, and he said he should have so much for himself, and he would repay us then—he said Vaughan had got a gentleman with £2,000, but he wanted £8,000 or £10,000 to get new machinery—that was before he told me the shares were worthless; it was when he handed me the shares as security—on 5th April, 1888, I believe it was Peacock sent me a letter to say he had heard I had been saying something about him—I went to the Sale and Exchange office and into the editors room and saw him—he said, "Mrs. Buckle, I hear you have been saying things against me that you have no right to"—I said, "Who gave you the information, Peacock?"—he did not tell me, but said he would not be doubted, and that I was to be very careful what I said or he would make our law expenses come to £2,000, and he said, "You know it lies in my power to do that"—I said, "Is this the way you are going to repay us for all our kindness to you in lending you money and all that? You villain, do your best and do your worst; I am prepared for it all"—we have lent him money frequently, in addition to the £500, when he has been in difficulty—I then went and placed my affairs in the hands of Messrs. Carritt and Sons, solicitors, and left them to negotiate with Peacock—I got back none of the £500—Peacock told me Vaughan got it; he said he handed him the cheque—I forget when he told me that—I never gave either Peacock or Coghlan any authority to deal with those shares.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I have been sole proprietress of the Sale and Exchange for perhaps two years—I am not aware that my husband was the registered proprietor—my son Charles was managing the paper between January and May—I gave him authority, if he knew of any one, to treat for the sale of the paper—you came to Brixton as a visitor for a week or so—there was mention of Mr. Sharman, not you, being the purchaser of the Sale and Exchange—at your suggestion the terms were altered from visitor to lodger—you said you did not care to stay any longer without paying me something, and in August, after you got the £500 I believe, you settled to pay me 12s. a week—you paid £6 5s. by cheque—I never had a second instalment—after my return from Thirsk I did not arrange what I owed you—I do not remember money matters being talked about—I wrote to you after you left—I do not remember

insisting on returning small amounts you had lent the servants during my absence—I left them cash for some tradespeople—you told me you had made the cook a present—I did not insist on returning it—I left the negotiations with Sharman about the paper in May, 1887, in Peacock's hands, being my solicitor—he told me he would do anything right between me and Sharman—Sharman bought some part of it on 31st May, 1887—you generally did all the talking—I think I only saw him on two occasions—I had not discussed the matter with him before—I knew nothing of him in February—I know nothing of the letter of March 3rd—I was not aware that Sharman had then been editor of the paper for a month—I know nothing of him being your agent, or that he signed the deed on your behalf, because of the obstreperous conduct of my son Charles—Sharman was to have six parts of the paper, but I never under stood; I always looked to Peacock, who said he would arrange—£1,500 was to be paid in three years; so much per quarter—deposit was to be paid—I got £3, and then £2, and then £20—I received £50 as share of profits, under the agreement in August, I think, through you or Peacock—I think you gave it to me in Peacock's office—I received £2 5s. 6d. before that as share of profits—I am not aware that in July, 1887, your name and mine were jointly Registered as proprietors of the paper—I did not know what position you held on the paper; Sharman told me he was manager and editor—I will swear you had nothing to do with the paper till after May, 1887, in spite of your letter—you went to the newspaper office in the morning to open letters, and look after the cash; that was after May when Sharman went there—I was not responsible for the payments at the office then; I was to receive so much, and have no trouble—you told me you had spent £5 a week in advertising—you said you had met the gentleman who was going to purchase a share in the paper on the Stock Exchange; I never heard that it was in answer to the advertisement, or that there had been a lot of replies—you wrote, offering to take two shares—if you did not form a syndicate in a certain time all was to come back to me—Sharman told me that he bought it to form a syndicate—it was to come back to me if the syndicate was not formed—Sharman can tell you more than I can—he gave me back the contract after Peacock told me you were a villain, leaving me the same as I was before, as they had failed to form the syndicate—it all fell through—you said the gentleman wanted two-sevenths, and would Mr. Buckle advance £500 for two weeks until you got him, as he would be one of the syndicate—you represented that if I advanced £500, as soon as the gentleman paid his £1,000, then £500 should be paid off at Glyn, Mills—that would be in July, I think, because you got the money on 3rd August—you did not say the gentleman said that if the paper was worked up and the circulation increased to a certain number he would put in £1,000 for half of it, or three-sevenths—I never heard that you were agreeable to £500 being set aside to repay any money you had spent in working up the circulation, and any money left being devoted to paying off the quarterly instalments in advance—I say the paper was self-supporting from your statements—you brought the book and showed the weekly profits, I think—I was not aware large sums were going on as credit—I never heard Peacock say that he had spent £150 or £200 more than had been received at the office—I cannot say whether the paper had ever been self-supporting—I am sure I

saw you at Thirsk on 7th September—I do not remember what transpired about £2,500 of my City and County Bank shares—after the transfer was signed you said, "Now, Mrs. Buckle, take my advice; sell every one of those out, because I should like you to buy an interest in theatre, which will pay you 10 per cent."—that was at Thirsk—Mr. Buckle signed a transfer of £2,500 City and County Bank shares to me at Thirsk—those shares had not been sold by Mr. Walker, of York, at that time, by my instructional—there was no selling by him of those shares till October—the deed of gift which had been prepared before I left London was not named—Mr. Buckle was not asked to sign it—Peacock advised him to sign it on account of Leighton's case; he said a Chancery suit was pending—I don't know when it was entered into—I think Peacock advised Mr. Buckle to sign it for the interest of both of you; that you might get a little of this money if you were successful; you thought you would get hold of the old woman, as you said—the assignment to me was not on account of £1,000 costs in Leighton's case—I think Peacock suggested something of the kind; that he had better be prepared for it—I cannot say if the Chancery suit has been dismissed with costs against us—I never asked my husband to do it—you used to bring messages occasionally from Peacock about the Chancery action against Leighton—you said you thought it was going on all right, and that he was very sorry we had been robbed so by Leighton, but he would look after us—I confirm the statement about being robbed by Leighton—I have told you the late Sheriff Leighton was in the habit of signing my husband's name to cheques—Mr. Field told me more than once, and he also said they were obliged to send Leighton out of their firm for forgery—that is Field, of Nash, Field and Withers—you brought some horse protectors to Thirsk; you said you had bought the patent and that many of the largest firms were going to use them—I will swear I was not told that £2,500 was paid for the patent out of money obtained from the Union Bank on the Lion Brewery shares—I never heard a word of the kind before—you called to see my cousin—you mentioned you had called on Sellers, of York, with reference to it, and asked him to use them at the gasworks and to speak to the railway people about them—I never said I wanted my brother to make a will, signing everything to me, nor that I was anxious my husband should know nothing about it—my brother was going to will all he had to another brother, because he was very delicate—Peacock drew it on a little piece of paper, and my brother signed it; you may have witnessed it—your object in coming to Thirsk was not to get the £500; you had that before we left London—I never heard that I was to have £750 out of the horse protectors when the patent was re-sold—when I came back from Thirsk you told me you were afraid there would not be so much profit out of the paper, as you had spent £5 a week in advertising, and I went and asked Sharman what he had spent in advertising, and he said, "I think between £4 and £5"—he looked in the book and told me it was not £5 on the whole—I never heard the £5 was spent specially in advertising for a partner—I locked you out of the Safe and Exchange office, and turned away two or three men, and gave Sharman a week's money in lieu of notice, and he handed Peacock the contract—he left me a good many more debts—I was sole proprietor of the paper up to August 7th last year—my suspicions were aroused after speaking to Sharman—Mr.

Leake, a chartered accountant, was instructed to go through the books—I got a copy of his report; he is subpœnaed to attend—I cannot say what the dispute between you and Peacock was about—he said you had a regular row—I knew nothing about payments you had made when I locked you out—I believed Peacock when he told me you had broken into his drawer and stolen my securities—I did not insist on Peacock having you arrested, because it would have involved himself, and therefore he wished me to say nothing about it, and he would replace them—I never inquired which drawer was broken open—I daresay his and Mr. Buckle's papers were kept in a tin box, usually unlocked—I don't suppose he would put the shares there—Mr. Buckle gave the shares into Peacock's own hand in my presence—you never touched them on the day you got the £500—Mr. Buckle kept the shares in his safe in his little workroom—you know where it was—I will swear that the morning after Mr. Buckle went to Peacock's office he did not hand the shares to you in an envelope to take to Peacock—the last day of July or 1st of August you wrote a letter to my servant—I cannot say if at that time the agreement between me and the proposed company for the purchase of the Sale and Exchange was drawn ready for signing—I never had a bill of sale on my furniture—I will swear I did not have a roll of silk which you left in the drawers in your room made into a dress which I wore last July—I did not destroy your College hood and use the silk for ties for Mr. Buckle—I never heard of Mr. Thomas, a solicitor—I had not speculated in Cornish mines—I never spoke to you after you called on November 1st, 1887—I saw you at the Sale and Exchange office about April last year—I said, "Walk out, or I will give you in charge"—you said, "Very well," and went out—that was the day Peacock got a letter from Messrs. Carritt, authorising him to give all my papers up—you did not meet my servant at Holborn Viaduct; she heard you say to your solicitor, "She met me at Holborn Viaduct"—I did not authorise her to say anything to you about these things when she came to meet you—I know it from her—her name is Riley; there is not a more respectable girl in London—when I returned on 7th September it was unexpectedly, and you were surprised to see me when you came down on Sunday morning; you said, "My sister will call here this afternoon, will you say I have been obliged to go to South end?"—a lady called in the afternoon to see you; she was often seen at Tokenhouse Yard, I think—you expected a fine lady was coming to stay in my house, because you thought I was absent—I believed all about the Nylstroom shares; I did not think of going to the office to inquire—Mr. Carritt did not fetch me away from the Police-court when I first went there—I never in my life signed a transfer form for any shares.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. Coghlan once brought me a cheque for £2 5s. 6d., which was very remarkable on his part—the paper is some thing like the Exchange and Mart— Mr. Buckle bought it for my son George in the first instance five years ago—no one can reflect upon his character—Charles was managing the paper, and I sold part of it to him; we had a quarrel over it, but I did not prosecute him, nor did a policeman come—I turned Charles out from the management of it because we rather disagreed in family matters—I do not think I had to supply him with money while he was carrying on the newspaper, nor did Mr. Peacock supply him to my knowledge; I will not swear he did not—Peacock paid the valua

tion, £240, when the offices were changed—he said that it was money which belonged to a client of his, and he could lend it for a short time—I think that was in December, 1887—if he supplied me with £2 on March 6th, 1886, it had been a loan to him before—I have no I O U of his, but I think I lent him some money to take the offices in Norfolk Street—I paid over a cheque to him for £450 in the name of Sharman, who is the manager and editor of the paper—I handed it to Sharman, and he handed it to Peacock, and he paid £100 to open a banking account, and £63 for rent, and £60 for something else, and he sent for me to Ludgate Hill and asked me if I would lend him the balance, as he was going to take this office—I forget what the balance was—I had no security or I O U; I took his word—that was after his quarrel with Vaughan, and after he had made away with the Lion Brewery shares, which I charge him with forging the certificates of, but I did not know the shares were stolen till the dividends were due—I have no proof that I ever lent him one shilling, but Mr. Buckle can prove it—C. A. Buckle is my son—in March, 1886, he was carrying on the paper for me—he is thirty years of age—he is not here—I do not know whether he lent him £2 on June 9th, 1886, or £5 on September 20th; I do not know anything about their affairs—I never lent my son George one penny in my life—he is my younger son; he had a certain sum to come to him when he was twenty-one, and Peacock drew it out, and the poor boy never got anything but £10 and £5—I have never seen a receipt which my son gave for £212 1s. paid to him by Mr. Peacock—he is not here, he is in Africa—I persist in saying on my dying word that Peacock did not pay me the £212—this paper (produced) is a very good imitation of my son Whitehouse's writing, but my son never received this amount—I do not believe Peacock ever paid my son that sum—the signature to this letter (produced) is not James Whitehouse Buckle's—the bookkeeper told me for one week I could not answer for these cheques—this cheque for £10 to James Buckle, on November 11, is £10 which Peacock repaid out of £50 which he had paid Peacock—Mr. Buckle advanced £100 to my son Charles for some arrangement—this is my husband's £10 which he got out of the £50, after going over and over again for' it—these are the items in which the money was paid—I do not know whether this is Charles' writing or not, he has just come from Australia, I do not know whether he is in Liverpool, or whether he has arrived in London with his wife—"December 20th, £240, pay J. Buckle or bearer;" that cheque was drawn for Mary Buckle out of the bank; it was not made out to James Buckle; he had nothing to do with the paper whatever—this "February 4th, 1887, J. A. Buckle, £2 or bearer," is not my son's writing—Mr. Shepheard is a printer; Alexander and Shepheard—these two receipts of his for £9,9s. each are right, the bookkeeper told me so; I had nothing to do with keeping the accounts—this cheque of February 24th, 1887, to Sale and Exchange, is not endorsed by anyone—I know nothing about the cheque for £15 on February 25th, or £9 on February 19th—Peacock used to borrow money of the bookkeeper, and I think part of this is borrowed money—the £2,563 is my money; he paid it into the bank, and I had £600 odd to pay to Glyn and Mills—I sold the shares after my husband had transferred them to me—I know my own writing—this cheque of October 27th, 1887, is for £5—I lent through Peacock £500, and this is the

bonus of £5 which he gave me for the money—this is my signature to this cheque for,£100 by Mr. Peacock payable to me—the cheque for £63. was paid, for rent—James Whitehouse had nothing to do with the paper—this cheque for £122 was paid to me—when the City and County Bank shares were sold, £122 used to be the half-yearly dividend—Peacock said, "Don't tell your husband you have sold the shares; I want you to pay Glyn, Mills; We will make up the amount," and we received £60 instead of £122 10s., and Peacock gave me the balance—I sold the shares without my husband's knowledge; they were mine—Peacock had paid me for them—when the dividend became due, I knew that my husband would want to know the dividend I received, which was £60 instead of £122; and I asked Peacock to give me a cheque for £122, that my husband should not know I had parted with them—I received from the bank £60 and some shillings, and I said, "Now, Peacock, you hold the money belonging to me; give me £63"—he said he would give me the money, and Mr. Buckle should not know anything about it, and I did it to oblige him—the £63 was for rent; that was my own money—I cannot say for my son Charles, but these cheques are not in Whitehouse's signature—I was at Mr. Peacock's office on the morning of August 3rd, before I went with my husband—Coghlan did not say that I was going to give him the shares in the company to carry on the business with—I did not want money at that time—Coghlan was staying at my house at the time, I did not talk over the shares at breakfast with him, nor yet as to the £500—when the dividends were duel did not say, "For God's sake, don't tell my husband, he is fidgeting about the dividend," those were Peacock's words, "For God's sake, don't tell Mr. Buckle,"I was not paying anything for the expenses of the paper in June, July, August, or September; Sharman was managing it; he never came to me for any money—I agreed to sell it to him for £1,500, and then they made another paper, and put £750, I don't know why—that was not done to give it a fictitious value in the eyes of the public—I never could understand it—Mr. Sharman will tell you whether it ever paid its expenses—I decline to say whether I have made it into a company since the forgery—I swore at the Police-court in my information that I gave £500 to Coghlan on August 3rd, but I corrected it as the man was reading it, and he corrected it; I said that I had made, a mistake, and that I gave the cheque into Peacock's hands—Coghlan was not present when Peacock produced the second letter—I did not say in my sworn information that he was—I said that Coghlan was out in the fields shooting at the time Peacock and I were alone in my father's room—I said before the Magistrate, "The statement in my sworn information that both were present is incorrect."

Re-examined. Bryan, the manager, received the money for the news paper—Peacock went to the office of the paper occasionally two or three months before—this document looks like Peacock's writing—I know he rendered an account to my solicitors—on October 24, 1887, he received £450 on my account; a cheque made payable to Mr. Sharman, and endorsed by Peacock—he held that, and he gives me credit in this account for £450—on January 20, when he gave me the cheque for £122 for the dividend on my York City shares, he still held the £450 of mine—part of it had been paid; the rent, £63, and £100 to open the account—he also received on my account £62, the dividend on the shares which

I still had, so that when he handed me a cheque for £122, only £60 of it was his own—he put down £63 for the rent of 282, Strand, and sets that off against the money he has in hand of mine—I have never before to-day seen the two documents put into my hand, purporting to be the writing of James Whitehouse Buckle, to the prisoner—Peacock said that the £500 was to put more capital into the paper to improve it—he con ducted all the negotiations with Sharman as to what he was to pay—if any fictitious papers were put in, it was Peacock's doing.

JAMES BUCKLE . I am the husband of the last witness—in July, 1887, I arranged with her to transfer to her my shares in the Lion Brewery by a deed of gift from me to her—I saw Peacock about it on August 3rd—he was to bring the shares to my office, and I was to take the numbers—on August 3rd I went with my wife to Peacock's office, Tokenhouse Yard, and saw both the prisoners—I gave Peacock the shares; he said that he had taken the numbers, and he would put them into his bank; and when I came from Yorkshire I should have them—I then went with him to my bank, Glyn, Mills, and arranged for an advance on some securities which they held, and brought a cheque form back, which Peacock filled up at his office for £500—I signed it; it was payable to Mrs. Buckle, and she endorsed it—I heard nothing said then or before about what the £500 was for—we then went to Thirsk in Yorkshire—while I was there I received by post from Peacock something purporting to be a deed of gift—this is it produced)—I signed it and returned it—Peacock sent a letter, saying, "Do not date it at all"—there was nothing about shares in it—I returned to London on September 17th, and saw Peacock, and asked him for the share certificates—he said, "They are at the bank, I have not had time to get them out"—I called ten days after, and he said, "I have not had time to get them out, I have been so busy"—I saw him three times, and he said the same every time—these two transfers of shares in the Kirkstall Brewery, signed James Buckle, are not signed by me, nor did I authorise anyone to sign my name or execute this transfer—I never executed any transfer of the Lion Brewery shares which I deposited with Peacock, or authorised anyone to do it—I never knew that such tranfers were in existence till February, 1888.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. When you first went to Brixton as a visitor it was not with my consent and knowledge—I did not tell you that if you waited till I told you to go you would stay a long time—I did not know what you were—I knew nothing about the Sale and Exchange; I had nothing to do with it—Mr. Peacock was my solicitor then—I never spoke to you about him—I had no object in making the deed of gift to Mrs. Buckle, except love and affection—it was not because I was afraid that Leighton's action would be dismissed with costs against me—I never said that the costs would be £1,000, and it would sweep everything away—I never told you that he robbed me up hill and down dale—you had nothing to do with my personal affairs—I did not know that it was necessary for a transfer to be signed before I could convey the shares to my wife—you did not suggest that they would be much safer in my own safe, where I used to keep them—I do not remember counting the Kirkstall shares, and there being 59 instead of 60—I had those at my house all the time I lived at Brixton—I have never seen or signed any transfer forms of the kind—I never had to do with one wherein Mrs. Buckle had to sign with me—before I left home I invited you to come to Thirsk and spend a few

days on your way to the North—I do not know whether I signed any deed of gift—I do not remember signing away 500 of my bank shares—I do not know that Mr. Peacock's business at York was with Mr. John Walker, who had entered into negotiations about selling those shares; that is a private affair, and I think it is out of order—I do not think you paid me any money while you were at Thirsk—you never brought me any communication from the Lion Brewery Company—I never sent from Thirsk to your bank in London a cheque which I held of yours—I never exchanged cheques with you when you were short—I gave you a cheque for £50, and you asked me to hold your cheque for a week—I do not know whether I had ever done that before, or whether Mrs. Buckle was in the habit of doing it—my son George paid for the Sale and Exchange— I do not know who bought the type used at the present time; I had nothing to do with it—I have not been told that if I can convict you of forging these transfers I can demand the money back from the company—that has nothing to do with my allowing myself to be a party to this prosecution—my solicitors did not refuse to be party to police proceedings in the first instance—I went voluntarily to the Treasury to make my deposition, I was never asked to go.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. I had nothing to do with the Sale and Exchange paper—I know my wife and my sons Charles and George and Coghlan had to do with it—I do not know that Coghlan managed it; he took the money—I don't know what money there was to take—I never looked over any books—I don't know how my sons came out of it, or what the £500 cheque was given to Peacock for—I might have given it to my wife to carry on the paper—I voluntarily gave my wife the shares in the York City and County Bank—I do not know where or when it was; I recollect doing it—I recollect Coghlan giving me the £50 in exchange for my cheque—I cannot say when that was—the endorsement on this cheque is not in my writing. This was a cheque of April 13th, 1887, to J.(Buckle) this endorsement is mine. This was the endorsement to" another cheque)—this is not mine The endorsement on a cheque of July 12th, 1887)—these are my endorsements These were to two cheques, one dated November 11th, 1886)—this is not my signature. This referred to the signature to the witness's deposition)—I only went once to Peacock's on the morning of 3rd August, 1887—I don't know what my wife did—I went in the forenoon with her and with no one else—I do not recollect how we went—we saw the prisoners there, no one else—we were there half an hour or an hour, including the visit to Glyn's—we left the shares there—no one was present when we did so—I swear I did not hand them at breakfast-time to Coghlan—I never gave Coghlan any shares in my life; I gave them to Peacock for the purpose of their being transferred to my wife; he wanted" to take the numbers.

Re-examined. I see here on the transfers, "Signed, sealed, and delivered by the above-named James Buckle, in the presence of Charles Foster, accountant, of Tokenhouse Yard"—I have seen Foster there; he is a very old man, as deaf as a post—he was there on the 3rd August—he did not witness the execution of these transfers—on none of the different dates on them did Charles Foster attest my signature; the Charles Foster is in two different writings—I received a cheque for the dividend on the Kirkstall Brewery shares, due in September, at Think I think—it came by post from the City, not from the Brewery—it had

been opened before it came to me—I never received any notice from the Lion Brewery asking me if I had executed a transfer of my shares—I got no such letter.

By the COURT. The signature to the transfers is not mine—I never in my life signed a transfer of forty Kirkstall Brewery shares; I am sure it never happened, so that any transfer that purports to be signed by me must be wrong.

By MR. AVORY. On 3rd September, 1887, I was at Thirsk, and was not at Tokenhouse Yard.

WILLIAM GEORGE WITTINGSTALL . I am secretary of the Lion Brewery, Belvedere Road, Lambeth—as secretary I received on 25th August this transfer of the Lion Brewery shares, purporting to be executed by Mr. Buckle—at that time he was the registered holder of those shares—in accordance with my usual practice I sent the usual form, this is the counterfoil of it, to Mr. Buckle, at 66, Josephine Avenue, asking him whether he signed the transfer, and if he did he need not answer, and the deed would be registered in so many days—I received no answer—I registered the transfer—the next dividend in January was paid to the transferee.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. The dividend for the June half-year was paid on 23rd July, and the next was paid in the middle of February—this is the cheque sent to Mr. Buckle for the June, 1887, dividend; it is dated 23rd July—it would be posted to his registered address, the same as the letter announcing the transfer; the transfer would give his registered address—if a solicitor asked us to transfer certain shares, we should not do it unless we had both share certificates and transfer forms; the numbers would not be sufficient; the shares must be sent—I had no doubt as to this transfer being signed by Mr. Buckle when I received it—I have since compared it with other signatures in my possession—I have no opinion whether it is a forgery or not; I am not an expert in writing—the transfer is dated 6th August—the attestation is not dated.

Re-examined. I cannot give an opinion whether, if the signature is not a genuine one, it is a good imitation.

Thursday, February 14th, 1889.

ROBERT HENRY NUNN . I am assistant town manager at the head office of the Union Bank—in August, 1887, Coghlan had an account there—I produce a certified copy of that account—on 1st August, 1887, it was £61 2s. 8d. overdrawn—on 6th August he brought to the bank a transfer of thirteen Lion Brewery shares, for the purpose of obtaining a loan on them—he signed this printed form of application for £250 for three months—upon his depositing the shares, we credited his account with £250—that was drawn out the same day—on 22nd August I received from him this letter, requesting me to sell the shares, and to make him an increased advance of £100—it is addressed from the National Church Club, 135, New Bond Street—on the 24th we credited him with that further loan—on 7th November, at his request, we advanced a further £100 on those shares; and on 16th November, according to his directions, we sold those shares—I can't say who the transferee was—on that same day we credited his account with the proceeds, £513 10s.—on 4th August £50 was paid in to his account; and on the 9th £55 1s.—his account was closed on 24th February, 1888, by the withdrawal of £2 2s. 2d., the balance.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. It is usual to allow an overdraw of £50 if there is security in hand—up to 10th October there was a surplus of £500 on some Oriental Bank shares, on which we had advanced £400—on account of that we allowed you to overdraw on 1st August—in the ordinary course of things, we should send a notice to the client that the account was overdrawn—we have no fixed rule in that respect—your account was overdrawn on 1st August, but it had been overdrawn to the extent of £62 from 20th July—I cannot tell in what form the £250 was withdrawn on 16th August; I should presume by cheque—on that day you obtained from the bank a letter of credit for Stockholm for £250, payable to Joseph Kitchen.

ALFRED MASON . I am a clerk in the Union Bank, Chancery Lane—I produce a copy of Peacock's account there from December, 1886, which abstracted myself—on 3rd August, 1887, there was a payment in to his account of £250 by a cheque drawn by Coghlan on Brown and Co.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. The account began on 10th December, 1885—on 20th December, 1886, £400 was transferred from current account, and placed on deposit—at the end of that month there was a balance in his favour of £92 15s.—on 13th January, 1887, he paid in £100—on 24th £50 was transferred from deposit to current account—on 5th February £50 was transferred from deposit account—on 11th £35 cash; on 19th £200, the balance of current account was transferred to deposit—we credited him with the interest—on 23rd cash £40—on 1st March, 1887, his balance was £202—on 9th April £50 was paid in, and on the 12th £700—up to 14th May something like £150 was paid in—on 17th June, £100; on 29th June, £70; 12th July there was a sale of £212 1s. Consols; 30th July, £15 13s. 4d.; on 3rd August his balance was £23 1s. 6d. without the £250—from 1st September, 1887, to 12th October nearly £400 was paid in—on 20th August, 1887, his balance was £50 19s. 4d.—on 19th October £1,610 10s. was paid in, and £70 on the same day, and two country drafts, making together £952 12s. 6d.—from the commencement of the account in 1885 to December, 1887, I should think he paid in quite £10,000—I cannot tell what cheques were for Sale and Exchange, and have not got it down here—our ledgers contain no items of particulars—our cash book would tell the names of the payees—it would take too long to tell now, the pass book would give the particulars of the cash book—if Sale and Exchange is there it would be correct.

Re-examined. "We could not say it was paid to Sale and Exchange, the drawer can put what name he likes—if it was drawn "Sale and Exchange or bearer," we could not say to whom it went—I cannot tell how much of the total paid in by Peacock was Mr. and Mrs. Buckle's money—I cannot say whether the £700 on 12th April was put to his credit on securities of Mrs. Buckle's; it is merely entered as cash to his credit—the £1,600 on 19th October, 1887, was a country draft payable at York—there were two country drafts of £952 12s. 6d., £958 16s., and other amounts which added together make £2,563 2s. 6d.—on 21st October there is "Pay Buckle £2,563 2s. 6d."—on 1st September, 1887, we have a cash entry of £30, consisting of six £5 bank notes.

ALISTER LOW . I am a stock and share broker, and have offices at 16, Tokenhouse Yard—I am not a member of the Stock Exchange—I know both the prisoners as Vaughan and Peacock; Vaughan trading as

Foster and Co. in the same building with mine—I knew them shortly after they took offices there; I was introduced to them by the gentleman who let them the offices, Mr. Jacobs, the auctioneer—somewhere about the commencement of August, or it might be the latter end of July, Vaughan offered me some Kirkstall Brewery shares for sale—I believe he said he had got twenty, or it may have been forty—I should think it was twenty at that time—he said that he had them for sale, and asked me if there was any price—I said as far as I knew there was no price; they were not quoted on the Stock Exchange, but I would inquire and see if there was any price—I did inquire—I saw him afterwards, and told him there was no price at that time—I subsequently bought them—I saw an advertisement in a paper, I think the Financial News—I have not got it—I did not sell those shares for Vaughan; I bought them from Vaughan on August 30th—I had not had them in my possession before that—I paid £50 for them, at £2 10s. each—I paid in bank-notes—I have a banking account—I paid in cash because Vaughan asked me to do so—I received the twenty certificates—I saw this transfer, purporting to be executed by James Buckle, in the presence of Charles Foster, of 16, Tokenhouse Yard—next day Vaughan said he had twenty more Kirkstall shares, which I eventually bought on September 2nd for 85s. each—I paid for them the same day in bank-notes, because Vaughan requested it, £170 altogether—I received this transfer, purporting to be executed by Mr. Buckle, in presence of Charles Foster—before I purchased the first lot I had seen Peacock, I saw him principally in Vaughan's office, Foster and Co.'s office—there were three rooms there all leading out of one another, the clerk's office, an inner office opening from that, and another office opening out of that—it was about two o'clock on the 1st when I paid the £50—I had seen Peacock several times before that—nothing was said by him to me about the Kirkstall shares—it was mentioned in his presence; I don't know what was said—it was simply a matter of ordinary conversation between Vaughan and myself about the sale of the shares—I can hardly say as to which particular bargain it was; it was about one of the bargains—I don't think Peacock was there when I paid the £50—I can't tell whether he was there that day—I can't say that I saw him on 1st September—I really don't know; I think Peacock was present when I paid the £170—when I paid it, Coghlan handed me this transfer for the forty shares—something was said about this time about Lion Brewery shares, or a little later on—Vaughan had some of those shares, and asked me if I could take them; I could not get a price, and therefore I did not take them—I did not draw a cheque for £170—I borrowed the money from a friend, as Vaughan wanted cash, and I repaid the loan on the 7th, to Mr. Reynolds, of Angel Court, Throgmorton Street—some time in October I took this letter from Coghlan (produced) to the Union Bank with my card, and got from the bank a £500 note, which he had been talking of that morning—I gave a receipt for it on the back of the letter which Coghlan gave me—it was not signed in my presence—I acted on it, and so did the bank—I did not take the bond back to Coghlan—I took it to the Oriental Bank; I think a gentleman from the Oriental Bank went round there with me.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. There was not the slightest secrecy about it; you told me you had been attempting to sell them on the Stock Exchange—there is more free dealing outside the Stock Exchange than in this class

of security—there was not the slightest attempt on your part to observe secrecy—you often met me when you were with Peacock, and the question was asked, "What about Kirkstall, any price?"—according to my ledger the cash was paid on the 10th—my contract for the 40 shares was dated September 7th for cash—you had the contract on September 2nd—you did not tell me that the shares belonged to a client of Mr. Peacock's—you said he was obliged to bring the cash in notes—I did not put the notes into your hand or in a desk—I don't know Mr. Foster—I was always under the impression that the office was yours—I have seen an old gentleman in the office, I thought he was your clerk—I was accustomed to see Mr. Peacock there—I always thought you traded as Foster and Co.—I noticed the names of the attesting witnesses, and saw they were in order—the transfer was in order when I first saw it—I did not know the value of the shares, but I had an offer on which I based my offer to you—it is just a question what you can get for these shares.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. I said before the Magistrate that I knew nothing about Peacock in regard to this transaction; that is a month ago—this case had only just been brought before me; I was only subpœnaed the evening before—I believe Peacock was there when the £170 was paid—I very likely said before the Magistrate that I paid £50 by cheque, as I did draw a cheque for it—I paid in notes, but I drew a cheque for £50, and I have just explained that I borrowed the £170—this is the counterfoil, "Cheque, £50"—it was a cheque on myself really, „ and I cashed it for the purpose of giving him the notes—I don't think Peacock said anything about it.

Re-examined. Whether Peacock said anything about it or not, my recollection is clear that he was present when the matter was discussed—I said before the Magistrate, "I believe Peacock was present when I told Vaughan the shares were sold"—I told Vaughan I bought the shares, and handed him the contract—I believe Peacock was present—I went on to say, "I cannot say to which lot of shares that refers; I should say the latter"—I also said, "I believe Peacock was present when I paid Coghlan £170 in bank notes at Coghlan's request"—I was only subpœnaed the evening before, and was called the next afternoon—as far as I saw Coghlan did not take any steps to conceal this matter from Peacock.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I think I paid the cash on September 3rd—I did not repay the £170 till the 10th, and that is the only thing in writing—I don't think I handed you £20 with the contract note, and subsequently added £150—I said before the Magistrate that it was on the 7th, as it was according to the contract—probably it was some day between the 3rd and 7th—my belief is that I paid those bank notes on"September 3rd.

FRANK LOMATH . I am a clerk at the Birkbeck Bank—Coghlan opened an account there on 3rd August, 1887, by the payment in of £100—he gave as a reference A. F. Peacock, 16, Tokenhouse Yard.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I have here a copy of the account—on 4th August a cheque for £52 5s. 7d. was paid to the order of Mr. H. R. Sharman—the address you gave was 282, Strand—I believe our bank advertises in the Sale and Exchange—we do not return our customers' drafts.

Re-examined. The account lasted from August 3 one year to 13th August the next year—about 44 drafts were returned dishonoured.

EDWARD GRAHAM FISHER . I have been engaged as a solicitor's clerk for some years past—I know Peacock—I first knew him at 11, Clement's Inn—he had offices there previously—he had no office there at the time I knew him—I knew he had an office there, but I did not enter his service till afterwards—I know Coghlan; he used to call at Clement's Inn occasionally—I was then employed by Mr. Manning—I know Coghlan's handwriting—I had heard him called Coghlan—I had also heard him called Vaughan—looking at these two transfers of Kirkstall Brewery shares I believe they are in Coghlan's writing, from writing I have seen of his—I also believe the attestation in the name of Charles Foster, Tokenhouse Yard, to be his writing, also the attestation to the transfer of the Lion Brewery shares.

GEORGE SMITH INGLIS . I have devoted many years to the study and comparison of handwriting—I have had before me in this case a number of documents in the handwriting of Coghlan—I have compared those documents with these transfers of the Kirkstall and Lion Brewery shares—the name, profession, and address in the attestation clauses to those transfers are, in my belief, in a disguised handwriting of Coghlan—the body is in various hands; I did not go into that—I have looked at the signature of James Buckle—I have seen some signatures of his admitted writing—I do not think the signatures to these transfers are his—I can't give a definite opinion—I have a strong impression.

WILLIAM JOHNSTON SCALES .—I am managing clerk to Messrs. Carritt and Sons, Solicitors, of 23, Rood Lane—the affairs of Mr. and Mrs. Buckle were placed in our hands about May, 1888—we then entered into communication with the prisoner Peacock, and were referred by him to Smith and Ryden, of 35, Lincoln's Inn Fields, as his solicitors—we had several communications, first with Peacock in his own person, and subsequently with Smith and Ryden—we conducted a considerable correspondence with Smith and Ryden with a view of obtaining some information that we wanted from Peacock as to Mr. and Mrs. Buckle's affairs—among other things we inquired about these Lion and Kirkstall Brewery shares, and received this letter of 30th June, from Smith and Ryden. (This was to the effect that having seen Peacock he stated that he had nothing to do with the Lion Brewery shares except when Mr. Buckle transferred them, and suggested that if paid the amount due he would hand over all the papers)—Ultimately by appointment I saw Peacock, I think on 5th December, 1888—I put a series of questions to him, these (produced) are the questions and his answers. (These were put in and read)—Peacock rendered to me this account, purporting to be his account with Mrs. Buckle—in this he admits receiving £2,563 2s. 6d. on Mrs. Buckle's account from Walker and Co., and on the other side is entered a cheque paid to Mrs. Buckle for that amount, that is for the City of York shares; he also rendered to us this account, purporting to be an account between him and Mr. Buckle—he there admits the receipt of £905 from Mr. Buckle in November, 1886—on the other side he has entered £500 as the amount advanced on mortgage of Sale and Exchange to Mrs. Buckle—we inquired about that, and it is referred to in his answer to the requisition—it is set off by him in his account with Mr. Buckle against the £900 he had received from Mr. Buckle—at that interview nothing further

was said that I remember by Peacock about the amount of consideration for the mortgage deed.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I am not acquainted with what took place between you and Mr. Carritt recently when he wrote asking to see you.

Cross-examined by MR. HARRIS. The correspondence between us and Peacock commenced on 20th April, 1888—I was not at the office in April—it continued down to 29th November, 1888—we had a letter of 23rd April—in a letter of the 20th we asked about the shares, and we received that in reply, in which he says "the Lion and Kirkstall shares were never in my possession"—he also states,". I will afford you every facility for investigating matters, and satisfy yourself as to their or my position"—we wrote a letter of 26th April, and in reply on 27th he states, "As to the £500 stated to have been paid to me in August last, I never received any such sum either from Mr. or Mrs. Buckle"—I frequently saw Mr. and Mrs. Buckle during this correspondence; Mr. Carritt also saw them a good deal—of course he would know all about the correspondence—Peacock did not hand over all the documents we possess with regard to the transactions with Mrs. Buckle—he handed over most of those we have, but we have singularly few—I have his bill of costs—none of the costs he has sent in have been paid—it is now pending taxation in Chancery, in which nearly every item is disputed—this bill only appears to be from August, 1875, the other one is from July, 1886, up to the end of the transaction, that would be in 1888—I believe it covers the whole time of their acquaintance—our firm did not advise any criminal proceedings latterly—at one time we did—the bill of costs has been before Master Ryland, the taxing master in Chancery; not the whole proceedings, only as regards the taxation—I think one bill is for £303 against Mrs. Buckle, and the other amounts to £140 against Mr. Buckle—I know nothing about the paper Sale and Exchange— I have general information about it from our clients; I have not examined the books—I can give you no information as to what money has been advanced by Peacock to carry on the paper.

Re-examined. Both these bills of costs were made out after February or March, 1888—they are both signed as having been delivered in June, 1888—that was after the Buckles had left Peacock and come to us—this is our letter of 20th April, addressed to Peacock. This stated they were instructed by Mrs. Buckle to request him to hand over all documents, and to pay all sums which he was indebted, the principal documents being the Lion and Kirkstall shares, etc.)—the answer to that letter is the one of 23rd April already referred to—he did not after that letter afford us every facility for investigating matters; we have had the greatest—difficulty in getting information from him—we did at one time advise criminal proceedings—our object since then has been to a great extent to get out information as to what has become of a great deal of the property—I cannot say that we got every information; we got the answers to these requisitions; we did not consider the explanation satis factory—at the time he was arrested we were by no means satisfied with the explanation he had given.

Coghlan. Is it not the fact that the police went twice to Mr. Carritt, and that he declined absolutely to have anything to do with proceedings?.

Witness. Because he had not got the information he wanted; he thought

it would be detrimental to his getting that information—Mrs. Buckle was not sent for by him from the Police-court, she was at our office—she was acting by our advice, and we considered it detrimental to her interests to go on with the criminal proceedings till we had got all the explanation we could.

JANE PADY . I was in the service of Mr. and Mrs. Buckle as domestic servant—I remember their going to Yorkshire some time in 1887, I think in September; they were away both in August and September, at that time Mr. Coghlan was lodging in the house—while they were away letters came for Mrs. Buckle—I gave Vaughan one—I knew Coghlan as Vaughan—the letter was from the Kirkstall Brewery—the other, letters I for warded to Mrs. Buckle; there were not many, I think—he asked me to give the letter to him as he was going to write to Mrs. Buckle, and he would send it in the letter—he said we were not to send Mr. Buckle's letters on, but to save them for him and he would always forward them, Mrs. Buckle's we were to send on, but not Mr. Buckle's—I did not give him any more letters; I did not see any more for Mr. Buckle, I sent Mrs. Buckle's on—Coghlan never advanced any money to me while Mr. and Mrs. Buckle were away.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. You lent the cook a sovereign; the cook borrowed it and sent it back to you—it was a loan by you to her for her private use it; had nothing to do with Mrs. Buckle—Mrs. Buckle left me some money—I did not help spend the sovereign; I can't tell how it was spent—I think the brewery letter came in the beginning of September—I have not heard it suggested that it contained a cheque or notice; I heard about it at the Police-court—I have not seen Mr. Buckle's eldest son Tom for the last five years—I did not meet you on Holborn Viaduct on 30th or 31st July last year—I did not tell you there that Tom Buckle had come home again—when you left our house you left some things be hind, I think some of your clerical things—I have not seen them since—I can't say what you took away—I did not tell you on the Viaduct that Mr. Buckle had given a bill of sale on the furniture at Brixton—I did not mention the name of Thomas, a solicitor, to you—I did not tell you that Mrs. Buckle had sold £2,500 of North Bank shares which Mr. Buckle had returned to her when they had the dispute.

Re-examined. I did go to Holborn Viaduct to see the prisoner—he sent me a letter asking me to meet him, but he was not there—it was to receive my £20 that Mrs. Buckle had handed to him to buy some mining shares—he did not buy them that I know of—I never had my £20 back.

By Coghlan. You did not meet me; you were not there—I sent you one letter—I can't say what I said in it; I have forgotten—I did not say that the £20 was never mine, and that I never had £20 in my life.

JAMES ENRIGHT (Police Sergeant E). I arrested Peacock on Thursday, 2nd January, at Bow Street Police-court—I read the warrant to him charging him with unlawfully conspiring with Coghlan to cheat and de fraud Mary Buckle, and obtaining £500—that was one warrant; the second was that, being a bailee of certain shares in the Lion Brewery and 60 shares in the Kirkstall Brewery, stealing the same and converting them to his own use—he made no reply—I found on him this letter, purporting to come from Coghlan. Read: "H. M, Prison, Holloway,

December 10th, 1888. Dear Sir,—I think it right to inform you that I am in communication with Messrs. Carritt and Sons with a view to making a deposition therein.")

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I also found on him a subpoena on behalf of the Crown to attend the prosecution of a person then prosecuted by the Treasury—I was in Court when that person was sent for trial—it was stated by Mr. Mathews openly in Court that he would hand in the information then and there before Mr. Vaughan—the proceedings were not conducted out of the usual course that I know of—I would arrest a man in Court or anywhere if I had a warrant for him—he was arrested in Court when there as a witness for the Crown—Mr. Vaughan admitted him to bail—Mr. Mathews said that he intended to lay an information before Mr. Vaughan against Peacock, and that he was not to leave the Court.

Re-examined. The first threat to prosecute him took place while he was in Court, and he was arrested shortly after that.

MRS. BUCKLE (Re-examined). After I had put my affairs in the hands of Messrs. Carritt and Son, by my instructions they asked the prisoner for an account of the money he had received—I believe Peacock supplied to my husband an account of how he had spent a sum of £945 which had been entrusted to him for investment—that £945 my husband was trustee of. Mr. Mathews read the prisoner's answer to the requisition as to this. "£500 of this £900 was lent on the 'Sale and Exchange' against my express wish. There was a mortgage executed to Mr. and Mrs. Buckle on the news paper")—I do not know of the existence of any mortgage for the sum of £500, which purports to be a mortgage to us—in December, 1887, Peacock paid £240 for valuation of the Sale and Exchange office—he said that sum belonged to a client, and he would lend it for a short time; he said nothing about its being his own money—that is the only sum which I can remember as being a sum which can be referred to in this account, and that is the only sum I think that I know of by means of which Peacock has endeavoured to account for the trust fund of £945, leaving him in debt over £700, of which I know nothing—when the advance was made no suggestion was made by him, or intended by me, that he should take this trust money, for which he and my husband were jointly responsible, and advance it to me as a loan—I was with Mr. Buckle when the cheque was paid—Peacock said he was going to invest £906 in very good property at Sutton the next day on mortgage—I went to him once with my husband, when my husband said he would like to have the mortgage deed securing the trust money; Peacock said, "Well, it is in the bank, Mr. Buckle; I am equally responsible as well as you, and therefore I must look after it"—I had no intimation from the prisoner., that that money had not been invested on Sutton property—I knew nothing about it till this signed account was produced, which pretended he had advanced £500, which I never received.

HENRY SHARMAN (not examined in chief).

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I was editor and manager of the Sale and Exchange— I think I 'first saw you at the Sale and Exchange office early in January, 1887, in connection with my engagement there—I wrote in that month saying I was willing to take the position of editor—I have no doubt there was a promise in March to form a syndicate to purchase the paper, and I agreed to take a small nominal salary—meantime I was

paid £10 or £12 by you, but I declined to go on till some definite arrangement was made—it was quite the beginning of 1887 you began to come to the office—I had seen you there many times before the middle of June, 1887—you had been there most days—I entered into an agreement with Mrs. Buckle on 31st May—the syndicate never came to anything, and the agreement was cancelled by Mrs. Buckle's solicitor—I may have told you the agreement was cancelled; I could not swear positively I did—the agreement, when signed, was submitted to Mr. Bell, a solicitor acting for you, and Peacock acting for Mrs. Buckle—when I found the syndicate was not coming off I said to Mrs. Buckle's solicitor, "You had better give me a week's salary," and the whole thing fell through—I had indemnity from liability in connection with the paper from Peacock if I entered into the agreement; I don't remember corresponding with you about it—the whole of the matter was between Buckle, Peacock, and me—you had left the place some weeks before—I know nothing of your having paid £50 and £28; you had ceased to come to the office altogether—up to the end of October I received all money to pay wages at the Sale and Exchange from you—I don't remember the exact date at which you ceased to manage the financial affairs of the concern—up to the end of October perhaps you acted as a sort of managing proprietor, and received all moneys and made all payments—I don't remember your paying me £52 on August 4th by cheque on the Birkbeck Bank for the engineer's account—I recollect the payments to the engineer—on your leaving the Sale and Exchange I instructed a chartered accountant, Mr. Leake, to go into the books as between you and Mrs. Buckle, and he handed me a report, which I gave to Mrs. Buckle, and I had a rough copy.

Re-examined. I know a new lock was put on the office door to keep Coghlan out.

ARTHUR BINKS (not examined in chief)

Cross-examined by Coghlan: I am cashier to the Kirkstall Brewery Company—the June, 1887, dividend was paid on September 1st—our company never sends notices to the transferee or transferor when transfer of stock is lodged, but we register it, and send out transfer of scrip—there is a garter on the back of our envelopes with the name of the brewery.

Coghlan, in his defence, stated that he had been Mrs. Buckle's partner on the "Sale and Exchange," and that he had spent his own money on it; that he consulted Peacock at every turn, knowing he had Mr. and Mrs. Buckle's full authority to act in every way, and feeling sure that at one time they would have signed their name to anything Peacock asked them; that the shares Mr. Buckle brought on 3rd August were of the York City and County Bank, and that the other shares Mr. Buckle gave him next morning at Brixton to take to Peacock in an envelope of the Lion Brewery Company, and that he took them to Peacock; that the transfers were signed in Mr. Buckle's presence, but not witnessed at the time; that he (Coghlan) subsequently attested them in Foster's name, which he had complete authority to use, but he denied any forgery or any intent to defraud.


OLD COURT.—Friday, Saturday, and Monday, February 15th 16th, and 18th, 1889.

Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-258
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

258. WILLIAM HENRY MANNING (38), CHARLES FREDK. JOLLIFFE, JAMES RIMELL, JOHN TERRY , and JAMES HAMOZE COGHLAN (38) , Unlawfully conspiring to obtain the leases of certain houses by false pretences, with intent to defraud.

MR. CHARLES MATHEWS and MR. BODKIN Prosecuted; MR. BOMPAS appeared for Manning, MR. GEOGHEGAN for Jolliffe, MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS and MR. GILL for Rimell, and MR. WOOLLETT for Terry.

JOSEPH ARTHUR WILSON . I am a farmer of Kirkby Bourne, Lincoln shire—down to the end of 1887 I was in partnership with my brother as drapers, in Little Newport Street, Soho—we were joint owners of a small house in Newport Court, and my brother put up the small shop to let in November, 1887—it had been a greengrocer's—after that I saw Terry, and on January 27, 1888, this agreement came, and the premises were let to him. This was dated January 27, 1888, from Wilson to Terry. Rent £27 a year; the tenant to have the option of taking the house for 7 years, at the expiration of the first year, and on failure of payment of rent for one month, the right to re-enter and forfeiture)—Terry took possession under that agreement, and carried on a greengrocers business—"Palmer" was over the door—no rent was paid under the agreement—I never saw Terry on the premises after signing the agreement; he gave me an address—I wrote there for the rent after March 24th, and the letter was returned—I first saw Perkins on the premises on April 14th, and asked him by what authority he was there—he said he had taken the shop under agreement—I asked him who was his landlord—he said he took the shop of Silburn—I said, "He has no authority to let you the shop, as the back rent is not paid, and I look on you as a trespasser here"—after a conversation I frightened him out of the premises, and he left—at that time he gave me the address of Silburn, 11, Clement's Inn, who, he said, had always done his business—I went there with my wife, and saw a man named Denning, who referred us to 35, Lincoln's Inn Fields—we went, and saw Manning; we gave no name—we said we had come about the rent, that we had written to Mr. Terry for it at Marine Parade, Worthing, the letter had been returned marked "Not known," and we asked for Terry's address—he said, "I am a solicitor; I never give the addresses of my clients"—he had the agreement in his hand, and said, "You have nothing more to do with it"—I said we shall see about that—he said, "I will write to Terry, and advise him to pay the rent"—we then left—I remember Perkins saying that he gave £30 for the shop in Walker's Court, and £20 for ours—I got no rent—my brother received this letter—I was in Lincolnshire from April to August—when I returned I saw a man named Baxter in possession of the shop—demand was made on him by my instructions for the back rent from January to September—he declined to pay, saying he was paying his rent to Perkins Jolliffe

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. Terry was a weekly tenant—he agreed in January to pay the rent to March, and half the agreement—I made this agreement in writing on January 27th—I agreed that the first rent should be payable on June 24th, but he verbally agreed to pay the rent up to that time, and we thought we were dealing with an honest

man—the first full quarter was due on June 24th—I wanted to get some weeks' rent up to March 24th—I believe Perkins told me that Silburn was a solicitor, and I understood when he said he bought of Silburn that he bought of Silburn's client—I never asked him whether Terry had transferred to him—Fisher referred us to a gentleman who I recognised as Denning—he or Denning sent us to Lincoln's Inn Fields—I said at Bow Street that we were referred to Manning; I don't think I said who by—they did not tell us that Manning was now clerk to Smith and Ryden—I was told that Manning was Terry's solicitor, and would be found at 35, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and I found him there, but I don't know what he was acting as—he did not say that under the agreement no rent was due.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. It was my brother who saw Terry first—I believe it was on November 15th.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I know I had two interviews with Preston—I was led to believe that he was duped into the thing—I believe he left on 24th April—I did not turn him out, I threatened him, and he left—he complained of being led into it, but did not say by whom—he said something to the effect of having given £30 for one shop, and £20 for another, and being swindled in both matters.

Re-examined. He stayed a week or so after I told him he was a trespasser—I threatened him that if he did not go I should have to clear him out, and then he left—I received no rent on June 24th—he came to my mother before Christmas, and we saw him together—he said he should like an agreement—I said, "If you have one we shall want a premium"—he said he heard the place was to be pulled down for street improvements, as all the houses were pulled down to ours—the premises were used with Terry's authority—Palmer told me that Terry used to come and take the cash.

By MR. WOOLLETT.—I had heard of the street improvements—I think the name of Palmer was over the door before the agreement—Terry told me he had several shops all over London, and put men in.

HENRY WILSON . I am a draper, of 250, Well Street, Hackney, and 5, Little Newport Street—on 15th November Terry came to me about the lease of a shop which I held in Newport Court, which had been a green grocer's—he said he had a shop in Walker's Court, in which he had a manager, and he wanted that shop on the same conditions—he asked the rent; I said 10s. a week, and accepted him as a weekly tenant—a few days after the name of Palmer was put over the door—the last weekly rent he paid was in January, 1888—he then came to me with regard to taking a lease, and an agreement was signed—I tried to get my rent, but none was paid—I tried to find Terry, but was not successful—I saw Perkins on the premises two or three days before April 10—he is indicted as Jolliffe—I saw him cleaning down the premises, and asked him by whose authority he was there—he referred me to his solicitors, Silburn and Manning; I said that I did not recognise any solicitors, I only recognised Terry—he continued opening the shop, and it was open on April 10—after that, my brother coming back, I had nothing more to do with it—I afterwards saw a bill outside the premises, with the name of "Morgan, house-agent, Bloomsbury," on it—I went to Mr. Morgan with my sister-in-law, and asked him who had instructed him to let the premises—he produced a document, signed I believe by Debenham and

Co., as instructing him to let the premises—I then told him the facts of the case, how Mr. Terry had treated us, and Mr. Wilson said, "Oh, another name; this must be a long firm lot altogether"—I said, "I am surprised, you being a straightforward, honest man of business, as I believe you to be, having anything more to do with the business; and you ought to take the bills down off the shop at once"—I told him to refer any applicants to me as the landlord—the bill was not taken down, and Baxter opened the shop on July 5—I made a claim on him for the back rent, and he declined to pay.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I do not know whether Terry had assigned the premises—he came to me and said that he had an appoint ment in Paris at £14 a week, and he wished to let the premises or sell them—I said, "You shall let the premises, on condition of bringing me a satisfactory tenant," and I never saw him again—rent was due, as he had given us his word to pay the rent up to quarter-day—when Terry was there a good business was done for a few weeks.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. Terry did not pay the rent weekly up to the signing of the agreement—he paid it to January 7th, but it was to be paid up to Lady-day—about three weeks were owing when the agreement was signed, and about three weeks after it was signed Terry came and asked me to allow him to sell the business—of course I should not have been willing to let him go out unless he paid the rent.

Re-examined. When the agreement was signed, nothing was said about assigning—he was to come to me for permission to underlet, but he never came again.

By the JURY. Mr. Bickerton drew the agreement up—he has been a friend of mine many years—he is an auctioneer and valuer, not a solicitor.

JOHN JAMES WOODS . I am landlord of 210, Strand—in July last year I let the third floor front to Manning—he became my tenant about the 11th, in the name of William Debenham—I think "The Southend and Margate Steamboat Company" was on the door-post, and "Debenham and Co."—I did not take particular notice how he was described—I think it was some debt collecting, or something like that—he continued coming there up to the time of his arrest, in December—after his arrest Mr. Bertie came to me as his solicitor, and on his behalf I received from Mr. Bertie the rent then due—in consideration of that I cancelled the agreement under which the premises were held—when Manning came, he gave me the names of Benning and Peacock as references—I wrote to Benning, of Chetwynd Road, Highgate, and received this answer: "10th July. Dear Sir,—Absence from home has prevented me from sooner replying to yours of the 6th inst., in regard to Mr. Debenham. I believe him to be a respectable and responsible person.—Yours truly, A. F. Benning."—I also wrote to Peacock, and got an answer from him to the same effect—before Manning's arrest, I made several applications for the rent; it was not paid, and I put in a distress.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. The distress was put in after his arrest—the rent was subsequently paid.

ANNIE ELIZABETH WILSON . I am the wife of Joseph Wilson—I heard his evidence and corroborate it—I heard a conversation with Terry about underletting; he said he would not do it without the consent of my husband or his brother.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. I was not present when the agreement was signed—I was in the house—that was not the time when I heard what Terry said.

ARTHUR HENRY BAXTER . I am a warehouseman, of 3, Lumber Court, St. Martin's Lane—in July, 1888, I saw a house-agent's bill outside a little shop in Newport Court; in consequence of which I went to the office of Mr. Morgan, house agent, 5, Great Russell Street, and saw his clerk Green, and asked him the particulars of the shop—he read them out to me; it was a shop and large cellar, a premium, and several other things, and an unexpired term of seven years—he said the premium would be £50—I said I could not give that, I offered £8—he said he would write to Mr. Manning and ask him all about it, and submit my offer—I asked him if any back rent or gas bill was owing—he said "No, none whatever"—after that I left—I went over the shop and then returned and saw Mr. Morgan—he said he was acting for Mr. Manning, and would write to him—I afterwards saw him—he said he had written to Mr. Manning, and he would accept my offer of £8—on 4th July a draft agreement was drawn up for me to sign—this is it—Mr. Green drew it up—I signed it, and Green and another young fellow who I had with me witnessed it—I paid Green the £8, and took this receipt for it read)—an appointment was made for me to meet Mr. Manning and receive the counterpart signed—I opened the shop on the 5th, but did not go to see Mr. Manning till the 9th—I then went to Morgan's, and saw Manning there—he asked if I had the draft with me that Mr. Green had given me—I had left it at home—Manning was put forward as a solicitor, landlord of the premises in Newport Court—I was told to fetch the draft, and I went and got it, and brought it back to Morgan's—I did not see Manning then—I stopped there a few minutes and Mr. Fisher came in—he handed me this agreement—he wrote some of it out in Morgan's office—the signature was put to it at the time—I can't say whether the signature was what he wrote—I gave him the draft and he handed me this agreement This was dated 9th July, 1888, and was between George Perkins, of Marine Parade, Brighton, and the witness, signed G. Perkins, witnessed by Fisher)—I did not notice any consideration for the tenant paying the rent then due—Fisher read it out to me—I never noticed that—the first week's rent I took to Morgan's office—Green told me afterwards to take it to Manning, 35, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and I took it there I think on two occasions, and he took me next door and wrote out a receipt on a piece of paper; Fisher was standing close by him, and Manning said, "You will know this man, he will come up for the rent in future; "I was not to bring the rent any more to Lincoln's Inn Fields, Fisher was to come and collect it—Fisher gave me this rent book—I paid him two weeks' rent when he gave me the book—I remained on the premises down to the return of the Wilsons, some time in October—in October a claim was made on me for back rent of the premises, amounting to £12—I went to Manning and showed him the notice—he said, "Oh, that is nothing; you are all right where you are; if they come any of their non sense, we will see about it, let them try it on"—before he said that he said he had written to Mr. Perkins at Brighton, and asked him the reason why he had never called for the rent—he did not tell me what answer he received, he said he could not make out why he had never called for the rent, that he had written to him but never got any answer

—Fisher never applied for the rent after that—I afterwards gave up the premises.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I arranged after that to pay my rent to them instead of to Manning—I understood that Manning was the landlord, and he was receiving the rent—I said just now that he was put forward as the solicitor to the landlord—there were not many fixtures, two or three boards and two or three pairs of scales—I stopped in the place till October—I then sold the business to a young fellow in the Court for £10—there was close on £20 worth of stuff in the place, and I had put up new scales and new gas fixtures, and all the fruit that was in it—the first agreement was drawn up in Manning's name, as if he was the landlord, and then it was altered to Perkins—Morgan did not say that he had put Manning's name by mistake, he did not say anything about it.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. Part of the gas fittings were put up at my expense; I can't say that they were put up by Terry.

HENRY WILSON (Re-examined). I believe Terry did put up one or two—he laid out very little on the premises, perhaps £2—I never saw Perkins.

ELLEN HEINEMANN . I am the widow of Bernard Heinemann, and executrix and legatee under his will, probate of which was granted to me on 26th June, 1885—I then came into possession of the unexpired lease of 1A, Walker's Court, which adjoins a shop, 4, Little Pulteney Street, Soho—a condition of the lease was that it was only to be assigned with the written consent of the lessor—I consented to an assignment to Hack in 1886, and in October, 1887, on his application, I consented in writing to an assignment to Terry—in 1887 I was living at 4, Little Pulteney Street, which was a part of the premises; the little shop runs at the back of 4, Little Pulteney Street, and it is let with 1A, Walker's Court—I saw Terry once at those premises after the assignment—that would be between October and Christmas, 1887; I did not know who he was—the rent was paid to me at Christmas, 1887; but the next rent, which became due on 25th March, 1888, was not paid; by that date the premises were unoccupied—between the Christmas and Lady Day I saw none of the prisoners on the premises—the premises remained unoccupied till 24th June—under the original lease of my husband and Mr. Drury, if a quarter's rent were in arrears I was entitled to right of re-entry, and forfeiture of any right in the lease—when two quarters' rent were due in July, I exercised my rights and took possession of the premises, which are easily entered from mine, as they are a portion of mine—I have remained in possession of the premises ever since—after I took possession, I saw a bill up indicating that the premises were to let; the name on the bill was that of Mr. Morgan, house agent, 5, Great Russell Street—I sent my son Harry to him—after I took possession of the premises, I let 4, Little Pulteney Street to an ice cream man at £1 a week—he is still in occupation; he pays 16s. now—he has paid his rent to me from that time, and has remained in possession under me—I have no rights whatever in relation to 1, Walker's Court—that is quite a distinct house, in which I am in no way interested—I have never authorised Manning, Terry, or Jolliffe in any way to deal with my interests in 1A, Walker's Court, since I took possession of it in July last year—I think I know Terry by sight, by having seen him on or near the premises—I could not swear to him; 1 don't know any of the prisoners personally.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. 1 and 1A, Walker's Court formed one shop, and were used together—1A was really 4, Little Pulteney Street—4, Little Pulteney Street was occupied by myself for my own business, and 1A was a piece of my house, but it was added on and occupied with No. 1—originally my husband leased 1A to Mr. Drury, and after a time I re-entered—my son told Mr. Morgan I was going to do so—I took no legal proceedings to establish my right to do so—when we found the notice on the door we applied to Morgan for information about Terry—I never saw Terry nor communicated with him.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. I only saw Terry once—I agreed to the assignment from Hack to him—I do not know that Mr. Newnham acted for Terry, nor that he paid £100; £50 for premium and £50 for fixtures—I never heard anything about it—I did not hear that he had paid anything—I received nothing, except one quarter's rent, from Terry—I was to receive £42 a year.

FRANK BERNARD HEINEMANN. I am the son of last witness, and reside with her at 4, Little Pulteney Street—after October, 1887, I saw Terry casually, in the occupation of 1A, Walker's Court, which was opened as a greengrocer's—I believe the name of Smith was up outside—after he had been there a little while I ceased to see Terry there—I saw a manager there afterwards—I believe Smith was the first manager—I am in doubt as to the second; I imagine it was Perkins—I had dealings with him in the way of buying sacks of potatoes—the manager hardly ever attended; he used to send a man in—after a time that ceased, and the premises became unoccupied—a gang of men came and evicted him one Saturday morning, and turned everything out into the street, vegetables and all—that was about March; I think the place remained unoccupied from then till Midsummer—no rent was paid—on my mother's instructions I took possession, and have remained in possession ever since.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. I only saw Terry when he came by our premises—I have seen him once or twice to speak to—I did not see the name Palmer over the shop—I know there was a manager there.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I am short-sighted—I swore at the Police-court that I could not identify Perkins—the men who bundled the things on to the pavement were not sent by me.

HARRY HEINEMANN . I live at 38, Dartmouth Street, Westminster—I am Mrs. Heinemann's son—I remember Terry taking possession of the premises in Walker's Court about September, 1887—he paid one quarter's rent—about June, 1888, I saw a bill posted on the shutters that application was to be made to Mr. Morgan—I went to Mr. Morgan's office and saw him—(MR. BOMPAS objected now and in the case of subsequent witnesses to evidence being given as to what passed at Morgan's office)—I gave him notice that when six months' rent was due we should take possession—that was my mother's intention—he said it was the best thing we could do—he said a solicitor's clerk brought the papers to him, that the premises were to be let, that he had had several applications for them, and that they would not take the premises, as they wanted £50 for the lease—I asked him how he came to have the letting of the premises, but I could get no satisfactory answer—I asked the solicitor's clerk's name, but could get no satisfactory answer—I said it was my mother's intention to take possession next day, and she did so, and my brother—I recollect Terry, but none of the other prisoners.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. I saw Terry one Saturday night outside the shop in Walker's Court; the business was carried on by a manager—I knew of the premises being taken from Hack—I did not know Mr. Newnham, a solicitor, acting for Terry, except by seeing a letter which my mother had; I suppose she would have known by the letter that Mr. Newnham was employed by Terry—I do not know whether Terry paid £100 for the business; I heard that he paid some money, I don't know what.

Re-examined. I heard from Hack that he had sold the business.

HENRY JOSEPH MASH . I am a fruiterer, of 238, Fulham Road—I am lessor of 1, Walker's Court under a 21 years' lease, of which five or six are to run—when fifteen years of it were unexpired, in 1878 or 1879, I assigned it to Mr. Allen—I heard no more of the property till September, 1888—in that month I was applied to for two quarters', £25, back rent of the premises—in consequence of that I went to Messrs. Senior, Attree and Johnson, solicitors to the owners, and made a statement to them—after that I was still called on to pay the rent—by that time another quarter was due, and they applied for three quarters; I still refused to pay—I went to 1, Walker's Court, I saw a bill up there with Mr. Morgan's name on it—I went and saw Mr. Morgan and asked him who gave him permission to let—he said it had been given into his hands to let—I said, "Do you know that there are two quarters' rent due? you had better acquaint them with that fact whoever you let them to"—he hum'd and haa'd, and said they were given into his hands to let—I said, "You must let them know that there are two quarters' due, whoever you let them to, because the owners have come to me to pay"—he said he was going to ask £75 premium—the premises remained closed, and I have been served with a writ for rent and dilapidations since.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. I know nothing about the letting from Hack to Terry—I only know that a man named Hack did occupy once.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I know Hack was there—I do not know what became of my lease after I once assigned it—I have not paid the rent yet; there is a year's rent to be paid, and I am told I shall have to pay it, and I have almost settled to do so—I believe possession is being got for me, and then I shall pay it.

Re-examined. It is the rent for 1888.

JOHN REUTER . I am a German, and live at 15, Little Newport Street, Charing Cross—early in September, 1888, I saw a bill up on the shutters at 1, Walker's Court, and inconsequence I went to Mr. Morgan's with my brother, Peter Reuter—I saw a clerk, Mr. Green—I asked him about 1, Walker's Court—he said that the place was to let, and I must buy the lease, £30 premium, and the rental was £94—the next time I went he sent the office boy with me to the shop with the keys—the boy took me over the premises, and I saw 1A, Walker's Court and 4, Little Pulteney Street—there was an Italian ice-cream man at No. 4—next day I went back to Mr. Morgan's—I saw Green, and said, "Who takes the rent for the shop?"—I do not know if he said the rent was paid at Clement's Inn or Lincoln's Inn, and the man there had the lease to sell; if I took the house I should have the rent of the ice-cream shop, that it was 10s. a week; I heard at the shop that it was £1 a week—I asked him how it was that he said 10s., and the other said £1, and I said,

"Is not the rent paid here?"—he said, "No, they must pay the rent at Clement's Inn or Lincoln's Inn"—I took the premises—I was going to open them as a German provision shop—on 19th September an appointment was made with me to come to Mr. Morgan's on the next day—I told Green I should take the shop and pay £30; the first quarter's rent I was not to pay, for alterations—I said I should only take it if the lease was clear—Green said he must write a letter, and he would let me know in a couple of days—I think the letter was to be written to the landlord—he wrote it on a piece of paper and gave it to the office boy, and said he should put the letter in a book—all this happened before the 19th September—on that day an appointment was made for me to meet the landlord at Morgan's on the 20th, and sign the agreement—I had been told by that time that my terms were accepted—on the 20th I and my brother went to Morgan's at eleven—I saw Green there, nobody else—I told him I heard that the roof of 1A was in a bad condition, and I should like it seen to before I took the premises—we went over the premises, and then the office-boy came and said somebody had sent for us, and we went back to Morgan's, where I saw Manning, Fisher, his clerk, and I believe Morgan—some gentleman went out of the office, leaving Manning, Fisher, Green, my brother, and I together—Manning said the lease was too cheap; it was a very good business street, and he asked what sort of business was opened there, and he said perhaps he would become a customer of ours—he said £30 was too cheap for the premium—he produced this document, which he said was the lease—I do not read English well—I handed it to my brother, who speaks it better than I do—Manning read it to my brother—he said, "Is that the original lease?"—Manning said, "Yes"—it was read out by Manning before it was signed—my name was not in it—Manning told Fisher he should put my name on the top—he told him to add "John Reuter"—I do not remember this interlineation being read out to me, "And all liabilities attached to the premises up to this date"—I produced £20 in gold and two £5 notes, which I paid to Manning—I asked Green for a sixpenny stamp, which he gave to Manning, and I saw Manning sign the document as it now appears—he asked Fisher to witness it—The lease and agreement were read)—a receipt was given to me for my money—This was signed "Morgan, pp. Green, 20th September, 1888")—I was told that I should sign a paper that I was going to pay £94 rent, and then, when the Board of Works took the place, I should get compensation—I signed a paper for £94 rent—I believe it was read over before I signed it—The document contained the passage, "Re shop in Walker's Court, adjoining 4, Little Pulteney Street. Perkins to John Peter Reuter, received assignment of lease, taken with all claims thereto up to this date")—what was stated about the Board of Works was just before this document was given me to sign—my brother is John Peter Reuter—I was taking the premises—at the time the first document was produced I believed it was the original lease of the premises, as Manning said it was—I had never seen a lease before—I believed there were no arrears, and no back rent, and that they had the power to give me the lease, and that I should get the rent of the ice-cream shop; and I paid £30, believing those things to be true—I noticed Manning was signing in the name of Perkins—I saw the name of Manning at the top, and I thought it was all right; I had heard him called Manning at that time—I left with my brother—afterwards I made

inquiries about the premises, and in consequence of what I heard I did not take possession.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I have been nearly nine years in England; I have been twice back to Germany—I cannot understand English very well unless it is spoken very plainly—I went first to Morgan's office—when I said £30 was a lot of money, Green said, "This lease was sold last year or the year before for £70"—he showed me no documents; he said, "You can see by the book it was sold for £70"—I never asked him if any rent was due; but I considered if I paid £30 everything was clear—the ice-cream man has only quite a little shop adjoining 4, Little Pulteney Street—next to the ice-cream man in Walker's Court is a shop with a two-storey house—I don't know if that and the ice-cream man's place had been occupied as one whole, but I understood I was taking the two—I went back and told Green I would take it for £30; and then I was to meet Manning that he might hand it over to me—Manning handed the document to my brother, that he might read it; my brother had it in his hand, but I think he only read that small side—the document was not signed "E. Perkins" before Manning brought it—he asked Fisher to sign it, but not because it was signed by Perkins already and not by a witness—he asked Green for a 6d. stamp and put it on—he did not put the 6d. stamp on the receipt; he only wanted 1d. stamp for that; he signed this with a 6d. stamp—this was the only document my brother had in his hand—I don't remember his looking at the other documents—I could not undertake to say he did not—after it was signed I put this document in my pocket, and I kept it five or six days, and gave it to my solicitor—the words, "And all liabilities aforesaid to be paid up to date," were not in the document when it was given me at first—I don't believe those words were in it when my brother had it—they would be put into it at some time when Fisher put his name—I only saw Green give Manning a 6d. stamp, and Manning sign it, and say to Fisher, "Sign this"—I saw Manning sign it—I did not say before the Magistrate "I did not see anyone sign it"; I did see it—nothing was said about the back rent on the day I met Manning—this document has got my signature; it was handed to me to sign; my brother saw it before I signed.

MR. WOOLLETT read the assignment from Hack to Terry, which contained the passage," This indenture witnesseth, in pursuance of the said agreement, and in consideration of the sum of £50, this day paid by the purchaser to the vendor, the receipt whereof he hereby acknowledges.")

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I never saw Perkins in my life—I swear the name of Perkins was written by Manning.

Re-examined. After Manning signed he asked Fisher to sign—the document was given to Fisher—I did not see what Fisher did; I did not watch him signing his name—I took no notice after I saw it handed to Fisher; it was lying there for a minute and a half—I gave him the money.

JOHN PETER REUTER . I am the last witness's brother—I live at 40, Brewer Street, Golden Square—I went with my brother to see the Walker's Court premises, and from there we went to Mr. Morgan's office—we had some conversation with Green; he said the lease was to be sold for £30, at £94 a year rent; we came to some agreement that we should be allowed a quarter's rent for alterations and repairs—he described the premises; there was a little shop, and a shop with some rooms above—he said the ice-cream shop was let at 10s. a week, and that that would be

paid to us if we took the lease—we went and saw the premises—we went two or three times to Morgan's—on 20th September I went with my brother to Walker's Court, and looked at the premises, and then we went again to Morgan's, where we saw Morgan, Manning, Fisher, and Green—we all except Morgan went into a back room at the back of the office—Manning took some papers out of his pocket and gave them to me to read; I read them—he said, "It is rather cheap, two shops in such a neighbourhood"—when I read this not a line of, "And all liabilities attached to the premises up to date" was in it—I see it now; it was not there when it was read over by Manning—after the reading over my brother signed the agreement and paid £30—I could not swear I saw Manning sign it, but I heard him say to Fisher, "You sign it as witness"—I saw no stamp put on—my brother took the paper away—the receipt for £30 was written by Green and taken by my brother—I know my brother signed a third paper; I did not hear that read over—it is his signature to it—it was said that the premises were sure to come down shortly, and we might get good compensation for it—we afterwards made inquiries and did not take possession.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. A builder my brother had to put a shop front in wanted to see the paper, and he told my brother there was something wrong with it, and he had better make inquiries—we went to the ice-cream man who was to pay us his rent, and he said he paid it to Mrs. Heinemann—there were three quarters' rent due on the premises—I think those are the only two things I complain of—I don't think we asked Manning if any rent was due—I had the document in my hands when I read the endorsement; I could have read it all—I opened it to see what was the substance of the inside—I did not know what an assignment was, and I asked Manning if this was the original lease, and he said, Yes; it was—I can read English—I looked inside, and it was what I understood to be a proper lease—all I wanted was a document giving me a right to the premises—I thought we were taking the two shops, the ice-cream man's and the vacant shop by the side of it—that was all I expected to et—my brother paid the money to Manning, who told Green to write a receipt—after that my brother signed this other document after I read it—I cannot say if it is now in the same state—I called several times at Morgan's—I Cannot say the dates—this document was shown to us by Manning; I will swear it was never shown to us by Green or Morgan at one of the previous interviews.

Cross-examined by MR. GEOGHEGAN. I did not see Perkins in these transactions.

EDWARD GRAHAM FISHER . I live at 4, Azonby Square, Peckham, and have been a clerk in Manning's employment; I am acquainted with his writing—this produced) is an affidavit of William Henry Manning and Frank Horace Bertie, solicitor, dated from Her Majesty's Prison, Holloway, sworn on 12th December—it appears to be signed by Manning—this produced) is an affidavit of William Henry Manning, clerk to Mr. Edward May Hill, of 4, Raymond Buildings, sworn on 22nd November by William Henry Manning—(MR BODKIN proceeded to ask a question as to an affidavit of Jolliffe. MR. GEOGHEGAN claimed the right to first examine as to the witness's knowledge of Jolliffe's writing.)

By MR. GEOGHEGAN. I have never seen Jolliffe write—the signatures I have seen have been those under the names of Perkins and Freshfield—I have been told those signatures have been written by a person named Freshfield or Perkins—my knowledge of the documents shown to me as being in Freshfield's or Perkins's writing is from what I have been told by other people—I never saw the persons write whose names appear.

By MR. MATHEWS. I have not written to Jolliffe in the name of Perkins—Manning has given me letters for Mr. Perkins, which I have posted—I have seen Perkins at Manning's office at Clement's Inn, from time to time, in the name of Perkins, and in no other name; I always understood he was Perkins—I never saw any letter written by Manning to Perkins, nor by Perkins to Manning—I saw Perkins's handwriting in the signature to the deed of Walker's Court; on no other occasion I believe—I should not like to swear to the writing of Jolliffe, Perkins, Freshfield; I have a belief—I have had no correspondence with Jolliffe under any of these names—I have seen no affidavit signed by Jolliffe in that name—I saw a signature by Jolliffe in the name of Freshfield—I did not see him write it, nor did I see it directly after he signed it.—The RECORDER ruled that there was not sufficient evidence of Jolliffe's writing to admit the documents alleged to be signed by him. The affidavit of November 22nd was read; that of December 12th was put in.)

FRANK HORACE BERTIE . I am a solicitor—I swore a joint affidavit with Manning with regard to the application for bail—I am instructing Mr. Geoghegan to defend Jolliffe—I have never seen Jolliffe write or seen any of his writing—he was not then charged with any offence, it was really an instruction on behalf of Manning—I was not present when the affidavit was signed or when it was sworn—I put it forward for the use of Mr. Bompas in the Queen's Bench—I hope your Lordship will take a note that I formally object to giving this evidence—(MR. GEOGHEGAN also objected to the witness stating anything which might prejudice his client. The RECORDER overruled the objection)—I have received no written communications from Jolliffe; certain notes were handed to me from the prisoner's dock to-day, but I did not see Mr. Jolliffe write them, nor do I know that they are his writing; they were handed through the other prisoners, several of them through Manning—I do not know whether the signature at the bottom of this document is Jolliffe's—I do not know who went with him before the Commissioner—I went to Judge's Chambers with these affidavits, they were not read there; they were referred to; Jolliffe was not there—they were used as Jolliffe's affidavits in the Divisional Court, but their Lordships did not refer to them as to their merits.

----JENKINS. I am a clerk in the Crown Office—there are filed there and kept in my custody affidavits used as applications for bail—some affidavits were filed there on December 13th; they had been filed previously, and were transferred to us on the application for bail—I found one by William Henry Manning; and a joint affidavit of Manning and Bertie, and one of Charles Frederick Jolliffe—they were used in Court and returned to my custody.

HARRY DICKSON . I am managing clerk to Taylor, Son and Humbert, solicitors, of Gray's Inn—Mr. R. F. Taylor is landlord of 11, Clement's Inn, which was in Mr. Peacock's occupation, and in May, 1887, I received this letter, stating that Mr. Rimell was going to succeed him and,

giving references, we released him on the understanding that Mr. Rimell's references were satisfactory—we wrote to the referees on the 16th, and got this answer the same day from Mr. Silburn, of Watling Street Stating that he knew Mr. Rimell as a client, and always knew him to be perfectly respectable, and fully able to pay the rent. Signed, J. Silburn)—we got a letter from Mr. Benning to the same effect—an agreement was prepared between Mr. Taylor and Mr. Rimell, of which this produced) is the counterpart—the rent is £60 a year and certain dues; it is signed F. J. Rimell—he occupied the place about a year, I never saw him there—we had to distrain for the first quarter's rent, the second quarter was paid with some delay, and we had to distrain for the two remaining quarters—nothing was left, and what was sold only yielded £1 14s. to meet half a year's rent—I do not know where he moved to—we were very glad to get the chambers again.

Cross-examined by MR. ROWLANDS. I do not know Rimell—I never saw any of the prisoners—after the agreement was signed we found we had got more tenants than we wished for; the chambers were full of tenants—the counterpart agreement was sent to Mr. Rimell, and sent back to us signed—I was in Court on Manning's trial; it was put forward as a personation by Manning—I have no doubt that it was he who signed the signature "Rimell."

Re-examined. The matter was conducted by correspondence—I am not certain whether I sent the agreement to Mr. Rimell or Mr. Peacock.

DENANCE IMBACH . I am caretaker at 46, Queen Victoria Street—at the beginning of 1888 the prisoner Coghlan occupied offices there—"Mr. Vaughan" was painted up outside, but afterwards removed, and "Duncan and Co." put up—Coghlan was there five months—people afterwards came there making inquiries about him—the furniture was taken away by the parties who supplied it.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. Dankin and Scott are the landlords of the house—I used to see Mr. Duncan every morning and evening; he used to open the office and close it—from what I know he was your clerk.

FREDERICK REUBEN MORPHEE . I am manager to Jenner and Beale, house agents, of 52, Church Road, Hove—on 10th September a Mrs. Cadlam called about a furnished house we had to let; and on 15th September the prisoner Coghlan called about it—it was 9, New Terrace, Brighton—the rent was three guineas a week, which he agreed to pay, and took it for six months from September 15th—he gave as references Mr. Manning, 10, Great John Street, Brighton, and Captain Duncan, Grosvenor Club—I wrote to Mr. Manning, but got no answer—this is Captain Duncan's reply Stating that he knew Mr. Coghlan, and considered him perfectly able to pay the rent mentioned)—on 11th September I received this letter from Coghlan from 30, Sackville Street, "I wired you to-day to ask you to let me give references; I enclose you two names, which will do equally well"—the names were "Edward R. Hill, 4, Raymond Villas," and "Mr. Terry, Medina Villas, West Brighton"—I received these replies Both stating that they believed Mr. Coghlan to be a man of business, and a suitable and respectable tenant)—Coghlan took possession, and paid two months' rent, but no rent has been paid since—it was due every four weeks—he occupied it a very short time—a caretaker was left in the house, and Coghlan took him as his servant.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I have no fault to find with you as a tenant—Mrs. Coghlan gave me the names of the two gentlemen, and you wrote and said you were afraid she had given in the wrong names—I was perfectly satisfied with the reference I received.

GEORGE JOSIAH EDWARD BRANT . I am an auctioneer and estate agent at 105, King's Road, Brighton—among my clients I have Dr. Graham Bennett, of Hertford Street, Mayfair—he is, I believe, owner of 28, Grand Parade, Brighton, and of a chapel behind it called either Grand Parade Chapel or St. James's Hall, which was let for £90 a year—the dwelling-house was to let at £60 a year, and in the last week in September the prisoners Manning and Terry came together, and said they would pay us a premium for the hall if we could get it for them—we said we would communicate with the owner—I sent my clerk with them to Dr. Bennett, but they were unable to see it that day, and promised to call next day, and in the meantime we were to communicate with Dr. Bennett—next day Mrs. Bennett came to our office with the key, and when Manning and Terry came they produced their card, "Maxwell, Debenham, and Co., 2, Prince Albert Street, Brighton"—they went with my clerk to see the premises, and came back and offered £100 per annum for the two on a 7, 14, or 21 years' lease—we said we would communicate the offer to Dr. Bennett, which we did, and received a letter from him saying that the hall was already let at £70 a year, but that he would take £130 for the house and hall on a repairing lease—I communicated that to them, and they made this written offer Signed Maxwell, Debenham, and Co., agreeing to take the house and hall at £130 a year on lease, provided they were put into tenantable repair)—I forwarded that to Dr. Bennett, and he agreed to accept the offer, allowing £10 off the first quarter—they came again next day, and gave as references "Rev." J. Coghlan, 9, Mill's Terrace, West Brighton; W. H. Manning, 200, Buckingham Palace Road; Dr. Campbell, 10, Park Square, Regent's Park; and Mr. Rimell, Green Lanes, Penge; and Mr. Walter, of Leinster Square, Bayswater—they said they wanted the hall for educational purposes; shorthand was mentioned, and I think Terry said that Manning was a good shorthand writer—I went to 2, Prince Albert Street, and outside the office was "Maxwell, Debenham, and Co., London and Provincial Trade Protection Society"—I wrote to the persons named; Coghlan replied,"Mr. Debenham was a tenant of mine; he gave every satisfaction"—Rimell replied, "I have known Mr. Debenham some years has a most respectable man"—Manning sent a similar letter; Dr. Campbell and Mr. Walter did not answer, and I told Coghlan so when he came—he said, "Dr. Campbell is in Paris," and gave me another reference, Mr. E. G. Fisher, who wrote, "I have known Mr. Maxwell, who is a respectable person, and always paid his rent regularly to me"—I believed the references were real, and sent them to Dr. Bennett; he kept them and wrote this letter, accepting the references—I then communicated with Mr. Stephens, Dr. Bennett's lawyer, and a draft lease was prepared and submitted to the prisoners, and they approved—there were some chairs in the hall which I said they must take at a valuation; they agreed, and I appointed a valuer for Dr. Bennett, but could not get them to appoint one—the matter was compromised by their paying £12 10s. deposit, and then the lease was executed; they had signed the draft "Thos. Maxwell and W. Debenham"—I left the matter in Mr. Stephens'

hands—I asked them if the Rev. G. H. Coghlan was a clergyman; they said, "Yes, living in his own house at Brighton"—I did not know that he was occupying a furnished house at 3 guineas a week—I had no notion that the letter signed G. H. Manning was written at the dictation of Debenham himself, and that Fisher's reference was written by the same hand as the other—if I had not believed them to be genuine references I should never have sent them to Dr. Bennett—I believed Maxwell and Debenham to be a genuine firm, and that the people composing it were honest.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. Maxwell said that Mr. Coghlan was a wealthy gentleman living in his own private house, or a man worth plenty of money"—I do not know that Mr. Manning had a banking account with a, good balance—they began repairing the house before the lease was executed; they employed Mr. Garrett, a respectable builder, who said at Bow Street that they had paid him £10 out of £38, and then another £10, and a bill for the balance—Mr. Shaley told me that he also had done considerable work for them, and he wanted very much to get paid; he said to me, "It is a bad day's work for me knowing these people; I shall never get paid"—decorations to the hall were done, and Terry saw Dr. Bennett in London about making an entrance from the house to the hall, and I believe they put up two or three urinals at the back of the house—they paid £25 to Mr. Broadbridge for furniture which was there when I was there—the chairs are not paid for; the valuation was £25—I said at Bow Street that I was not there to allege any injury to Dr. Bennett—there was rent due at Christmas—this was in the middle of the quarter, and it was the rent from quarter-day, but they took it at the half-quarter—the house had been unlet for a very considerable time—Shelley was Dr. Bennett's caretaker.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT I believe it was a repairing lease, but I never saw it—I have sustained no loss except coming up here a great many times and to Bow Street—the hall had been let previously for church services, or dissenters of some sort, and for many things in years past—I have not admitted that the lease is not worth 6d.

Cross-examined by MR. ROWLANDS. I first saw Mr. Rimell at the Police-court; I know nothing about him.

Re-examined. The tenants in possession agreed to go—they had paid their rent to Christmas, and Dr. Bennett had to refund £8 10s. to get rid of them.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I never saw you till I saw you in the dock—I called on you but you were not at home—there was no suggestion that you were living in a furnished house.

ADAM FRANCIS TERRELL SHAPLAND . I am a solicitor of Prince's Street, Brighton—at the beginning of last year I acted as solicitor for Dr. Bennett, who instructed me to prepare a lease of 28, Grand Parade, and the adjoining hall—I prepared this lease and counterpart—before this a draft was prepared, and on 11th October I saw Manning and Terry at my office in the names of Maxwell and Debenham—they signed the draft in those names—the lease and counterpart were then proceeded with—possession was refused till certain valuations took place or payment made—on 7th November the lease and counterpart were executed—there was an agreement as to the back rent on another document.

Saturday, February 16.

FRANCIS GRAHAM BENNETT , M. R. C. S. I practise at 7, Hertford Street, Mayfair, and I am the owner of the house 28, Grand Parade, Brighton, and of the hall which adjoins it—in September last the hall was let as a chapel on a three years' agreement for £70 a year, there was one year to run—I instructed several agents, of whom Messrs. Brant and Co. were one, to let 28, Grand Parade; they had it on their books—about 29th September I received a letter from Messrs. Brant and Co. offering £100 a year for the two buildings—correspondence ensued, and on the 1st October I wrote agreeing to let the premises at £130, subject to references, and I told them I thought they could get rid of the agreement with the chapel people by paying them a certain sum—I particularly asked for landlords' references; I received a letter containing the references before I agreed to let the premises—I subsequently instructed a lawyer to execute the lease, believing the references and the statements contained in the letters implicitly—I decidedly should not have let the premises or executed a lease if I had known that those persons who gave references were not tenants—I made an arrangement with the tenants of the chapel to give it up on my undertaking to remit the half-quarter's rent; £8 15s. I think it amounted to—the defendants took all the doors off and made a communication between the chapel and house, which has spoilt the latter for private purposes; it will cost me about £20 I estimate to put the premises back into the condition they were before—I have had to pay half the legal expenses of the lease; I have offered Messrs. Brant half their com mission, £14; I hope they will take it—roughly speaking I have lost about £40 on this transaction; against that I have received £12 10s. on the sale of chairs, leaving a balance of £27 10s. to the bad—the house was in a fair state of repair at the time—I have done repairs to it from time to time—I have a bill here showing what repairs I did last year.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I would not undertake to put it into repair myself because they wanted structural alterations—I said they must take it on a repairing lease—rent was due at Christmas; they were arrested in November—no rent was due then—Brant demands his money; I hope I shall not have to pay it—the prisoners paid half the expenses—the prisoners spent something on the structural alterations—I have seen the house since; it has not improved, in my estimation—I agreed to allow £10 towards repairs—the house had been unlet between three and four years, but two years ago I papered and painted every room in the house, and last year I ran up bills amounting to £23—the chapel people still continue there at the prisoners' suggestion, and I told them not to pay any rent pending the trial—they have refused to pay me the £8; they say the prisoners allowed them to remain in till Christmas on account of allowing them to come in and do certain alterations to the chapel—when I received the reference I looked at Coghlan's writing, and it seemed that of a gentleman, and I thought Mr. Brant, living down at Brighton, had ascertained all the facts; I wrote and told Brant to accept—the lease was executed about a month afterwards—all I want is to have my rent paid—there was no rent to be paid to me in November—the rent was to commence at the half-quarter, but the lease on the quarter day, the 25th—I signed a lease, saying no rent should be due till March, but

there was a preliminary agreement—according to the lease the first rent was due on 1st March, 1889, but the half-quarter's rent was due on 25th December, because they had possession—I had to pay £8 15s. to Messrs. Thorpe and Street for giving up the chapel to them on 11th November—I thought they would be good tenants, and allowed them to do anything they wished; I should not have allowed them to make alterations if they had not had a lease.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. My wife went over the premises—she said the repairs and alterations had been carried out with a certain amount of taste—that is a matter of opinion; I don't always agree with my wife—she went down for me to see what was going on—I had a solicitor—I believe Mr. Goodman was the solicitor on the other side.

Cross-examined by MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS. I am prosecuting—I did not instruct anyone to institute the prosecution, and I do not pay the bill—I am not prosecuting against my will—I did not know the people were rogues; the police told me they were, and I found all the references were forged—they were not in the handwriting of the proper people, except Coghlan's—I found all the signatures to the references were forged when Inspector Conquest came and told me; up to that time I thought they were honest—I had made no application for rent up to that time, as none was due—I should have instructed my solicitor to recover possession of the premises, because I knew of no other way—Coghlan's was the principal reference, but they all influenced me.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I think Brant and Co. ought to have been certain of your bona fides before they sent this letter to me; they said they had inquired; they had been twice to your house, and only found a servant there—they went to Jenner and Dell, and found you lived in a furnished house instead of your own—I assumed yours was a landlord's reference—I did not know where Manning lived—I had a card left me, "Debenham and Maxwell, 2, Prince Albert Street'—it would have been better if my agent had made inquiry before instead of afterwards, but you were so anxious to receive the property.

By MR. BOMPAS. A landlord's reference is a reference from a house owner—it would be one from a landlord of the defendants—I understood Coghlan owned a house of his own—I should have considered that a landlord's reference—I mean by a landlord's reference a reference from a house owner.

By Coghlan. I don't know how long Brant has been in business at Brighton; I had done business with their predecessors.

Re-examined. When I asked for landlords' references, I meant reference from their former landlords.

THOMAS AUGUSTUS GOODMAN . I am a solicitor, practising at Brighton—Manning and Terry communicated with me in the names of Maxwell and Debenham.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. They called on 7th November, after the lease of the premises on the Grand Parade had been prepared, and said they could not get the lease from Mr. Shapland, and I said I would see him for them—it turned out to be because of some difficulty about payment for chairs—when I went to Mr. Shapland he had just received a telegram to deliver up the lease, as the difficulty had been removed, and he said that on payment of his charges they could have it—twelve

guineas, I think, was paid, and the lease was handed over—I know nothing of the repairs—the prisoners were strangers to me.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. Medina Villas, Hove, are a good class of house; they are larger on one side of the road than the other; I could not form an opinion as to the rent; it is a very good locality.

EDWARD LEAL .—I am a tailor's cutter, of 2, Prince Albert Street, Brighton—in September last Terry came in the name of Maxwell to engage two first floor rooms, unfurnished, at £25 a year—afterwards he came with Manning, who passed as Debenham—it was ultimately agreed by Terry to take the rooms at that rent; they both took part in it—Manning was not present when the agreement was signed—they occupied the rooms from September to 17th November, when they were arrested—Manning and Terry came there frequently during that time—the names on the door were "London and Provincial Trade Protection Society," and "Maxwell, Debenham, and Co."—they were agents for that society—they never told me what business they were carrying on—I noticed books, documents, and letters coming there for them—I noticed a letter there addressed to "Rimell, 2, Prince Albert Street, Brighton"—the rent was not paid.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. The defendants put about £15 or £20 worth of furniture into the rooms.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. The arrangements were made with my mother, not with me—the agreement was signed by Maxwell for Debenham.

Cross-examined by MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS. I never saw Rimell there—I don't know whether Manning or Terry had the letter addressed to Rimell—I was a witness in the case of forgery against Manning, in which Camm was the prosecutor—I then heard something to the effect that one of the charges against Manning was that he had used the name of Rimell.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I never saw you at the premises at Brighton.

Re-examined. I don't know how they got the furniture—it is there now; we are trying to hold it, it is the only thing we hope to get our rent by—I believe it came from Messrs. Crundon and Co., New Road, Brighton—I don't know whether it has been paid for—my mother is very infirm and blind.

WILLIAM HENRY BENNETT . I am a cashier in the London and County Bank, Brighton—on November 15 this letter (produced) was received from Maxwell, Debenham, and Co., of 2, Prince Albert Street—it stated that Mrs. Terry had promised to send a recommendation to enable Mr. Debenham to open an account at our bank, and next day we received a letter signed Emma Terry, of Medina Villas, West Brighton, saying that she was willing to become a reference for Debenham—on 17th November the prisoner Manning came and asked if we had the reference, and gave the name of Debenham—I referred to the books, and he opened an account with five £5 Bank of England notes and a cheque for £100 on the Union Bank, Chancery Lane, signed W. Manning, I believe—that cheque was honoured—I gave him a cheque-book and a book of paying in slips—the account has since been operated upon, by cheques signed by Debenham.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. At the time they were arrested we had the £125 still at the bank.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. We had known Mrs. Terry some years—she and Mr. Terry had been living at Medina Villas some time, as far as I know.

Re-examined. I had not known Terry going in the name of Maxwell, or of Mrs. Terry going in any other name.

THOMAS PARTRIDGE (Detective Sergeant). I was present here on 22nd March, 1883, when the prisoner Manning was charged with stealing cigars, and convicted and sentenced to three months' hard labour, and to pay the costs of the prosecution.

FREDERICK WHITING . I am manager of the Central Booking Office, 32, Watling Street—I knew Manning in the name of Silburn from November, 1885, to May, 1887, occupying two rooms on the second floor there—his name was up, "J. H. Silburn, solicitor"—when he left in May no rent was due till the June quarter; that has not been paid—from there he went to Clement's Inn.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I have heard that Mr. J. Silburn is a solicitor practising at Hartlepool, but I never heard that Manning was his managing clerk in this office—I have never asked Mr. Silburn, of Hartlepool, to pay the rent—I will undertake to say that the rent was not paid to Mr. Benson, the principal, because Mr. Benson told me to apply for it—I applied between June and September—I am certain it was not paid after September. (MR. MATHEWS produced the "Law List of this year, in which the name of Mr. Silburn, solicitor, of West Hartlepool, did not appear.)

WILLIAM VICKERY . I am secretary to the Grosvenor Club, 200, Buckingham Palace Road, which is for social intercourse—Manning was a member there from April 12, 1888—he gave his address 11, Clement's Inn, Strand, accountant—he was proposed by Captain Duncan—he was not a member on October 5, nor after July 31—he ceased to be a member because he did not pay his subscription—all he paid was his first subscription.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. Captain Duncan has been a member for some years; he was an original member, and is so still.

ROBERT MORWOOD CAMPBELL . I was office boy to Mr. Manning, at 11, Clement's Inn, from August, 1887, till March, 1888; I then left and went to Smith and Rydon's with Mr. Manning—clients used to come to Clement's Inn—the name Silburn was outside, also "Debenham" and "Peacock"—the clients used to see Mr. Manning as Mr. Silburn—Peacock had left before I went, but his name was still up—Mr. Benning had a little room part of the time—his name was not up—"London Provincial Trade Protection Association" was up—Terry would some times come three times a week, sometimes not at all—he would ask for and was shown in to Mr. Manning—Jolliffe came to see him about two weeks after I went there; that was about the end of 1887—I saw him a second time—he saw Mr. Manning—Mr. Rimell came once a week, generally to see Mr. Manning—I saw Rimell at Lincoln's Inn Fields once or twice—Coghlan would come three or four times a day sometimes to Clement's Inn—he came to Lincoln's Inn Fields—I posted letters addressed to the defendants, Freshfield, Perkins, Vaughan and Co.—I put letters and papers away—I understood Jolliffe to be Freshfield—I heard something about a distress

being put in in June—I only saw Jolliffe two or three times at Lincoln's Inn, the last time a fortnight before Mr. Manning left early in August—I remained at Smith and Rydon's—I did not go to 210, Strand.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. I first saw Terry just before Christmas, 1887—I did not see him before I went to Clement's Inn—an action against Terry was defended by Manning—Terry was plaintiff in some actions—Manning conducted the business for him.

Cross-examined by MR. ROWLANDS. I am fifteen years old—we kept a call-book; this is it—I was first asked about this case about Christmas—I went to see the Treasury Solicitor—I did not refer to the call-book, but it is from recollection I say Rimell came once a week—Fisher was clerk the latter part of the time—he would know who called—I used to go with messages—Manning acted for Rimell's family as well as for Rimell—he acted for Rimell's brother in the case of Cole v. Rimell—he acted for Rimell in February, 1888—I always saw him as Rimell—his name did not appear on the door; he was only a client—he called when Manning was out—I include those calls in the once a week—they generally left the office together; not on all occasions—sometimes his visits were longer than two or three minutes—Manning had a private room to transact the Silburn business in—Fisher had not a private room, but was in the office where I was.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I remember Mr. Duncan calling—he had a reversion for sale—he was plaintiff in an action in which your wife was defendant—the name was Bradfield—I served the notices—I served a notice on your behalf on a Mrs. Buckle—I did not serve the notice in Chancery—I know a writ was issued—so far as I know you saw Manning on legal business—Manning was often out—many days you did not come near the office—other names were on the door of 35, Lincoln's Inn, besides Smith and Rydon: Salmon, Seale, and Smith—I cannot say if that is usual in solicitors' offices; it is with barristers—I heard that Peacock occupied the office before Manning—you had business relations with Peacock, which were continued by Manning.

MONTAGUE HOLMES . I have removed from 68A to 33, Paternoster Row—I am the landlord of 124, Battersea Park Road—Manning lived there in 1887—he first took the premises at the end of 1883 at £50 a ear—he occupied them till his arrest—he had the option to purchase at £600—he exercised that option in June, 1886—he paid £50 down, leaving £550 upon mortgage—the instalments for interest have been paid—£400 principal is still owing.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. Manning lived with his wife and two children in the house—he was a respectable tenant.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I should know nothing of his habits, nor whether he partly occupied another house, unless he told me.

EDWARD GRAHAM FISHER . I was clerk to Mr. Manning from February, 1888, at half-a-crown a day, and remained in his service till after he went to Smith and Rydon's about Lady Day, and when he went to 210, Strand—I knew him as Manning, as Silburn, and Debenham, but not as Rimell—a distress for rent, due Midsummer, 1888, was put in—the furniture was condemned—under Manning's instructions I went to buy it with money that he provided—it was taken to 210, Strand, and placed there for the purpose of opening that office—there was no law business there; the business professed to be an accountant's—no work was done there—I continued to receive half-a-crown a day—a great part of the

time Manning was at Brighton—I used principally to go with messages for him—there was some correspondence and answers to advertisements as to reversions and money loans—I saw Benning at Clement's Inn—I have met him as I was coming out of the office at Lincoln's Inn—I saw him once, I think, at 210, Strand—I did not know the premises in Clement's Inn had been taken in the name of F. J. Rimell up to the time the distress was put in; then I did know it—that was in July, 1888—I used to see Rimell at Clement's Inn once a week the first part of the time, subsequently not so often—I left Manning in March—I never saw Rimell at Lincoln's Inn; I saw him at 210, Strand once—he had seen Manning there—by Manning's directions I have signed the name of Rimell from 210, Strand, either "Rimell, Debenham, and Co." or "Debenham, Rimell, and Co."—I saw Terry at Clement's Inn and at the Strand—I have seen Jolliffe at Clement's Inn about three times altogether; I could not say as to one—the two letters (produced) sent to Mr. Oakham are my writing—I see I signed both ways—I knew Jolliffe as Perkins—he did not call himself Jolliffe sometimes to my knowledge—he also went in the name of Freshfield—I have seen the signature of Freshfield—I do not know whose it is—I always thought Jolliffe was Freshfield—I have seen two signatures "Freshfield" and two "Perkins"—Perkins was the same person—I remember being out side the Royal Courts one day last year; Jolliffe was there, and Manning came up subsequently—I was waiting—Jolliffe was standing by the side of me—Manning took him away and sent me to do something at the office, and when I came back we met Jolliffe at the George—it was in the summer of 1888, while the Courts were sitting—a document was not produced, to the best of my recollection—I should not like to say—I cannot remember—I was examined at Bow Street—I cannot give the date when I saw Jolliffe and Manning outside the Courts—I have not given a different version of the meeting to my knowledge—Manning asked me if I had seen Freshfield—I knew whom he meant—I saw Manning and Fresh field together, and Mr. Benning—they came into the waiting-room, I was busy writing out a summons I believe at the time—I did not see the document signed by Freshfield, but I saw it a few minutes afterwards; it was handed, and I handed it back and Manning took it—the signature was Freshfield—this is it—(An affidavit)—it remained in Manning's possession; he had then left Clement's Inn—I am sure it was in the summer—I hardly think it could be as late as September, I should say about August—I can not say if the Courts were sitting—Jolliffe came to Clement's Inn twice or three times—I never saw him at Lincoln's Inn, nor the Strand—he called to see Mr. Manning, and when I said he was not in, he said, "I will call again"—I used to put the name of Perkins in the call book, the only name I knew him by—when I saw the document signed Freshfield I certainly had my own thoughts about it. (MR. GEOGHEGAN objected to the affidavit, and it was withdrawn.)—Manning began to go to Brighton very shortly after he went to 210, Strand—Terry used to call at the Strand occasionally as Terry—I knew him as Maxwell, the end of September, from what Manning told me—this is Manning's signature to the letter, dated 16th May, 1887, also to the agreements of 24th May, "F. J. Rimell," and 9th July, 1888—I handed the latter document already signed to Mr. Baxter—after the signature was put to it I filled up in Mr. Morgan's office Mr. Baxter's

name, the "seven years" and the premium—"G. Perkins" is Manning's signature—I did not see it written—I have no doubt of it—I got it from Manning to take to Mr. Baxter—I noticed the signature before I handed it to Mr. Manning—I knew Jolliffe as G. Perkins—the document did not strike me at all—I folded it up and put it in my pocket—the name did not attract my attention—I had seen Jolliffe months before then—I would not swear that—I do not remember seeing him about that time—the name on the document did not strike me—I remember Baxter coming to pay his rent—I was sent by Manning to get his rent—this Baxter's rent book, "Mr. A. H. Baxter to Mr. George Perkins" is my writing—the name did not till then strike me as being Jolliffe—I paid the rent I got from Baxter, to Mr. Manning—at that time, July, Jolliffe was not at or about the Strand office—I was not in communication with him—I saw and wrote the name—I did not ask Manning anything about it—I thought it was all right—I attended the execution of the assignment to Reuter [The original lease] of 20th September—it is in my writing—I believe I wrote it at Clement's Inn, under Manning's instructions—I afterwards attended the meeting at Morgan's—I saw Mr. Reuter there—Manning came in—I did not see him sign "G. Perkins"—my signature as attesting witness was upon Manning's instructions—he said, "Fisher, you may as well sign this—I objected to it at the time—he said, "It is all right; you know it is all right; any responsibility I will take myself "—I believe that was at Clement's Inn, before I went to Morgan—I swear it—I went to Morgan's to complete, to give the document to Mr. Manning, when he arrived from Brighton—Mr. Morgan gave me the document a few days previously out of his safe, and I said, "It is already signed with the exception of the name and the amount, the consideration, being filled in"—the endorsement is my writing—it was not signed on the 20th, but before that, and attested—it was signed by me under pressure from Mr. Manning—it must be a forgery perpetrated by Manning—the interlineation was written at Mr. Morgan's office, I believe by me—I cannot say at what part of the interview, Manning—asked me to write it in—I saw the money paid over to Manning, I did not see Jolliffe then—I was not present when Manning paid Jolliffe the money—I do not remember receiving any instructions from Jolliffe about the premises—I identified "G. Perkins" as one of Jolliffe's names—that struck me as odd—I only asked about it when Manning asked me to attest it—Manning went down to Brighton a good deal after that—the letter of 5th October is my writing—Manning told me to write it—I knew it was a reference given to Debenham, who was Manning—I knew it was a tissue of lies, and that it was to be put forward to a prospective landlord—Coghlan's letter is his writing, I believe—I have seen Rimell's writing on business letters coming from him two or three times, as Manning told me on some occasions to write Rimell's name—Manning wrote his letters to Rimell—I saw the envelopes and addresses only; I posted them—Rimell's brother was Manning's or Silburn's client—Rimell did not reside at Green Lanes, Penge—I do not know where he lived—this address is "F. G. Rimell, Green Lanes, Penge"—I believe that is his hand—the letter from 17, Commercial Road, Blackfriars, of 8th December, is my writing disguised—Terry was present—Manning said, "Fisher, disguise your hand"—I said, "What for?"—he said, "I do not want the writing to be known," and I wrote the letter from his dictation—I left them at 210, Strand—I knew

Maxwell and Terry were one person—the letter says he was my tenant—that was a lie—I knew it; I Knew it was to be given to a landlord and the object of its being disguised—I did not see Perkins in October—under Manning's instructions I wrote this letter of 15th October from 210, Strand, "Mr. Manning has left our office. He merely attended at Mr. Morgan's office to receive the money which we have handed to Mr. Perkins, who was well known at "Walker's Court and the Marlborough Street Police-court in connection with an assault"—that is not true—there was no call-book at 210, Strand—no books were kept there. This letter was to Pigott, Hart, and Co., referring them to "Mr. Perkins' solicitor" for evidence of title on paying costs, and signed "Debenham and Co.")—that was a tissue of lies, and I knew it—I left 210, Strand on 10th October, but I used to go morning and evening for 4s. or 5s. a week—this letter of 6th April, 1888 was signed "Rimell" by Manning, and is my writing—I wrote it by Manning's instructions—when I said Manning never went as Rimell I had forgotten that; there were so many things I did for Manning and so many names it is almost impossible to remember.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. Manning's was a solicitor's business—he went to Smith and Rydon's as managing clerk—previously the business was taken in the name of J. Silburn at Clement's Inn—I under stood Silburn practised at West Hartlepool—Manning used to act as Silburn's clerk—the business was sold to Smith and Rydon, and that was why Manning went there—the assignment was signed by Baxter, and exchanged for one signed by Perkins—the document put in was a copy of that previously signed—Manning instructed me to add the name, premium, and number of years—the first time I knew the shop in Walker's Court was when Manning sent me for the rent—the receipt was written after the interlineation in the document.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. I believe I first saw Terry about March—I find an entry of his name in this call-book on 9th January—I do not know that the negotiations about the house were communicated to Terry—Terry was sent for envelopes by Manning when I wrote the disguised letter of reference.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. Your visits to Manning were with regard to legal business, nothing else so far as I knew.

Cross-examined by MR. ROWLANDS. I always knew Rimell as Rimell—I knew Silburn transacted business for the brother of Rimell—I had no doubt Rimell paid costs to Manning—he certainly did in Cole v. Rimell—Manning called himself Debenham in his Trade Protection Society—whether Rimell's brother saw Manning or not his name would be entered in the call-book when he called—the letters to Mr. Oakham were signed "Debenham, Rimell and Co."—I do not know that Rimell authorised his name to be so used—the letters referred to Camm's reversion—Manning has been tried for that—Rimell's name was shown to have been personated without his knowledge in that case—I heard Mr. Mathews say in his speech in Camm's case that if Rimell had given authority he was in Court and could be called by Manning to prove it.

Re-examined. Rimell was present, he was not called—the body of the affidavit is my writing by Manning's instructions—it was not signed in my presence—Manning's writing in it is "John Jolliffe, of East Surrey Grove, Peckham, in the County of Surrey;" then I go on "Victualler"—the date is July, 1888—the signature to the affidavit of 23rd November is the same writing, "Charles Frederick Jolliffe."

By MR. ROWLANDS. The agreement for chambers in Clement's Inn was signed by Manning—that was before I knew him—I am not aware that Rimell knew that his name was being so used—Rimell was not present when I bought goods by Manning's instructions at the time of the distress.

FREDERICK HARRISON DINN . I am a clerk in the Union Bank; on 29th Manning's account was debited with this cheque (produced).

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I cannot say whether afterwards a cheque was drawn by Manning in favour of Silburn and cashed—Manning's pass-book, which I have not got, would show it—Manning kept a pretty fair balance at our bank as a rule; the average sum was about £150 I should say—his account was opened on the 23rd March, 1880.

Re-examined. It was kept in the name of William Henry Manning, solicitor, 73, Newman Street.

ARTHUR HOPE RYDON . I am a member of the firm of Smith and Rydon, solicitors, of 35, Lincoln's Inn Fields—I purchased the London business of Silburn, treating with and handing to Manning the cheque for it, payable to J. H. Silburn or order—Manning produced an authority—after that, about the end of March, Manning came to my office, 35, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and I gave into his hands the transaction of all the affairs which formed part of Silburn's business—he stopped till August, and then my partner suspended him through information he received from Somerset House.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I know nothing about Silburn; I saw no one but Manning—I wrote to Silburn at Hartlepool after the purchase, and had a reply some considerable time after I wrote—I don't know what arrangements existed between Manning and Silburn—when I purchased the business I understood it belonged to Mr. Silburn, a solicitor of West Hartlepool, and that it left him his country business—I paid the cheque to Manning; I don't know if he paid all or what part of it to Silburn—Manning produced authority from Silburn to sell the business, I should not have bought it without—I have not Silburn's answers here—I have doubt about there being a Mr. Silburn at West Hartlepool.

EDWARD GRAHAM FISHER (Re-examined). The stamp "J. H. Silburn" on the back of this cheque for £500 was used by Manning at Clement's Inn.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I first saw you when I came to Lincoln's Inn Fields about last February—I never heard you and Peacock speak of a journey you had taken to Hartlepool in the autumn of 1887, or that in connection with the business you went on you had met Silburn.

ARTHUR HOPE RYDON (Re-examined by MR. BOMPAS). I believe if a solicitor's certificate is taken out from the Law Institution a little late the name does not appear in the "Law List"—they keep at the Law Institution the authorised record of the solicitors who take out certificates and are entitled to practise; certificates ought to be taken out on 1st November—the "Law List" is not published till March, but it is made up to 1st November, so that those whose certificates are not taken out before do not appear.

CHARLES SEARLE . I am a detective in the Brighton police force—on 17th November last I saw Manning about to enter 2, Prince Albert Street

—I followed him to the first floor and said, "Good morning, sir"—he said, "Good morning"—I said, "Mr. Debenham, I believe"—he said, "Yes, that is my name"—I told him I was a police officer, and asked him to come to the police office with me—he said, "What for?"—I said, "There is a warrant issued from Bow Street for your arrest for fraud"—he said, "What is the nature of the fraud?"—I told him it would be better to go and see the chief constable, and in all probability he would be able to explain the matter—he went with me—he asked the chief constable what he was detained for—he told him for fraud, and showed him a telegram we had received from the London police, and said, "That is my authority for detaining you here, and I cannot explain anything more until an officer arrives from London"—he was detained—I searched and found on him these two cheque-books, one on the London and County Bank, of Brighton, and another on the Union Bank of London—in the latter I found a blank cheque endorsed "W. H. Manning," and in the former I found a cheque in favour of Garrett and Co., signed "W. Debenham"—Manning attempted to take that out; I prevented him doing so, and told him I could not allow him to do it—I also found on him two loose cheques, one on the Union Bank drawn by W. H. Manning in favour of Silburn, a pocket-book with a number of cards, "Debenham, Maxwell, and Co," an envelope addressed, "Lieutenant W. D. Debenham," and a pawn-ticket in the name of John Shepherd—after we had searched him and I was about to put him in the cells he said, "Some of you will have to settle up for this when I get at liberty"—after that Inspector Conquest came from London, and the prisoner and all I found on him were handed over to him.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. The cheque for Garrett was £10, and dated 17th November, I believe, the day I arrested him—I found paying-in books of the London and County Bank—he did not say to me that he had a complete answer.

JOHN CONQUEST (Police Inspector E). On 16th November I received a warrant for Manning's arrest—on 17th I telegraphed information to the Brighton police, and on that day I went to Brighton, and Manning, who was detained at the Brighton police-station, was handed over to me—I read to him the warrant, which was for obtaining £30 from John Reuter—he said, "I have a perfect answer to the charge"—I brought him to London, where he was charged; he made no further reply—before I left Brighton I went to 9, Manchester Street—I saw the landlady Mrs. Newell there, and received from her a black bag, which was locked—I showed it to the prisoner, and said, "I believe this is your bag"—he said, "Yes; it is mine, but you have not my authority to open it"—I opened it with the key, which was on a bunch I found in his possession—I searched the bag in his presence, and found the cheque-book of the British Mutual Banking Company, and a letter signed "Hocombe," written from Rugby Chambers, Bedford Row; and addressed to James Rimell, 2, Prince Albert Street, Brighton, and dated 3rd December—I found this letter "Dear D.," signed J. or T. M., this letter of 15th November from the manager of the London and County Bank, Brighton, to Maxwell, Debenham, and Co.; a lease of certain premises at Brighton from Dr. Bennett to Maxwell and Debenham; an assignment from William Freshfield to William Henry Manning, signed W. Freshfield; two cheques, one drawn by W. H. Manning in

favour of Silburn for £65, I believe, and the other drawn by J. Vaughan on the Birkbeck Bank in favour of J. H. Silburn—on 18th November Manning appeared before the magistrate; he was remanded for a day—before 30th November warrants were issued against Terry, Jolliffe, Rimell, and Coghlan—on 30th November Terry came to Bow Street police-station, and said to me, "Have you seen Mr. Hill?"—I replied, "Yes"—he said, "I have come here in answer to a letter from him to give evidence"—I said, "You are Mr. Maxwell or Mr. Terry, aren't you?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "I have a warrant for your arrest for being concerned with Manning and others in obtaining a lease of some premises at Brighton by false representations"—I read the warrant to him, and he commenced to make a long statement—I told him I should have to state what he said to the Magistrate, and I cautioned him, and then took down in writing what he said—he said, "I don't know either of the others, I only know Coghlan, who was introduced to me by Manning as running two theatres in London; I became acquainted with him in closing some business for me with a man named Benning, and I gave both a power of attorney to act for me, and dispose of the businesses at No. 1, Walker's Court, and a place in Newport Market, and a cigar-shop in Tottenham Court Road; but I sold that myself; Manning told me about a fortnight or three weeks ago that the property in Walker's Court had never been sold, and I have not had any money"—I said, "You have not been living at your address at Medina Villas"—he said, "No, I have been staying with some friends at St. Leonards, and left them on Mon day; Manning told me that Bimell and Coghlan were substantial men, and Fisher, the clerk, held his own house at Peckham"—I took him into custody; he was charged; he made no reply—on 26th November I received a warrant from Bow Street for the arrest of Coghlan, Terry or Maxwell, and Arthur Bimell or Perkins—I arrested Coghlan on that at half-past four on 26th November outside Bow Street Police-court—I said, "Is your name Coghlan or Vaughan?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "I am a police officer; I am going to take you into custody for fraudulently obtaining some property at Brighton concerned with Manning and others"—he said, "All right, if the Magistrate has granted a warrant I suppose I must go, but cannot you take me at Brighton, as I live there?"—I took him to the police-station where the other prisoners were, and read the warrant, and when I came to Perkins's name I said to Jollife, "I believe you are Mr. Perkins"—he said, "Yes"—they were all charged, none of them made any answer—I searched Coghlan on that day and found this pocket-book, a card of Maxwell, Debenham and Co.; a card of J. Vaughan, proprietor of Sale and Exchange, Strand; five cards of J. Vaughan and Co., 46, Queen Victoria Street; twenty cards of Rogers and Co., accountants, 30, Great James Street, Bedford Row; stamped in the corner of some of those was J. Vaughan; a card of J. Vaughan, member of the United Dramatic Club; several letters addressed A. J. Vaughan, Brighton; plans of the property at Brighton, signed A. J. Vaughan and Co., 30, Great James Street; some blank sheets of note-paper headed 30, Great James Street, and also some headed 5, Abingdon Villas, Kensing ton, with the monogram "J. V." in the corner; eight visiting cards of Rev. J. H. Coghlan; and a small book in which the name of Manning frequently occurs—Rimell was brought into the Police-court by another officer—I said nothing to him particularly, I read the warrant to them all—he said

nothing when charged—when I said to Jolliffe, "I believe your name is Perkins," he acknowledged that—he made no answer when charged.

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I found two letters from Silburn in the bag and an agreement signed by Silburn.

Cross-examined by MR. WOOLLETT. The warrant against the four prisoners was granted on 26th November—on the 30th I think there was a hearing, and Terry then came up and spoke to me—I said, "You are Terry or Maxwell"—I did not tell him till then I had a warrant for him—the long statement he made was his answer when I read the warrant—he made only one statement to me, which I took in writing, and have read—my own officers were engaged in this inquiry with me—I know no person named Cook, a police officer—no person named Cook was engaged in this inquiry with me—I have heard that Terry went to the Treasury; I don't know that that was by Cook's advice—I did not advise him—I met him there myself once; he may have gone there more than once, but not to my knowledge—I did not hear of his going several times; I believe he went more than once—I found four promissory notes in Manning's bag; one was for £200 from Captain Menzies—I have had notice from a solicitor not to part with that—I should not like to swear it was not Terry's—I made no inquiry at St. Leonards—Terry said he had been staying with friends, not with his sister there—I knew Terry came from Buckingham—we found he had had an extensive brewery at Aylesbury with his brother—the brewery was sold in 1884, or it may be in 1886.

Cross-examined by MR. BOWEN ROWLANDS. I have been in charge of this case—I am told Rimell holds an off licence for wines and beer—I have not made inquiry personally.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I took Terry's statement, which he made voluntarily, word for word, as he uttered it—I have not heard your name in connection with Rimell's case—I found nothing from Manning addressed to you—I remember a letter from Manning to you stating it was better you should have no conversation with him—that was about three weeks before these proceedings—it was written from Brighton—I cannot say you were seen together after that—I never heard of your being on his premises after that, or having any connection with the property—I have heard Mr. Cook was struck off the rolls—he has used strong expressions with regard to you.

Re-examined. Cook was not employed by me—Terry left Aylesbury in debt—nothing could be heard of him after he left the brewery—that is the result of my inquiry—Layton had an off licence—he was a retailer, so I heard—I said to Terry, "You are Maxwell or Terry," not "Are you Maxwell or Terry?"—I called him Terry in the warrant as well—I read the warrant to him.

EDWARD GRAHAM FISHER (Re-examined) The letter beginning "Dear D." is Terry's writing.

A. H. EYDON (Re-examined) I saw that document in Manning's hands—I saw Manning tear the half sheet off—The agreement between Freshfield, Benning, and Coghlan.)

Cross-examined by MR. BOMPAS. I saw the document torn early in September, soon after I returned from abroad—he was claiming to be paid cash, and I received his letter claiming the balance due—I wrote him that before we paid any moneys over he must produce Freshfield, and give us an

undertaking from Freshfield that the deeds had been by his authority, and were then in his possession—he brought somebody purporting to be Freshfield, and the deeds with him, and when he went out he tore the signatures off—there was a difference between Manning and me as to accounts—I received letters purporting to come from Silburn from West Hartlepool the same year—I think these are some produced—having seen those letters I still doubt the existence of Mr. Silburn.

Cross-examined by Coghlan. I do not know whether the document had your signature.

Re-examined. I do not identify either of the prisoners as the one who personated Freshfield.

Coghlan in his defence denied that he had conspired with anyone; that he only knew Terry by residing near him at Brighton; that Rimell he had only met at Silburn's office; and that in all that he had done he had acted openly and in a bona fide manner.

Several witnesses deposed to the good character of Terry, Rimell, and Jolliffe.

GUILTY . Judgment Respited.

The Grand Jury made a presentment commending the conduct of Inspector Conquest and the other officers, in which the Recorder concurred.

The following were omitted from New Court, Wednesday, February 6th Page 833).

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-259
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

259. GEORGE WILSON (40) PLEADED GUILTY to burglary in the dwelling-house of William Wilberforce, and stealing various articles therein, after a conviction of felony in June, 1879.*— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-260
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

260. ALBERT WISDOM (26) to three indictments for forging and uttering orders for the delivery of goods. He received a good character from several witnesses, one of whom offered to give him employment.— Discharged on recognisances. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-261
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > fine; Miscellaneous > fine

Related Material

261. EDWARD STENNING and EDGAR HARDY , to keeping and maintaining a common gaming-house— STENNING Fined £5, HARDY Fined £2. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-262
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

262. GEORGE PULLEYNE (31) , to uttering an endorsement on a forged cheque— He received a good character.— Three days' imprisonment. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]


Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-263
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

263. GEORGE CARTER (34) PLEADED GUILTY to two indictments for converting to his own use two watches value £9 and £2 10s., of which he was bailee. Two Days' Imprisonment.

Before Mr. Justice Charles.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-264
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

264. RICHARD JOSEPH TURRELL (55) , Feloniously setting fire to bedding and bed-clothes in the dwelling-house of Sarah Cotton, with intent to set fire to the building.

MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted, and MR. HUTTON Defended.

SARAH COTTON . I live at 14, Argyll Road, Canning Town—I occupy the lower half of the house and the prisoner the upper half—he lives in the back room and lets the other room to Sullivan—on 4th January, about six in the morning, the prisoner came in and called out, "Is any one at home?"—I said, "Yes; I am at home"—I came out of my kitchen and got a lamp—he said, "I am drunk; do you think I can get

upstairs?"—I said, "Yes "; I would give him a light—he took hold of the banisters and climbed up—I went into his room, lighted his lamp, and took mine away—a little while after he came down and sent a boy for half a pint of beer, and went up again, saying, "I am going to lie down, and in half an hour send the lad for half a pint of old ale and call me"—he came down again in about ten minutes, roaming about and calling out, "Katie," for his wife—I said she was not at home—he went up again—I went out to get some biscuits, and as I returned I met him two doors off—I said, "I thought you were going to bed?"—he said, "All right; I shall be back again in a minute"—that was all I saw of im—I went into the house and sat down to my tea—I did not notice anything for some time; I then smelt fire—after looking about downstairs, I went up—there was no fire in the prisoner's room, but the landing was full of smoke—I opened Sullivan's door, and his room was full of smoke; I could not get in; I closed' the door and gave an alarm; some neighbours came in, and I sent for a policeman—in the meantime my little boy and a neighbour went in and tried to put out the fire, and they were in the act of doing so when the police arrived—before that I had heard the prisoner going about into all the rooms, and he went into Sullivan's room—there was no one in the house but I and the prisoner.

Cross-examined. There was no woman living in the house with Sullivan, she used to come and clean his room, but had not been for three months.

THOMAS SULLIVAN . I am a stevedore; I lived at 14, Argyll Road, in an unfurnished room, sublet to me by the prisoner—the furniture in it was mine—I left my room early on the morning of 4th January—every thing was then safe—there had been no fire in the room for three or four days—about seven in the evening I was fetched home, and found police men and firemen there, and my goods were destroyed, bed and bed clothes—the bed was on the bedstead when I left home, and was unmade—the bed-clothes were burnt, and a small portion of the bed—I saw the policeman take some hot cinders out of the bed.

Cross-examined. I had lived in the room about four months—I knew the prisoner before I went there—I had had no words with him on that day—a woman used to clean out his room, but not for some time—only twice while I have been there—the prisoner's wife used to do it, and I gave her a little extra for it—I was away all day at work.

ALBERT MALLETT (Policeman K 413). On 4th January, about a quarter to eight p.m., I went to this house; I saw smoke issuing from the upper part—Mrs. Cotton was in the passage—I went up to the front room first floor, opened the door, and saw the bed and bedding in flames—I closed the door, called for water, and put the fire out—Sullivan came in after me and the firemen—I locked the door and went away with the key—at a quarter-past nine that same evening I met the prisoner in Victoria Dock Road—I said, "I shall take you in custody on suspicion of setting fire to 14, Argyll Road"—he said, "All right; I am as good as gold; have you got the one that see me set it on fire? I have got four medals; has the fire-engine been to put it out? Has it burnt much? Sullivan can have my wife now; she says he is a better man than I am"—he also said, "Give me a piece of tobacco, as I shall not be home to

night"—at the station, when he was charged, he said, "Who saw me do it? I am sorry"—I found a small piece of coal in his pocket—I afterwards went to the house and made a thorough examination—I found the bed-clothes almost all burnt, and in the middle I found some ashes and the bolster set up endways, and the bed-clothes pulled up in the centre—there was no fire in the room; there had been one in the prisoner's room, but that had burnt out.

Cross-examined. The prisoner was not drunk; he had the appearance of having been drinking.

GEORGE WILLIAM BUTTERY . I am a fireman at Canning Town Fire Station—on 4th January, a little after 8 p.m., I was called to 14, Argyll Road—I found the fire had been extinguished—the middle of the bed was burnt out; the bed-clothes were turned up; it had not been burning very much; it had been smouldering—a little afterwards I found cinders piled up in the middle of the bed—the bed had been decidedly set on fire—if the fire had gone on it would have burnt the house down in a very few minutes—a straw palliasse was lying on the bedstead; that would have ignited very speedily.

MR. HUTTON submitted that the evidence was not sufficient to show an intention to burn the house, and referred to "Reg. v. Nattress" and "Reg. v. Child," 12 Cox, Criminal Cases.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES proposed to ask the Jury their opinion as to the prisoner's act, if in what he did he acted with a reckless disregard, whether the house was set fire to or not, that would be in accordance with the ruling of Mr. Justice Blackburn in Child's case, and would constitute a sufficient intention to injure to justify a verdict of Guilty; a mere intent to injure the owner of the goods destroyed would not be sufficient.

GUILTY .— Three Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-265
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

265. EMILY BESANT (28) , Stealing a pair of boots, the goods of Thomas Bishop.

MR. BURNIE Prosecuted.

BOSS ANN BISHOP . I am the wife of Thomas Bishop, a signalman, of 88, Kosher Road, Stratford—on 28th November I met the prisoner when I was looking for work—she told me a pitiful story about her husband having left her, and I took her to my lodging—she said she was looking for work; she had food in her pocket, and I gave her some tea—on the 29th she came again at 8.30 a.m., and we went out about 8.40, and walked about till 11.30—I then asked her to come home with me—she consented, and while I stood talking to a person I know, I saw the prisoner go into my house, and when I got in she was in the passage—she followed me upstairs—she then said she had to go to West Ham, and was to come back in an hour and have dinner with me—I was there the rest of the day, but she never came back, and I missed a pair of boots two days afterwards, worth 7s., which I saw safe the morning she came, on the top of a cupboard—I am the only lodger in the house; the landlady lives downstairs.

MATILDA HUNTER . Mrs. Bishop lodges with me—on 29th November, between twelve and one o'clock, I opened the door to the prisoner—she said that Mrs. Bishop was talking, and would be there directly; I saw her talking a few doors further down—the prisoner followed me upstairs, and I went into my kitchen on the ground floor, leaving the door slightly open; I looked through and saw her going upstairs, and then I closed

my kitchen door—the prisoner came downstairs quietly, and I saw her pass through into the yard and return and stand on the door mat—Mrs. Bishop then came in and they went upstairs together—after the prisoner left no one but Mrs. Bishop went upstairs till the Saturday two days afterwards, only my four daughters, and they did not go to Mrs. Bishop's room—I do not know when the prisoner left.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-266
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

266.— EMILY BESANT was again indicted for stealing a skirt, a night dress, a purse, and other articles, the property of Charles Marsh.

MARIA MARSH . I am the wife of Charles Marsh, of 5, Edward Street, Canning Town; he works in a sugar factory—on December 31st I was at the Salvation Hall, Canning Town; the prisoner was there, but she did not speak to me—I saw her there again next morning, January 1st—she said she had nowhere to sleep, and I took her home and she slept with me that night and the next—on January 3rd I left her in bed alone in the room, and went to the kitchen to get the breakfast; my husband came in and I did not go back to the bedroom for an hour and a half—the prisoner got up and came into the kitchen and had breakfast, and went out at a few minutes before nine; she came back about 9.30, and left altogether about 9.45—more than an hour and a half after that I missed my purse and dress from a chair by the bedside, and afterwards I missed two pillow-cases, a rug, a bodice, and other things, including the street door key—this is the rug and the pillow-cases produced)—she said she would come back and say good-bye, but she did not.

WILLIAM KEYS (Policeman K 225). On January 4th, about 12.45 p.m., I took the prisoner at 13, Franklyn Street; she had this property in her hand—I asked her where she had been living—she said, "5, Edward Street, Canning Town," and these things were given to her by a woman at the Forest Gate Steam Laundry; she was in the front parlour; it is a lodging in a private house.

GUILTY .— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.—There were two other indictments against her.)


Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-267
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

267. WILLIAM OVERTON (20), PLEADED GUILTY to a burglary in the dwelling-house of Oscar Stehfast, with intent to steal.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-268
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

268. WILLIAM JOHN COMMANDER PLEADED GUILTY to maliciously wounding Timothy Buckley.— Two Months' Imprisonment.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-269
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

269. WILLIAM MOFFATT, Unlawfully taking Emily Jane Shotten, a girl under eighteen, out of the possession and against the will of her father, Phillip Shotten, with intent to carnally know her.

MR. MEAD Prosecuted, and Mr. LAWLESS Defended the prisoner at the request of the Court.



Before Mr. Justice Charles.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-270
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

270. SAMUEL PAUL (19), PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously carnally knowing Rose Paul, a girl under the age of thirteen.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-271
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

271. ARTHUR HEALT (26) , Indecently assaulting Rosina Tilby, a girl under the age of thirteen.

MR. BURNIE Prosecuted; MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.


Before Mr. Recorder.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-272
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

272. JOSEPH LAWRENCE (18) , Carnally knowing Edith Stone, a girl under the age of 13.

MR. ROBERT COLAM Prosecuted, and MR. WALKER Defended.

GUILTY of an indecent assault .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-273
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

273. ROBERT PARKER (50) and WILLIAM BRADBURY (24) , Unlawfully having in their possession a mould for coining.

MR. WILMOT Prosecuted.

ALFRED WARD (Police Sergeant L). From information I received, on 12th January I followed the prisoner Parker home to 8, Gray Street, Waterloo Road—on the next night, Sunday, at 6 p.m., I went there again with two constables and found the door ajar; we were in plain clothes—we all three went into a room on the ground floor and saw the two prisoners sitting side by side at a small table, on which was a saucer containing sand and these 17 florins—Bradbury was giving the finishing touches to one of the florins; he had a file in his hand—Parker held this mould; it was hot; it contained a florin in process of manufacture—I said, "Halloa, you seem busy here"—Parker's spectacles fell off, and he said, "Good God, we are done; you have got us fair, there is no use saying any thing; you can have what there is"—they were secured, and I saw Sergeant Grogan find five finished half-crowns and some partly finished, in some water—two files were on the table, and a broken piece of the mould bearing the impress of a half-crown—this ladle, containing molten metal, was on the fire, and there was a lot of molten metal and plaster of Paris in the cinders—they were taken to the station, and the charge was read over of manufacturing counterfeit silver coin—Parker said, "How can you charge me with making silver counterfeit coin when there is no silver in them?"

Cross-examined by Parker. You were not well furnished with tools; I expected to find more—these are all the moulds I found, but there are lots in the cinders broken into small fragments—a good fire was burning.

Cross-examined by Bradbury. I have seen you in the company of notorious coiners—your landlady is too ill to attend.

FRANCIS BOSWELL (Detective Sergeant L) I went with Ward to this house—I have been in Court and corroborate what he says—I saw this part of a mould at the table where they sat; I picked it up and marked it, it is the one Parker was handling—I said, "How is this?"—he said, "It belongs to this; I broke it; it got hot"—I said, "Where is the other piece?"—he said, "You will find it in the ashes in the fender"—

I tried to get a piece to bring away, but they were too small—I also found in the ashes a lot of droppings from metal—there was a coke fire and a ladle over it, which I took off—I said, "Where is the battery and acid?"—he said, "I don't want any battery; there is platinum in them," pointing, to the coins—I took this antimony off the mantelpiece.

Cross-examined by Parker. I am sure you said platinum—you did not say there is plating enough—I made a note of it at the time.

Cross-examined by Bradbury. You gave your address 27, Macclesfield Street, City Road—that is a common lodging-house—they said you had been there some months, and were quiet and very regular.

JOHN GROGAN (Police Sergeant L) I went with the other officers, and corroborate what they say—I found five half-crowns and some florins in a basin of water, also a good sixpence and a pair of spectacles, and a white handkerchief on Parker stained with chemicals.

WILLIAM WEBSTER . I am inspector of counterfeit coin—this is part of a double mould for a half-crown and florin; it has base metal in it—the florin has the get on—this coin, which Bradbury dropped, is bad, and here are sixteen others all counterfeit, and all from this mould—this ladle contains molten metal—platinum is a very expensive metal—none of these coins have been in a battery—here are two pieces of bismuth; that is not expensive—bismuth and antimony can be used in the manufacture of counterfeit coin—plaster of Paris is used to make the moulds with, and this piece of glass to make them on.

Parker's Defense. I admit that I made them, but not for uttering. 1 was employed by a man named Stanley, to make them with the distinct understanding that they were to be used as dummies by professional gamblers on racecourses to deceive the public as to how much money they possessed. Each was to be stamped with an advertisement of a refreshment booth on a racecourse. I went out to buy some fuel, met Bradbury, and showed him the two coins stamped with the advertisement, and asked him to stop till I had finished, and we would have some drink together. About a quarter to six a woman came and said that her husband had sent for the two coins which were stamped, and asked me not to go out till her husband came. I then saw that it was a trap laid for me by Stanley. I did everything openly. I could have thrown the coins into the fire. He took the stamps away that I should not be able to prove my innocence.

Bradbury's Defence. I accidentally met Parker, who I had not seen for two years. He asked me to call and see him, and I did so, and he showed me these two coins stamped. It was a pure accident that I was there.

GUILTY , the Jury recommended Bradbury to mercy, believing he might have been led into it accidentally.

PARKER**† Eight Years' Penal Servitude.

BRADBURY* Five Years' Penal Servitude. THE COURT commended the conduct of the Police, especially Sergeant Ward.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-274
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

274. CHARLOTTE WEBB, Feloniously marrying Charles Moses Baker, her husband being alive.

MR. BUCK Prosecuted; MR. WARBURTON Defended.

The Prosecution being unable to prove that the prisoner knew that her husband was alive within seven years of the second marriage, THE COURT directed the Jury to find a verdict of


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-275
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

275. ALFRED STANNARD (24), GEORGE CURTIS (26), and THOMAS BLACKER (26) , Feloniously wounding William Charman, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.


WILLIAM CHARMAN (Policeman B 206). On Sunday, 23rd December, about 3 p.m., I was on duty in York Road, Battersea, in uniform, and saw Curtis, Blacker, and a man not in custody standing at the corner of York Road and Usk Road, singing and shouting—I said, "Make a little less noise, it is Sunday," and without saying a word Curtis struck me a violent blow with his fist on my right eye, and knocked me to the ground—I got up, and while pulling off my gloves he hit me again on my chest—I then took him in custody, and he became very violent, and struck me on my face, and kicked my legs—we both fell, and while I was on the ground Blacker kicked me in my back—I got up, keeping hold of Curtis; and Blacker, assisted by the other man, cut the handkerchief from Curtis's neck, and rescued him—Blacker then knocked me down, and Curtis gave me a kick in the small Of my back—I got up and took Blacker in custody; Stannard then joined the others, and they kept striking me in my face; I was knocked down and kicked in the back and stomach—I got up again and took hold of Blacker, we were both on the ground, and Curtis tried to take my truncheon from my pocket, but Driver prevented him and pulled him off—Curtis then kicked me in my back—Stannard tried to pull me off Blacker by my coat collar, and as he could not, he kicked me on my temple—I got up still holding Blacker, and Stannard took hold of my arm and tried to twist it to make me release my hold, but as he could not he hit me under my ear and then cut the handkerchief from Blacker's neck and rescued him—I was knocked down in the gutter, and someone jumped on my chest—I got up as soon as I could, and the prisoners had all escaped—I made my way to the station smothered with blood and mud—I am quite deaf in my left ear—I have been in bed five weeks, and could not move my jaws where they hit me on each side—I am suffering still—I have one tooth broken and two or three loose—I have not been on duty since.

Cross-examined by Curtis. You did not pull out a lucifer to light your pipe, nor did I shove you down and take you by the handkerchief and shake you like a dog; nor did you say, "Hold on; if I hate done any thing wrong take me, I will go quiet, old fellow"—I did not hit you across the horse-trough, you were not near it.

Cross-examined by Blacker. I took you by the handkerchief after you rescued Curtis—two handkerchiefs were cut.

Re-examined. I did not retain the handkerchiefs; I was knocked down and had to let go.

WILLIAM FREESTONE . I am a dairyman of 231, York Road, Battersea—on Sunday, 23rd December, at 3 p.m., I was in Usk Road, and saw Blacker standing on the step of the York Tavern and singing, "I won't go home for you"—Charman went to him three times and said, "Why don't you hold your noise, my man, and go home? we can't have this noise here to-day, Sunday"—I drove on to the Builders' Anns, and while I was serving the landlady they called out something which induced me to run back; there were then about 150 people there—I heard someone say, "Cut his handkerchief"—I saw the constable holding Blacker by his handkerchief, and Stannard was by his shoulder—I said, "You

will kill that poor constable," and ran to his help, but I was set upon and could not get near him—I saw the three prisoners beating him most unmercifully, and punching him—I had to gallop nearly half a mile before I could find a constable, and when I returned I saw Charman 200 or 300 yards off bleeding, and I put the constable down to attend to him.

BENJAMIN DRIVER . I am a fishmonger, of 4, Usk Road, Battersea—on 23rd December, at 3.30 p.m., I went outside and saw the policeman holding Blacker by the collar, and Curtis and Blacker were punching the policeman—I laid hold of Curtis once or twice, and said he ought to be ashamed of himself, and asked him whether he was going to kill the policeman or not—he made a motion to hit me, but I said, "Don't you do it"—the constable was covered with blood—he got up; there was a crowd round, and I went to get another policeman—I had seen Curtis several times before, and I had seen Blacker.

CHARLES DEAN . I am a coachsmith, of Field Place, Battersea—on December 23rd, at 3.15, I was passing the York Tavern, Usk Road—a policeman had Blacker in charge, and Stannard was trying to take him away; both were punching the policeman in his face, and he and Blacker fell together—Blacker got up and kicked the policeman on his ribs while he was on the ground—he got up and then ran away with the other man—I did not see Curtis to identify him.

Cross-examined by Curtis. If you had been there I should have known you, and Blacker too; I have seen you together constantly.

GEORGE TILL (Policeman B 342). On 23rd December, at 7.40 p.m., I arrested Stannard—I told him I should take him for being concerned with three others in violently assaulting a policeman—he said, "It was not me."

WILLIAM ROBSON (Policeman B 29). On 26th December I saw Blacker in North Road, and told him I should take him in custody for assaulting Constable Charman on Sunday afternoon—he said, "All right; don't handle me, I will go quiet," which he did.

WILLIAM BATTREY (Policeman B 390). On Boxing Day I went to the Hope Tavern, York Road, Battersea, and saw Curtis—I told him I should arrest him for assaulting Contable Charman on the Sunday previous—he said, "All right, old chap, I will go quietly"—I took him to the station.

JOHN DENNIS (Police Inspector V). On 23rd December Till brought Stannard to the station—after he was charged he said, "It is not me, I was not there"—on the 26th the two other prisoners were brought in—Curtis said, "I did not assault the constable"—Blacker said, "I was there; I did strike him, but I did not kick him."

FELIX CHARLES KEMPSTER . I am Divisional Surgeon—on 23rd December, at 4 or 5 p.m., I saw Charman at the station covered with blood; I sent him home and went to his house and examined him; he was suffering from a concussion of the spinal cord; his fifth and sixth ribs on the right side were fractured; there was a contusion, which was getting black, a bruise on his left temple, and a wound, which was bleeding, on his left cheek, done by a kick; there were injuries to his chest, and a laceration of the cartilages at the bottom of his chest, as if someone had jumped on it or pressed on it; there were contusions of the muscles of his face and jaw; his teeth on the left side were loosened,

and one was broken and knocked in; his legs and arms were bruised; in fact, the whole of his body was bruised pretty well from head to foot—all these injuries could have been caused by blows and kicks—he stayed in bed under my care for the next five weeks; he is very unwell still.

By the COURT. His injuries may be permanent; in injuries to the spine you don't know what may happen; he has pains which dart through him, which are ominous of inflammation of the spinal cord, the effect of which is sometimes paralysis—he may be fit for duty and he may not—he complains of deafness; the drum of his left ear is swollen and inflamed—he has a big bruise in that neighbourhood.

Curtis, in his statement before the Magistrate and in his defence, said that as he was lighting his pipe the constable seized him, and he struggled to get away, but did not strike him, and that the constable picked him out from the others, knowing he had been in penal servitude.

GUILTY the Jury expressed their admiration of Charman's conduct CURTIS** and BLACKER**— Five Years' each in Penal Servitude. STANNARD**— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-276
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

276. LUCY SEALS (20) , Unlawfully endeavouring to conceal the birth of her child.

MR. EDMONDSON, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-277
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

277. SOPHIA GRACE ELLIS (19) , Unlawfully committing wilful and corrupt perjury at Wandsworth Police-court.


The evidence in this case it unfit for publication.)


4th February 1889
Reference Numbert18890204-278
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

278. RICHARD HALLETT (42) , Unlawfully obtaining £2 2s. from James Cooper by false pretences, with intent to defraud. Other counts, for obtaining credit and money by false pretences.

MESSRS. MEAD and GILL Prosecuted; MR. VINCENT Defended.

JAMES COOPER . I am a butcher, of 207, Blackfriars Road—on 11th August the prisoner came and purchased some meat, value about 3s.—he then asked me if I would cask a small cheque for him, producing this one—On Messrs. Frederick Kurtz and Co., 18, New Bridge Street, payable to R. Hallett or bearer. Signed, R. N. Jones.)— I hesitated a little—he said it would be all right, it was his governor's cheque—that influenced me—I believed it to be genuine and drawn on a real bank—if I had known that the person drawing it and the firm of Kurtz and Co. were the same persons I should not have cashed it—I paid it into the Central Bank, and it came back marked, "Effects not cleared"—I then went to the prisoner's address in Nelson Square; Mrs. Hallett came round, and afterwards he came and said he was very sorry that the cheque was returned—I said that he gave me to understand that it was his governor's cheque—he denied that—he paid me a sovereign on account—I think he said it was one of his governor's customer's cheques; I will not swear that—it was in December, I suppose, the detective came to me, and I heard the prisoner had been charged in connection with a cheque transaction—after that the balance of the money was paid to my solicitor, into whose hands I put

the matter—I have not received the money yet; it was paid to my solicitor after the prisoner was charged.

Cross-examined. The first sovereign was paid before the proceedings commenced, as far as I know—I parted with my money on the statement that the cheque was his master's—I do not know that the prisoner was a clerk of Jones's—I was at the Police-court when Mumford gave his evidence—I believe I have been no loser—I frequently saw him, but after that I did not see him—when he paid the sovereign he said he would pay the remainder in a few days—I do not know that he remained at his lodging till he was arrested—I never saw him after that.

ROBERT GOODENOUGH . I am a licensed victualler, of the Queen's Head public-house, Charlotte Street, Blackfriars Road—in August, before the 13th, the prisoner, whom I knew, came and asked me to cash a cheque for £10 4s., drawn by the Hull Tallow Refining Company, on Pearce's Banking Company—I paid it in, and it was returned marked "Refer to drawer"—shortly after I saw Hallett; I told him I had had the cheque returned; he said he would see to it; and the next day he brought me another cheque for £10 4s., drawn by Jones, on Kurtz and Co., in favour of Hallett—I gave him the first cheque back—I paid the second in and it was returned—I told the prisoner about it—he said he would see to it—I cashed another cheque for £2—I received both cheques back, marked "Refer to drawer"—after that I saw the prisoner and told him the cheques were returned, and he said he would see about it—I did not see him again for some time—on 5th December I wrote him this letter This expressed surprise at not hearing from him about the cheques, and said he found R. M. Jones, and Kurtz and Co. were one and the same, and that the prisoner knew at the time the cheques were drawn there was no money at the bank to meet them; that unless he had a satisfactory explanation by Friday he should hand the cheques to his solicitor, as he found other people in the neighbourhood had had unpaid cheques)—I got no answer—I next heard that the prisoner was in custody—after that a man named Dawson called, and in December a woman, giving the name of Mrs. Jones, called with Dawson, and paid me £12 4s., and I gave the cheques up—I have never seen Dawson in the prisoner's company.

Cross-examined. I have cashed more than ten cheques before for the prisoner—it might be ten in the course of last year—one went wrong before he paid for it; more than one were returned—I have not lost a farthing by him—I had as satisfactory an explanation as I could have desired—I am not the prosecutor here—perhaps the cheques I cashed amounted to £50 in all—none were over £20, some were £2.

Re-examined. I had one cheque of Kurtz and Co. and one of the Hull Tallow Refining Company returned before besides those I have spoken of.

JOHN BURBIDGE . I am an advertising agent, at 62, Moorgate Street, City—towards the end of August last the prisoner called and told me he was connected with the Hull Portland Cement Company, and they wished some advertising done, and would I do it if they paid me a portion cash and a bill for the other portion—I said at first I preferred to have nothing to do with it—he called again, and persisted in pressing it upon me, and on 30th or 31st August he came with a cheque for £20, and said if I would put certain advertisements in, which we calculated would come to £50 odd, he would give me this cheque on account, and early in the next week he would bring me

£8 10s. in cash, and I must take a bill for the balance—looking on the cheque as a cash payment, I agreed to do it—he was very anxious the advertisements should appear next morning (Saturday), and they did appear—I paid the cheque into my bankers (Dated August 31st, 1888, for £20, on the Yorkshire Banking Company, Limited, Hull, in favour of Hallett, and purported to be signed by the Hull Portland Cement Company, Limited, by two directors and the secretary, and crossed)—I should not have touched the matter unless I had looked on that cheque as equivalent to cash—on the Monday or Tuesday the prisoner called with a man named Margison, who I believe was a vendor in connection with the company, and he informed me that in consequence of some articles having appeared in a newspaper, the manager of a bank at Hull was very much annoyed, and he feared the cheque would come back—I said it would be sent back to me later in the day if it were so—at that time a number of advertisements had appeared—the cheque did come back—the prisoner had already given me this bill for £25 for the balance Dated London, August 30, 1888 for £25, value received, on the Hull Portland Cement Company, Limited, endorsed R. Hallett, accepted, payable at Messrs, Williams, Deacon and Co.)—it would be due 3rd December; it was dishonoured—I did not get one shilling of the £8 in cash, so that I got nothing—I was responsible for the advertisements, and I had to pay upwards of £400,. which is absolutely lost—I wrote to the prisoner and to the directors of the company, but I never got a farthing.

Cross-examined. I took a bill drawn on and accepted by the Hull Port land Cement Company and a cheque drawn by them—I knew nothing of the prisoner beforehand; I gave him the credit—I was doing the work for him—I should have sent every bill to him, not to the company—he said he was promoter of the company—I think Margison first told me he had reason to believe the cheque would be dishonoured; the prisoner was with him—he left it to my option as to withdrawing some of the advertisements—he did not ask me to do so; he said I could do as I liked—the advertisements were to be inserted for some time—he gave the order on Friday, and he called on Saturday, when the advertisements first appeared—I could have stopped them on Wednesday in London—they were to appear on five or six consecutive days—I could not stop them for Monday or Tuesday—I could have stopped them all after Wednesday, but some of them were at a contract price, and the price would have been raised—I could have stopped some on terms, not very easily—Hallett's statement about the cheque rather impaired my faith in his credit—I should not have given him any more credit—I did give him no more credit—I took Margi son's promise—I did not trust Margison entirely after that—I did trust the Hull Portland Cement Company—I paid for these advertisements, some by cash and some by credit; they were all good papers—I did not write to the prisoner asking him to change the list of papers he had selected, because some he had selected would not insert the advertisements without cash—I wrote to him, not to that effect—a year or two ago I had to make a compromise with some newspapers—I paid 5s. in the £—not one paper refused to put these advertisements in; I think one paper did not like the character of the advertisement—there is not a news paper in the kingdom that will not speak in the highest terms of me—I have only failed twice; I had unfortunately to make an arrangement in

1866, and I lost £930 by Jones, his partner, in his roguery; I have got occasionally into the hands of such persons, and that is why I have had to make arrangements—all newspapers will not trust me; the Times will trust nobody—I took a guarantee from Margison—I sued, and got judgment on that; I have not issued execution, I am told it is no good—I made no inquiry before I took the order from Hallett—he called two days, I think, before he gave me the order—I had never seen him before—I do not think I had heard of the Hull Portland Lime and Cement Company before—this was not a pure speculation on my part—I charge commission—I have no vouchers or receipts here to show I paid £40, I have them in my office—my account was £53; it was a liberal margin of profit—I should not get the same profit out of Messrs. Pears if they came to me to advertise.

Re-examined. I have not been asked a question about producing vouchers until to-day; it has never been disputed that I paid the forty pounds—I have not put in an execution against Margison, because he has told me that whatever he has is his wife's—I lost upwards of £900 through Morris Jones in 1886, in connection with a company—he pretended to have one of the Bryants of Bryant and May on the board, and through that I was induced to give him credit; he was one of a number to whom I attribute my pecuniary troubles—I have been told Jones is Kurtz and Company—I never got a farthing out of Margison—the stop page of advertisements on account of contracts would have caused me loss—the order had been given to every paper in the list—clerks are not authorised to draw bills on a company—it said in the prospectus that Hallett was a promoter of the company.

JOHN CHRISTOPHER COX . I am manager to my father, John Cox, of the Blackfriars public-house, Queen Victoria Street—I cannot remember the transaction, but I must have cashed a cheque for £3 5s. 6d. for the prisoner, because my father was in the country—I remember receiving a cheque dated 22nd September for £2 10s. from the prisoner On the York shire Banking Company, signed by two directors of the Hull Cement Company)—I believed it to be good, and gave £2 10s. for it—I paid it into my father's account on 19th October—it was returned marked "Refer to drawer"—I have never been paid that amount—I don't think I have seen the prisoner since except at the Police-court.

Cross-examined. The prisoner had cashed two cheques of the Hull Cement Company, and one of the Tallow Company with us before—they were honoured.

Re-examined. One was returned, and the prisoner brought the money for that.

ENOS BROWNJOHN . I am manager to Mr. Baynes, grocer, of Blackfriars Road—at the end of September the prisoner brought me this cheque—he said he came from his landlady, Mrs. Smith—I knew her very well, and cashed it—I thought it was a genuine cheque of the Portland Cement Company—For £1 10s., payable to Mr. Hallett on the Yorkshire Banking Company, signed pp. Hull Portland Cement Company, by two directors and the secretary)—it was dated 27th September—I put the name of Smith on the back—a day or two afterwards he came and produced a cheque dated 5th September for £5—at that time the first cheque had not come back—I believed it was a genuine cheque—I handed those two cheques to my employer—I saw them when they came back marked "Refer to drawer"

—I had some conversation with Mr. Baynes after seeing the prisoner at the shop.

Cross-examined. Mr. Baynes paid the cheques in.

EDWARD BAYNES . I am manager to my father, a grocer, at 165, Black friars Road—Brownjohn is my assistant—I received two cheques from him, one for £1 10s., and the other for £5—I paid them into my account at the London and "Westminster Bank on October 2nd—they were returned, marked "Refer to drawer," between October 2nd and October 9th—after wards I sent a note round to the prisoner—he came round to the shop—I sent the cheques in a second time by his request—they came back—after that I saw him in the course of the same week, and told him the cheques had been returned a second time—he said he was very sorry, but he would make it all right—he gave me a bill for £24 16s. 4d. This was a bill at three months, purporting to be drawn by Watson and Company, and addressed to Edward Dunston, Esquire, builder and contractor, and accepted, payable at the Alliance Bank)—on its becoming due on 13th January it was presented and received by the sergeant who had got the case in hand—the prisoner was then committed for trial—he called after I had the bill—I afterwards went to see him at Mrs. Smith's, between seven and eight o'clock; I do not recollect the date—I told him I would give him till a certain time, and that if the cheques were not settled at that time, I should take further proceedings against him—I have never been paid for either of the cheques.

Cross-examined. I accepted the bill by way of security for the repay ment of the cheques—I don't know that the bill was accepted by a friend of the prisoner's—I was not present when Dunstan offered himself as a bail for the prisoner—both cheques were paid in the same day at the bank—I don't know what day my manager received them—I have not sued anybody on the bill—I have not had the bill.

JANE SMITH . I live at 52, Nelson Square, Blackfriars Road—the prisoner lodged with me for some months up to the time he was arrested—he had the dining-room on the first floor at 14s. a week—in September he showed me a £5 cheque; I did not have it in my hands—he asked me to change it; I refused—I said I never took cheques; I did not under stand them—I said, "I should think some of the tradespeople might change it that I dealt with"—his wife went up to Mr. Baynes—he said should he mention my name—I said, "If you like you can mention that you lodge here"—I did not say he was to say anything else—the cheque was taken away—afterwards I heard something about it from Mr. Baynes—I told the prisoner the cheque had been returned; he said it would be all right in a day or two—I said I was very much annoyed at his having cashed it at Mr. Baynes's—I heard about the cheque coming back a second time, and being dishonoured—I spoke to the prisoner about it—he said they had a £25 bill in hand, and that they had plenty to take it out of, and they had arranged the thing all right with him—I saw a man named Jones there, visiting him on two occasions; and Dawson used to come there—when the prisoner was arrested on this charge he owed me three weeks' rent, and for some provisions, altogether between £3 and £4.

Cross-examined. He did not leave me till he was arrested; he was taken away—I could not say if the first conversation about the cheque was on Saturday—it was on Monday that the cheque was changed—I never had the cheque in my hands—it was in September.

FRANCIS JOHN DAWE . I keep the Duke of Gloster public-house, Gurney Street, Newington—I know the prisoner as a customer—on October 17th he brought me this cheque for £5, which I cashed—he came again on Sunday, October 19th, with another for £5, which I cashed—he said he was connected with a Yorkshire cement company—on the Monday I paid the cheques into the London and County Bank—they were returned marked "Refer to drawer"—I went to Hallett's and had a conversation with his wife—a Mr. Dawson came in with the prisoner—Mr. Benjamin White afterwards handed me £5, and I returned the first cheque—the signatures on the cheques were the same—I found there were a number of these cheques floating about, and I communicated with the police on December 12th, and the prisoner was apprehended—he had told me he managed the accounts of the Hull Portland Cement Company, and I inferred he was the London manager—I had instructed Mr. White to call on him for the money.

Cross-examined. The prisoner said the first cheque was for work done—he did not tell me he was going to Hull to pay bills into the bank—from then my negotiations were conducted through Mr. White.

BENJAMIN CHARLES WHITE . I am a solicitor's clerk, of Salisbury Buildings, Walworth—Mr. Dawe spoke to me about two cheques, in consequence of which I went to 52, Nelson Square—I saw prisoner's wife on the first occasion, and himself on the second—I said to him, "Those two cheques which you passed to Mr. Dawe have been returned dishonoured, how can you explain the matter?"—"Oh," he said, "I expected they would come back, there was no money there when they were drawn; it will be all right, I don't want to do old Dawe"—the wife said, "All right, pa and Jones are one, they are managers of this company between them; the company is theirs practically, that will be all right"—the prisoner said, "I will call round and see you about that"—he called one evening on Mr. Dawe with a Mr. Dawson—as Mr. Dawe had left the matter to me, he said, "We have come to see you about those cheques"—I said, "Yes?'—he said, "We are going to pay £2 10s. on account"I said, "You cannot do that"—Mr. Dawe said to Mr. Dawson, "Who are you?"—the prisoner said, "This is one of the principal shareholders of the company"—he then said he would pay £5—I saw Mr. Dawe on that, and he refused—after some haggling I agreed to give up one of the cheques, and did so—Dawson took it from Hallett, ripped a piece off, lighted, burnt it, and trod on it—they said they would come on Monday and bring the other—they did not come, and I went to see Hallett again—I said, "You have not turned up with that money; it will be a serious matter with you"—he said, "Oh, Dawe can fly for his money, you tell him to go and b——r himself, and you can do the same."

Cross-examined. I was acting for Mr. James Dawe—I am a solicitor's clerk—I am entitled to do business for myself—I charge 5 per cent., sometimes a little more—we threatened the prisoner with prosecution in default of payment till we found other cheques were floating about, not up to the arrest—I drew up the information for Mr. Dawe, who swore it—I did not write to the prisoner, demanding payment—I have never written to Mr. Hallett or anybody connected with this case—I write letters when necessary, as anyone may, provided they do not write as a solicitor, and are not charging for the letters, but I am not going to put myself within the law—I told Mr. Dawson that Fenn was my employer, and that he was not employing me in this business, and he was not.

CHARLES RICHARD MOXON . I am manager of the Yorkshire Banking Company—the Hull Portland Cement Company opened an account on 16th July, of which this is a certified copy—the last operation was October 3rd, when there was 2s. 5d. credit—the account was not then formally closed—the cheques produced, A, B, D, E and G, were presented at the bank—they are marked by our officials, "Refer to drawer," etc.

Cross-examined. The account shows a cheque honoured on December 25th—I would not have told Hallett the state of the account—he was not our customer—I would have told Margison, because he was officially connected with it—he was the vendor—I had not seen Hallett.

Re-examined. I do not know the source of the moneys paid in.

EMILIE FELTON . I am housekeeper at 42, Essex Street, Strand—in August, 1888, Hallett (coming with a Mr. Emerson) took a room on the third floor at 4s. 3d. a week—in the room were two office tables, chairs, a copying press, and iron safe, a copying book, and a company's seal under lock and key—the first name on the door was "The Hull Tallow Refining Company"—that remained four or five weeks, when under it was placed "The Hull Portland Cement Company"—I remember two meetings there—it is a small office—I have seen Hallett there several times, and Emerson—Jones, used to come there—I believe Kurtz was Jones—brokers were put in on 20th November—the furniture went—the seal was left—I cleaned the office for 2s. a week—they owe me 10s.—I last saw Hallett there on the 4th December—he came for letters—the police came on 21st December—I went in the mornings and evenings—sometimes five or six letters came in a day; some days there were none—no one attended regularly—an office-boy was in charge part of the time—Hallett and Emerson I have often seen—there were no books—I gave up possession of everything in the office to the police—an amount was paid in advance when the office was taken—Hallett said he wanted the office to receive letters for the companies—there were a great number of callers after they left respecting the companies.

JOHN MUMFORD . I was employed as clerk by R. M. Jones, trading as Kurtz and Co., at 18, New Bridge Street, in May, 1888—the prisoner was a fellow-clerk—he was there when I went—I believe Jones was a company promoter—he promoted the Hull Tallow Refining Company and the Hull Portland Cement Company—no real banking business was carried on to my knowledge—one of the directors, Emerson, used to come—I did not know Mr. Kurtz—no bankers' books were kept, no till, or customers—I know no one having an account there—the prisoner was there, except one or two absences in Hull—there were two rooms—I know Hallett's writing—all the cheques produced are endorsed by him.

Cross-examined. I have known cheques paid frequently—they were orders on Kurtz and Co. for sums to be paid—Jones had stamps he used, with "Kurtz and Co., Bankers," on them; printed forms—I have been paid my wages by the cheques—one was honoured; another was dishonoured.

Re-examined. Jones drew the cheques—Jones or Hallett gave them to me—I kept them over in some instances till Jones had the money to cash them.

WILLIAM REED (Detective Officer P) I had charge of this case after the prisoner was in custody—I found at the office in Essex Street papers

which I have gone through—the only book was a diary with entries from May 31st to October 23rd—they all relate to legal proceedings taken against the two companies in every kind of court—there were letters of inquiry about the company, and writs, dishonoured promissory notes, a summons in the City of London Court, and dishonoured cheques—I found 30 cheques on Hills and Sons, and 42 cheques on Messrs. Frederick Kurtz and Co., of 18, New Bridge Street—all the cheques on Kurtz and Co. purport to be signed by Jones—I also found prospectuses and share certificates of the companies—in one prospectus Hallett appears as a director, and Kurtz and Co. as brokers.

BENJAMIN LECK (Police Sergeant) On December 12th I took the prisoner at Walworth on a warrant for obtaining money on false pretences—he said, "Oh, thanks; is that what I am invited down here for to-night?"—this was in Mr. Dawe's public-house—he was formally charged at the police-station—he made no answer.

GUILTY .— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.


View as XML