Old Bailey Proceedings.
15th December 1890
Reference Number: t18901215

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
15th December 1890
Reference Numberf18901215

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, December 15th, 1890, and following days.

BEFORE the RIGHT HON. JOSEPH SAVORY, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; Hon. Sir CHARLES DAY , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice; Sir WILLIAM LAURENCE , Knt., Sir ROBERT NICHOLAS FOWLER , Bart., Sir REGINALD HANSON , Bart., Aldermen of the said City; Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS , Knt., Q.C., Recorder of the said City; DAVID EVANS , Esq., STUART KNILL , Esq., GEORGE ROBERT TYLER , Esq., EDWARD HART , Esq., HORATIO DAVID DAVIES , Esq., and JNO. VOCE MOORE, 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.









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.


[The following case commenced last Session, and concluded in the present one.]

OLD COURT.—Monday, December 8th, 1890, and eight following days.

Before Mr. Recorder.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-91
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

91. GEORGE WASHINGTON BUTTERFIELD was indicted for publishing a false, scandalous, and malicious libel of and concerning Harry Hananel Marks, to which he pleaded a justification that the libel was true in fact, and was published for "the public good.

SIR CHARLES RUSSELL , Q. C., MR. C. MATHEWS, and MR. A. RUSSELL Prosecuted; MR. C. F. GILL and MR. A. GILL Defended.

ALFRED WILLIAM KNAPP . I am a clerk in the employ of the Financial News—on 28th July I bought this copy of a pamphlet (produced) in Threadneedle Street—it was being openly sold by several men in considerable numbers throughout the City—the men had placards, purporting to be the title-page of the pamphlet, giving it advertisement.

Cross-examined. I am a clerk in the publishing department of the Financial News—I went there in August, 1886—I know nothing of the Rae Mine; I have heard the name—Mr. Marks told me to purchase a copy of the pamphlet—I have not been selected to purchase other pamphlets—I have not bought the Financial Observer, but I have seen advertisement bills of that kind (produced) about the City continually—Mr. Marks did not employ me to purchase the "Lion's Mouth; or, the Financial Monitor"—I was at the Financial News office on Saturday—as a rule Mr. Marks attends there daily—he has a private office—he is there mostly in the afternoons—he receives visitors—I cannot say if they are company promoters—he does not see everybody—I did not know the Rae Mine was Mr. Marks' property; I never heard it up to the present moment—I do not read the publications I buy for Mr. Marks—I know Mr. Frank Barnard, the stockbroker—I have seen him at the office several times—I do not know he has disappeared—I have not seen him lately in Marks' company—I last saw him some months ago—I cannot say where he is—I think he is a stockbroker in a large way—I have not seen him since this case has been on—I don't know Mr. Klenck or Mr. Fry, the liquidators of the Rae Mine—

Arthur Cohen is one of the sub-editors of the Financial News—I have not seen him for two or three weeks—he was one of the staff, and attended to his work very constantly—visitors to Mr. Marks' room have to pass through Mr. Cohen's—I have no idea where Cohen is—he was mostly with Mr. Marks when he was at the office—I saw him last about four weeks ago; I don't remember the exact date—I heard two or three weeks ago that he was ill—people who call on Mr. Marks still have to pass through Cohen's room; but he is not there—I have no personal knowledge as to whether he is ill—he has been there ever since I have been on the staff—I have not seen him at the office for four weeks—if he was at the office I must have seen him—Marks did not tell me he was ill, I heard it from one of my fellow clerks in the office—I was present when a warrant in this case was applied for—Mr. Marks and Mr. George Lewis were present—Butterfield's name and address were on the back of the pamphlet; there was no doubt who had printed it—I know placards were printed at the Argus Printing Co., who print the Financial News, offering £20 reward for Butterfield's arrest soon after the warrant was issued—I don't know whether they were posted over his house or about the City—I did not see them on London Bridge—I was not instructed to placard his house with these bills, I know nothing about it—I was present at the Police-court when Mr. George Lewis opened the case—I do not remember hearing him tell the Magistrate that the libel charged Mr. Marks with serious misconduct in London or this country, as well as in New York—I think that gentleman was present as reporter for the Financial News—I don't remember Mr. George Lewis saying "this country"—I won't say he did not say it—the Magistrate said of course the things could not be justified there, and the case would have to go for trial—Mr. Marks went into the witness-box; I don't remember if that was after the Magistrate said it could not be justified there—I don't know that Marks swore when swearing the information that Butterfield was likely to abscond, and that it was necessary to have a warrant—I heard Butterfield was arrested on his way to the Police-court—I heard Mr. Lewis ask for the bail and notice of the bail—I don't remember hearing that Butterfield had arranged the day before to surrender at any time—I heard Mr. Blanchard Wontner say he had written to Mr. Lewis to say Mr. Butterfield would appear at any moment to answer this—then Mr. Lewis asked for notice of bail—I do not know that Butterfield was locked up for fifteen days.

Re-examined. I have nothing to do except with the publishing department—Mr. Perryman is at the head of the Financial Observer; I don't know him. (MR. GILL stated that he was in Court)—I am not aware there is an indictment pending against him in this Court—I don't remember that he brought an action for libel against Mr. Marks—I have heard of Mr. Fagge, he brought an action—after Cohen had been away about a week I heard of his illness—I think Butterfield was arrested two days after the warrant was issued; I would not be sure about that—the application against him was published in the papers.

ROBERT OUTRAM (Detective Sergeant City). I received a warrant for the defendant's arrest on 29th July, and proceeded with it to his address, 141, Queen's Road, Peckham—I did not find him there—I made several applications at the house, and then, acting on my discretion, I and another officer watched the place—late at night on 31st July I watched

him into the house—I knocked and was refused admission—I was there early next morning, 1st August, and saw him leave his house and walk towards Queen's Road Station—I said I was Detective Sergeant Outram from the City, and that I held a warrant for his arrest on the charge of libel; and I added, "You will have to go with me to the City"—he went with me—I read the warrant to him at the station; he said in answer, "I published the pamphlet"—he also said he was going to see his solicitor, Mr. Wontner, to arrange to surrender to this charge, and at the same time he produced a letter from, the purport of which was an appointment what time he should be there—it was handed in.

Cross-examined. The purport of the letter was arranging to meet him at Mr. Wontner's office—I heard that as soon as Morris was arrested with regard to the publication of this libel, Butterfield went to the police-station where Morris was, and offered himself as bail—I think that was the night previous to the arrest, I am not sure; it was previous to his arrest—I was at Butterfield's house about eleven p.m. on 31st July, when they refused to open the door—I did not placard the house during the night with these bills—I know nothing about that; I was surprised when I saw the house placarded—it was not done the night before—it was done in the night-time—I knew Butterfield's address when Morris was arrested—I had seen his wife, and she had spoken to me through the kitchen window—I asked the inspector if it was true that Butterfield had been there—this is the letter he had in his hand. (This was from Messrs. Wontner, and stated that they had seen Mr. George Lewis, and arranged that Butterfield should surrender next morning, and that the better plan would be for him to be at Messrs. Wontner's office at 10.30)—I first saw these bills at Peckham, and I saw them on various parts afterwards—I don't know who the man was who followed Butterfield when he left his house that morning; he was a friend, I saw him going out of the house the night before, before Butterfield came home—I have not the slightest idea who placarded the house, or whether he was employed by Mr. George Lewis, or Mr. Marks personally—Denning was the other officer with me; he is not here—he assisted me in watching there—the night before he had been there—I do not know if he had been following Butterfield about the day before.

Re-examined. The warrant was applied for and granted on 21st July—I saw the fact of the application in some of the papers—the arrest was on 1st August about 9.20—the letter also says, "We trust to make arrangements to have your bail at the Mansion House at twelve o'clock"—no bail was there next morning—no bail was tendered tome till fourteen days after—I knocked at the house the night before, after I saw him go in, and then I was refused admittance.

CHARLES GEORGE TIMBS . I am a clerk in the Record Office of the High Court of Justice—I produce the record of the proceedings in the trial of Butterfield v. Marks in June this year, the verdict being given on the 12th June, as the certificate shows, for the defendant, with costs—this is the statement of claim, which sets out various claims for libel to which, in the statement of defence, a justification is pleaded, and on that justification the verdict passed.

Cross-examined. I don't know that Butterfield was unrepresented by counsel, or that he had three Queen's Counsel against him.

THOMAS CHALKLEY . I am a clerk to Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, solicitors for Mr. Marks—after the verdict had been given in the case of Butterfield v. Marks, costs were taxed in the ordinary way at £940—notice was given demanding payment of costs—then a bankruptcy notice was issued and a petition—I served them—this is the deficiency account and the amended statement of affairs filed by Butterfield in those bank-ruptcy proceedings—nothing has been paid.

Cross-examined. I do not know that after the action Butterfield went and saw Mr. George Lewis about the matter of costs, and offered him security for them, or that Mr. Lewis said he proposed to make him bank-rupt—I don't know if Mr. Lewis paid personal attention to the case or to the bankruptcy matter—I have done so—I was not informed that Butterfield offered Mr. Lewis security for the costs—Mr. Lewis did not inform me of that.

Re-examined. I never heard any suggestion of security of costs until this moment.

Witnesses for the Defence.

ANNIE KOPPEL . I am the widow of Louis C. Koppel, who was proprietor of the Reformer and Jewish Times—I have not read the history of my relations with Mr. Harry Marks, published in the Press of New York, but since I came over here I have read this pamphlet, what has been described as the history of this case—the statements in it are true—in my husband's lifetime the Reformer and Jewish Times was in a prosperous condition, and I was in a comfortable position—at the time of his death I was living at 235, East Fifty-eighth Street—he died suddenly in July, 1878—I had been married to him since 1873—during his lifetime I had heard of Harry Marks—he wrote editorials for my husband's paper—he never visited at my house before my husband's death—shortly after my husband's death I saw Marks at the office; as far as I understood he was in very low circumstances at that time; he did not speak to me about his position—I went to the office to see Dr. Menses, the editor, who was running the business for me at that time, and Mr. Marks was in the office; he followed me out of the office, and I spoke a few words to him, and he went into the World office when I got to the cars—he called at my house in the evening; I did not expect any such person to call—he offered to run the business for ten dollars a week if I would give him a power of attorney to transact all business, and I gave him one next day—before that he had been paid three dollars a week—after that first visit he was a constant visitor at the house—when I gave him the power of attorney Dr. Mendes ceased to run the paper, and Mr. Marks took entire charge of it—Dr. Mendes ceased to have any connection with the paper, and was not there after that—under a promise of marriage Mr. Marks came oftener to my house, and he remained some nights, sometimes three nights a week at my house-shortly after he moved me away from the house I was living in, and shortly after he took some apartments in West Twenty-ninth Street, Ninth Avenue, and he removed my furniture there; he owed two months' rent to the landlord where he took me from, and he gave him a note to the effect that he would pay him, and he left a note that he was detained at the office when he was removing the furniture from there, so the landlord was done; he never paid the bill—he forced me to sign a bill of sale for him; he said there was a suit pending in Court against the Jewish Times

for 500 dollars, and forced me to sign a bill of sale for him over the business and the stock and plant there—he gave me nothing when I signed it—when my husband died there was amongst my property some jewellery—Mr. Marks took from me a gold watch and chain, a diamond scarf-pin, three rings, and three diamond studs—he borrowed those to go to dinner with Mr. Seligman, a banker in New York—that was either just before or just after the New Year, 1879—he never returned the jewellery to me, I have asked him several times about it, and he has told me he pawned it—I asked him what he had done with the money, and he told me he purchased flowers for a lady friend—my husband was member of a Foresters' Lodge—in respect of that, the day after the New Year, Montagu L. Marks brought me a cheque for 1,000 dollars, and he wanted some money of me, and I told him to go to my office and see Harry Marks, and if there were 100 dollars there he could have it—Montagu L. Marks is no relation of Harry Marks—I gave Montagu L. Marks the 1,000 dollar cheque, and he went to the office to see if Harry Marks had 100 dollars to give him—afterwards, from what I heard, I asked Harry Marks about what he had done with that 1,000 dollar cheque, and he said he had spent it with other women at the Cafe Brunswick—I never had any money from Harry Marks—after the incident of the 1,000 dollars he came over here, he said he was coming to see his father and mother—while he was away, on 20th July, I gave birth to a child—that was Harry Marks' child—this is the certificate of its birth (produced)—a few days after the birth Marks returned from Europe, and came to my house—he named the child himself, after his sister, Alice Marks, so he said—it is registered in that name—my name is Annie—he did not remain in the same house with me, for there was rent due, and he deserted me from that right away—I was not able to pay the rent there—I removed to Twelfth Street, and I had to sell my furniture piece by piece while I was there—I never applied to Marks to assist me, nor asked him for money—he did not offer to do anything to assist me—I have two children of my own besides—I had three to keep—in October I was so badly off that I had to apply to the Courts to relieve me—on 18th October I went to the office to see Marks—I had before sent a messenger to ask Mr. Marks for some money, and he sent back that he had not got any, and I sent again, and he sent me 1 dollar—that was all he gave me—the same day I went to the office and asked him what he intended to do with me; did he intend to starve my children, and he began to laugh at me, and told me I was insane; then I told them all to leave the office, I could take care of it, and they did leave; I had no means of locking the door, and one of the office-boys from upstairs nailed the door for me, and I went home—at this time I had sold very nearly all my furniture—the next day was Sunday—on the Monday morning, when I was leaving home, an officer came to my door, and I was arrested and taken to the Magistrate's Court on a charge of insanity—the officer did not exactly tell me what he took me for till I got to the Court—Judge Smith was the Magistrate—I saw Marks at the Court all through—when I was taken to Judge Smith's room he told me I was held for Harry Marks for insanity, and I should be detained in prison for insanity and correction—they kept me nine hours—that was the first I knew of the charge against me—I was taken to Judge Smith's place—I asked for leave to send for my own

doctor, and I was allowed to do so, and I sent for Dr. Alexander Heddon, who had attended me for Mr. Marks' child—Marks had heard of him—Dr. Heddon saw me, and he brought Dr. Heath, the City doctor and the doctor to the Board of Correction, the same day before the Magistrate—Dr Heath saw me, and said I was not insane—I presume Dr. Heath made a statement to the Magistrate; I was in the cell, and know nothing about it—they released me—I know of no ground for Marks swearing I was insane—no one else ever said I was—he never said I was insane so long as I had any money of my own, and until I came and asked him for money—he did not stay during the day to see whether I was examined—I did not see him again during the day—I went to the office of the paper and found everything belonging to the office had been removed—my husband had a set of books there, and an Encyclopaedia that had just been bound before he died, and an office safe and desks, and everything belonging to the office—I don't know where they went—they were removed during the time Marks had me locked up in this way—after my arrest and imprisonment I tried to take proceedings against him, but I had not money enough to carry it out, and Mr. Marks came to this country, and I lost track of this case, and I did not know after that what had become of him—I got so far as having him arrested on a warrant—in this affidavit (produced) I set out my grievances—I was compelled to go and live with my parents again, and I could not keep Marks' child with me because they would not let me have the child; and my two sisters went, and one of them, Maggie Doyle, gave Mr. Marks the child—I went with her, but not as far as the house, I was on the other side of the road; they left the child and came back to me—I lived with my parents, with my other two children, and they helped me—since then I have worked and supported myself and one child; the other died—Marks and Mr. Goodheart, a well-known lawyer in America, came several times to get me to sign a document, they were always after me to sign papers—most of the times they came together—they never allowed me to look at any paper they wanted me to sign—they made no statement about doing anything for me or the child—when I lived in Twelfth Street, they came one night and got me to sign a paper, and I never knew what it was—I do not remember signing anything besides the power of attorney, the bill of sale, and that paper—I arranged to come over here in the Eurania on 14th November, and my passage was taken—I intended to come—I had arranged to meet Mr. Birch, the managing clerk to Messrs. Wontner, to start in the Eurania—the night before I received this telegram, and in consequence I was taken on to Philadelphia; there I was left all night in the waiting-room, I had not a cent of money—I had given it to Mr. Stevens, the man who took me to Philadelphia—I was sent on by the superintendent of the line to New York, and then by the kindness of a firm of solicitors I was put on a steamer—my trunk was left at Kingsbridge Station; I suppose it was at Philadelphia with me, but when I got to Kingsbridge I found it there—I came in the Britannic—I believe this telegram was sent by my brother-in-law—at the time of my husband's death, moneys were due to the paper from subscribers; none of those were ever paid to me by Mr. Marks; he collected all claims, and brought it all over to England; and he sold the printing type besides.

Tuesday, December 9th.

MRS. KOPPEL (Cross-examined). My age is thirty-five now—I mean that seriously; I have had four children, three belonging to my husband and one to Mr. Marks, all healthy, and none of them born before their time that I know of—the eldest is in his sixteenth year—my brother-in-law, Mr. Seigfried Koppel, first spoke to me about giving evidence about five weeks ago—I have not had any money for coming here, and I am quite sure I am to have none—my expenses were paid for me—I have not heard that £500 has been lodged with one Dimmach for me—I know a person named Dimmach in Massachusetts—he is a farmer, and keeps a summer hotel; I lodged there last summer as housekeeper—he is married, and his wife is living; I was there from June 6th to October 6th last year—October 6th was the last time I saw him—I expect to get nothing but my expenses—I received £3 to use on the steamer when I was coming over, that is all—since I came to London I have been stopping with a lady friend, Mrs. Abbott—I do not know the name of the street nor the number—she is a friend I gained here since I arrived on this side; I had never seen her before—I have seen Butterfield at the house—he was not living there—I was personally conducted here, and personally conducted home last night—my sister went with me with Mr. Marks' child; her name was Maggie Doyle—she was single then; I cannot say whether she is now—she is my full sister, my maiden name was Doyle—I did not give a false maiden name in the registry of the child; I never put into the register of births, "Name of the mother, Annie Marks; maiden name of mother, Figler"; I cannot explain it, it was done without my knowledge; it was the nurse and doctor done that; I did hot know anything about it; Mr. Marks named the child; I left it to the doctor, and I do not know how he came to give the wrong name—I met my husband Koppel in 1872, and we were married in October, 1873; he was at that time an advertising agent, and was using the Reformer and Jewish Times to help his business of canvassing we lived in Fifty-eighth Street at the time of his death, after which I was compelled to take lodgers; I never did so in his life-time—I never assisted in a shop during his life, but I was compelled to do so afterwards—I never knew Mr. Koppel to be in difficulties—he did not die in debt to his landlord for arrears of rent that I am any way aware of—I did not know that daring his life he had given a bill of sale on the Jewish Times and Reformer to Gustave D. Daniell; that is new to me—I never knew anything about his being in very poor circumstances—he had a house and grounds at. Fordham, which is outside New York—that was mortgaged and sold in his lifetime—I never heard that it realised more than the mortgage—he also had two lots on the Eastern Boulevard, and four lots in Jersey—I do not know what became of them—I do not know whether they were mortgaged too—I charged Mr. Marks with making away with them; I blame Mr. Marks for all—I cannot say the numbers of the lots on the Eastern Boulevard; I was never there—my husband bought them in 1875—I cannot say what he paid for them, or through whom he bought them, or who was the solicitor—the four lots were in New Jersey, across the river—I cannot tell you what place or streets they were in, or when or through whom they were bought, or what was paid for them—I do not know of any other property—I saw nothing of Marks until I casually paid a visit to the office of the Jewish Times one evening some months after my husband's

death—he did not ask leave to call; he called the same evening, as far as I can remember, as that on which I had seen him at the office—I knew through my husband that he was writing for the World at the time—he was, in my husband's lifetime, writing at so much per column for the Jewish Times and Reformer—I did not expect him to come to my house that evening—he called without any invitation—I thought at the time it was a very audacious thing to do, for a young man I had never seen till that afternoon, to call—he conducted me to the car, and then called without invitation; that is my story—he was a couple of hours at my house that evening—I gave him nothing to eat, drink, or smoke—we talked about business, strictly business; there was no love-making, no approach to anything of the kind; I am quite sure—it was on this occasion that he offered to run the business for ten dollars a week if I gave him a power of attorney to run the business, and I gave him a power of attorney next day—I think that was about a couple of months after Mr. Koppel died; I cannot exactly tell you the date—this is my signature to this document—I gave him the power of attorney the day after I first met him—I had seen him before, but had never spoken to him—it was probably two weeks after that that I first had connection with him, to the best of my belief—he has lived at my house when he has slept, and ate, and drank there, but he had always a place of his own—I submitted to him under a promise of marriage—he made the promise of marriage on his second visit, a few days after—no one was present, and there is no scrap of writing to show he ever promised to marry me—there is no person that I know of to whom he ever said he promised to marry me—I went by the name of Mrs. Marks when the child was born, when the doctor sent in the certificate of birth—I left it all to the doctor, and knew nothing about it—I boarded with a person named Maccabe, about five years ago, for about a month—I have never gone by the name of Mrs. Maccabe—I have a brother-in-law named Both—I remember showing Marks, when I became intimate with him, a letter I had received from another lover; I cannot remember the name, he was a neighbour who lived across the street; it was when I lived in Fifty-eighth Street—his Christian name was not Louis that I remember—I had letters from Louis Lehman, he is no lover of mine—he was a married gentleman, and a friend of my husband; he was foreman over my husband's business—I recollect these letters (produced)—I never said I gave Marks a letter from Mr. Lehman; I said I gave him a letter that came from across the street—I never gave this one to Mr. Marks. (This was signed, "Your true friend, Louis," Addressed, "My dear friend, Annie" stating that she had acted strangely to him at their last meeting, but that he meant to be a true friend to her, and requesting her to be a good little girl, and think well of him)—Lehman was no friend of mine—he is rather a small man—I cannot say whether his visits were, after that letter, on Sunday afternoon—I wrote this letter shortly after my husband's death. (This asked Mr. Marks to see about the flat for her, and also to send her ten dollars by Lizzie, requesting him to stop with her that night, and then she should be sure he was not angry with her, and to send her word whether he was coming)—Lizzie is my sister—Marks seduced me under promise of marriage—I can give no explanation of that letter—I also wrote this, I do not remember when. (Addressed, "Dear Harry," without a date, stating, "For God's sake come to me, Harry, * * * you will soon be going away, and I cannot see

you at all.—Annie.)—I do not know that the going away alluded to—he was not trying to break off the connection that I know of—Montagu L. Marks was a lawyer—I do not know if he had acted as my husband's solicitor in small matters—after my husband's death he requested to borrow money—I am not aware that he made any claim against my husband's estate—I did not know anything about whether Montagu Marks had conceived a dislike to Harry Marks—I remember Harry Marks kicking him out of the house once—I do not remember making a statement to Montagu Marks against Harry Marks—I know Michael Marks—I made no statement to him—I recollect Spelman—I do not remember, after making a statement, sending for Harry Marks and telling him Montagu Marks wanted to ruin him, and that they had got me to make a statement which I wished to recall or to contradict—I do not remember writing to Harry Marks and asking him to come to me—I remember Harry Marks coming to me with Mr. Goodheart after I had seen Spelman and the other Marks—probably it was at my request that Harry Marks came to see me—I do not remember telling him that I wished to undo the statement that had been put into my mouth by Montagu Marks, and which was intended to injure Harry Marks—I cannot say I did not—I did not tell a reporter on the occasion of my arrest that I was then (in 1.879) thirty-two years old; if I had said so it would not have been true—I do not remember seeing the New York Times with the account of my interview—I did not have the paper—I was born in Staten Island, and my maiden name was Doyle—if the reporter said I was forty I could not help it—I gave the power of attorney on 29th November, 1878—I do not know-if Marks opened an account at a bank in New York; I do not remember his telling me he had done so—I did not receive moneys by cheque on that account; not that I remember—I had 1 dol. which he sent me, and 10 dols. when he went to Europe—I never received any money from Marks except those two sums—he never offered me any, and I never asked him for any—I adhere to those statements—this signature is not mine, it is my sister Lizzie's—these other signatures are my own, (The first of these acknowledged the receipt from Marks of 50 dols. on 1st December, 1878, 100 dols. on 5th December, 12 dols. on 6th December, 12 dols. on 14th December, 27 dols. on 16th December, and 30 dols. on 20th December—total 231 dols.; the next acknowledged the receipt from Marks of December 24th, 10 dols., December 27th, 12 dols., December 30th, 5 dols., January 3rd, 1 dol., January 4th, 18 dols., January 6th, 13 dols., January 10th, 25 dols., January 17th, 12 dols., January 24th,15 dols., January 28th, 15 dols.—total, 126 dols.; the next was for12 dols. on 25th February, 10 dols. on 18th February, 20 dols. on 7th March—total, 42 dols.)—Mr. Goodheart, Marks' attorney, did not make me regular payments from the time Marks left in May to visit his relations in Europe till he returned in July. (Other receipts were read acknowledging as received from Goodheart 12 dols. on 24th May, 1879, 12 dols. May 31st 12 dols. June 7th, 12 dols. June 14th,10 dols. June 28th, and on July 10th 25 dols., and return of bankbook with funds therein untouched). A. Yes, but how did he give me this money? When Marks ran short of money he came to my house and got me to sign a receipt, and I never had the money—when Marks was in America I signed receipts without his giving me any money, and when he was in England I sighed receipts to Goodheart without getting any money;

Goodheart did the same, just as he pleased—I never had any of the money named in these twenty-five receipts—I signed them to please Mr. Marks; I was so much in love with him I would do anything for him, and his influence on me was equally great when he was in Europe, and I did the same thing for Mr. Goodheart; that is my statement—I had reason to write begging him to come and see me if he was going away, and I should not see him again, because I was sick at the time—I expected him to marry me when he returned—I never asked him to marry me—I have no paper in which I have ever suggested he promised to marry me—I do not know why I did not call on him as a man of honour, who had seduced me under promise of marriage, to fulfil his promise—when Mr. Goodheart took the receipts he was the same as Mr. Marks; I do not consider one better than the other; he was working under Mr. Marks's rules just the same; probably he used the money for himself, like Mr. Marks did—he wanted receipts to show he had given it to him—I do not know that I knew I was signing receipts; they never let me know what I was signing—probably I was drunk, as Mr. Marks has often made me drunk; I do not know that Mr. Goodheart ever did—in my acquaintance with Mr. Marks I was of intemperate habits—I suppose Mr. Marks and Mr. Goodheatt brought the receipts to the house, and got me to sign them, but I never got any money from them—I never got 25 dols. and return of bank-book—I got no bankbook, and never saw any belonging to my husband's business—my son has a bank-book; he is not drawing interest, because there is no money for him to draw interest on; 20 dols. was put in the bank for my son when he was ten years old, but he cannot draw on it till he is of age—the amount is there, and there is a bank-book showing the account—I do not know where it is—probably that is the bank-book referred to in the receipt—I never asked Marks for money—my statement is that Marks possessed himself of all my husband left, and never gave me a halfpenny except 10 dols. and I dol.—this letter (produced) is in my sister Lizzie's writing, the sister who signed the receipt—she did not sign my name by my direction—I never told her to write to Mr. Marks for money—I did not tell her to say that if Mr. Marks would give me some money I would give it to him next morning at twelve o'clock—I cannot tell when I gave the bill of sale—it was not on the occasion of a discussion of the sale of the Jewish Times and Reformer—I never agreed to sell it, and I never received any money or payment for it—this is my signature. (Document read)—120, William Street was the office of the paper—John Volk was a proof-reader of the office—Mr. Marks swindled me out of this bill of sale—I said yesterday that I gave the bill of sale over the Jewish Reformer and the property at the office to avoid a libel suit; that is what Mr. Marks told me—I got nothing—I cannot say who brought the libel suit; I am only telling you what Mr. Marks told me, I do not know whether it was a libel suit or not—up to the time of the bill of sale I was owner of the paper, and Mr. Marks swindled me out of it—I was never sued in any libel suit that I know of—I was publisher and proprietor of the paper—I knew nothing about the business—the document purports to sell the Jewish Reformer, type, and so on, for 1,000 dols.; 500 dols. to be paid on 18th January and 500 dols. by promissory note at twelve months—I cannot tell you if this is the receipt for 500 dols., for I never received the money—I did not receive 500 dols, on 18th January and a

promissory note for 500 dols. more; I got no note and no money—I did not receive various payments on account of that promissory note; I received no payment of 250 dols. on Marks' return from Europe about the end of July or August, 1879—I never got a cent from Marks after he came back from Europe; he had not got it himself then—I did not know what I was signing—I did not ask to have explained to me what I was signing—several papers I signed blindfold; I was so much in love with Mr. Marks that he could get me to sign any paper—I signed this, I have no doubt, but I never got the money; "Received of Mr. Marks the sum of 500 dols. in part payment of the goodwill of the Reformer and Jewish Times, which I have sold him this day, 500 dols,"—I signed these twenty-six or twenty-seven receipts and these deeds, and the two other receipts, without knowing what I was doing—this transaction is in two parts—Mr. Marks took good care I saw no one in regard to those papers; he never left them in my charge; he got me to sign them right away, and then took them away with him—the 1,000 dollar cheque from the Forester's Friendly Society was brought to my house by Montagu L. Marks the day after New Year, and he asked me to lend him 100 dols.—I said I had not got it, but that if he went down to the office to Mr. Marks and asked him to give him 100 dols. of my money he was welcome to have it, if he had it, as I did not want to break the cheque; Mr. Harry Marks found that Mr. Montagu L. Marks had the cheque, and he beat him, broke his eyeglass, and kicked him down the stairs, and took the cheque away from him—I know that, because I met Mr. Montagu L. Marks in the street after he had been beaten; Mr. Harry Marks told me he was after beating him when I met him at the office—I do not know if it was on that occasion or not that he kicked him out of the office; I suppose it was; I never knew him kick him out before that—I told the newspaper reporter that I received 1,000 dols. from the Foresters' Lodge on my husband's death, and that I entrusted them to Mr. Marks, who deposited them in the Broadway Savings Bank to his credit, so I was told—I did not also say that, in the transfer of the office to him, Harry Marks paid me 500 dols. out of this money—I did not say that 500 dols. was paid by Marks out of the 1,000 dols. I got from the Foresters—I got no money from Marks either out of that or any other money—I made a statement to the reporter as to the way Harry Marks used me—I did not say that Harry Marks made a payment to me of 500 dols. out of the Foresters' cheque, and that, having paid it, he immediately received it back again—I asked Marks what he had done with the 1,000 dollar cheque, and he said he had spent it with other women at the Cafe Brunswick; the man who had promised to marry me—I continued to be on friendly terms with him—I was not all the time on friendly terms with him—I was on friendly terms with him after he returned from Europe—notwithstanding this fraud, I continued under his influence signing anything he and Mr. Goodheart put before me, because I was in hopes he would do something for me and his child—I continued on friendly terms with him until his return from Europe in July, 1879, although in January, 1879, he had defrauded me out of 1,000 dollars, and told me he had spent it on women—on his return I swear he did not pay the rent of my house, which had accrued during his absence—he only visited me once after he came back—he did not tell me he could not keep up the connection

that had existed between us before—he had no connection with me after his return—the jewellery was of value—I did not present the watch to Mr. Marks on his offering to buy it, although I was in love with him—Mr. Marks saw the jewellery, and handled it—he had them before the New Year, 1879, I think; he was invited to dinner, I think he told me, at Jesse Seligman's; he did not tell me if it was Jesse Seligman's birthday—he said he wanted to cut a figure, and wanted the diamond studs—it was at the end of 1878, or the New Year, 1879—it was after my arrest that I made a statement in the presence of another man of the name of Marks and Spelman; it might have been on 6th October; I do not remember—Michael Marks told me he was agent to Mr. Mulhally, my landlord, and if I would not come to Spelman's, he would use his position as agent to put me out of the place I was living in—afterwards I found from Mr. Mulhally that that was untrue—on that untrue statement of Michael Marks I went to Spelman's office—I knew nothing about enmity between Montagu and Harry Marks at that time; I could not know what dealings there were between them—the kicking of Montagu out of the office was about January, 1879—they were not friendly, he having been kicked out of the office—I made this statement in Spelman's office—two days after I might have written to Mr. Marks to ask him to come and see me, I don't remember it—he came to my house—Michael Marks accompanied me to Spelman's office—I think I told Harry Marks when he came that Michael Marks had taken me to Spelman's—I do not recollect saying that they had put a statement into my mouth, and that I wished to undo the mischief I had done—I told him when he called at my house at Twelfth Street that I was going to be put out for my rent, as rent was due, and I did not know what to do, and he told me he could not do anything for me—I do not remember saying anything about Spelman to Harry Marks—I do not remember writing to Harry Marks at all, I will not swear I did not—if I sent for Mr. Marks, I sent for him because I was going to be put out for rent—that was the reason I sent for him—this is my signature—my statements are true that Marks had deserted me, and left me destitute when he went to Europe; that he had robbed me of the jewellery, defrauded me of 1,000 dole., and the Jewish Reformer, and had not paid me a halfpenny for it—I believed they were true on 8th October, 1879—I did not read this paper at the time I signed it—I do not know what it was—I recollect not only signing but swearing before a commissioner, Mr. Good-heart—I did not read what I swore—it might have been read to me, I cannot say whether it was or not—I have signed so many papers, I do not know what they were; I cannot swear to anything about signing papers—I would swear to a paper, the contents of which I did not know to be true; perhaps I have done so without knowing about it—I recollect Mr. Goodheart coming to my house about 7.30 p.m.—I do not remember saying, "That is so," when he said, "I understand you are desirous of making a statement in regard to some matters that have taken place, and that you wish to state the truth before me on oath"; I won't swear I did not—all I remember is that Mr. Marks asked me what I wanted to see him for, and I know I signed a paper for him at that time, but I did not know what it was; they did not repeat it to me, and I do not know anything about it—the statement was not read to me—I signed it and I took my oath when I signed it, but I did not know what

was in it—I did not take any oath at the time I signed that paper, I swear that; I had no Bible in the house—I did not hold my hand up—when Marks returned in August he came and said he could not do any thing more for me, but he did not say anything about the connection between us must end—as a matter of fact he did not resume it. (The document stated that all she had previously alleged against Marry Marks was untrue, and that he had always behaved towards her in a most upright, honest, and gentlemanly way.)—I never heard that paper before, and I never took an oath to it—I do not know how Harry Marks could have ascertained that I had made injurious statements at Mr. Spelman's office unless it were from myself; he is capable of doing and saying most anything—Michael Marks pretended to be my landlord's agent, and threatened me, and so induced me to go to Spelman's office, and accompanied me there, but that paper I never heard before—I don't know whether at Spelman's office I had made statements against Mr. Marks—I do not remember making a statement in the negative of that sworn declaration—I knew I was going to see Mr. Spelman, to see if he could do something for me with regard to my business—the first time I saw Mr. Spelman was in regard to my Ford ham house; he served the papers in Fordham for the house to be sold, and that was how I became acquainted with him, and I do not believe anyone forced me to go to his office—Michael Marks went with me there; I do not remember anything else about it—my landlord was a respectable landlord! he put my furniture on the street—Marks' threat I afterwards discovered—I swore to nothing at Spelman's, and signed no paper there, and made no statement there—Montagu Marks was not at Spelman's; Michael Marks and Spelman were; Mrs. Eli, who went with me, was there—the paper read just now is not true; I never heard of it before—I do not know that any part of it is true—it is true that Mulhally's agent, or pretended agent, Michael Marks, threatened me; that I went to Spelman's accompanied by Mrs. Eli and Michael Marks, and that I saw Mr. Spelman there; I do not know of any other part of it that is true; I say it is all untrue except that—I do not wish to specify any particular statement—I never after this tried to get Marks to resume his intimacy with me—I employed no one to watch him—I did not send him telegrams or letters—this letter is not my writing; I believe it is my sister's—she did not write it by my directions—it might be she wrote to Marks without my direction, signing my name—I would not swear it is my sister's writing; it looks very much like it; I cannot say surely whether it is—I won't say anything about it—my name is put to it—she might have written to him without my authority; I do not know who he had writing letters to him—I do not know whose letter it is; it is not mine—I cannot say if it is my sister's; I cannot form an opinion; it is written in pencil, and the other is in ink—on the day I went to the Reformer office I did not act like an insane person that I know of—I did not break the furniture or smash the windows, or attempt to assault Mr. Marks—I went, conducted myself peaceably, ordered the people out of the office, and nailed up the door—no furniture or window was smashed; there was no impropriety of that kind—when I was brought before the Magistrate, John Volk and John Oswald were not examined before him; the case was not brought into Court at all; I was taken to the Judge's

private room—I did not see Volk and Oswald there; I saw Harry Marks there—the doctor did not come till I was in a cell; I was in a cell in Fifty-seventh Street—when the official doctor was sent for I was released—I do not know whether the ordinary course is to send a person charged with being insane before the officers of Charities and Correction—after I came out I saw Mr. Spelman again—I do not remember who brought me to him—I do not remember if it was Michael Marks—Montagu Marks did not—I complained in the proceedings I brought against Marks of arrest and imprisonment—I understand Marks gave bail in 3,000 dols.—I believe my attorney, Mr. Spelman, is a respectable man—I do not remember if I alleged to him that I had a claim against Marks for defrauding me of my property, and robbing me of my jewellery and the 1,000 dollar cheque on the Foresters' Society, and for breach of promise of marriage—I do not remember ever making any complaint against Mr. Marks, through any solicitor or legal authority, except this complaint about false arrest—my action against Marks was dismissed for want of particulars in 1881—I do not know when he left New York—the last f heard of him was when the warrant was issued for his arrest, when he gave bail for 3,000 dols. in 1879—I do not know anything about whether in 1881, 1882, and at the end of 1883 he was residing in New York—I had no means of instructing my solicitor, or of taking any steps myself to find out—Mr. Marks left me penniless—my father is still living—he was a householder in New York; he was not bondsman for the prosecution of this action; he was never any bondsman—his name is Thomas Doyle; I do not know who William Doyle is, he is not my father or brother—my father lived at 4, East Thirty-first Street, and was a householder there; he is not there now—he is a livery stable keeper, a man of some position and means—I was not friendless altogether in New York—the other bail was Michael Marks, the man who had brought me to Spelman's—I knew nothing about the action Mr. Harry Marks brought against a director of the Bank of England—in 1887, two years, or it might be three years ago, Siegfried Koppel, my brother-in-law, came to me to get a statement from me, and I made a statement—I do not know if he is connected with the New York Press; he is an advertising agent, I believe—he came alone—so far as I know, no one from the New York Press came to me—I do not know whether that paper had just been published, or whether the statement from which this pamphlet purports to be taken was in the sixth number of that paper—I know nothing about it.

Re-examined. When I married Mr. Koppel in 1873, I was seventeen years old—before my marriage I had no experience of business—during my married life I had nothing to do with business matters—my husband attended entirely to business matters, and left me to attend to household matters, and at the time of his death I had acquired no experience with regard to anything connected with business—there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that during my husband's lifetime I worked in a shop, or was in any employment, or that I had sought for means to live—in my husband's lifetime we lived in a fairly good position—I never knew him to be in want of money for the household, or to complain of being in money difficulties—the articles of jewellery, other than the watch, my husband wore, and they had been seen by his people and by members of his family and others—Montagu L. Marks was a lawyer—my husband

belonged to the Foresters and to two other societies for 1,000 dols. in each at his death; it was an insurance, not a gratuity—until my husband's death I had nothing to do with lawyers—I had had nothing to do with Mr. Goodheart; he is here—the furniture in the house was mine—I got the money from the other two insurance companies—apart from the jewellery which Marks had, I had no other jewellery except my own—I lived on affectionate terms with my husband—I had seen but never spoken to Harry Marks—the first time I spoke to him was when I went to the office, and he followed me in the street and spoke to me—soon after he induced me to sign the power of attorney—I did not know anything about what it was at the time—I had no legal advice about the matter—Harry Marks did not suggest I should have any legal advice or protection—he did not bring the power of attorney with him; he and Mr. Goodheart took me to a Surrogate's Court, and there I signed it—that was Goodheart's first appearance on the scene—Mr. Marks produced the power of attorney; neither he nor Goodheart explained why they wanted it, nor did either of them give any explanation as to why I should sign it, except that he could run the business better by my signature of the power of attorney—it was not read to me at the time—I have not heard it read. (MR. GILL read the document. By it the control of her property, including the "Reformer and Jewish Times.," was given to Mr. Harry Marks)—until now I never heard it read—I never knew why I was giving Marks power over all the money in the bank and the office—when I saw the document, it was ready for signature; it was first produced in the Surrogate's office—I do not know what Goodheart was doing there—that was my first experience of lawyers and of signing a document—the bill of sale was the next document Goodheart and Marks got me to sign—I had no experience, and knew nothing about a bill of sale—it was shown to me in the newspaper office at William Street—neither Marks nor Goodheart suggested that I should have advice from any person, nor did they explain anything about the hill of sale—no action for libel has been brought against me; no action far libel was in existence as far as I was concerned—Marks said there was one; he did not say by whom it was brought—no other reason was given for signing a bill of sale besides this libel action—Goodheart was not there when the bill of sale was executed—I do not know who prepared it, most likely Goodheart—at this time Marks was with no other lawyer, that I know of, but Goodheart—he was a good deal with Goodheart—John Volk was present and witnessed the signature—this bill of sale was not read to me at the time. (The document was read)—there is not a particle of truth in the suggestion that I had 500 dols.—as far as I know, and from my knowledge of him, he had not got 500 dols. at this time that he could give me—the jewellery was got from me a day or two before the New Year—he got no other money from me about this time with regard to the paper—I received no money from the office of the paper—when he spoke about the paper he gave me no explanation as to what he was doing with the moneys he got—before I gave him a power of attorney, and before I signed a bill of sale, he was affectionate to me—his affection cooled after he came back from Europe—after he had got the power of attorney, bill of sale and jewellery, I had nothing left but the furniture—the money I had from the other insurance companies was invested in the paper to enlarge it—Marks asked me to do that; he had the investment

of all the moneys—that was shortly after he got the power of attorney from me—I did not know that in the power of attorney he had inserted that he was to collect the moneys on the insurances—he knew of this insurance—he said if I invested the money in the paper it would become a better paper after some time—1,000 dols. was invested, and there was 500 dols. from the other lodge; the paper did not come out one week, and the men struck and would not work, and I had to draw 500 dols. from the other lodge to pay the hands—Marks did not make any complaint at this time about my conduct with other men—until I heard it suggested here to-day Marks never suggested he was not the father of my child; I never heard of any such suggestion till to-day—I was not on terms of improper intimacy with a man named Louis; there is not a particle of truth in that suggestion—Marks must have taken those letters out of my house; I never gave them to him—I did not show him either of these letters—however he got possession of them it was not with my consent—I generally kept them in a small box where the jewellery was—other letters of mine were not taken that I know of—there is no particle of truth in the suggestion that there was impropriety between me and Maccabe—I have boarded in a house of that name—I heard of that name when I was in Massachusetts; a person came and asked me to sign two notes; he said I was married to a man named Maccabe, and he had died and money was coming to me, and he would give me two notes for 250 dols.—that was about 3rd September this year—up to then I had never heard of the existence of a person named Maccabe; I boarded with people of that name five years ago—until September this year I never heard of any suggestion of any connection between myself and Maccabe—since my arrest on the charge of insanity I have been working at different places—I have had some employment at the hotel of a man named Dimmach—there is no ground for the suggestion that there were ever any improper relations between me and Dimmach—I never hoard it until I heard it from Marks' counsel; not even from Mr. Goodheart—there is not a particle of truth in the suggestion that there was impropriety, or any suggestion of impropriety between me and Dimmach—the only time Marks went away was when he went to Europe, except when he went to the watering places—I saw him in October, November, December, and January—the bill of sale was in January—until I signed the power of attorney and executed the bill of sale, he was on affectionate terms with me—after that I wrote asking him to come and see me—I was sick—I was with child—I do not know how many letters I wrote him—I was in mourning two years for my husband and my mother—I cannot remember when I signed these receipts—they are all Marks' writing except the signature (18 receipts)—he did not say what he wanted them for, nor explain why a number of sums were included in one receipt—he had not paid me a cent of that money—when I first knew him he told me his position—he was not well off—his appearance improved afterwards very much, and his mode of life—I believed he had got his clothes in Baxter Street, where they sell second-hand clothes—I became very much attached to him—I would have signed anything he asked me—I had no want of confidence in him then (1879)—I have not seen the receipts since—I do not know this writing (signed receipts on one paper)—Goodheart got me to sign that at his office—I lived as Mrs. Marks, in St. Mark's Place, before he went to Europe—I was known to the land-lady

as Mrs. Marks—Marks never stated in my presence who I was—he told the landlord on the 29th I was his wife—those are the apartments Marks hired for me when I left the house my husband lived in—my furniture was there—the landlord had known me as Mrs. Koppel—I supported myself and two children—then the other child was born: not a full-time child—my children were healthy—I commenced selling my things to support myself before Marks' return from Europe—first my jewellery, then my furniture, piece by piece—in July, 1879, and afterwards I was in considerable want—I have only recently seen the certificate—the child was registered by the nurse and doctor, A. Haddon, who came to me when I was arrested for insanity—Marks paid the nurse—my son, when he was ten years old, had 20 dols. put in the bank for him—Marks could not take that—that is safe—on his return from Europe there was nothing more I could part with—from that time Marks ceased to visit me—I applied for charitable assistance to the Judge of the Court—in October I was living in Twelfth Street with my three children—I had been to a lawyer—I asked him if the house at Fordham that was sold had brought more than the mortgage, whether the money had been properly accounted for—when Marks and Goodheart came I had no one to advise me—the document they brought was ready written—it is not true that I said the words which were then written; nor that they said, "I understand," or "Do you want to make a statement?"—I made no statement that was written—the document was ready for me to sign—I signed it that night in their presence—neither suggested then I was out of my mind—I have no experience in drawing up documents. (Read document dated 8th October, 1889, stating that witness had signed false accusations against Marks, at Mr. Spelman's office on 16th October, by intimidation, duress, and threats, of Montagu Marks and another, which she desired to retract, and affirming that Mr. Marks had acted towards her in a most upright, honest, and gentlemanly manner.)—I never used such words—it is not true—it is not true as stated in that document that, "In consideration of his kindness on many occasions I presented Mr. Marks with a gold watch," nor that the moneys Marks was entrusted with "he has properly and duly accounted for at various times"—he never accounted to me except to get me to sign these receipts; nor has he "disbursed on my account large sums of money"—at this time I had contemplated trying to get some restitution of my property—I had spoken of it in October—I had never told anybody before I was arrested for insanity—I had not threatened proceedings—I have never heard that document read till to-day—they never told me that women were induced to sign documents they had not read—I was then living in Twelfth Street with my children—they were in the front rooms of the house about half-an-hour—they frequently spoke to me, they had all the conversation to themselves; I had to go outside to attend to Mr. Marks' baby, and I left them in the parlour—I was asked to sign just before they left—Goodheart got me to sign it—I did not swear it—this was the only occasion Marks or Goodheart visited me after Marks' return from Europe—I next saw Marks at the office when I went to get some money—Marks had never till then suggested I was not right in my mind—it is not true that I broke the windows and smashed the furniture, and behaved as if I was not right in my head—I next saw Marks in Judge Smith's room—Goodheart has never since interviewed me—when

charged with being insane I told my story to the Court and the press—I saw reports in the papers; not in the Press, nor the New York Times, nor the Star—I saw the report in the Herald, Evening News, and the Sun—I was recently employed at Dimmach's hotel—a Mr. Stevens came to board there; he left at the same time as I left to come to New York—I have seen Stevens following me around—he got employment for my boy—my trunk was left at Kingsbridge—when I came back to New York it was still there—I had not sent any trunk to the Urania.

By SIR CHARLES RUSSELL. The landlord at West Twenty-ninth Street was named Whitmark, and the landlord at St. Mark's Place was named Cook—I have never seen these receipts before—I do not know Whitmark's writing, nor Cook's—I was the tenant—one month's rent was paid by Marks, through Goodheart, of St. Mark's Place, in my name—I do not know what it was—I was called Mrs. Marks by the landlord and the landlady—there were three policies; the Atlantic 1,000 dols., Lloyds, the Foresters, and the Kasier Bursall—I received no part of the Atlantic; it went in the business, my son was not entitled to that—the Bursall stands yet for him 500 dols.—with the other 500 dols. I paid the hands in the office—that was the occasion it went in the week's wages—I cannot fix the date, it was 1879, the early part, before I executed the bill of sale—rents are paid in advance in New York—after my husband's death Dr. Mendes was editor, not at 13 dols. a week—he never got any payment—Marks had pay—I got nothing from the business but my labour—my brother-in-law's name is Louis C. Koppel—the name on the birth certificate is Friedler Koppel.

JOSEPH ITHELL BIRCH . I am managing clerk to Messrs. Wontner and Sons—I have had to deal with this case since July last; on the 31st July I saw Mr. Butterfield at Queen's Road, Peckham—I observed posters on his house and elsewhere as I rode down, offering £25 reward for his apprehension—I subsequently went and saw Mr. George Lewis, and arranged that Butterfield should surrender when called upon—twelve o'clock the next day was mentioned—Mr. Lewis said Butterfield was a man of straw, and had no money—Butterfield was arrested at half-past nine the next morning—on the 25th October I went to New York in order to verify certain statements published in a pamphlet by Butterfield—I arrived the following Sunday week—on 14th November, after considerable difficulty, I saw Mrs. Koppel at Vanderpole, Cumming, and Goodwin's office in New York—they are of high repute—I have been to New York three times before—I saw the sworn declaration of Mrs. Koppel—I have a copy from which the article was written in the Press—I had previously verified other matters—I examined the original register of the death of Louis C. Koppel—the Officer of Health is responsible for the entries made, and they are signed by him—it is the same with regard to certificates—I produce also certificate of the birth of the child Alice Marks, and the warrant of the Justice, of Sunday, 19th October, upon which Mrs. Koppel was arrested; the affidavit of Mr. Marks, upon which the warrant was granted, and the proceedings in the action by Mrs. Koppel against Marks, as far as they went—the endorsement on the warrant is that it was executed on 20th October, and the names of John Yolk and John Oswald were on the document—they were not called—the dismissal would not be here—the warrant for the arrest of Marks in the proceedings against him is dated 30th October—he was arrested by Riley, the Sheriff, on

31st October, and held to bail—I saw a file of the Press newspaper of New York at the office—I produce the issue of 6th December, 1879, the sixth copy of that paper—I examined the file of the New York Times of October 21st, 1879, containing the account of the Police-court proceedings and the arrest of Mrs. Koppel—I read the article, but could not procure a copy—I went to 235, East Fifty-eighth Street—I had a statement from Maggie Doyle—I ascertained that Montagu L. Marks died while I was in New York, and that he was no relation of Harry Marks—haying seen Mrs. Koppel, I arranged to return to England in the Urania on Saturday, 15th November—I was present at the last Session of this Court—I took Mrs. Koppel's passage—I saw her on the Friday before the ship was to start, and arranged to meet her—on going to the hotel on the Saturday morning I found she was not there—I saw her box with a label upon it—I left instructions with Mr. Cumming with regard to her, and came by the Urania—I went to meet her at Southampton—I brought her to London with some trouble.

Cross-examined. I saw Mr. Lewis on 31st July, about 2 p.m.—the warrant is 28th July—I saw the defendant first on 31st July, when he sent to the office, in consequence of seeing the posters; I understood that was the first he knew of the warrant—I told the defendant two sureties would be required—no sureties were forthcoming; he was arrested on the way to them—my letter to him would reach him on 1st August—he was detained in custody fifteen days—the bill was presented to the Grand Jury in the September Session—the case was adjourned to October—my departure for New York was five days after the October Session, after the bill was found—I arrived the beginning of November—I saw the editor of the Press, who informed me the paper referred to was six days old—I ascertained there were two Montagu Marks; one, the brother of Harry Marks, is alive—the other's death had appeared in the paper—I have not read it—the defendant is a bankrupt—Mr. Blanchard Wontner attends to that business—I cannot tell you who is finding the money for this defence—Mr. Wontner supplied me with money to go to America—I returned about November 23rd—I have managed this matter since—I have not received a sixpence; Mr. Wontner can explain—there is a guarantee—the guarantor is a lady—I have not seen the guarantee—I cannot say she guarantees the costs of the defence—she guarantees so much—I do not see any reason for disclosing the name. (MR. GILL stated that there was no objection, and the witness wrote and handed a paper to MR. MATHEWS)—I do not object to Sir Charles Russell seeing the name—I do not say that lady is "pushing the matter forward"; nor that she is responsible for the costs—I cannot tell you the amount she guarantees—that is the only guarantee—there may have been some cash paid—I have subpoenaed Mr. Perryman—I have seen him personally—he has given me some copies of some papers—he brought the file of the Financial Observer—that is why I subpoenaed him—I have seen Mr. Fagge once or twice—I have had very little to say to him—I am not aware of Mr. Marks taking proceedings against him—I believe Mr. Fagge is a witness, to produce documents—I know Mr. Fagge is a bankrupt, and Mr. Marks could get no costs.

Re-examined. I was willing to consult Mr. Lewis's convenience, as I did not want the defendant arrested—Mr. Lewis fixed twelve o'clock, the next day, and I guaranteed the defendant should be at the Mansion

House—that would be giving him time to find bail—I heard Mr. Wontner apply at the Police-court for an adjournment—that was strongly opposed by Mr. Lewis, who asked for increased bail—the defendant was locked up twenty-four hours longer—Mr. Mathews opposed the adjournment of the trial on justification being pleaded—the matter was put off to the end of the week for affidavits to be filed—then Sir C. Russell consented to the trial going over—inquiries were made in America before I went there—I conversed with Mr. Ashley Cole, the editor of the Press, in New York—I found Mr. Marks was represented in New York by Mr. Townsend Percy—I found no record of Mr. Marks taking proceedings against Mr. Cole for libel—I asked the question—Mr. Goodheart acted for Mr. Marks—Mr. Cole knows all three.

JOHN MATTHEW KLENCK . I am living with friends at 104, Mile End Road—my offices are 42, Bishopsgate Street Within—I was one of the liquidators of the Rae Mine—I sent the books to Messrs. Snell, Son and Greenip some months ago.

Cross-examined. I have ceased to be liquidator—I handed over the books prior to my bankruptcy.

Wednesday, December 10th.

SAMUEL HAYMAN . I am from the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Somerset House; I produce file of proceedings there kept in the Rae Gold Mining Company, Limited; there is the memorandum of the articles of association, and the notice of the situation of the company's registered offices—there are several agreements, the first being between Frederick John Smith of the one part, and James Nicholl, trustee for and on behalf of the company to be incorporated, styled the Rae Transvaal Gold Mining Company, of the other part, the date being February 13th, 1876; the next is dated February 14th, 1889, between the company and Joseph Stephen Fryer, of Forest Gate; the next document is a summary of capital and shares of the company made up to the 18th May, 1887—on folio 12 I see the name of Alfred Isaac Benjamin, 40, St. John's Wood Road, as one of the shareholders, holding 5,160 shares; Miss Agnes Mary Benjamin, of 20, Westbourne Square, for 1,750 shares; Gertrude Lizzie Benjamin, 1,750; Louisa Koch, 40, St. John's Wood Road, 1,006 shares; Samuel Goodman Levi, 8,750 shares and 250 shares, 9,000 altogether; Sarah Dinah Cohen, of 49, Buckingham Place, Brighton, 1,500; Percy Cohen, 5, Terminus Street, Brighton; the entry against his name is struck out, the claim is there, showing 20 shares sold out; C. Dawson Philpott, financial agent, 16, Tokenhouse Yard, 250 shares; John William Clark, 6, St. Swithin's Lane, 250; James Head, 9, Seymour Street, 500; W. H. Penning, 250 held and 250 transferred; Townsend Percy, gentleman, 6, St. Oswald Road, West Brompton, 2,500; Alexander Donald Barnard, Dunedin, New Zealand, 5,000; Frank Bernard, The Hut, Adelaide Road, Surbiton, 100; Florence Isobel Skeats, Florence Villa, Riverside, Thames Ditton, 5,000—this return was made up to 11th May, 1887—no list of shareholders has been furnished to Somerset House since that; this is the only one on the file—the next document is an agreement dated 8th December, 1887, between Frederick John Smith, called the vendor, and the Rae Mining Company—the next is an agreement dated 22nd December, 1887, between the Rae Company

and Edward John Churchouse; the next is a copy of a special resolution passed on 22nd May, 1888, confirmed on 20th June, 1888, to wind up the company, and appoint liquidators, and to authorise them to sell and dispose of the company; the liquidators appointed were Jonathan Klenck and Stephen Henry Fry—there are no other documents, except notices of change of the registered offices of the company; the first is Tokenhouse Buildings, Bank, then 42, Bishopsgate Street Within, then Palmerston Buildings, and 93, Bishopsgate Street Within; that was registered on 17th December, 1889—that is the last document; both the last changes were by the liquidator—the papers registering the company were filed by W. H. Smith and Sons, of 265, Gresham Street; the signatories to the memorandum of association are John P. Fleming, of 38, Wilton Road, Dalston, clerk, 1; Charles Berry, 12, Gloucester Road, West Hackney, accountant, 1; W. Douglas Money, 98, Brixton Road, 1; John Charles Penning, 3, Ossington Street, Bow, 1; H. J. Fleming, 178, Lamb Fields, Clapton, 1; W. H. Smith, Gresham House, 1; William Jeffery, 31, Sutherland Road, Bow, 1—the "1" means one share.

Cross-examined. What I have been asked in detail all appears in the documents before me—I have had some experience in the registration of companies—it is the ordinary and common thing that there should be seven signatories to the memorandum of association, putting themselves down at one share each—there was no change in the offices of this company until the winding up—the resolution that was confirmed on 7th January, authorised the liquidators to reserve 32,000 fully paid-up shares, and to distribute the remainder among the shareholders—that is not an unusual form of reconstructing a company.

FREDERICK JOHN SMITH . I am now staying with my brother, at High-field Road, Upper Norwood—my own address is 60, Brook Green, I have been there some time; not at Victoria Road, Twickenham—I have been examined in the Chancery Court with reference to the Rae Mining Company—in January, 1887, I was clerk to a stockbroker, Mr. Frank Barnard, of Crown Court, Old Broad Street—I ceased to be so about the end of that year—I have seen Mr. Frank Barnard recently, about three months ago I think; I have no idea where he is now—in January; 1887, the Rae Transvaal Gold Mining Company was mentioned to me by Mr. Barnard—at that time I was desirous of obtaining the post of secretary to a company, and in consequence of what Mr. Barnard said to me, I went and saw Harry Marks at his office—I saw him alone, Mr. Arthur Cohen was in the next room; I had to go through his room to get to Mr. Marks'—I gave him a letter that I had received from Mr. Frank Barnard (It was not produced)—it was an ordinary memorandum form—it was to the effect that I was looking out for something to do; could Mr. Marks give me the secretaryship of the company that was coming out—I don't think I said anything, I simply handed him the note—he read it, and said, "I cannot make you secretary, as some other gentleman has already been nominated; but I think you can be of use to me in another way;" that I should be vendor to the company—I said I should be very glad to do it—I cannot recall all that passed, it is four years ago—I simply agreed to act as vendor of the property of the company—I had no property then—I presumed the property was to be transferred to me—I supposed I was to place myself in the hands of the solicitor, and to act under his instructions, and do the service that was required of me—Mr. Marks did

not give me any reason why I was to do this; I did not ask him for any reason—I had never done such a thing before—my remuneration was to be £200, Mr. Marks told me so; he said, "This will put £200 into your pocket," he offered me that sum, I did not ask it—the interview did not last more than ten minutes, as far as I can remember; it was at the office of the Financial News; I knew his position there, as editor—I don't know the actual date; it was in the early part of January, that is as near as I can fix it—I knew nothing about the Transvaal at that time—I was directed to go to W. H. Smith and Sons, I did not know that they were the solicitors of the Financial News, I knew their address; I had known Mr. Smith for some years, I did not know him in business—I went and saw him; nothing was produced to me, I think, on that occasion—I cannot remember the date when I became possessed of the property that I was to sell—the transfer of the property to me was not done by Smith and Son, but by Messrs. Eldred and Co.; they were the solicitors—a man named Benjamin transferred the property to me—I did not put any money into it, I paid nothing—I don't know what the supposed price of the property was—I don't remember who sent me to Eldred and Co., probably Mr. Smith, I only say probably—I believe Ralph and Ernest were the firm of Smith and Sons—at the time the property was transferred to me I signed a document, I signed whatever document that was put before me; I don't know what became of them—I don't remember whether any form was gone through, any receipt for the money I was supposed to pay—I did not offer any; I signed what I was told, I did not take any receipt or any document away—I don't know when I was to sell the property to the company; I believe it was the same day that I purchased it—the sale took place in Messrs. Smith's office, as far as I can remember—I can't say who was present—I should say Mr. Marks was not there, I think not—several documents were signed, that is all I remember—I had nothing to do with the price—I do not know Mr. John Fleming, or Charles Berry, or Douglas Money—I cannot say whether I signed more than one paper at the place where I was supposed to buy the property—I did not sign several blank pieces of paper on that occasion; I did on other occasions—this is the document I signed on 13th January. (This was a memorandum of agreement between the witness as vendor of the property and the trustees.)—I do not recollect any discussion at the time of signing that document, as to how that £50,000 was arrived at—while I was doing this I continued to be a clerk in Frank Barnard's office—I knew that he and Mr. Marks were connected together in business—I think I was paid some money for doing this—I don't remember what I got at the time, there were various payments at different times—I was not paid the £50,000 at that time; I received cheques afterwards for various sums; I can tell you some of the dates, I have a rough memorandum here—the first date I have here is January 26th, £952 10s.—these are rough memorandums of sums paid to me as vendor by the Rae Company, made at the time—the next date is February 3rd, £3,850; February 10th, £4,812; April 4th, £500; June 14th, £4,812 10s,; then without date £2,500, £627, and the last, 27th September, £187 10s.—those are all that I have any record of—Mr. Nicholl, the company's secretary, gave me the first cheque at Frank Barnard's office; he brought it to me there; I endorsed it,

signed a receipt for it, and handed it back to Mr. Nicholl; he brought the receipt to me to sign; the cheque was payable to me—all the other cheques were dealt with in the same way—I got none of the money; I did not hand any of the cheques to Mr. Marks personally—I think some of them were handed to Frank Barnard; I have got no list of those—roughly speaking, about £20,000 in cheques passed through my hands in the way of purchase money—during that time I from time to time used to visit the office of the Financial News—I used to see Mr. Marks there—I saw Mr. Arthur Cohen from time to time—I used to go there two or three times a week—I never pressed the company for cash—I have no recollection of pressing them to give me the first £25,000 in cash; there was no reason why I should—I received money for what I was doing—I got £200 from Marks, some in cheques and some in shares; he gave me £120 in cash; that was at various times; some was in cheques—Mr. Barnard transferred the shares into my name—there were 200 shares; they were sold on the market; I did not hold them long—Mr. Barnard did not pay me all the money for them; he deducted £57 10s.; that was half the amount I had at the time received as the produce of the sale of the shares and the cash together; the shares realised £80, and the cash I received as well made up £120—Mr. Barnard got the £57 10s. because he had introduced me to the job—I do not remember whether the shares were in blank, or whether there was any record of my name as the vendor—this document of 8th December, 1887, was signed by me. (This was a memorandum of agreement between the witness as vendor and the Roe Company.) I gave no instructions for the preparation of that document; there is no truth in the suggestion that I was pressing for payment of the balance—I had not asked for 9,000 shares—I can't remember where that document was put before me for signature, the 9,000 shares stood in my name, they were put in my name; I was registered on the company's books as a holder of 9,000 shares—I transferred them to Frank Barnard; he told me to do so—I did not get anything for it—I have no idea into whose name they were transferred—I don't remember that I ever had 25,000 allotted to me; I don't think so—I never gave instructions for shares to be allotted to persons whom I nominated—I know Alfred John Benjamin, he is a stockbroker, a member of the Stock Exchange; I believe he is a brother-in-law of Mr. Marks—I don't know whether he is a partner of Frank Barnard, he is with him in business—I do not know who Agnes Mary Benjamin is, or Gertrude Lizzie Benjamin—I believe Louisa Koch is Benjamin's sister, I am not sure; I do not know what relation she is of Marks—I do not know Samuel Goodman Levi, or Dinah Sarah Cohen, or Percy Cohen, or Phillips; when I say I don't know him, I mean, I should not know him if I saw him—I know Samuel Stewart Marks, sub-editor of the Financial News—I do not know Jonas Levy, or Townsend Percy, or S. W. Bevitt—Ernest Cohen I know—I do not know that Barnard passes in the name of Skeats, I do not know Skeats, except that she is a lady—Donald Barnard is Frank Barnard's brother—I never heard of Florence Isobel Skeats, of Florence Villa, Thames Ditton—I believe Frank Barnard has rooms there for the summer—the only Skeats I know is a woman, Isobel Skeats—I don't know Fanny Chamberlain, of Florence Villa, Thames Ditton; I have no idea where she

lives—I know Kitty Hodge—I don't know that she passes as Fanny Chamberlain—I have seen her with Alfred Benjamin; as far as I know Alfred Benjamin is at Crown Court; he has been there the last few days, his private address is 40, St. John's Wood Road, I believe—I have no idea whether Kitty Hodge's address is at the same place—the last payment made to me was about three months ago, that was £15, Mr. Marks paid me that, at his own office in Abchurch Lane—I was present and gave evidence before Mr. Justice Kay's chief clerk in an inquiry about the Rae Mine—I don't know whether Philpott was examined, I left when my examination was completed—I did not see Mr. Marks there, or Arthur Cohen—I did not make or authorise an offer of £5,000 to the shareholders to prevent proceedings in that matter—I do not remember Mr. Marks telling me that it was necessary to make some declaration as to the price with regard to the transfer of property in the Transvaal—I cannot remember that I signed any such document; I signed a great many documents—I do not remember any conversation with Marks as to the price to be put—I was not taken to the Mansion House to make a declaration about it—I remember making no document or affidavit as to the price.

Cross-examined. I knew I was to be nothing more than a nominee—I had no interest beyond the £200 I was to get—I left Mr. Barnard's office the end of 1887—I had been there three years, since he started in business—my previous experience was at Lloyd's nine years—whether the practice be commendable or not, it is usual for property such as this to be sold through a nominee—I knew Eldred and Company, solicitors, where the transfer of the property, afterwards made over to the Rae Company to Higham Benjamin, was effected in my character as nominee—it was there, by Eldred and Company, transferred to me—I am not aware that the deed had to go out to the Transvaal to complete the title—I transferred to Nicholl, as the agreement witnesses—I had nothing to do with arranging the price—it is usual to put shares as part of the price paid to the vendor in the names of his nominees—I have no idea what Marks received—cheques for £20,000 passed through my hands, drawn by the directors, upon the company's account, and were endorsed and handed back to me—no money changed hands to my knowledge—my 200 shares realised £80, or 8s. a share, in May, 1887—I believe Rae shares were quoted at a premium—I cannot say how many were sold at a premium—I was not in the market, I was a clerk in the office—according to the agreement, the vendor was entitled to £25,000 in cash and £25,000 in shares—I received no cash—if the original agreement could not be carried out, a fresh one would be necessary—I last saw Benjamin a fortnight or three weeks ago in Broad Street, attending to his business, I suppose—Mr. Cohen took no part in the matter, so far as I know—my transactions were with Benjamin, Eldreds, Smith and Son, and Marks.

Re-examined. I have no idea of Benjamin's private affairs—I have not seen Arthur Cohen for some weeks—I do not remember Bartram's and the other companies you name—the Alous was after I left—the Chile Gold did not come out in the office—the Darwin is the only company I can remember that went into the name of a nominee, but I believe the practice has been followed in other companies—Mr. Sampson Hill was the vendor of the Hill's Waterfall—the Colch Gold Mine has Mr. Barnard's name in the prospectus, I believe—I do not

know of the practice of sham applications for shares for the purpose of ringing the mine—I received £150 a year as Barnard's clerk.

A. W. KNAPP (Re-examined). I do not know that 63,000 Rae prospectuses were sent out of Marks' office—I have at times worked overtime in directing envelopes and wrappers.

WILLIAM WILFRED HEAD . I am one of the firm of Head and Mark, printers, Fleet Lane, Old Bailey—I was employed to print 20,000 prospectuses of the Rae Mine by Harry Marks—we got the order from Abchurch Lane, and it went to his private account—we printed the Financial News at one time—I find in the book produced the entries of a four-page prospectus, Rae Gold; the memorandum of association on the 12th of the same month; on 13th, corrections; 14th, three copies; 15th, fifty copies; and 16th, 20,000—the account was paid by Marks—I knew Marks in 1884 when I commenced to print the paper, till the end of 1887.

CHARLES DAWSON PHILPOTT . I live at The Hermitage Cottage, Richmond—I retired from banking in 1886—in 1887 I asked Marks to introduce me to directors, with the result that I was invited on the Rae board—I married Marks' elder sister Zillah—he showed me the Rae skeleton prospectus—my name was not already on it—I only knew about finance—I understood there was a syndicate with whom he had influence—I attended the Rae preliminary board meeting—Penning, Bevitt, Pearson, the secretary, Mr. Nicholl, solicitor, Air. Smith and myself were present—there was a minute-book (produced)—the entries would be correct—Marks was present when we made the allotment; nothing was discussed at the first meeting as to the contract of sale to the company—I understood Mr. Smith was vendor of the property—I had no reason to suppose otherwise—Marks had not enlightened me as to Smith's position—Marks gave advice as to the mode of procedure; he was there to advise—I did not know the persons to whom the shares were allotted—I was not aware that the secretary reported applications for 27,000 shares, and that the applicants were a very small number of persons—Marks remained only a short time—Marks advised us generally—I knew Alfred Benjamin's relations with Marks, but I did not know any other people;, I had not seen Frank Barnard at the time—long afterwards I employed him—I do not think Marks sat at the table—Captain Pearson was present at the allotment, but I never saw him afterwards—on the 21st January I remember there were two persons desirous of withdrawing their application for shares—those were 500 and 200 shares respectively, and cheques were drawn for those and returned—the next meeting was on the 26th January—at the meeting Mr. George Emden was appointed auditor; he audited the balance-sheet—at the next meeting on the 31st January the bank passbook was produced, and showed the balance to be £807 15s. 11d.—a cheque for £350 was drawn in favour of Mr. Frank Barnard for brokerage, including a charge of £100 for the broker in Glasgow—I suppose the secretary advised us to do that—at the meeting on the 2nd February, 1887, a cheque was drawn for £3,850 in favour of Mr. F. J. Smith in compliance with his request, as part of the purchase. (Pass-book produced)—I suppose we had the money at the bank, or we should not have drawn the cheque—I think Barnard was intending to help the company, by placing the remainder of shares not applied for—I do not remember that it was

his cheque, but it might have been—I believe the cheque to be a genuine security for the payment of £3.850—I noticed that payment in—I did not ask about it. (The learned Counsel read extracts from the minute-book of the Rae Company, showing the balance to the credit of the company at different periods. On the 7th of March the bank balance was £1,666. On the 22nd the balance was £449)—on that day there was an entry of a letter from F. J. Smith asking for money—I do not consider that dunning—you will see by the minute-book when the men went out they took out a mill, machinery, picks and amalgamators; the amount spent upon it will appear in the cash-book—I had nothing to do with the estimate of profit, Penning and Bevitt did that; the secretary of the company usually took his instructions from me; I dictated almost all letters to him in shorthand, except when they did not apply, orders for machinery and that sort of thing—I did not know that Smith was merely a nominee until I saw it in the newspaper—after the liquidation commenced the directors were paid £150 a year—the general meeting was pleasant, not enthusiastic—we had not the information from the property then, the mine had only just started; it took three or four months to get up the country—I had attended every meeting—Mr. Bevitt was in the chair at the statutory meeting in April—Mr. Penning had gone to the Transvaal—I do not know the object of sending a copy of the Financial News with a report of the meeting to the shareholders—the "cheers" were not sham—the meeting was satisfactory—the letter received from Mr. Smith I believed was genuine—I believe the shares were for Smith's nominees, not Marks'—I did not know the people—I moved and Bevitt seconded that the Rae account should be transferred from the Capital and Counties to Smith, Payne and Smiths, and the balance, £848, paid to them—that was my suggestion, because I did not like the Capital and Counties Bank—the cablegrams were sent to the shareholders, because several called at the office desiring to be informed of them—it was to benefit the shareholders, so that if the telegrams had been true they would have equal chance with the directors to purchase shares in the market—we took no advantage of those—I never sold a share, nor did I buy a share—I ordered the secretary to stop the cablegrams because of the company's money being spent on them without result—no gold came to confirm them—we got some dust as a sample—I do not know where it came from—I do not know anything about the rotten reef—Mr. Bevitt can tell you—I daresay I told the secretary not to reply to inquiries without the instructions of the board—1,000 shares were demanded by Mr. Rae for information—we did not recognise the claim—Captain Pearson never came after the allotment—letters to him came back from the Dead Letter Office—the 250 shares, at 5s. a share, referred to in the minute of 15th September, were never allotted to Mr. James—he had been and knew a deal about the Transvaal—the engineer did not obey our instructions—then £300 was voted towards Mr. Bevitt's expenses in going out, I think in November—then his son Arthur Bevitt was appointed a director—then Mr. Rae attended and supported his claim for 1,000 shares—it was a bogus claim—he made a great noise, and threatened to ruin the company, and I persuaded the directors to let him have them, because neither he nor his solicitor knew that the agreement required to be filed, so he got the liability—he was "landed" with them, but there

was no consideration—he left the country shortly afterwards—he tried to play a trick upon us, but we were one too many for him—I remember the agreement for the 9,000 shares to be given to Smith as the cash balance of the purchase—I think the deed was read at the board—we had not the cash, and Mr. Smith, the solicitor, brought the letter from Smith, the vendor, agreeing to take shares—Nichol, the secretary, is dead—in February we could not get reports from Fryer—we did not know that Perryman was going to prosecute, but from his threats he intended to do harm to the company—he called on the secretary, and the secretary so reported—that was the reason we absolutely refused to allot him shares—I advised, not Marks, as to that—I came to that conclusion from the secretary's report of his language in the office—he did not say it was a gross fraud or a swindle—it was not because it was dangerous to let shares get into his hands, but that the secretary should assist legally with regard to transfers—the engineer, Fryer, brought twelve grains of gold back with him as a specimen—I saw some free gold that was sent over in a box by post—that is gold not soiled, without rock attached—the samples were sent to the assayers—they were paid a guinea or two for the assay—they kept what there was—that is usual—on 23rd May the board adjourned for three months—the 2nd June, 1888, was the finish; the directors drew no more salary after May—those minutes represent the work we did as directors, except attending the liquidation meetings and the general meeting—we have got no book for that—we held a public meeting of the shareholders, and submitted a balance-sheet—the funds were about £400 or £500,1 think, speaking from memory—the mill alone cost £100—Bevitt and Penning provided it—the liquidators were appointed at the general meeting—I was present—I did not see Marks there, nor Cohen—Mr. Snell proposed Klenck or Fry—I did not know Mr. Snell was the solicitor of the Financial News—I think Mr. E. Smith sat on our side the table—the shareholders got no dividend—I do not think there were any trade debts left, except perhaps a small printing account—there were a journal; letter-book, share register, and transfer-books—you have the share register or ledger.

Cross-examined. I was formerly the manager of the London and Provincial Bank, South Kensington branch—I established that branch in 1875, but I had been a bank manager twenty years before that—the directors desired, in consequence of the falling off of business, to reduce my salary in November, 1886, and I declined to remain—I did not hear of Higham Benjamin as one of the syndicate—F. Smith was one of the syndicate, or their nominee—we dealt with the syndicate as acting for the vendor—W. H. Penning, whose name appears on the prospectus as a director, and is described as a Fellow of the Geological Society, and late of H. M. Geological Survey, was the expert who gave a report on the mine—I was associated with him afterwards as a director; I did not know anything about the basis of his report—Penning constantly told Bevitt and myself he believed this was a highly valuable property—Penning and Smith professed to have been on the property—I never saw Fowler or Ivey, only their reports—I do not know if Ivey is a practical man; he is described as a practical miner of forty-two years' standing in Cornwall—Evelyn Smith had inspected the property—we sent out, in the first instance, the engineer, Fryer, and one other engineer, Mr. Nichol, who came

from Chesterfield, in reply to our advertisement—he had been tin or iron mining—after Nichol went out we had a number of cablegrams from him, no result followed, and we told him not to send cablegrams, we wanted something practical—my fellow directors and I came to a resolution to take proceedings against Fryer for not following the orders of his directors; his contract was to send a monthly account of his expenditure; he did not do so, and the solicitors were instructed to take proceedings—it was then arranged that our chairman, Mr. Bevitt, should go out—Mr. Bevitt could only listen to what Mr. Penning said, he had not been out to the property at the time—we honestly believed we were working on a substantial concern; not one director was of a different opinion; we always believed those cables till we did not get any result, and then it was resolved that Mr. Bevitt himself should go out—the title had first to be registered regularly in the Transvaal—we received this letter from F. J. Smith, recorded it, and acted on it—the stipulation at that time in the letter was £25,000 in cash and £25,000 in shares—it was the first company I had to do with, and it seemed to me quite reasonable to have the shares put in any names which the person entitled to them desired; but I had no previous experience of it—on 21st January, 1887, we returned the money to the two shareholders who had applied for the 700 shares—I find on February 3 an entry to the credit under the date represented of £8,850 in one item, and under the same date an exactly similar item of £3,850 made up in five sums to the credit, it appears, in one sum, to the debit in four sums which come exactly to £3,850, and exactly cover the entry on the other side, leaving it exactly as it was before either of those items appeared—the four sums are Florence Isobel Skeats, 850; Fanny Chamberlain, 1,000; Alfred I. Benjamin 1,000; and Alexander D. Barnard 1,000—I find in the cash-book, on March 9th, paid to J. Smith a cheque, £4,812 10s., and another cheque £1,500—I found on the other side the same amounts to Florence Isobel Skeats, Fanny Chamberlain, A. I. Benjamin, and A. D. Barnard, making £4,812, so that taking out those two figures the cash account would be exactly as it was before—the £4,812 and £3,850 made £8,662—the balance between the two sides on May 31st, 1887, is £1,013 6s. 7d.—the balance on the credit side is £14,513; deducting from that the £8,662 the cash balance would be less than £5,851, because several entries here would be cross entries—apart from those two sums coming from Barnard to help the company, I do not think there was any pretence for saying that from the public in application for shares a sum exceeding £6,000 was at any time received—the books accurately represent the transactions that took place, as far as I know; the secretary constantly brought them into the board-room for me to see, and our secretary was a very good bookkeeper too; they are perfectly correct—I do not remember seeing a report about the property from Mr. H. Benjamin—I saw he report of Mr. Fowler at the time; I do not remember the name, or recollect the contents of it now—the Ledophini, or what is called here Lenophine, was the farm in question. (This was dated 1883, and only partly read)—I do not carry in my mind the details of any of the grants—Mr. Pennine's report was the one we principally relied on; he continued to entertain his views as to the prospects of the company, and influenced by his opinion I took the same sanguine view myself—I

do not know the date when the first statutory meeting was held—all Fryer's reports and letters were written on very thin paper, letter size. (Some of these were read)—I know what "trying by panning" means, some of the soil is placed on a tin basin with water, and washed, and the gold all falls to the bottom; it is only for the purpose of testing—we had sent out such machinery as our advisers said was necessary to work this mine—Mr. Nichol, who went out with Fryer, has no connection with the secretary; he happened to be of the same name—in addition to these reports we had a number of telegrams from him. (Some of these were put in)—I placed the general body of shareholders in the same position as myself; I kept nothing back from them—there was not a large public subscription for shares j Mr. Penning went out to the Transvaal, but he did not get to the property on this occasion, but he says in his report that he had known it, and examined it before—we thought it necessary for Mr. Bevitt to go out, as Mr. Penning had not gone up there; he went out about November 18th, 1887, and the next general meeting was held on 22nd May, 1888, when we issued a balance-sheet, in which the amount expended on the mine appears. (The balance-sheet was here ready dated February 29th, 1888, showing an expenditure of £1,825 2s. 6d.)—I drew that up myself—it states absolutely accurately the expenditure that had been made. (The report to the shareholders at the second ordinary meeting of 2nd May was partially read)—we had dismissed Fryer then—the Frankfort was a good property close by the Rae, and not the property described by Fryer; he wanted to buy that for his own purpose—Mr. Harry Marks had offered £5,000 for the reconstruction of the property, and the acquisition of the adjoining property; I think the secretary had a letter, he reported to us—I was present when he made the announcement—Mr. William Bevitt wrote home to us, both privately and officially, and I only knew from him that this was a valuable property—I had perfect confidence in his opinion—the Frankfort property was not acquired, because when the syndicate discovered that the Rae Company wanted it they asked a much larger sum; it was £11,000 or £12,000, and afterwards went up to £45,000, I think; that was one of the reasons that the matter went off—when the vendor showed it to me I said I thought he represented a syndicate—the voluntary winding-up was on May 22nd, 1888—our report refers to a special meeting, of which notice had been given, and which was held—this is it; I remember it being passed—the proposal for liquidation was proposed to the general body of shareholders, and accepted by the general body of shareholders, with a view to the reconstruction.

Re-examined. I know nothing about bringing out mines—I see an enormous amount of them advertised—you could not bring a mine out without reports of this kind; that is part and parcel of every prospectus—I am a bank manager of experience—I was not in liquidation at the time, not till twelve months afterwards—as brother-in-law of Mr. Marks I read their prospectus carefully, and as a director of the company I was going to take part in managing—I very likely saw the estimate as to the earning of £28,000 from stamping alone, I do not remember now, it is three years ago—I was a director of the Criterion Gold Mining Company—I am not a director of any mine now—I have heard the engineers reports that have been read from the Transvaal—we had no hand in distributing

them—the man sent had no instructions to report in any special way, he was to send a report and balance-sheet when he got there—I saw these favourable reports published in the Financial News as they came home, and in the Standard and Times, and every other paper—we published a balance-sheet in February—I thought the whole amount of the stamping machinery we purchased was £400; the £138 was for trial machinery in the balance-sheet published a year after the company was in existence—the plant and machinery was purchased for £138 17s. 4d, and we had then upon the spot stores of the value of £20, and a capital, after a year, of £538—that capital was not to earn the £28,000, because if the reports had been confirmed, and there had been gold there, we should have sent out larger machinery which would have done that—we saved the money because we did not get any verification of the reports—we could not possibly verify every matter before we put the matter before the public—in the balance-sheet there is a communication from Bevitt that an additional property could be secured, not without cost, but without cost to the shareholders; Mr. Marks offered to advance the money for the company to purchase it, because the reports Mr. Fryer sent home as to the Rae property were not verified, and it was disappointing—I think Mr. Marks owned shares in the company—I do not say that there is any trace of his doing so, you can see the book; I believe he had shares in his own name—I do not know the explanation of the entry of Florence Isabel Skeats, Fanny Chamberlain, Benjamin, and Barnard—it has nothing to do with book-keeping, the book-keeping balances, and it is perfectly in order—I do not know who Florence Skeats was, I never heard of her in my life, I cannot tell you whether there was any cheque for her £850—I made no inquiry of the secretary who she was—I made no inquiry about "Fanny Chamberlain, £1,000"—I do not know what Benjamin had to do with it, or Barnard; I never saw him—that makes up £3,850, and I signed a cheque to Frederick J. Smith, who I believed to be the vendor; it was due in payment of the property due to him, and we had to pay it because of our agreement—I did not ask where the money came from; I thought it was in payment for shares—I was asked if I could identify the people, and I could not—I do not know that this entry was a perfectly bogus transaction—I did not understand what was being done except what came before us officially—if Smith represented a syndicate I do not know why these people should be finding the money to pay, and the same answer will apply to the other questions where the four names appear together—at the time Smith was asking for his money these four people came on the scene with these cheques—I believe I saw the cheques—I do not know whether I saw Florence Skeats' cheque, or where she banked—I saw the cheque endorsed, and paid into the bank—I mean that there was a cheque of Fanny Chamberlain's paid into the bank; the pass-book shows that—I do not say that there were four cheques; there may have been three or five—I think we had a cheque from Barnard as broker; I do not think it was his money—the bankers' pass-book will show whether we drew more than one cheque; if it was only one cheque for £3,850 they would enter it as one cheque, and if there were more than one cheque they would enter it in detail—I made Smith's cheque for £3,850 out as a "bearer" cheque, and initialled the alteration from "order;" I believe we were asked to do so by Mr. Smith—I suppose we never bought any more

machinery after the balance-sheet of February 7th—we never got anything out of the agricultural value of the property—as to the diamonds, a paper came, and it showed something had been in it, but when I opened the paper it seemed as though the letter had been tampered with on the way—this cheque for £3,850 went into Frank Barnard's account; he was not the vendor, but Smith was, at his office; I only knew that since I heard it this morning—I never saw Harry Marks at the meeting; it might have been through Ernest Smith that he offered the £5,000, or it might have been through the secretary—I do not know that the offer of £5,000 was made to prevent proceedings being taken, to relieve the promoters—I never attended any meeting of the liquidators—the Rae farm was sold; I do not know the price—it was sold for a breach of contract in not having the Frankfort, I believe.

Thursday, December 11th.

JOHN MATTHEW KLENCK (Re-called). I am in business alone as an auctioneer and surveyor—I know Mr. Marks—I am not connected with him in any way; I have known him about three years; I first heard of the Rae Mine by this advertisement—I did not know that it was going into liquidation till the meeting of May, 1888—I attended that meeting as a shareholder—I had acquired shares some time previously, about a month or two; I bought them through Mr. Barnard, 200—I don't know whether they were bought at under Is. a share, the books will tell; I can't tell who suggested that I should buy them, I thought they would rise in value; I can't say the exact sum I gave for them; I think it was more than Is. a share, I can't say whether it was less than 2s.; my business at that time was the same as now—I had no partner, I was by myself—I was appointed one of the liquidators at that meeting—I had not made any application to be made liquidator—the company appointed me—I don't think I was proposed by Mr. Snell, I think Mr. Marks, the chairman of the Maxim-Weston, proposed me—the books came into my possession, and I made an examination of them—I had been a liquidator before—I think the books were sent to my office after two or three applications, by Mr. Nichol, there was some little delay in sending them in consequence of Mr. Nichol's illness—I had the allotment book—this (produced) is it—the books will give you all the details, I cannot, from memory—a list of contributries was settled at the first meeting; Messrs. Snell and Son have it—the application forms are usually returned and put into a book, I believe that was done in the present case; as far as I remember, this is the book—there is an allotment to Fanny Chamberlain of 5,000 shares, for £250, to Florence Isobel Skeats of 4,257 shares, on a payment of £212 10s., the address given is, "The Hut, Adelaide Road, Surbiton," it does not show the date of payment, it is simply January, 1887, that is the banker's receipt; the next name is Alfred J. Benjamin, 40, St. John's Wood Road, Gentleman, £250 on 5,000 shares—then Alexander Donald Barnard, of Dunedin, New Zealand, £250 on 5,000 shares—I presume these to be genuine applications for shares—there is nothing to show that they are not real applications and real payments—when the allotment money is paid then the receipts are given—I have no document to show when the money was paid on these shares, I presume the books will show—the list of contributories would show what shares Florence Isobel Skeats held at the time of the liquidation;

the transfer book would not show that, because probably at that time some of the transfers would not be posted—I can only tell you by the transfer book how these persons got rid of their shares—referring to the transfer book the first entry here is on the 1st September, Fanny Chamberlain; there are a series of transfers to different persons of 200 shares at various dates, until on 14th March, 1888, they are all gone—Fanny Chamberlain starts with 5,000 shares, and there are a series of transfers to Mr. Duke, Mr. Hall, Mr. Smith, Mr. Worthington, Mr. Sam James; 200 were got rid of altogether—then on 2nd September 580 are unloaded to Trefall Twigg and others, and 90 to Michael Green; on 31st August 90 shares and 5 on 1st September; 500 to Mr. Wilkinson, and so on down to 4th October, 1887, when they were all gone—A. I. Benjamin starts with 5,160 shares, and he begins to transfer on 7th September, and by December, 1887, he transferred all but 250—afterwards he added 720, and then transferred 250 in May, 1888, leaving a balance of 120—there was a steady decrease in his shares from the commencement—Alexander Donald Barnard had 5,000 to start with; on 4th October, 1887, he transferred 2,000, and at the date of liquidation he had a balance of 50—he did not purchase any during that time—I had no idea there were any false entries in documents supplied to me as liquidator, such as applications for shares or transfers—I treated them all as genuine—I have now no knowledge of any false entries—I believed these were genuine applications for shares, and that the entry in the minute-book that 20,000 shares had been allotted was an honest entry—Agnes Mary Benjamin, Westbourne Square, appears by this book to have had 1,750 shares at the allotment in January, 1887—on 2nd September she transferred 1,750—those are the only shares she appears to have held; there is only the entry 1,750 on each side—Gertrude Lizzie Benjamin had 1,750, which she transferred on 27th July, 1887—Louisa Koch bad 100 shares, which she transferred in two lots of 50 each on January 11th and January 19th, 1888—I know that by the Companies' Acts an honest register has to be kept with true entries—Samuel Goodman Levy had 9,000 shares, numbered 6,001 to 15,000—I did not know he was an uncle of Harry Marks; I never saw him—he sold 250 shares in April, 1887, and sold till September, 1887, I think, when no shares stood to his credit—Dinah Sarah Cohen had 1,500 to stat with, numbered 15,001 to 16,500—she sold them—the first transfer was on August 4th, 1887—John William Clark, the sub-editor of the Financial News, I only know by name—he had 250 shares, numbered 25,001 to 25,250, on April 27th, 1887—in January, 1888, he sold the 250—William Henry Penning had 250 on 20th January, 1887, and then a further 250 on 27th April—on 27th April, 1887, he sold 250, so that he bought and sold 250 on the same day—on February 29th, 1888, he appears to have transferred others—the numbers of the first 250 transferred were 25,001 to 25,250—the numbers of the second 250 were 6,001 to 6,250—Townsend Percy had 1,500, numbered 22,501 to 24,000, on 27th April, 1887—he got rid of them on August 24th, 1887—I do not know who he is—this list of contributories is the list of persons who were shareholders at the time of liquidation—if Marks was a shareholder in the ordinary way his name should be in this book or the other—he appears in share register No. 2 to be a shareholder—the date of registration of his shares is May 3rd, 1888—he got 500 then

—the transfer will show what he gave for them—I cannot tell if he purchased shares a few weeks before the liquidation—I was appointed liquidator at the end of May or the beginning of June—the numbers of the first 500 shares Marks appears to have acquired are 60,589 to 61,088—I cannot tell who he purports to have acquired them from—they appear from the book to be from various persons; one is part of a number transferred by Mr. Hyde, others from Mr. Probert, Mr. Layton, Mr. Crofts, Henry Milward—they are various numbers, and do not run consecutively, 57,801, 58,821, 51,229, and so on—the 9,000 shares to Frederick John Smith are numbered 53,951 to 62,950—he is described as Frederick John Smith, of Island Cottage, Chiswick, not as Barnard's clerk—those shares are transferred to a variety of persons—the first transfer from him is to Frank Stewart Barnard 8,060 shares, and 30 shares to James Duncan Balfour on 15th December, 1887—small numbers are transferred to Morris Rosenheim—there are 19 small transfers of shares to other people—ultimately he disposed of the whole 9,000, 940 in small parcels and 8,060 in one parcel—Marks' first 25 shares were numbered 57,821 to 57,845; the next 50 were from 37,228; those are from different persons to Harry Marks; then 775 shares of various numbers, 59,124 to 59,128, 14,151 to 14,190, 14,298 to 14,277, 8,381 to 8,390, 21,301 to 21,340; then 50 shares, 35,568 to 35,617; and 200 shares, 63,546 to 63,730, and 56,381 to 56,695—25 are from Mr. Hyde, 50 from Mr. Probert, 175 from Mr. Lay ton, 50 from Mr. Cross, and 200 from Henry Milward—there were four transferors—62,000 shares were issued, I don't say to the public—I don't know if 27,441 were allotted at the meeting and 700 afterwards withdrawn—I had nothing to do with the history of the company—this list of contributories would show in whose possession the 62,000 were when the company went into liquidation—614 persons were holding shares at the time of liquidation—I don t know the number of original applications for shares—I see Arthur Cohen got some shares—Arthur Cohen had 5 and 495 shares on June 2nd, 1888; that is the date of the registration—it does not follow that he bought them after the liquidation; he bought them a little before 2nd June—15 shares came out of the name of Joseph Yellowly Watson, and were numbers 34,138 to 34,142; the date of the transfer is 23rd May, and the 495 shares came out of the same name on the same day, and are numbers 36,118 to 36,167, 24,301 to 24,350, 18,076 to 18,125, and 47,213 to 47,257—the book containing those transfers has been in my possession—I last saw it in the possession of Messrss, Snell, Son, and Greenip; I have not got it; there have been a variety of actions and other things in connection with this company, and they have had the books—Edwin John Churchouse, of 60, Almack. Road, Lower Clapton, had on 22nd December, 1887, 475 shares to his credit, and then he had 1,525, making 2,000 altogether—580 of those shares are transferred on 29th September, 1887, the date of registration being 5th January, 1888—at the date of liquidation he had 450 of the same lot—when I had conduct of the liquidation Mr. Marks, as a contributory, was entitled to be present at any meetings, and Arthur Cohen and Mr. Churchouse were too—I am not aware that Marks and Cohen attended any meetings—we had some examinations before the chief clerk, and as the result of those Messrs. Snell, Son, and Greenip said the promoters had offered to pay £5,000 to the shareholders,

and the chief clerk ordered a meeting of creditors and contributories to be held—those meetings were held; these are the notices settled by the chief clerk for them—Snell, Son, and Greenip reported to us that they had received an offer from Messrs. Michael Abrahams and Co. to pay £5,000 to satisfy the debts, and make a return to the shareholders—I believe that offer was made after Mr. Frederick John Smith and Mr. Dawson Philpot had been examined—I don't know who the persons were offering the £5,000; it was reported to us the offer had been made; I only know it was connected with the promoters—I never had any means of ascertaining who it was, only that the promoters had offered it—I was told by Snell and Co., who were assured by Messrs. Abrahams, that it would be forthcoming, and it was; it came actually into their hands—apart from the shareholders we had claims from creditors of the company to a little over £2,000; they were sub sequently reduced by the chief clerk to about £900 or £1,000—when I was acting as liquidator I had no money to pay the creditors—the principal creditor was Mr. Fry, I think the late manager, the engineer—I had no means of satisfying the creditors; no means of paying them anything—a little over £100 was handed over to me as liquidator—there would not be much of that for the creditors—I do not know whether they ever got anything; we did not pay them anything—Mr. Fry and I acted together—this is the notice we issued in consequence of the communication from Messrs. Snell, Son, and Greenip—we also sent out a notice to the contributories, so that they might vote by proxy—upon that were forms for them to fill up; this notice is dated 26th May, 1890—the offer of £5,000 I communicated to the creditors as soon as the chief clerk had settled the notice—the liquidators appointed Messrs. Snell and Co. as solicitors—I had known them many years—I do not know who are the solicitors to the Financial News—this was the result of the meeting: The creditors accepted the offer unanimously, and 255 shareholders were present, either personally or by proxy; those shareholders represented 35,903 shares, and voting in favour of the proposition, there would be 242 shareholders holding 34,339, thirteen shareholders, holding 1,564 shares, voting against it, and I incorporated those figures in the affidavit to the Court—I don't think Marks was at the meeting; Arthur Cohen was—I don't know whether he had Marks' proxy—a shareholder would be entitled to vote to the extent of the number of shares he held—I think I remember Arthur Cohen being there, but I would not be certain—I cannot tell how much the people who voted paid for their shares; you can tell from this book—I resigned on 4th November, 1890—the £5,000 offer was accepted; it was paid to Messrs. Snell, not to the shareholders.

By the JURY. The number of the shares of Skeats, Chamberlain, Benjamin, and Barnard are 19,250; Chamberlain 5,000, Nos. 37,388 to 42,887; Isobel Skeats 100 shares, A. I. Benjamin 160 shares, and A. D. Barnard 5,000.

Cross-examined. The promoters and vendors of the company were the persons concerned in the promotion of the sale—the correct numbers are 255 shareholders representing 35,903 shares; voted in favour of the offer 242 shareholders holding 34,339; and against it thirteen shareholders holding 1,564—I have the contributories list here—Mr. Marks had 1,000 shares, representing 1,500 out of 34,339—the only creditors of the

company were the secretary and Mr. Fry, who made a claim which I believed to be extravagant, and which was ultimately considerably cut down—there were claims for £2,000; we reduced them to about £9,000—the shares held in the names of Chamberlain, Skeats, Benjamin, etc., were, with a very small exception, disposed of before liquidation; I know it by the transfers—if Mr. Benjamin's shares were vendor's shares they would be fully paid up; so were others taken up by the public—all the shares dealt with at the date of liquidation were fully paid up shares; there was no liability attaching to them—I do not know the law requires where shares are issued as fully paid up, that in order to make the contract legal there must be a contract registered at Somerset House—that is a legal question—I do not know that this contract was registered at Somerset House—I attended the meeting in 1888; as far as I am aware Mr. Harry Marks had nothing to do with my nomination—as far as I know he is no relation or connection of Mr. Marks, the chairman of the Maxim-Weston Company—this company kept all the books, which are ordinarily kept in such companies; as far as I could judge they were very regularly kept; £75,000 was the company's nominal capital; there was a right to issue 75,000 shares—the total issued was 62,000—assuming that the shares allotted to, and afterwards dealt with, by Chamberlain, Skeats, Barnard, and the other were vendors' shares, I do not think there were more than about 30,000 issues to the public; I believe the prospectus gives the vendors 25,000; if you take 25,000 from 60,000, it would leave you 35,000, and then there is a further 9,000 to be deducted; that would be 24,000, and some returned applications which would bring it to about 23,000—the £5000 offer would leave 900 to the creditors, and something like 1s. 6d. per share; that would leave £1,400 for distribution—these shares, like all others, would fluctuate in the market—all mines are speculative to a large extent.

Re-examined. Since the liquidation these shares have been of no value—I do not know that Harry Marks was the only purchaser of these shares before the liquidation—if any shareholders are sellers there are buyers now—I should think nearly one hundred people were present at the meeting when the £5,000 offer was discussed; there were a few with a large number of proxies—I think the proxies were lodged prior to the meeting; I do not think Mr. Sam. James was there with a large number of proxies; they were sent to my office—I have not got them—I think they were sent on to Messrs. Snell—I don't know that I summoned Harry Marks before the chief clerk; I believe so, and Cohen—I don't know whether they attended; I left that in the hands of Messrs. Snell—in saying I think the shareholders would get 1s. 6d. a share I am not making any allowance for costs—if they bought their shares at 1s. 6d. they would not have lost much—no proceedings have been taken—there, was a summons to remove me—my resignation was for a private reason—I do not know if Mr. Hasluck is appointed.

By SIR CHARLES RUSSELL. Resigning was my own act; there was not the slightest complaint of me; I think from what I can learn that the chief clerk regretted it.

ERNEST SMITH . I am one of the firm of W. H. Smith and Sons, solicitors, Gresham House—I have known Marks since 1884 or 1885, nearly all the time he has been connected with the Financial News—I was one of the signatories of the second Financial News Company on

22nd December, 1888—Snell and Greenip are the solicitors—I held 100 ordinary and 100 preference shares—I knew Marks was the editor—he has employed my firm to do legal work occasionally in company matters—I first saw him in reference to the Rae Mine about the middle of January, 1887, at the office of the paper, so far as I remember—he referred me to Slade and Co., solicitors, and asked whether my firm would act for a company that was about to be registered—I believe Slades were acting for Mr. Hume Webster—I do not think I saw Marks again till the company was registered—the directors appointed my firm as solicitors—I came in contact with all of them—the appointment might have been by minute, I cannot tell you; it might not have been in writing—we took the papers over from Slade and Co., and registered the company—I suppose at the instance of Marks—I attended the first meeting—I saw a print of the prospectus as solicitor—I cannot remember whether our name was then upon it; I did not prepare it—I do not know who had it printed; I never was informed—I naturally read it—I cannot remember names, it is three years ago—I have acted for several companies; not for Harry Marks before—if that is the original prospectus I saw the names of those who made reports—I have no idea who employed them—the next person I saw would be the vendor—I do not know who introduced me—I have known him four or five years on and off—not as Barnard's clerk—on the Stock Exchange—I did not require an introduction—I presume he came to my office; I should be sorry to say definitely, as the intending vendor of this property—my firm then did legal work for the Financial News—that is not entirely "being the solicitor"—I was not the only one—Mr. George Lew is did work for them—probably Smith mentioned Marks' name—I believed Smith was the nominee—he certainly was the vendor—"bogus" is a difficult word—I should call him the nominee of the vendor—I Knew nothing of his business—I cannot tell you how he came possessed of the mine except from the documents, which explain themselves—I understood he was under contract to purchase the property—I subsequently ascertained he did purchase it—by the documents—I do not know that he told me, but I saw the contract—I did not get him to sign it—the 13th January is the date—I was not present when he signed it—I examined the title—I had the abstract furnished me by Messrs. Vennings—I think it is here—I inspected the original documents, and compared them with the abstract—he purchased from Higham Benjamin—the actual assignment to Smith was February, 1887—the title deeds would be with Messrs. Vennings—I asserted Smith had the deed of transfer from Benjamin to himself—I believed it to be a genuine deed—I prepared the deed of transfer from Smith to the company upon the directors' instructions—this is the contract—I am attesting witness—I prepared it as a genuine document—I think I received instructions at a board meeting—I got knowledge from the prospectus—I had nothing to do with negotiating the price—drawing agreements is part of my education—the directors collectively or the secretary told me the terms—as Smith was represented by Eldred and Co., solicitors, I should see them—I do not know that Smith was paid for signing his name—I had no need to see him except to sign—the board told me the vendor had been pressing for payment—I believed them—it was not a sham—I suppose he pressed the directors through his principals—I cannot tell

you who they were—I believed Smith was pressing when I prepared the second agreement—the instructions lay between Bevitt, Philpott, and another director—not Penning; I fancy he had left for South Africa—I did not think there was any Financial News legal work after 1887, except libel actions, and that Mr. Lewis did—Snell also acted for them—I prepared the Churchouse agreement by instructions of the directors, probably Philpott and Bevitt—I understood at that time they were in want of money. (22nd December, 1887, agreeing to issue 1,525 shares for 475 shares)—I did not see Churchouse with regard to the agreement—I did not take his signature—our firm also prepared the indentures assigning the property; we forwarded those out to the Transvaal; we had to see that they were properly registered I cannot tell you the price paid for the property—I saw Marks I fancy at the allotment meeting.

Cross-examined. My father was admitted in 1834, and myself in 1880—I ascertained from Slades that the property had been offered for the purposes of bringing out a company to Hume Webster and Co.—I got the details from them, and the abstracts from Vennings—I saw the origin of this title was a grant by President Kruger to Higham Benjamin—it was a deed of concession, dated September, 1883—Vennings acted for Benjamin—they are solicitors for the Transvaal Government—I got the abstract from them—I inspected the original deeds at their office—there was no concealment of the fact that Smith was acting as nominee—that is the usual practice—I found there was an effective or "good marketable title"—then followed the contract transferring to Smith, and the deeds—I have not been concerned for Marks since—after Marks referred me to Slades, he had no relations with me on the matter—I had no more to do with the prospectus than to see that the law was complied with, for instance, to see that the contract was the contract referred to in the prospectus.

Re-examined. There was no concealment so far as I was concerned; nor the board—Smith told me he was a nominee—I do not call the agreements shams—I am aware of the 38th sec of the Act of 1887—I do not think the object of the agreements was fraud—the name of the nominee is put in for convenience—I cannot answer legal questions—I did not see Marks every day—he did not call at my office—I went to him occasionally.

WILLIAM BEVITT . I was a director of the Rae Company—I did not know Smith was a sham vendor or nominee—it was brought to my knowledge that Smith had something to do with the vendor to the company, but in what capacity I do not know—I do not remember any explanation given to me—I had not been director of a gold mine before—I have since—I was an engineer in 1887—I applied to Mr. Webster to put me on the board of a company where I could be of service—when all was arranged he put me in communication with Harry Marks—I did not know Marks, nor his position—I first met him on the day of allotment—all steps were not taken before I was put in communication with Marks—I had perused the reports and everything before I would sanction my name being on the prospectus—Webster submitted them to me—he remained at the meeting only a few minutes—it was just an introduction to Marks, a shaking of hands and saying one was glad to make acquaintance—I was introduced to him as the promoter of the company—Penning, Bevitt, and Philpott were there—they were all

strangers—I was nominated to the chair—it was my first experience of a gold mine—the allotment papers were put before us, and applications for shares—I think they were read out—Marks said there was a fair amount subscribed—that there were 27,000 applications was apparently the truth—I believed they were genuine—from the public—it struck me as singular that Skeats and Benjamin should apply for so many as 20,000—I had no suspicion—I believed they were paid for by genuine cheques—whether the applications came direct I am unable to say—I had my private opinion about it, but nothing tangible; I simply formed my own conclusion—I was suspicious with regard to the large allotment—I have no idea of the amount necessary to be subscribed—we should hardly go to allotment on 6,000 or 7,000—I attended the meetings—Captain Pearson came once—Philpott was generally there—and Penning—I usually took the chair—I was present at the first statutory meeting—I remember the prospectus being discussed, and suggestions of diamonds as well as gold—I kept my shares till I went to Africa, then transferred them to my son—I am not certain whether they were the 250 I bought; I held others—I sold no shares afterwards—I had bought 500 at 10s. and sold them for 7s. 6d.—I held 250 in addition to my 500—I required no assistance in composing my speech—I believed the reports to be genuine and true—the reports were sent to the papers in compliance with the request of the shareholders who wished to be furnished with news—I paid very little attention to the Financial News advice and answers to correspondents—I do not know here Penning is—he went from London whilst I was in Africa—I saw the property—I did not find any diamonds—I found a quarter of an ounce of gold in washing—I was there twelve days—I did not come back before the liquidation—I knew nothing of the additional 9,000 shares to go to the vendor in December, 1887—I brought my friends to apply for shares—I heard of the liquidation in Africa—there was on the ground a three-stamp battery, picks, shovels, bars, windlass, and sundry tools—I found a few Kaffirs and one man, all else had been discharged—perhaps nine or ten Kaffirs—the Kaffirs got 10s. or 15s. a month and their food; but prices have gone up—nothing worth speaking of was got out of the mine—there was plenty of work done to try and find the reefs or to develop the outcrop on the surface; there was a reef near the surface—there was one shaft 30ft. deep—the plant put at £130 was not intended to earn the £28,000 a year—it was simply a prospecting battery—the £20 of stores would be as bought in London, and worth double when they got to the far end—after the vendor's 50,000 shares there would be left, for buying machinery and stores, £25,000, if all the capital was subscribed—there were buildings—they were originally farm-houses—the property was sold by auction for between £600 and £700, as I learn from the papers—the law expenses took £500, and charges connected with promotion—except what was used for the battery the timber was left growing—no land was let to other companies—we dug a sluice for the water—we had no hydraulics—I did not see the Hill's Waterfall property—I knew Smith was pressing for money—by letter—I had no idea he was acting for Marks, or that he had £200 for signing papers in blank.

Cross-examined. My opinion was that Marks had undertaken to get £25,000 to pay the vendors, and that he had found friends

whom he had put forward to apply for shares and pay for them, when he arranged to pay them back when the company was formed—Webster told me he had had the matter under consideration in reference to bringing out a company—I am both a mechanical and a mining engineer, and I thought I could form a judgment on the subject—all mining adventures are necessarily speculations—Penning held a high opinion of the property—he said he was acquainted with the property—I did not doubt it—I do not think Marks was at the allotment meeting more than half an hour—to the best of my belief Marks was entirely in the hands of the directors; it is possible he may have looked in; I have no recollection even of that—he never interfered with the management—it was finally resolved that I, having an interest in the company, should go out and report upon the property—I left England on the 4th November, 1887, and arrived on the property in February, 1888—my first cable would be about the 20th February, but you could not send a telegram direct, it had to go to Middleberg by post, which would occupy ten or twelve days—my letters would arrive here in April—up to the time of receiving reports from Fryer my confidence had not wavered—those were in June to September, 1887—Fryer never sent adverse reports till September—I went over the property and examined the various workings, took samples, and testing them found them not satisfactory, and concluded the property was not good, and so advised them at home—between twenty and thirty shafts had been sunk, one 30ft. in a 15ft. drive, without result—the reef went westward—I found the vein very thin—if I had gone, on the property in the first instance I should have formed a favourable opinion, judging from the outcrop—I would never take a property before it was worked—an honest man might be deceived—I was mining manager in the Dakota Company—I should only send out at first sufficient machinery to test—if the property justified it I should afterwards have sent out larger machinery—the Frankfort property was satisfactory; I so reported—I had no instructions to procure that for the Rae Company—the scheme for reconstruction and for acquiring that property was after it had passed out of my hands—I afterwards ascertained that Marks had offered £5,000 to acquire that property—the Frankfort people raised the price—the terms of payment were different—they were to receive so much cash, which was not forthcoming, and there was a breach of agreement, and that led to an action by the Frankfort against the Rae Company for breach of agreement—the original agreement contemplated a large payment down—I could have placed the property in the hands of the Rae Company, in the first instance, at a considerably lower price before it got into the hands of a syndicate—the Frankfort property proved to be better than ever it was reported to be—it was about ten or twelve miles from the Rae-r-in the same country—the sale of the Rae property was by Order of the Court, and, therefore, a forced sale.

Re-examined. The Frankfort bought the Rae for £650—it is always advisable to make experiments before purchase, but it is not always convenient, because of the distance away and the time in getting there—it does not strike me as curious to start examining a property after giving £50,000 for it—it is not my experience that these mines generally go into liquidation—it would not be possible to experiment before paying for the property—the

vendor would not wait the time—there was no concealment that Marks was a promoter—no steps were taken to inform the shareholders of it—I have been engaged to look after the machinery in a brewery—to get the quarter of an ounce of gold cost my own labour in picking and fanning it—I took samples from different parts, then crushed and fanned it—its value was 17s. or 18s.—I also looked after the sinkings in different places and the fannings along the river—I did all I could to find gold—I could have acquired the Frankfort for £5,000 cash and 20,000 shares—I did acquire it at that price—for independent purposes—not for the Rae Company—250 shares qualified for a director—the directors were paid—and the solicitors and secretary—we had water power to work the stampers—the stampers were bought for £130 in London—it was only for prospecting—you can buy them from £80—I signed the agreement on behalf of the Rae Company with the Frankfort—I ordered the machinery from Applebys', London—it was quite adequate for testing purposes, for which it was bought—it would appear in the cash-book—I bought it about April, 1887.

ARTHUR BEVITT . When my father went abroad I became a director of the Rae Company-1 was qualified by my father—I attended the board with Philpott and Penning Penning left when we had gone info liquidation—the latter part of the time Philpott and I attended the meetings alone—when the demand for 9,000 shares for the vendor was discussed I voted for it, I think—I had no knowledge of a gold mine—I was asked by the directors to take a seat at the board in my father's place—I purchased several hundred shares for Marks while I was on the board, and for myself; I paid from 7s. to 3s. 9d.—the secretary used to purchase for me—I sold—I frequently dealt in them—I purchased shares for 3s. 6d. after the liquidation—I think Nichol and I bought about 1,000 together—I left it to Nichol—we used to talk it over; we bought because it was a voluntary liquidation, and we thought we might acquire the Frankfort—I signed transfers after the liquidation—they were brought to the table, and I signed if I happened to be there—I was not aware the agenda was submitted to Marks before the meeting—I do not remember seeing Marks in connection with the company—I made his acquaintance just before my father went away—something was said about not signing transfers without the advice of the solicitors—I heard of Marks buying up shares after the liquidation—I have frequently been to Marks' office in Abchurch Lane—I have been a mining agent since 1887—I am not a journalist—I did not write for Claude Marks' paper—nor canvass-only the Brewers' Gazette—I do not know where Claude Marks is.

Cross-examined. Claude Marks has not been in any business relation with his brother so far as I know—Marks put a notice in his paper that he had no connection with Claude Marks—Nichol had a good opinion of the mine, and we thought of making something out of the shares—I have heard he is dead—Marks had nothing to do with the agenda—I remember refusing to sign transfers—I had seen Perryman's and Fagge's names in connection with legal proceedings—I am on the list of contributories as the holder of 350 shares, and my father of 250—fully paid up—my father went out to get more reliable reports—I told the shareholders at Cannon Street the reconstruction would be most fortunate

—then Marks offered £5,000 towards the purchase of the Frankfort—I did not see it in writing—I was made aware of the fact.

JAMES WHITE . I am a clerk—I was staying at 64, Shaftesbury Road, Hammersmith, with my parents, in January, 1887—I then wrote to the editor of the Financial News for a cheap mining investment—I received this reply (Read: recommending the Rae Mine as "having all the advantages of hones and energetic management," and which the writer (Mr. Marks) "had no reason to doubt would prove a very profitable investment")—I purchased 30 shares—I had no knowledge that Marks was a promoter—I kept them till this year—I sold them through solicitors, Clark and Metcalf, or a Mr. Arthur Bird, for 10s.—I bought 30 afterwards in the market, which I sold at 4s. or 6s.—they were fully paid up.

Cross-examined. I got 30 by allotment, which I sold for 10s., and 30 in the market, which I sold for 4s. or 6s. per share—I did not care whether Mr. Marks was a promoter; I took the editor's advice, and acted upon it—I do not think I shall do so in future.

Friday, December 12th.

STEPHEN HENRY FRY . Until recently have been a Portland cement manufacturer—with one exception I was the largest chareholder in the Rae Transvaal Company; I purchased my shares in 1887 and 1888—at the time of the liquidation I held on the register 400 shares, but I bought 650, which were not transferred; I bought them in 1887; I hold the unregistered transfers now—I attended the meeting, and was nominated by a gentleman I afterwards discovered to be Mr. Snell—I knew Mr. Penning, and it was upon my knowledge of him, and knowing he was looked on as the leading expert in Transvaal mining affairs, that I bought my shares—I did not know who Mr. Snell was at that time, or what his position was—I took an active part in the liquidation; I looked into everything; I looked at every line of writing in the books—I consented to become a liquidator because it was alleged at the meeting that the Frankfort property was to be acquired wholly for shares—I do not know what was the highest price that the Rae shares ever touched, except that I paid 12s. 6d. for mine—I inquired as to the people who had applied for shares, the Benjamins, and so on, and ascertained what connection they had with Mr. Marks—I have not ceased to be liquidator now; but application has been made to remove me, I am informed, in consequence of a receiving order having been made against the firm of which I am a member; I believe I am a liquidator still personally—I do not know at present whether I am a liquidator or not—I was present at the meeting on May 5th this year, when the £5,000 offer was made by Mr. Snell, and I commented on the letter—my recollection is that he read the letter from Mr. Michael Abrahams—six names were given as those who were going to find the £5,000, but I have no doubt myself that Mr. Marks was going to do so—the offer appeared in the letter, which was in Mr. Snell's possession—this is it; I saw it before the meeting at Mr. Snell's—about three weeks after my appointment as liquidator I first heard from Mr. Nichol that Harry Marks was one of the syndicate that had promoted the company—I heard Mr. Bevitt examined yesterday, and I heard him say that at the first meeting he was introduced to Mr.

Harry Marks as promoter of the company, and I heard Sir Charles Russell ask whether there was the slightest concealment about the matter that Harry Marks was the promoter of the company—the first I heard of it was three weeks after my appointment as liquidator—these events occurred in June, 1888—I had had no experience before as liquidator, but I know a great deal about mining and company matters; I did a little dabble—at that time I knew nothing of Mr. Harry Marks, except by repute as editor of the Financial News (The letter was read; it stated that Messrs. Snell, Son, and Greenip had been instructed by Mr. F. J. Smith, the vendor, Messrs. Eccersley, Mr. Harry H. Marks, and Mr. Arthur Cohen, who were interested in the syndicate, to state that in view of the failure of the attempt to acquire the Frankfort, they were still willing to pay £5,000 on condition that a full release was given to them and the other promoters from any claims relating to the promotion of the company, and that all proceedings contemplated against them should be abandoned)—as a result of my investigation of the books, I discovered that Smith was the nominee vendor; I had ail the titles and everything with the books, and they disclosed who were the real owners—I do not know who Messrs. Eccersley are—I first learnt that Mr. Arthur Cohen was one of the promoters when I had my three hours' interview with Mr. Nichols—two or three weeks after my appointment I learnt everything I knew from Mr. Nichols, but I could not remember Arthur Cohen's name then, because it would not convey anything to me—I noticed the names when I saw the letter because I noticed the omission of the name "Higham Benjamin," who I always understood to be one of the syndicate—I commenced proceedings in the Court of Chancery, as liquidator, against Mr. Marks—I gave instructions to the solicitors to take all necessary steps to have him examined—I know nothing about the details, only the broad fact that I ordered steps to be taken—I recommended the shareholders to accept the offer—I have been removed—I was willing to withdraw from all claims and other matters—my recollection is that about fifty-three people were present at the meeting when the £5,000 was offered—I remember counting them, and I think it was fifty-three—I think Mr. Klenck was confusing another meeting when he said 100—I examined the books of the company, and made myself thoroughly conversant—this is a transfer of 23rd May, 1888, of 495 fully-paid shares, bought by Arthur Cohen for £6117s. 6d.—other shares are transferred to Alfred John Barham, Charles Phillips, Harry Marks—those are 22nd May, 1888, but the date has been filled in at a different time to the body of the documents, because the date is in a totally different handwriting to the body of the document—the dates on these documents represent no real dates as a rule—I think it is customary for people dealing in shares to put the date of the transfer in when they part from their possession-25 shares were transferred at £3 2s. 6d.—on the 23rd (again the date in a different writing and ink) Mr. Marks buys 50 shares for £6 5s.—on 11th May (this date is a real date, as the handwriting is the same) he buys 175 for £21 17s. 6d.—on the real date, 17th May he buys 50 shares for £6 5s.—on the real date, 10th May, he buys 200 £25—then young Arthur Bevitt buys 200 for £26 5s. on 10th May—Francis Duffit. of Albion Villa Northumberland Park, N., buys 50 for £5 18s. 9d—William Wesley Boyden buys 50 for £5—Herbert Clarke, of 34, Grosvenor Park, Camberwell, buys 150 for £13 2s. 6d., and 50 for £7, and 100 for £13 15s.—on 11th May Frank Stutchbury, 1, Franklin

Road, Penge, buys 25 shares for £3 5s. 7d.—Joseph Beadon Fryer buys 10 on 6th June—and then the following names by shares: Arthur Byford, of Bracknell, Berks, 25; David Roberts, 200; Daniel Knight, Susannah Tabor, Harry Robert Jones, Arthur Wilkinson, Richard Jonathan Jenkins, J. Yellowly Watson (a member of the Stock Exchange), William John Andrews, Mr. Jones, Mr. Posselthwaite, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Green, etc.—a considerable number of shares were bought about the time of the meeting, two years before the £5,000 offer—the £5,000 originally offered was at the time of the liquidation; this £5,000 was only last year; £5,000 was offered on two occasions.

Cross-examined. I had business relations with Mr. Penning in 1887—I described him as a leading expert in mining matters—he believes in the property down to this day; he has always protested it—he is a man of good reputation and a honourable man—in the standard work on the Goldfields he is referred to as one of the first, if not the first, to whom the discovery of the Transvaal Goldfields is due—he induced me in the first instance to take shares, and I took all my 1,050 shares on his inducement—at the meeting of 22nd May, 1888, there was a discussion about the acquisition of the Frankfort property—I knew it before the meeting by the report—by the report of the meeting you will see it was distinctly said to the shareholders that the Frankfort property was to be acquired for shares—at that time the Frankfort property was held out to be made over to the shareholders of the Rae for shares—there was no mention of £5,000 then; but in getting out the matter afterwards I found that part of the consideration was to be £5,000, and then I went to Mr. Penning, intending to find out what he meant, and he told me Mr. Harry Marks was one of the promoters of the Rae, and he was willing, finding how disastrously the thing went, to find £5,000, and then I immediately appreciated the position—that was all after June 7th, when my appointment as liquidator was confirmed—after that the cash which the owner of the Frankfort was willing to-receive went up—the owner's proposal was through the syndicate, and when the property got into the hands of the syndicate the price in cash and shares was materially raised, and the matter fell through—I disagreed—I was a party to it with Mr. Klenck; of course I took my share of the responsibility in declining the property—when this letter which has been read came before us in 1890, I was anxious it should be done in the interests of shareholders and creditors—the whole matter was relegated to the chief clerk, in. whose chambers the matter was going forward; there was no concealment of any kind with regard to it—the chief clerk declined to sanction the full release which was required, but he would have sanctioned the giving of a receipt—therefore with the sanction of the chief clerk the money might have been paid with a receipt only, but he would not sanction the full release required by the terms of the letter.

Re-examined. The chief clerk raised no objection to our accepting money from Marks or anybody else, and giving a receipt but not a release—I believe this letter was read to him; I should not be surprised if I incorporated it in an affidavit—I did not hear him say that Mr. Justice Kay had better have the letter before him; I think not—Snell, Son, and Greenip had the £5,000—it went back to whatever source it came quite recently, since these proceedings, I think—I believe Mr.

Penning is on an expeditionary purpose for the Chartered Company of South Africa—I wished him good-bye some months ago.

FREDERICK WILLIAM SNELL . I am a member of the firm of Snell, Son, and Greenip—I am the solicitor who registered the second company called the Financial News, it was a reconstruction of the first—that was the first time I acted for Mr. Marks—that is the only business the company, as a company, has ever had—I have not acted for them in other business—we were appointed solicitors to the liquidators in the Rae—I had known Mr. Klenck a long time; he appointed us solicitors—we have acted throughout the liquidation—I do not know that we have ever been brought into communication with Marks as promoter of the Rae—when we advised the liquidators to make inquiries as to the formation of the company, reconstruction having fallen through, we received instructions from the liquidators, and applied to the chief clerk for liberty to summon certain persons who were presumed to have knowledge of the affairs of the company, and we summoned Marks and Arthur Cohen, and all persons we thought could give information of the company—Marks did not attend—I do not think Cohen gave evidence; the matter went on a great many days—we intended to allege in proceedings to be taken that Marks and other persons were promoters of the company—I do not know whether we should have established that, I think we should—I never knew of any concealment that Marks was the promoter of the company—the examination was continued for a great many days, and was very expensive, and the liquidators did not feel inclined to go on with it until they saw their way to pay the expenses, and thereon we received an intimation from them to stop; we brought it before the chief clerk, and then we received the letter from Messrs. Michael Abrahams and Co.—we had before that had examinations before the chief clerk, and discovered that Messrs. Eccersley and Arthur Cohen were in the promotion of the company—we discovered Smith; he was examined—I advised the liquidators that the £5,000 offered should be brought before the chief clerk—he decided that a meeting of creditors and shareholders should be called, to say whether the offer should be accepted, and whether the creditors and shareholders would find money to go on with the proceedings—I do not think the matter came before Mr. Justice Fry; the chief clerk dealt with it himself—the transfer-book, produced this moment, had been mislaid; we gave our clerk instructions to look up all books and papers, and bring them here, aid only yesterday this was found in our housekeeper's room.

Cross-examined. I thought it right to bring Mr. Michael Abrahams's offer before the chief clerk, and he decided that the opinion of the shareholders and creditors should be taken on it—I reported the result of the meeting to the chief clerk, and also that the shareholders decided at that meeting to raise funds to go on with the proceedings; that influenced the chief clerk to some extent—the result was he gave his sanction to have the money accepted, but declined to sanction any absolute release, which was one of the conditions—he said the liquidators might take the money, and give an ordinary receipt for it, which in my view would have been quite sufficient for the persons paying the money, and I am surprised they did not do it—there is machinery to compel the attendance of any person whom the liquidators require to be examined; we could and should have done it—I was not present, but my clerk

informed me that Marks' solicitor attended in obedience to the summons, and asked that the examination of Marks should be adjourned—mean-while my clients gave me instructions to stop, and Marks was not examined—I explained at the meeting to the shareholders the position fully; that the parties alleged to be the promoters had been examined in Court, and in my opinion there was a case to some extent to be made out, but it would be at great expense—I did not say that the promoters had been examined; I placed the matter before them fully.

EDWARD NEWTTT . I am a surveyor—in 1889 I was in the Transvaal; I have travelled all over it—I arrived at Pretoria on the 2nd August, 1889, and I was there several times afterwards—I there received a letter from Messrs. Clark and Metcalf, of London, in con-sequence of which I went to the Land Registry at Pretoria, and examined the Record of Transfers of the Ledophini or Rae Farm—in the Transvaal the title to landed property is all registered—I abstracted the dates of the various transfers of the Ledophini with the vendors and purchasers on each occasion, and the consideration recorded—I produce the excerpts I so made. (SIR CHARLES RUSSELL objected to these excerpts bring given in evidence, as this did not come under Lord Brougham's Act, by which secondary evidence was admissible of examined public documents, where a certificate was produced; and further than that Marks was not affected by the evidence. MR. C. F. GILL and MR. A. GILL contended that the original bang in a country from which it was not permitted to be removed, an examined copy sworn to by the witness was admissible; that Mr. Marks being the promoter of the company, and Mr. Smith his nominee, it was important to show how much money Mr. "Smith purported to pay on the conveyance from Higham Benjamin to himself; that the prospectus was fraudulent, because it only disclosed one contract, that between Smith and Smith and Nicholls for the company; and that the real nature of the transaction between Smith and Marks was not disclosed, the contract on the register differing from the contract on the prospectus. SIR CHARLES RUSSELL and MR. MATHEWS submitted that the38th section could not be held to apply to any contract except those affecting the company, and that therefore it was not necessary to disclose the first contract, as it in no sense bound the company; but that they did not object to the statement of the figure which was paid by Smith to Higham Benjamin, which was £2,800, and certain other charges on the property)—The Rae Farm realised between £600 and £700; it was sold to the owners of the adjoining property', the Frankfort, for that sum.

WALTER ROBERT SKINNER . I am an advertisement canvasser—the Mining Manual, and Joint-Stock Registration Manual, and the Capitalist, are my property—the first I heard of the Rae Mine was when Marks asked me to take an advertisement in connection with it to the Mining World, a financial weekly paper—I think I saw two or three bundles of 100 each of prospectuses of the Rae Mine at Marks' office—I think I have passed through the office, and seen the clerks addressing large envelopes; I don't know for what purpose—I believe I have seen the clerk Knapp engaged on that kind of work—I took fifty shares in the company—I fancy the highest price the shares fetched, if fully paid, was £l; if 10s. was paid, they fetched 10s.—I don't think myself there was any premium; if there had been I should have sold—I did not get out—I should think shares were sold at par before June the same year—after June they began to decline, and then they rallied after some cables

had been received—on one occasion I spoke to Marks about the Rae—I was paid by his cheque for the advertisements he asked me to insert, and I took the commission—three months ago I spoke to Marks about the Rae—I have been in the habit of reading the Financial News for the last three years—I saw the comments on the Rae, and the "Advice to Correspondents"—I advised myself to take my fifty shares—I said nothing to Marks at the time I took them—I sent my cheque; I thought if it was good enough for him it was good enough for me—when I had the conversation with him three months ago it was about buying shares; I asked him if he would buy some; he said, "Yes"—the man who wanted to sell them wanted 7s. a share, I believe; Marks said he would give 4s., and I went round to the man and made arrangements, and the man, as he could only get 1s. elsewhere, was very glad to get 4s.; and he got 4s. from Marks for his fully-paid shares—that was more than a year after it had gone into liquidation; quite recently—there were 460 shares, I believe—he wanted 7s.; I never knew shares of a company twelve months after liquidation as high as that—Marks bought 460, I believe, at 4s. it worked out at £92—I asked Marks whether he wanted them because of what I had heard in the Money Market—I had reason to believe he was a buyer of these shares—that is the only lot of shares I put in his way—he did not buy mine; I am making, I consider, too much money from the Financial News, as a canvasser, to trouble about £50, and I did not trouble him about it—I have the shares now, and I intend to keep them.

Cross-examined. Mr. Henry Maxey was the man who sold the 460; he is a mining broker—he was an original allottee as regards a small number, and the rest he bought in the market.

LAURENCE HASLUCK . I am a chartered accountant—I am now liquidator of the Rae Mine—the position of liquidator is usually held by an accountant—I received my appointment on the 3rd of the present month—I have not yet had possession of the books, and papers—I have applied for them, and I was told that Messrs. Snell and Co. had them, but were under subpoena to produce them here, and I have not seen a scrap of paper yet.

JOSEPH GAMMON . I am a clerk in the chambers of Mr. Justice Keke-wich, late of Mr. Justice Kay—since the date of the winding-up order, brought into Court on 27th October, 1888, the liquidation of the Rae Mine has been in the chambers of Mr. Justice Kay's Court—it was under the supervision of the Court after that date—the first proceedings were under an order, and then there was an adjournment—the chief clerk's summons was issued, and made returnable on 24th February, 1890, for the examination of Frederick John Smith, John Niohols, Ernest Theodore Smith, Harry Marks, Eccersley Brothers, Bevitt, Charles Dawson Philpott, Penning, and Captain Pearson, on the part of the liquidators—the first witness examined, according to the notes of the chief clerk, was Frederick John Smith; that was on 24th February, 1890—on 3rd, 6th, and 7th March, 1890, Charles Dawson Philpott was examined—on 10th March, 1890, there was a further summons for Isidore Wertheimer and Frank Barnard, and Wertheimer was examined on that day—there is no entry on the chief clerk's note that Marks was ever examined—there was no other examination after that of 10th March—there is no entry of Marks' solicitor being present—I believe there appears a summons

asking the chief clerk to sanction the £5,000 offer, or something of the kind—there is a summons on 15th May, 1890, by George Davidson and other contributories, that Mr. Fry and Mr. Klenck may be removed as liquidators, and that an independent person be named by the Court, and that all books, documents, &c, be deposited with the Court—the summons would come on for hearing that day; it was adjourned to answer further affidavits—on 5th November, 1890, there is a summons that Mr. Klenck and Mr. Fry be removed, and Mr. Hasluck appointed in their place—the order appointing Mr. Hasluck was made on the 3rd December.

JOHN ROBERT GASK . I am a solicitor's clerk, in the employment of Godden, Holme and Co., who are solicitors to Mr. Henry Riversdale Grenfell, one of the directors of the Bank of England—we acted in an action brought by Harry Marks against Mr. Grenfell—I produce a copy of the pleadings—on 25th November, 1887, the action was in the list for trial before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge—the matter was compromised—Mr. Grenfell tendered an apology, with fifty guineas damages, and costs on terms agreed. (MR. GILL read the statement of claim.)

Cross-examined. Mr. Grenfell is a very well-known City man, and was then a director of the Bank of England—I know some time before the action he was concerned in the promotion of the Harney Peak Tin Mining Company; I do not know if the capital of that company was £2,000,000—I believe Mr. Marks wrote about it in the Financial News—I do not know if the company has prospered since, or whether it is a going concern, or whether the £2,000,000 were obtained, or whether the prospectus inviting it was withdrawn—my firm had nothing to do with the company—I heard the statement of claim, charging the utterance of this slander to Wilson, read—I recollect that this was the defence (This was read)—Mr. Grenfell was represented by Sir Henry James, Mr. R. S. Wright (now Mr. Justice Wright), and Mr. Archibald—I do not remember if the jury was sworn—I believe Sir Henry James tendered an apology in Court, and a verdict was thereupon entered for Mr. Marks for fifty guineas and £300 costs, I believe—I. did not hear it stated in Court that no damages were sought by Mr. Marks, and that the fifty guineas were to go to the Newspaper Press Fund—we, representing Mr. Grenfell, paid the fifty guineas damages and £300 costs.

Re-examined. Acting for Mr. Marks was Sir Charles Russell; I do not know who else—Mr. George Lewis was there—I think we made inquiries in America for Mr. Grenfell—I do not know whether there was any evidence that Marks was a blackmailer—I do not know if the Harney Peak prospectus was withdrawn after the Financial News' attacks—I do not know if the company or the enterprise is in existence now, or if it is a success; I know nothing about it.

SAMUEL HAYMAN (Recalled). I am from the office at Somerset House; I have already given some evidence—I produced a registered file of the Financial News Company—it was registered on 27th December, 1888—Mr. Marks held 21,156 ordinary and 25,356 preference shares; the whole capital of the company is 100,000 £1 shares, 50,000 ordinary and 50,000 preference—on 31st March, 1890, Arthur Cohen held 1 share and 41 preference shares; on 12th August, 1889, he transferred 252; on 21st August, 380; on 30th December, 440; on 27th January, 1890, 580; on 21st August, 1889, 1,632 preference; and in January, 1890,. 1,832 preference—those are all the entries—I find Alfred Isaac Benjamin, care

of F. S. Barnard, Crown Court, Old Broad Street, to hold 10 ordinary and 10 preference shares; Louisa Kate Koch, London Hall, Grove End Road, N. W., to hold 200 ordinary and 220 preference; James Head to-hold 10,000 of each kind; Ernest Theodore Smith, solicitor, of Gresham House, Old Broad Street, 100 of each kind—I produce the file of proceedings in the Hill's Waterfall Mining Company, Limited. (SIR CHARLES RUSSELL submitted that before this could be gone into it must be shown that Mr. Marks was connected with it, or MR-GILL must undertake to connect Mr. Marks with it. MR. GILL said he could give no such undertaking; that he proposed to show that the same persons bought shares and were connected with the Hill's Waterfalls and Maclennan, as were shareholders in and connected with the Rae, and that the Hill's Waterfalls was puffed in the "Financial News" and that the evidence was relevant upon the grounds of public benefit. The RECORDER ruled that unless it could be shown that Marks was connected with the companies it was not admissible. He suggested that the evidence might be obtained from Mr. Marks himself or from other witnessest and that the point should stand over for the present.)

CHARLES JAMES BOSDETT . I was secretary to one of Colonel Macmurdo's companies, the Express and Trust, at the time that he owned, practically, the Financial News.

MR. GILL proceeded to ask the witness how and when Marks first came into contact with Colonel Macmurdo, and when he got control of the paper. SIR CHARLES RUSSELL objected to the evidence as irrelevant. MR. GILL stated that he desired to show what Marks I position was when he first came to this country, and to what marvellous extent he got on in a short time. The RECORDER considered it would not be relevant.

HARRY HANANEL MARKS (called on his subpana duces tecum, not sworn) Files of the Financial News for 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890 are in Court—I have no letters received by me from persons I advised to buy shares in the Rae Mine—I have no letters from Mr. White, Mr. Liversedge, nor copies of letters written by me to Mr. Liversedge, or persons writing to me about the Rae Mine—I have no such copy letter-books—I have no letters written by me with reference to the Hill's Waterfall Company, or the Maclennan Company—I have no letters received by me from the liquidators of the Rae Company, Klenck and Fry, nor letters received by me from Alfred Isaac Benjamin, Agnes Mary Benjamin, Gertrude Benjamin, Louisa Koch, Sarah Dinah Levy, Percy Cohen, Arthur Cohen, Herbert dark, Dawson Philpott, Head, Penning, Thomas Pearson, Bevitt, any of the Barnards, Florence Skeats, Fanny Chamberlain, or Frederick John Smith—I have no copies of letters written by me to the Barnards or to Frederick John Smith—I will not produce my bankers' pass-book from 1887 to the present time—I shall not produce any cheques or documents relating to the Financial Monitor and Lion's Mouth of 13th June.

Mr. Frank Barnard and Mr. Arthur Cohen were called, but did not answer.

FRANCIS KALB . I am a clerk to Messrs. Wontner—I received subpoenas to serve—I saw Arthur Cohen's father at 65, Conduit Street, who told me his son was in the house ill—I left a copy—I have not been able to find Arthur Cohen—I tried, but could not find Claude Marks—also the Barnards.

Cross-examined. I was told A. Cohen was ill on 21st November—the subpoena was first issued in that month—I went to find Claude Marks on Friday.

CHARLES WILLIAM HOLLAND . I endeavoured to find James Nichol, the secretary of the Rae Company, at 16, Tokenhouse Yard; A. I. Benjamin at the Stock Exchange several times, and at Rosetta Mansions, Chelsea, six times; and Fanny Chamberlain—I could not find them—I went to Frank Barnard's address, and was informed he had been away some time—I understood Scard Barnard was at Brighton—I could not find Alexander Donald Barnard, Samuel Goodman Levy, nor Townsend Percy.

Cross-examined. I went after Nichol on 20th November—I was told Nichol had been out at the Cape—I found that he was dead—I tried to serve A. I. Benjamin last month, but principally this month; first on December 3rd—I was told he was out; 1 went the next morning, and was told he was not up, and to call back in half an hour; I called back, was asked into the dining-room, and was told Mr. Benjamin would see me shortly; afterwards a lady came and said he had gone out; I called six times; after that I was informed he had gone away for a week or a fortnight; I had a description of him—I went on 3rd, 4th, and 5th December, and once or twice before on the Stock Exchange—I asked where Frank Barnard was, and could get no inform-ation—I saw a clerk in the office; I went to 6, St. Oswald's Road, and was informed Townsend Percy had not been there for twelve months, and they did not know the name; I have not since ascertained that he lives in New York.

Re-examined. I left subpoenas for Benjamin and Miss Fanny Chamber, lain—I was told neither were there, and afterwards that Mrs. Benjamin was there—from the description I had I believe the lady to have been Miss Fanny Chamberlain—I went after Sampson Hill twice—I did not succeed—I left the subpoena for him.

ARTHUR BURTON PEACOCK . I had subpoenas to serve—I went to F. Barnard's office and on the Stock Exchange several times—a clerk said he would not take it, and I left the subpoena on the counter—I went to A. D. Barnard's private address and to the Stock Exchange—I was told he was engaged—I sent in the firm's card, and was told he was deeply engaged—I said, "You will find there the subpoena and conduct money," and the servant caught me round the neck and tried to put it in my pocket; I knocked it out of my pocket, and she threw it down the stairs after me—I went to Brighton and saw Arthur Cohen's brother, who told me Arthur was very ill, and he did not know where he was staying, but would send me his address—he did not—I had the same answer with regard to Dinah Sarah Cohen—as to Percy Cohen, I went to Terminus Road, Brighton; I saw a woman who said she had lived there five years, and another of the name of Benjamin two years, and had not known the name except by circulars going there—I,. went to Claude Marks' office at eleven o'clock on Saturday week—a woman told me he had just gone—I went to 40, Westbourne Square, and was told Miss Benjamin was not known there—I went to Marks' house, Lowden Hall, and was told they did not live there—I served Marks at Long's Hotel—I could not find Miss Benjamin—Miss Skeats had left about three years—I went to The Hut, at Surbiton; I did not find her—I went to St. John's Wood Road, and Miss Louisa Koch had left, and the present owners had been there eight months—I served Scard Barnard at Brighton—I could not serve Frank Barnard nor Mr.

Morris—I left a subpoena on Barnard's counter, and the clerk threw it at me.

Cross-examined. I understood Marks was to be served at Lowden Hall—the servant gave me the address at Long's Hotel—I did not know Donald Barnard's address was at Dunedin—I was told by F. Barnard's clerks he was a clerk at the Stock Exchange.

BLANCHARD ALLEN WONTNER . I have the conduct of this case—since the indictment was preferred I have acted on the advice of counsel—MR. Perryman has not found money for the defence of this action—I received instructions to act some months back—persons having monetary tran-sactions with Marks have nothing to do with instructing me.

Cross-examined. Mr. Perryman has given me very little information—I never saw him till he came into this Court—I first saw Fagge two nights before this case commenced, when he was subpoenaed to produce a file of papers, and he called on me—my back has been turned to him—I have seen him in the lobby—the guarantor is unconnected with newspapers or monetary matters—no other person is supplying money than the person whose name Mr. Birch supplied you with—it is her own money—her securities were sold to pay my costs—they had been in her possession a considerable time—I saw the securities.

Evidence in Reply

GEORGE HENRY LEWIS (Cross-examined by MR. GILL). I have known money found for the defence of persons by their friends—I had nothing to do with defending Claude Marks at the trial—Messrs. Michael Abrahams and Co. represented him—I defended him before the Magistrate at the instance of Mr. Abrahams—counsel defended him at the trial, Sir Charles Russell—I do not know who found the money for the brief—in my opinion there was no pretence for the charge, and nine jurymen were ready to acquit—the charge was threatening a libel unless money was paid.

By SIR CHARLES RUSSELL. Bebro was the prosecutor—you and Mr. Lockwood and Mr. Bigham appeared on instructions of Mr. Abrahams—the Solicitor-General prosecuted.

HARRY HANANEL MARKS . I am one of the chief proprietors of the paper known as the Financial News—I went to America in 1870, and it was there that I became connected with journalism—from 1873 to 1878 I was on the regular staff of the New York World, and acted as New York correspondent for the Chicago Times, and other Western newspapers—some time before July, 1878, I became an occasional contributor to the Jewish Times and Reformer—I contributed nearly if not every week—I was paid at the rate of so much per column—Mr. Louis Koppel, the proprietor of the Jewish Times and Reformer, died in July, 1878—I continued to contribute to the paper after his death—in the autumn of 1878 I made the acquaintance of his widow, Mrs. Annie Koppel—I chanced to be in the office when Mrs. Koppel called, and she exchanged some words with me there—we were going out of the office at the same time, and I accompanied her to the tramway car—as I helped her into the car she invited me to call on her—I accepted the invitation and called on her that evening—that was some months after Mr. Koppel's death, and about the latter part of the year—I only know the lady's age from statements made to me at that time by herself and friends—her statement

to me was that she was thirty-two—I went to see her—alter that first visit I stayed for some time at the house—I paid other visits to the house—among other people there I saw a man named Louis Lehmann—the acquaintance was continued for that year—it was suggested she should give me a power of attorney—I was at her house one evening, and she told me 'she had had a quarrel with Dr. Mendes, who then held a power of attorney over the paper, which was the property of the Koppel estate—she complained of the way in which he had acted towards her, and asked if I would take charge of the paper—I agreed to do so, pro-vided I was given the same power as Dr. Mendes had—there was some conversation about terms, and I said nothing could be arranged until I had had an opportunity of looking into the paper and seeing what it was doing—she consented to the transfer of the power of attorney to me, and gave me the power of attorney at once—it was dated 29th November, 1878—Mr. Morris Goodheart was not present at the surrogate's office at the time the document was sworn and signed—the power of attorney was not signed there, those statements were absolutely false; Mr. Goodheart had nothing to do with the power of attorney—I proposed to investigate the affairs of the paper; I found that it had never paid, though Mr. Koppel had managed to eke out an existence by running it in connection with his business as an advertising canvasser—I thought that I might manage to make the paper pay, and continued to manage it experimentally during Decem-ber and the early part of January, without receiving payment or salary—I made myself acquainted with the monetary position of Koppel when he died—I found that he had died in debt to every one with whom he had relations, and that three months before his death he had given a bill of sale over the paper, in order to protect himself against judgments that were out against him—Mrs. Koppel told me herself that no rent was owing on the house she occupied—I never heard of the houses at Fordham and plots of which Koppel is said to have died possessed—I heard of two insurances, one of which was for 1,000 dols., of which 500 had already been anticipated by the widow, while the remaining 500 dols. were retained by the society until the majority of the eldest child—about November I became criminally intimate with Mrs. Koppel; her statement as to its being 19th November, 1878, is substantially accurate—that intimacy was never procured by any promise of marriage on my part—there is not one syllable of pretence for the suggestion that there was any talk of marriage then or at any other time—I from time to time visited her—it is not true that I lived under the same roof with her—I passed only two nights in my life under her roof; once in Fifty-eighth Street and once in Twenty-ninth Street—the intimacy was not of very much more frequent occur-rence than these two nights—in the early part of January, 1879, I told her that the paper could not exist if a salary was to be paid to the manager, and if she was to draw a revenue from it—I suggested that the best course would be to sell the paper, and I made her an offer, telling her to confer with her friends in order to see if she could get a better offer—a week or ten days later she told me that she had spoken to Mr. Funk, a friend of her husband, and to Mr. Volk, her husband's book-keeper, and that if she sold she must have at least half the money in cash at once—I agreed to pay half the money at once—I had to borrow it, and

to the best of my recollection I paid half the money within four or five days of signing the bill of sale, which is dated 10th January, 1879—I drew 150 dols. of it from the office for which I was writing, and the balance of 350 dols. I borrowed from my friend Mr. Goodheart—on 18th January I paid over the money on the terms of this receipt (produced)—the balance was secured by a promissory note, payable in twelve months—there are two signatures of Mrs. Koppel—the first is witnessed by John Yolk—this is a duplicate receipt for the same money—the promis-sory note was paid by instalments, as I happened to have it, and each payment was endorsed on the back of the note—I received back the pro-missory note on the last payment—I do not know what has become of it—I continued to manage the paper till the 8th October, 1879—so little did it pay that between the time I became proprietor in January and the time it ceased to exist I had to surrender such little type as I had in the office to pay the printers bill—after Mrs. Koppel's visit on 19th October, 1879, it came to an abrupt end—I sold what was left, which was prac-tically the subscription list or goodwill, to the publisher of a paper in Cincinnati, of a similar class, for 130 dols.—this receipt (produced, dated31st December, 1878) is for 231 dols., in six payments to her—that is, I think, signed by Mrs. Koppel—this receipt (30th January, 1879) for 126 dols., in ten separate payments, is signed by her—in February, 1879, Mrs. Koppel was living in Twenty-ninth Street—she had removed there from Fifty-eighth Street—there is no truth in the charge against me that I had left her in Fifty-eighth Street to pay the rent of her lodgings—I was not in any way responsible—she had lived with her husband in Fifty-eighth Street—she had asked me about this flat in Fifty-ninth Street—at Twenty-ninth Street she made a communi-cation to me as to her condition—I think it was early in February, or late in January—I had very grave doubts about its truth, and at first I said very little about it, but later she reiterated it, although I was in doubt as to whether I was responsible for her condition, I intimated as much to her—I did not know whether it was possible for her to attach the blame to anyone else, and I told her she charged me with getting her into trouble, and at any rate I would see her through it—I gave her all the money I possibly could afford whenever she asked for any, and she asked for money every day—these are three receipts by Mrs. Koppel for sums amounting to 42 dols., between the 8th of February and the 17th March (produced)—I think I did give her money in April, but I cannot remember without reference—it is absolutely untrue that she never received any money from me in her life with the two exceptions she named, the ten dollars and the one dollar—the "black-edged" letters reached me, I should say, in the early part of 1879, but I have no means of ascertaining, as they are not dated—Mrs. Koppel gave the Lehmann letters to me about the time of our first intimacy—there is no truth in the allegation that I have stolen those letters—these are two receipts for rent paid by me, one in regard to Twenty-ninth Street, and the other in reference to St. Mark's Place. (Produced, one dated January,1879, and signed by Whitmark, and the other June 7th)—in New York rent is paid in advance, and it is so stipulated on the receipts—there is no truth in the statement that either at that time, or at any time, Mrs. Koppel went in the name of Marks, or was known as Mrs. Marks—every receipt was in the name of Mrs. Koppel—when I left New York in May,

1879, I told Mrs. Koppel I was going to visit my relations—she made no serious objection—I came over to London, but before my departure I made an arrangement with Mr. Goodheart as to what payments he was to make to Mrs. Koppel during my absence, and general instructions as to my business—to the best of my recollection Mrs. Koppel's rent was to be paid on the 1st of each month, and she was to have 12 dols. a week—those instructions were carried out; the receipts were produced by Mr. Goodheart—I came back to New York about the 27th or 28th of July—I went and saw Mrs. Koppel, and discovered to my great surprise that she had had a child during my absence—I learned that the child had been born within a week or ten days before my return—I said some-thing to the effect that it was remarkably quick work—I told her that I was very glad she was over her trouble, that I had kept my promise, and that now there must be an end to any intimacy between us—I also said that if I could befriend her in any way I would do so, but I would not resume intimate relations—she was correct in saying that from that time the intimacy was not resumed—she is not correct in saying that was the only visit—after I had made that announcement I had daily letters, telegrams, and messages to go and see her—she used to send the servant after me—I only went there two or three times, or perhaps three or four—I should add that I did go to her again after my first visit, and I think it was on the second occasion that I made the statement as to the intimacy between us—on the second occasion I paid Mrs. Koppel the last instalment due on the promissory note for 250 dollars, given in January, and for two or three days afterwards I was com-paratively unmolested—when those days were passed the same thing went on over and over again, every day and every night—I used to have two or three notes, couched in the terms of the note read, asking me to go and see her, and on one or two occasions assuring me of the purity of her intentions; there were telegrams sent to my office, and servants sent to me at any time of night, and when I wont to her I found there was nothing to be said or done, but that she had simply invited me to pay her a visit—I was constantly watched—on one occasion she wrote to me about a detective—I had my footsteps dogged, and on going home at night I found a servant on the doorstep—this went on for six or seven weeks—during that time I went to see her several times at St. Mark's Place—the last time I went there I found she had moved, or had been moved, on account of some disturbance in the house—that was about the middle of September—I had several letters from her at the office—on the 8th of October I received a letter from her of a very urgent character, in consequence of which I went to her house in Twelfth Street—I went alone, and asked what was the matter—she was very much excited, and told me that in the morning a man named Michael Marks, a lawyer's clerk, called and took her to the office of a lawyer named Spelman, and that there she had signed some papers about me, she did not know exactly what papers, charging me with ill-usage and stealing her hus-band's watch and jewellery, and cheating her out of her paper—I asked how in the name of fortune she could have done such a thing, and she gave me a very confused explanation, to the effect that Michael Marks was a friend of the landlord, and he had threatened her, and all sorts of things—I said, "You may do me great harm by this sort of thing," and she said she was very sorry, but she had been mad with me because I

had not been to see her; but she did not want to do me any harm, and would do anything in her power to undo it—I then went to Mr. Good-heart, told him what had happened, and returned with him, when she repeated in detail what she had said to me, and finally she gave the same statement again, and, at Mr. Goodheart's dictation, I took down what she said in writing, word for word—Mr. Goodheart read oyer what was written sentence by sentence—after it was read over she signed it, and then stood up, raised her right hand, and swore that the statement was true—her signature was witnessed by Mr. Goodheart—after that I received two or three letters, of which I took no notice—I did not see her again until Saturday,. October 18th—to the best of my recollection I was at the office on that day—while I was seated at the desk the door flew open, and Mrs. Koppel, in a state of great excitement, rushed in with another woman in a state of equal excitement; she rushed into the office, using very violent language, drew from under her shawl or cloak, a big hammer, and began to smash the glass partitions; she lifted up a chair and threw it through the partition; it was a glass partition dividing our office from another—she also threw the ink bottles through the window—all the time she was shouting at the top of her voice in the most violent and abusive language—as soon as I could I left the office—Oswald and Volk, the two men in the office at the time, followed me very rapidly downstairs—I know nothing of her nailing up the door—she was acting like a lunatic—she was raving—very likely I did say she was insane—the scene was wit-nessed by twenty or thirty people who ran out of their offices in the building—f looked for a friend of mine that evening—I saw a legal friend next day—I made the affidavit before a police justice—the warrant was not executed until the following morning—I went to the police-court next morning—the matter was heard in the Magistrate's private room—Mrs. Koppel was committed to be examined by a physician to the Commissioners of Charities—she was examined by the physician on the-same day, and was released—the Magistrate sat at 10.30 or 11, and she was discharged about 4—there is no truth in her statement that at the time of her detention I entered the office of the paper and carried everything off, there was nothing left but splinters, except such books as were there, which I sent Mr. Volk to get the following day—I took my papers and sent the other papers to Mr. Goodheart for delivery to Mrs. Koppel—I never returned—I gave instructions to Volk to bring me my papers, and to take everything else over to Mr. Goodheart—I received information from Mr. Goodheart that an action had been com-menced, and that an order of Court to arrest had been issued—I put in bail, but I never was arrested—I remained in New York throughout the whole of 1880; always in New York itself—no action was brought against me in that year—on the 14th February, 1881, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution—throughout 18801 was the editor of the Daily Mining News in New York—in 1881 I was editing a new edition of the paper called the Financial Mining News—I traded as a mining broker, and was elected a member of the governing committee of the Mining Exchange, and also a member of the governing committee of the Oil Exchange—from October, 1879, down to June, 1883, I continued in New York, then I came to see my family in London—I returned to New York in August, and came again to London in September or the beginning of October, 1883

—during the whole of that period no action was ever taken or threat-ened against me by Mrs. Koppel—no demand was made for the restitution of jewellery, or anything of that description—I have had no articles of jewellery in my possession belonging to Mr. Koppel, except a gold watch, a good deal worn, which Mrs. Koppel gave me in the early part of 1879; no part of that jewellery, so far as I am aware, had any existence—I never saw it; I never heard of it—my recol-lection is that in the early days of 1879, just before or after I had acquired, the paper, we were looking over some papers at Mrs. Koppel's place, which Mr. Koppel had left, when she took out this watch; I asked if it was Koppel's watch, she said, "Yes;" I said I should like to buy it as a keepsake of Koppel; she said she would not sell anything belonging to Koppel, she would give it to me—it was given to me at that time—the watch was worth between five and six pounds—it is untrue that I borrowed jewellery from Mrs. Koppel to attend a. Seligman dinner and make a good appearance, or that when pressed to return it I declared I had pawned it, and used the money to purchase flowers for a lady friend—I had the watch to the end of 1883 or after—there was an insurance in a Foresters' Lodge—it is not true that I took a cheque for a thousand dollars and afterwards collected the money, and when asked for the money said, "It is none of your business, I spent the money with other women at the Cafe Brunswick"—it is not true that I moved Mrs. Koppel's furniture to Twenty-ninth Street, nor that after a short residence she had to leave because of the non-payment of rent; it is disproved by the receipt for the rent for June—I told her at the time that the paper was not paying—I continued to pay money to her down to August—it is not true that after she had removed to St. Mark's Place I collected all the moneys due to the-newspaper, and went off to Europe; I did not go off till May—I do not know that the child, which was born during my absence, was a girl—it is not true that at my request it was named Alice, after my sister, I have-no sister who is called Alice—I have a sister who has three names, one of which is Alice—her names are Frances Alice Mary, but as a fact that sister is never called Alice in the family—there is no truth in the state-ment that I once sent her a dollar only—I have no recollection of any such transaction—it was not by me she was made the worse for liquor.

Saturday, December 15th.

H. H. MARKS (continued). It is not true that the proceeds of one of the insurances was invested in the paper to enlarge it, as Mrs. Koppel states, not when I was acquainted with the paper before I acquired it—I only knew of two insurances—Mrs. Koppel spoke of a third, and said that the proceeds had been realised and put in the paper; I knew nothing of that—I remember that one week during my connection with the paper, at what period I cannot tell, the type on the way to the press-rooms was pyed, and the paper did not come out that week—there never was a strike of the printers, and it is not true that Mrs. Koppel had to find the funds with which to pay them—it is not true, to my knowledge, that she drew 500 dole, from some lodge—the composition bills of the paper certainly came to less than 20 dols. a week; that was inclusive—500 dols. would be absolutely out of proportion to pay one week's wages—it was-not at my first visit to Mrs. Koppel, after my return from Europe in July,

the last payment on the promissory note was made, it was early in August—at that time I called her attention to the fact that she had drawn all the money she had, and I gave her a statement showing what had been paid for her account, and to her, showing her that she had actually over-drawn the amount that was in the bank to her credit—I gave her a state-ment of the expenditure, and of the moneys that I had paid her for her-self under the power of attorney—at the first interview, when I told her that our relations hereafter would have to be of a different kind, I said I was quite prepared to put the child with somebody who would take care of it, but she refused; she laughed it off—at the second interview, when I called her attention to the state of her affairs, that the money that had come to her she had spent, I suggested she should see to some-thing for the future; I knew at the time that she had been engaged at a shop either before or after her connection with Mr. Koppel, and I suggested to her that she should see what she could do in the same line in which she had earned her living before; and she did after that write to me in one of her letters that she was working in a shop—I said yesterday that I was in New York during the whole of 1881, but I remember that I was in Europe about eight weeks in 1881; with that exception I was in New York the whole year—it is entirely untrue that I left New York because I had overdone it, or under any circumstances that were in the smallest degree reprehensible or discredit-able; I left New York in September or October, 1883, with the design of coming to London to start the Financial News, and it was started in London on January 14th, 1884, by me and Colonel Macmurdo, who found the money, and I agreed to give him in return a half-interest in the paper, and I had the other half; I should say that of the original company only one half of the capital was issued, and that half was equally divided between Colonel Macmurdo and myself—the paper was con-ducted on those lines down to, I think, the end of 1888; I am not sure there was not a modification before that time—I should state the first name of the Publishing Company which owned the Financial News was the Union Publishing Company, I think—Mr. Guedella was a solicitor who had worked for Mr. Higham Benjamin, and who at that time was mortgagee of the Ledophini, afterwards called the Rae Mine; Mr. Guedella informed me that he had lent £5,000 on it—he was unable to get his money back, but he got the mortgage paid, and in addition to that he was at a heavy expense to pay the taxes on the property, amounting, as I understood, to £500 a year or thereabouts, and so he desired to sell the property so as to get back his money; he would be satisfied if he could do that—he had given Mr. H. Benjamin every oppor-tunity to dispose of the property, who had endeavoured to sell it to Mr. Hume Webster, but he would not take less than £20,000; Mr. Webster had it actually under offer at that time for £20,000; I entered into negotiations with Mr. Guedella about the matter, and it hung fire for some weeks—I inspected all the papers; some were given to me by Mr. Guedella, others I obtained from him, and others from Messrs. Slade and Monk, the solicitors to Mr. Hume Webster—I find here bound up, first the reports, and then the concession of the Ledo-phini or Rae property from President Krüger to Mr. Higham Benjamin—there is a map showing that the Ledophini adjoins the London Mine, and is the next mine but one to the Lisbon-Berlyn Mine,

which was capitalised at over half a million—in our immediate neigh-bourhood there are the Transvaal Gold and Exploration Company capitalised at over £300,000 or £350,000; in the same district is also the Grasscrop, the property of the Balkis Company, capitalised at some-thing over half a million, to the best of my recollection; a very large sum I know—Mr. Penning was the first person I consulted; he had at that time the reputation of being the expert on Transvaal properties, and I made no definite reply to Mr. Guedella till I had seen Mr. Penning, and gone through the papers with him, whose view was that it was one of the best properties in the Transvaal; he told me he had been oyer it himself, he had tested it, and he believed it was as good a property as there was in that district; I asked him if he would pledge himself to that, and he said he would; I asked him if he would go on the board, he said he would, provided the capital was reasonable—apart from those reports to me, Mr. Penning had reported on this property independently and most favourably; he confirmed the most promising part of those reports—I did not impart what I had learnt with regard to the property to any of my business friends until I had seen Mr. Penning, and then I decided to take it up, and spoke to Mr. Eccersley about it, and asked him to join me in it, and he agreed to do so—he was at that time a member of the Joint Stock Association—I also spoke to Mr. Arthur Cohen, and asked him if he knew of any of his friends—he is one of the sub-editors of the Financial News—he conferred with some of his friends—there was only one I knew, Mr. Wertheimer—he agreed to find the money for one portion of it, so Mr. Cohen informed me—I was to have a half, and each of the others a quarter—the property was bought from Mr. Higham Benjamin—I believe the document is in Mr. Snell's possession, either the original or the certified copy; it has not gone back to Pretoria—£2,800 was paid in cash, and £6,000 in shares, in addition to the other charges then existing on the property, which brought the total to about £10,300. (MR. GILL objected to this evidence)—the sale was made to a nominee, Mr. F. J. Smith, on benalf of myself and my associates—that is a very usual thing to do—I think you will find in nine out of ten companies, when more than one is interested in the property to be vended, all the parties so interested agree upon a nominee who shall represent their interest—the property having been sold to a nominee, steps were taken to sell to a company, a company to be formed for the purpose of working the mine—the same nominee was stated to be the vendor to the public of the property—I only selected Mr. Philpott as a director; Mr. Bevitt and Mr. Penning, to the best of my recollection, had both been spoken of at the time that the matter was in the hands of Mr. Hume Webster, and, to the best of my recollection, their names and that of the Hon. Edward Arundel were in the skeleton prospectus which I obtained from Messrs. Slade and Monk-Captain Pearson, who took the place of Mr. Arundel, was introduced to me by Mr. Hume Webster as willing to take Mr. Arundel's place—Mr. Philpott has been manager of a branch of one of the principal London banks; Mr. Bevitt had practical experience as a mining engineer; Mr. Pen-ning was the Mr. Penning who had so frequently reported about tins pro-perty, and who had expressed his willingness to go on the board—Messrs. Smith and Sons were only solicitors to the Financial News in the sense of having registered the company—this prospectus was issued with the map

showing the position of the locality and its boundaries—the prospectus was approved by the directors—I showed it to Mr. Penning specially, but they all saw it before it was issued, and they all approved it—I checked the figures in it with Mr. Penning—a number of reports are referred to in it, and extracts from Penning's, Glenister's, Fowler's, Rickard Brothers', Ivey's, and Evelyn W. Smith's reports are set out—those reports were all before us for the preparation of the prospectus—I procured none of the reports myself; they had all been made before I ever heard of the property—at the date of the issue of the prospectus I believed in every statement contained in it—the capital, £75,000, was to leave a working capital of £25,000, one-third of the total—in the light of Mr. Penning's statement that was an adequate capital—the company was registered on 14th January, 1887, and the agreement of 13th January, 1887, under which the company was to pay the vendor £50,000, £25,000 in cash and £25,000 in shares, was registered—at that time that was the only agreement entered into by the company—that agreement was modified, as appears by the minutes of 20th January, 1887—the vendor in place of receiving £25,000 in cash was to receive £6,710 in cash, and the balance, £18,290, as and when, and in proportion as it should be received by the company, and there was an object in making that stipulation—the effect and object of it was that the vendor was to take £6,710 in cash and £18,290 in shares—under that modified arrangement the allotment was proceeded with—6,000 shares were handed over to the mortgagee or his nominees in addition to the £2,800 in cash; and something was paid over and above that for charges on the property—I know it was done—I did it myself as to the money, and the snares were transferred by my directions—the amount of shares was 1,000 and £500 cash—£2,800 in cash and £6,000 in shares were paid to the mortgagee, and £500 in cash and £1,000 in shares were paid for other charges—in all it was £3,000 in cash; it made a total of £10,300, I think—the applica-tions from the public were for between 6,000 and 7,000; subscriptions for 700 were withdrawn and the money returned—the total amount received from the public, in relation to the applications from the public from January, 1887, does not exceed £6,300—I was present at the allot-ment—the terms of application were Is. per share on application and 4s. on allotment, as I remember, and then there would be three further in-stalments, at intervals, of 5s. each—I am not sure whether the £6,000 includes or excludes the £700 eventually returned, the book at the allotment meeting would show it—there were applications from four persons, Miss Chamberlain, Miss Skeats, Mr. A. Benjamin, and Mr. A. D. Barnard, amounting to 19,250 shares; those applications came about thus: the amount of the public subscription being only between £6,000 and £7,000, and the contract with the vendor calling for 25,000, the vendor modified his agreement to the effect that he should receive the difference between the amount of the actual subscription and the amount to which he was entitled under his contract, as and when it might be received, and that it might be received the vendor, or rather the broker to the company, made applications in the names of the nominees for those shares, the effect being that instead of receiving that amount of cash the vendor received that extra number of shares in the place of cash; it was in part modifying the contract and reducing the cash price to less than £7,000,

and increasing the price in shares—the pass-book shows on the credit side that various cheques amounting to £3,850 have been paid in, and on the debit side there is a payment to Smith of £3,850—the date in both cases is February 3rd, 1887; the date is identical—on 10th March there is £4,812 on the credit side, and on the debit side £4,812; they are cross entries simply—this was done by the broker, Mr. Frank Barnard; I cannot say with my sanction, because I arranged what the proper course would be, and I always thought that the proper course would have been to formally modify the agreement by a further agreement; it would have been more regular, and the effect would have been the same—it was merely modified by letter—that was my original objection to it—the solicitor to the company, Mr. Smith, was consulted about it; and he advised upon it, and then this was done,' and I then made no further opposition to it—I do not know Miss Chamberlain or Miss Skeats or Mr. Alexander Donald Barnard—Alfred Benjamin is my brother-in-law—three out of the four were absolute strangers to me—out of the £6,710, which under the modified contract was to be given to the vendor, £4,500, in round figures, was actually paid—then there were the expenses of pro-motion, amounting to close on £2,000, which I bore on behalf of myself and my associates; the expenses of printing, advertising, brokerage, com-mission, and telegraphing to South Africa to ensure proper registration of the title, and so forth—under the circumstances it was not right that the leaderette of the 14th October, 1887, should have appeared in the Financial News, but at the time it appeared I honestly believed in the truth of the statements contained in it—I have no recollection of the letter of 15th January, 1887, sent to Mr. White, it was not written by me; it is evidently signed by someone in my office—the initials "P. C," would be "per Cohen;" it might be Mr. Arthur Cohen—the body of the letter is not in his writing, but the signature is his, I have no doubt—I have no recollection of its being sent, but I have the responsibility of it; the statements in it were made in the full belief of their truth; I believed them at the time, and for some time afterwards, and it was known in the office that I had that belief, and letters addressed to the office were answered, that being known—to some of my correspondents throughout January, February, March and April, 1887, I did from time to time recommend the mine as a speculation; the term "mining invest-ment" may have been used, but I think the term contradicts itself, as any money put into a mine is not an investment but a speculation, the nature of the venture is itself so essentially speculative—I make the same answer as to my belief in their honesty and truth—down to that time all our reports were favourable, and everything was going on as well as could be wished—in July I copied into the Financial, News a paragraph that had appeared in Vanity Fair, and down to the 4th July, 1887, my belief was unimpaired—the reports that came from Mr. Fryer far exceeded Mr; Penning's opinion—I know nothing about those reports; I never saw Fryer in my life, and he being on the spot I believed entirely the reports he sent—up to this time 19,250 shares were applied for—between April and December, 1887, other shares were put in the names of Agnes Benjamin, Gertrude Benjamin, Louisa Koch, and Goodman Levy—they were shares put into the names of nominees by the brokers to the company—they were shares belonging to the vendors—I don't think the 100 put into the name

of Louisa Koch were vendors' shares, but as to the 9,000 in the name of Goodman Levy there is no doubt, and the same applies to Mr. Head; they were vendors' shares put in the name of Mr. Head, who is a friend of mine—he is independent, the son of the late Sir Francis Head—there were also 1,500 put in the name of Townsend Percy, who is a friend of mine, my New York correspondent—Miss Benjamin and Miss Gertrude Benjamin are no relations of mine—I do not know them—no doubt the shares held by them were part of the shares issued to Higham Benjamin, the mortgagee or the mortgagee's nominee, in payment of the property—up to this time, out of the 6,710 which I was to receive, I had received 4,500—in December there was in effect a further modification of the agreement, the balance of £2,000 odd remaining due to the vendors under their contract, and modified by the letter of January, was paid to them in shares calculated at the then market price, which was about 4s.—on 8th December, 1887, they had those shares in lieu of the money—I think, in November, Mr. Bevitt went out—I know nothing of a transaction on 22nd December, between the company and Mr. Churchouse—Mr. Bevitt took a considerable time to get to the property, and could not have communicated with this country till February, 1888; my recollection is we had no communication from Mr. Bevitt from the mine, even by cable, before the beginning of March—he could not have communicated, subsequent to his arrival, before the end of February—the notice in the Financial New of 25th January, 1888, "We think the shares are a very good purchase. The company have sufficient working capital in hand, and a report is expected shortly from the chairman, who is now on the property," does not refer to the Rae, to the best of my knowledge—it is not my writing—I have formed my opinion that it did not refer to the Rae Mine from the fact that at that time I was not advising shares in the Rae Mine—every day the Financial News answers between one hundred and two hundred questions concerning all classes of securities, from railway debentures to half-crown mining shares, and from those answers these (produced) have been selected—assuming that this notice in answer to a correspondent does refer to the Rae, down to the date of its appearance on 25th January I had no reason to believe that the mine was other than sound—from the date of the receipt of Mr. Bevitt's first communication, whether at the end of February or the beginning of March, not a favourable word was said about the mine in the paper—there may have been a recommendation to then holders to join the proposed reorganisation; I think that is very possible, but I do not remember that—that was the outcome of a written recommendation sent by Mr. Bevitt, which reached this country about the beginning of May, 1888, the outline having been sent by cable—as I remember, Mr. Bevitt's unfavourable report was communicated to the shareholders at their next meeting on 22nd May, and a scheme of reorganisation was then discussed—before it was so discussed it had been under my consideration—Mr. Bevitt's proposition was as to the acquisition of the Frankfort property, which was near to, but not touching, the Rae property—the proposal emanated from him, and was first communicated by cable—I did not receive the communication direct from Mr. Bevitt; the first communication I had was from Mr. Nichol; the cash required and the whole particulars were given—it was a verbal communication from Mr. Nichol, being as I understood a translation

of the cable message in code from Mr. Bevitt—the sum in cash then re-quired for the acquisition of the property was £12,000, of which £5,000, to the best of my recollection, was to be paid down on the signing of the documents, and the balance was to be left to be paid out of the first pro-duct of the mine; that was the first proposal—I offered to find the-£5,000; I offered to take shares in the proposed new company at par to—the value of £5,000 to enable the company to acquire that property—the reorganisation scheme finally agreed to was that there should be formed a new company, to be called the Frankfort Company, and that it should have a capital of £100,000; out of that £100,000, £32,000 in shares were to be-issued for the redemption of the existing Rae shares, in the proportion of one new share for two old ones, 32 for 64—£42,000 was the price to be paid for the Frankfort Company, of which £12,000 was to be paid in cash and £30,000 in shares; then there would remain a balance of £26,000, which was to be reserved for future issue as working capital if required—I made the offer of £5,000 because I felt a responsibility in the matter; it was the only company I had recommended in the Financial News in which I had a promoting interest, and I felt I was responsible for a great many people haying put their money into it, and it was only fair that I should make some offer to enable the rehabilita-tion of the company—undoubtedly I believed in the proposed rehabilita-tion—I am informed that the Frankfort is one of the best paying com-panies in the Transvaal—it has paid dividends—I was not present at the meeting of 22nd May; I only know how it fell through from what I heard at the time; while the communications were going on the price-was advanced—it evidently became known what was going on here, and it changed hands at once, and the terms were at once varied—£12,000 was demanded down at once before they would trade, and the negotia-tion fell through—in the early part of this year I attempted to reopen negotiations with Mr. Whitehead, one of the directors of the Frank-fort, who was in England; not on the old terms, because the property was proved of value, but on some terms in which the Rae shareholders would have had a benefit; the negotiations continued for some time, but in the result failed, and after that failure I made this offer, about April, of £5,000 for division among the creditors and shareholders of the Rae—I paid over a cheque for £5,000—the total out-side profit on the whole transaction, as near as I have been able to arrive-at it, made by the promoters of the Rae was not in excess of £11,000, of which I was entitled to half—my share would be between £5,000 and £6,000, of which £5,000 I offered absolutely for the purchase of the Frankfort, and handed over for the purpose of paying the creditors and! shareholders of the company—the net result to me at the present time is that I am between £6,000 and £7,000 a loser on the transaction, because I bought back between 30,000 and 40,000 shares of the Rae—I have, never refused to buy shares of any shareholder coming to me who has been on the register—I have refused to buy of any speculator on the market who has picked them up to trade on the scandal which has been caused in the matter, but I have never refused to buy shares from any legitimate shareholder, and I have bought at from 2s. a share of the-original allottees, and I have paid out in respect of such purchases over £10,000—I know of the Hill's Waterfall Mining Company as a property which is still believed to be of great value—I had nothing to do with the

promotion of it—I was not a shareholder in it, either directly or in-directly—there is not a word of truth in the statement in the plea that a number of persons were put forward by me as holding shares in that company; I never gave any names for shares; I never was interested in any shares, either directly or in-directly—there is not a tittle of ground for the suggestion of fraud against me in relation to the Hill's Waterfall Company—I was not con-nected with the promotion of the Maclennan Company in any way; I have never had any shares in it; I never put forward anybody as shareholders; I have never had any interest, directly or indirectly, in any shares—the general charge of fraud against me in the plea of justification is utterly false—having heard from Mr. Wilson, of the Standard, that Mr. Grenfell had made several false and slanderous statements about me, I commenced an action against him for slander; it came on for hearing before the Lord Chief Justice on 5th November, 1887—Sir Henry James appeared on behalf of the defendant—an apology and offer were made before I went into open Court, to pay sub-stantial damages, as I was informed—I refused to accept a private apology and damages, I insisted on an apology in open Court and nominal damages, and I obtained them; the fifty guineas I sent, with a statement of the facts, to the Newspaper Press Fund—that action arose out of some comments in my paper about the Harney Peak Mine, in which Mr. Grenfell and others were concerned; it was a company formed with a capital of £2,000,000 to hunt for tin—it was an American mine, of which Mr. Grenfell was a director—among the people who brought actions against me was the defendant; his action lasted for nearly four years; a commission was sent out to California—that was the outcome of unfavourable comments made by me in the Financial News of a scheme of which the defendant was promoter, with a proposed capital of £1,000,000—on my comments he founded an action for libel, claiming £150,000 damages—the litigation lasted from 1886 till June of this year when the case came on for trial, and was heard for three or four days, when the Jury found my comments were justified, and gave me the costs, which I have never had—I won the verdict—the conclusion of the action was on 12th June—on the 13th there appeared in the Financial News an article on the case—after that there was no editorial allusion to it, but I continued for some days to print the comments of provincial and foreign papers upon the facts and upon the evidence, but without any comments of my own, the opinions of the press in fact—no original article of mine appeared after 13th June; all that appeared I had gathered from other papers in the way of news—the total amount of my actual costs in the matter amounted to between £3,000 and £4,000—the taxed costs were £940—of that I did not realise a penny—on my petition the defendant was made bankrupt, and immediately afterwards this pamphlet was published—it was sold all over London by boys in the streets showing placards, in the City and in the West-end—placards were posted to my house, and to all my friends; every friend and associate I had; I had them myself, they were posted to my house addressed to me, and in a female handwriting to my wife—upon that I instituted these proceedings. (SIR CHARLES RUSSELL put in a certified copy of the transfer from Higham Benjamin to Frederick John Smith, showing that the sum paid was £2,800).

Cross-examined. I was sworn on the Testament—any oath is binding on my conscience—I am not a Christian—I did not look at the Testament, it is immaterial, because when I take an oath I am bound by it—I have been accustomed for many years to take an oath by raising my hand—I do not know what is the ordinary way in which Jews are sworn—I have not been accustomed to see members of my faith sworn on the Old Testament, with the head covered; that is the exception—a Jew simply takes the Testament in his hand and kisses it, and swears to tell the truth; I have seen on some occasions the man taking the oath cover his head; I believe the Old Testament is used—the form of oath is of no importance to me; the fact of the oath is the essence—I did not say that I attach no importance to the taking of an oath on any Testament—if I take an oath, any oath is binding upon me—I have not said I know no difference between one form and the other—one form is not more bind-ing than another; when I swear in the name of God to tell the truth I tell it—I saw several copies of this pamphlet; I read it—no doubt I saw that it purported to be a copy of an article taken from the Press of New York; I was aware that the publication had been procured by the pro-moters of the Harney Peak Company when I attacked it in 1887; I did not say by Mr. Grenfell—I knew it had appeared, and I took no proceed-ings against that newspaper—I was represented in New York by Town-send Percy at the time this appeared, and also by Mr. Goodheart, the solicitor and attorney—I instructed Mr. Goodheart to take such steps as he thought advisable—I think he informed me he had threatened that paper with an action—I knew Mr. Ashley Cole some years ago as a reporter in New York; I think very likely he knew me; I am not aware that he is, or ever was, the editor of that paper; I have only heard it; I do not know it as a fact—I do not think I have ever ascer-tained who the editor was of this paper which attacked me—I have no recollection of Mr. Goodheart saying to me that the proprietors of this paper said that it would be useless to attempt any bounce with them, because they knew my record well—I will swear that Mr. Goodheart never made any such statement to me—I did not take any proceedings for very good reasons, and I have not taken any proceedings against the Press; it would be useless—the libel law is a dead letter in New York; I have never known a libel action there in thirteen years—I never tried to take any proceedings; I knew the law in New York, and I knew that it was impossible to procure a conviction for libel—I did not try; I was too well known to need to vindicate my character by refuting such charges as these; they did not affect my position and therefore it was useless to take action—I did not see the articles in the Press, the Herald, the Sun, the Tribune, the New York Times, the Star, the Stats Zeitung—this article was not in the New York papers prior to the Press having published this—I have not sug-gested that no paper in New York had published the matter contained in this article before December—I have published, with regard to Butter-field, comments on the verdict of a court taken from other papers—some of them were adverse to him, not all—the libels complained of by Butter-field in his action were extracts from an American paper; there was such an extract commenting on his company, not on himself personally—that was introduced into the Financial News as a comment on a public company—I glanced through the documents at the end of this pamphlet;

I have since read them—I noticed there were enclosed in the pamphlet copies of the official documents; the warrants I had obtained from the magistrate, and an affidavit and other documents proving those docu-ments were genuine—I gave a proof to Mr. George Lewis, in this case, at least a month ago, just before one of the days the case was set down for trial—it was not written by myself—I have, on several occasions, dictated statements to Mr. Lewis's secretary I went to America at fifteen, alone—my father had friends in New Orleans, and I became a clerk in their house—I had taught here at a school, during a vacation at college, at Dr. Bidlake's, at Islington, only during the vacation—I had had no other business or employment—I went into a wholesale drug house in America; I stayed there till 1872, about a year; the name of the firm was E. J. Hart and Co.—part of the time I did their French and German correspondence, or assisted in it, and the rest of the time I was in the laboratory—from there I went to Texas—my first employment there was as a canvasser for sewing machines, and driver of a mule team for the sewing-machine agent—my next employ-ment was as managing editor of the San Antonio Daily Express—that was during the Presidential campaign in the latter part of 1872—I next became a travelling correspondent for the Galveston Bulletin—I continued that until I returned to New Orleans in March, 1873—in 1873 I joined the staff of the New Orleans Picaune, and remained there till the latter part of 1873—I then went to New York with introductions from the editors I had served, and obtained a position on the staff of the New York World, which I held till 1878—at the beginning, during the Carlist War, I assisted the foreign editor—after that I became the assistant night editor of the paper, and held that for about three years; as far as I re-member those were all the employments I was in till 1878—I made the acquaintance of Mr. Koppel, I think, in the early part of 1878—it may have been the latter part of 1877—I had known him for a long while as an advertising canvasser—I should think I first got employment from him in the latter part of 1877 or beginning of 1878—that employment was to write a certain amount per week at a certain price—this paper, the Reformer and Jewish Times, was not a financial paper in any way; it was a paper circulating among the Jewish community there, partly printed in German, only an eight-page paper, a small paper published weekly; I think I was paid by space there—I saw Mr. Koppel frequently—I cannot say he was a personal friend of mine—I was not on terms of friendship with him—I knew him very well in a business way—I had never been intimate with him—I saw him—I did not represent to him that I was in great distress—I did not, to my recollection, represent to him that I had had employment upon papers in England—I swear that I never made any such statement to Koppel, when I got that employment, as that I had been employed on papers in England, or mention the Daily Telegraph as a paper I had been connected with—I have a recollection of making some such statement—I have never said in London that any young man who has got courage enough can get employment by telling a few lies—I never told any editor I had been in the employment of the Daily Telegraph—when in 1872, at the age of seventeen, I was looking for work in Texas, I thought myself competent to fill a post on the staff of the San Antonio Express—when I saw the manager he thought I was too young for the position, and I did then tell him that I had had experience on the London

press, in order to induce him to give me the opportunity to work—that was my first connection with the staff, but I had written letters and had them inserted from the age of fourteen—when I was first employed by Koppel I was in needy circumstances—it is utterly untrue that I was so needy that I wore second-hand clothes—I have no acquaintance with the Petticoat Lane of New York—in the earlier part of 1878 I think I was living at 138, Fifth Avenue—I will swear that, to the best of my recollection, I will not pledge my oath to it—in July, 1878, to the best of my recollection, I was living at 179, East Nineteenth Street—my brother Montagu and I occupied one large bed-room (he is my eldest brother), I think one room and an alcove; it would really be one room—I don't remember what rent we were paying—I should think about ten dollars a week—I know Fox, he was not living with us—I don't think I had a banking account—I am under the impression I had one at the Seaman's Savings Bank in Wall Street—before the death of Koppel I had a banking account, I will swear, at the Seaman's Savings Bank in Wall Street—I cannot say when I opened or closed that banking account, or what amount I had there in July, 1878—the account was in my name—I was not acting as trustee, or under power of attorney for anybody before I acted for Mrs. Koppel—it was my own account, and that was not my first banking account—the other one was opened in 1872 in the National Bank, Galveston, Texas, when I first went out—after I left home I never received a dollar from my father, excepting £500, which he invested in my business in 1882 in New York—when I went out I had nothing—Montagu had been in New York for years before—Claude did not go there as well; he was quite a child in those days—he did not go to New York to my knowledge, nor to any part of America—I remember the death of Mr. Koppel—it was in the latter part of 1878 that I. saw Mrs. Koppel in the office of the paper—I cannot say whether October or November—I incline to think her date is very near the mark—my impression is that we were introduced formally in the office—it is not true that I followed her out of the office and spoke to her—we left the office together—I should not like to say Mrs. Koppel was not an attractive woman in those days—she was an attractive woman, and a woman by whom I was attracted, I think I may say—I spent the evening there—I endeavoured to make myself agreeable—I do not remember singing—I try to sing sometimes—I have no recollection of endeavouring to sing to her—I went there frequently; it was not many days after I had begun to make myself agreeable to this woman before I got the power of attorney from her—my idea is that the time of my first call was some time in the month of November, and it was at the end of the month that she com-municated to me the quarrel between herself and Dr. Mendes—I cannot answer more definitely, but to the best of my recollection it was within a month that I got the power of attorney—at the time I was visiting her, and before I got the power of attorney, I had knowledge of her affairs derived from frequently going into the office between the month of July and when Koppel died in November—I used to take my copy into the office; there was no safe or enclycopaedia in the office, to the best of my recollection—I know of no books there, except the bound files of the paper—I never knew anything of Mrs. Koppel having

private property—I never heard anything about house property, to the best of my recollection—before the power of attorney was signed I heard what money she was entitled to from two insurance companies—I do not think I understood anything about it at that time; I heard of her affairs at the time of Koppel's death—when I went to see her I did not know she was entitled to money from insurance companies—it was recited in the power of attorney that I was to have power over it—I do not think I knew of her having money in the bank when I first went to see her—I first knew it when she first disclosed to me her affairs; that was shortly before the power of attorney was signed—I did not learn that she was entitled to money from houses—I never heard that at any time that I remember—I have no recollection of any mention of it—I understood that one of the insurances was disposed of, and only one was left—that was before the power of attorney—the object of the power of attorney was to place me in the position that Dr. Mendes had held; in fact to supersede Dr. Mendes in regard to the paper and everything—I was to do for her what he had done—Mr. Leng was acting as my solicitor at that time—at the time I got from this woman the power of attorney she was attached to me; not deeply attached; I should say she was interested—she gave herself to me, and gave all that a woman could give—I do not think I advised her to take any steps to have advice with regard to this power of attorney; the request came from her—I certainly do not think I seduced her—I do not think there was any question of seduction in the matter; she was a woman of mature years, who had had four children, and knew her way about in the world; there was not much need of seduction—whether a woman may be thirty-two, and have four children, and still be an honour-able woman, depends on what you mean by an honourable woman; I knew Koppel had lived with her some years before they were married—I have given my counsel information upon which their questions have been based—the information with regard to Dimmach came from me—I have not said this woman's honour did not require protection—I do not suggest that—I did not take advantage of her position; I protected her in all ways to the best of my ability—it did not occur to me she should have some advice with regard to the power of attorney—she had already given the power of attorney, and this was a substitution of my name for that of Dr. Mendes—I copied it—it is my writing, except her signature, and the attestation of the Notary Public –I did not take her to the Notary Public—I think he went to her—by the power of attorney I took possession of the moneys in the National Park Bank of the City of New York and elsewhere, and claimed and collected the debts of the paper—no doubt I had the pass-book—I never offered my services at 10 dols. a week—I was not anxious to take charge of the paper—I had not previously had a power of attorney—this is the first paper I ever had complete control of—I never prepared a power of attorney—I should think in many years of reporting I have copied several—I have not now the pass-book—I saw it shortly before my solicitor sent it back to her in October, 1879—Goodheart told me he had sent her papers to Spelman in accordance with my instructions—on 29th November there was very little money in the bank—I did not draw the power of attorney—I refused to have anything to do with the concern unless I had the same authority as Dr. Mendes had—not so much to protect myself as to be

in order generally—I did not inquire where the moneys were to come from, I simply copied the power—I have sufficient knowledge of powers of attorney to know that they include dozens of things which have no existence—I presented to Dr. Mendes the power of attorney, informed him what had taken place, and, I think, on the same day he left the office—I did not turn him out, nor dismiss him—my power of attorney was a revocation of his—he came to the office to bring abstracts of his sermons and other things—he was a doctor of divinity—he handed over all the books there were in the office—I did not get the insurance claims—I got no documents which entitled Mrs. Koppel to money from any society that gives money to people who are members, that I remember—before this time I think I had had intimacy with her—before I got the power of attorney I think I only spent one night under her roof—as to the promise of marriage, I heard her say so for the first time in this Court, but it is not true—the power of attorney was a perfectly voluntary act; I stood in the same relation to her as Dr. Mendes did—he was a doctor of divinity; he was about thirty—as to the suggestion that there were improper relations between Mrs. Koppel and Dr. Mendes, the suggestion came from you, and it is perfectly gratuitous; Dr. Mendes was an honourable man, and I knew him to be an honourable man; I had been intimate with Mrs. Koppel, and, to the best of my recollection, that intimacy continued to about March—not week by week—I saw her frequently—I did not take rooms in Twenty-fourth Street till after my return from Europe in 1879—in the latter part of 1878 I was living in One Hundred and Ninth Street or at the Fifth Avenue; I am not certain which—when my brother went to live else-where I took one room in West Twenty-fourth Street, for which I paid 8 dols., towards the end of the year—the power of attorney was given in January—I do not remember, while having close intimacy with this woman, being asked to dine with Mr. Seligman, the banker—I do not remember Jesse Seligman asking me to dinner; I dined frequently with various members of the family—I know Mr. Seligman now, bat I have not seen him for some years; he resides in New York, and I in London—I never saw any jewellery belonging to the late Mr. Koppel, except the gold watch—I saw that early in January, 1879—Mrs. Koppel swears that I borrowed jewellery to wear in order that I might have a good appearance; it is utterly untrue; she did, in fact, give me the watch, as a memento of poor Koppel; I did use some such expression, but I do not think I said "poor" Koppel,; that is your own suggestion—I did not say "My friend" Koppel—it was a keepsake of Koppel, the dead husband of the woman whose attorney I then was, but not "in memory"—the next document got from Mrs. Koppel was the bill of sale of the Reformer and Jewish Times, dated January, 1879; Mr. Koppel had had a bill of sale; I saw it, and informed my counsel of it—I never told Mrs. Koppel there was an action for libel against the paper—I never thought there was—I wrote the bill of sale given by Mrs. Koppel—I copied the second bill of sale from a printed form, or from the bill of sale to Gustave Daniell—subsequent events did not show she was fond of me—according to her statement there was no reason she should have been, for I had already robbed and plundered her—I first knew she was in the family way in January or February—I was surprised—I had not formed a very high opinion of her veracity; she

said a great many things in a very loose manner—I do not mean things to shock me—she frequently made inaccurate statements; I cannot tell you what was operating in my mind—I doubted her statement—her being in the family way and the bill of sale had nothing to do with each other—this was my first attempt in the bill of sale line—I wrote it, I think, at the office of the paper; I either copied it from a printed bill of sale, putting in the names, or from the bill of sale of Gustavo Daniell—Mr. Leng used to act occasionally, but there was no necessity to have a lawyer; he has appeared in court in proceedings where Mrs. Koppel has been defendant, as administratrix—there were not at this time judgments against me; there never was, as far as I know, any judgment against me in New York—I will pledge my oath that at any time, to the best of my knowledge, there never was a judgment out against me in New York—it is not easy to remember after this lapse of years—I will swear that there were not several judgments against me—I will swear that there were not four or five at the beginning of 1879—I never mentioned the libel action and never suggested that any protection was necessary for her—I believed then, and believe now, the taking that document, paying money for it, and taking possession as there stated, that was a good and valid bill of sale—I never said it was still her paper and her libel suit, and that is proved to be untrue by her subsequent receipt for the money—I did not consider Mrs. Koppel an uneducated woman to some extent; I thought her a very smart woman—a woman who had had such business experience as one could pick up working in a shop—she had worked in a shop at the time she met Koppel, and some years afterwards, long before she knew me—the bill of safe was executed in the office—there is no provision in regard to registering bills of sale in New York that I know of; to the best of my recollection I filed a notice in the County Hall that I was trading in the name of L. C. Koppel and Co., not under the power of attorney, but as the proprietor of the paper I was trading as L. C. Koppel and Co.—at the time that this was discussed, the question of this woman selling all the interest that her husband had left her; John Yolk was present; he was a bookkeeper; there was a conversation before the signature; she made known to Yolk what she was doing—I explained this bill of sale to her; she knew it as well as I did; I know she understood she was selling the paper for a sum of money, and that she accepted that money—150 dols. was what I had from the newspapers—I borrowed the rest from Mr. Goodheart—he did not come upon the scene—that was the first time I had brought Goodheart in connection with Mrs. Koppel—I had not had his assistance with the power of attorney on the bill of sale—Goodheart lent me the money within a day of the time I paid it—to the best of my recollection it was an open cheque—I think I cashed it, I cannot swear—I gave it to her in the office—I gave her bills; bank bills: a sort of bank notes, greenbacks, in fact; it might have been in 50 or 100 dols. bills—I don't know if there is any way of tracing these in any way—it is my belief Volk saw me hand it—he was present in the room where the transaction took place, and witnessed her signature to the bill—I gaveher a promissory note—I fancy I got the form from promissory notes in theoffice; blank forms; but I cannot say from my recollection where I got the bill—I drew it up—the drawing up of promissory notes is not a very difficult thing—I desired to do everything in proper form according to

my lights, in order to be perfectly just to her and to myself—I regarded this bill as an important document—I do not know where it is—I last saw it to my recollection when I paid the last instalment due upon it—it was then handed to me—that was in the early part of August, 1879—I have told you all the papers that were in my possession have been in the possession of my solicitor in New York since 1879—until the papers were sent over I never knew it was not amongst them—the promissory note was given at the same time as the money was given her—I paid her in five or six instalments—Volk saw the promissory note—I do not know there was anybody present at the time of the alleged payments on the promissory note—I did not give separate receipts, but endorsed the payment at the time on the back of the note—I have been in possession of the paper I have bought—I have a power of attorney over her property, such as it is, which during the time I was connected with her never amounted to £300—my close intimacy with her ceased to the best of my recollect an in March or April—during the time I was in control of the office, from the end of November till the middle of January, I rendered her an account of what little business was done—she saw the books. (Letter read: "Dear Harry, I hope you will forgive me. Will you go and see about the flat? Will you please send me ten dollars by Lizzie? You know I always do everything you ask me to do, etc I am the most unhappy woman in the world. Do love me a little, Harry,")—I do not recollect if that letter was written after I had got her to sign the bill of sale: "Please do not quarrel with me, for I am sick"—I did not attach any significance to that, nor do I now understand the reference—"sick" in America is a general term for any illness—I have other letters of hers—she gave me Lehman's letters in Fifty-eighth Street—I chaffed her about Lehman—I never received her insurance moneys—a cheque for the Foresters' money was sent to her, endorsed by her, and paid to her account; I think in the Broadway National Bank—I deposited the money there under the power of attorney, as trustee or attorney, the early part of 1879—I drew cheques in the same way—the money did not always come into my possession, I sometimes gave cheques to her—I had not an account there, it was an account of the estate—I saw the pass-book some days before the scene in 1879; also on the day before I saw the books, including a rough book for advertisements and answers for subscribers, and a rough cash-book—the money I got to come to England was money I had saved for months—I had not repaid Mr. Goodheart—I have now—the last instalment was in the early part of 1881—I worked for the New York World, the Chicago Times, and many other papers—I got from thirty to forty dollars a week—thirty dollars was all I needed to save—I left in May—I do not remember the vessel—I never crossed in the Egypt—I travelled as Mr. Henry, because I did not want Mrs. Koppel to come to the docks and make a scene—I did it to prevent her from discovering, as she endeavoured to discover by going round to the steamship offices, which ship I was going to sail in—I have not learnt that you can take a passage on board—I never was arrested for debt in my life—I have never been arrested, except what is technically called an arrest, through the action of Mrs. Koppel; and upon two occasions I have been summoned for assault—on the first occasion the summons was dismissed,: and on the other occasion I was fined ten dollars for the assault—the

assault was upon a tailor—these reminiscences were just before starting for England, in 1881, two years after the events to which you are referring—it was not in 1879—I never assumed the name of Henry, except for the purpose of coming over to England—I did not go in that name on board—Mrs. Koppel knew I was going away, but she did not know exactly when—she probably took it for granted I should go in my own name—I did not desire she should know the day or the steamer—there are not fifty or sixty, but about five or six steamship offices in New York—she had habits that did not make it desirable she should come down to the docks—I had no doubt that she was enceinte—I had a doubt as to being the father of her child—I can assign no reason—I had reasons—I would rather not state what they were, unless you rule, my Lord, that I must; I had a doubt as to my being the father—I do not think I ever told her that—I do not think I have written anything about it—I have always stated, when I have spoken to my lawyer on the subject, that I have doubted whether I was father of that child—I do not mean Mr. Goodheart but Mr. Lewis—I did not say October or November; I cannot fix the date of my visits, somewhere about the end of the year, about November—she refers to my going away in one of her letters—Mr. Yolk and Mr. Townsend Percy were to conduct the paper in my absence—Mr. Percy is the man who has represented me in New York up to the present time—I had known him many years; we had been colleagues since 1873—I remained in London till July—to Mrs. Koppel I wrote one or two letters; I am almost certain I told her that she could always communicate with me through Mr. Goodheart; on my return I went and saw her—I saw a child—to the best of my recollection I did not see the doctor—I do not remember that I ever paid the doctor—the child was eight or ten days old—I know I £aid the nurse—I saw her, I should say, eight or nine times probably, upon my return from Europe to New York, from the end of July to before the 8th of October, but not on terms of intimacy—her letters were not dated, except one on 17th March, and three she sent me after October 8th, upon which I put a date—I found her on my return in the rooms I had last seen her in, with the nurse and her children, apparently in every comfort—I cannot say that I ever knew her to be in pecuniary difficulty—she was always writing for or wanting money from the first day I knew her—she drew the money as she required it, or I drew it for her from the Foresters Order—independently of that she had no money coming to her except what I gave her when I left New York in May—I wrote Mr. Goodheart a letter of instructions, and informed Mrs. Koppel that she was to see Mr. Goodheart, and whatever she wanted he would attend to in my absence—I first heard she had been to Mr. Spelman on October 8, when I received a note saying that she had done something desperate and urging me to go and see her—I sought Mr. Goodheart that day, and brought him in the evening to her house about 7 o'clock—she and her children, Mr. Goodheart and I were there together—I had visited her after I left the office chiefly—lawyers close about 5 or 5.30—I went to Mr. Goodheart's private house—I was afraid that those fellows who had procured her to go to the office and make the statement which she herself said she could hardly characterise, contemplated some mischief, and I was anxious to prevent that—I believe there are men who will get a woman,

for purposes of their own, to sign a false document, and in order to protect myself I saw the urgency of the matter—it was fairly clear from what she told me that the charges might be of a serious character, and if true the very charges she is now making against me in effect, and being the first charges that I had ever heard of her making against me—I wanted the document in order to withdraw any power she had given to those people to plot against me; they had clearly plotted against me—when she said she would retract the statement I was very anxious that she should—I did not get Goodheart to prepare any document before we went to the house—she made her statement three times—Goodheart took her sentence by sentence, and putting her language into his own, I wrote at his dictation, she being present at the time—she was sworn after she had signed the document—her sister was in the house, I do not think in the room—it is very common in New York for a person who swears affidavits to prepare the document himself—I have not said Spelman was unprincipled—no inducement was offered, she volunteered to do it—(The retraction of Mrs. Koppel, sworn before Mr. Spelman, withdrawing all charges of dishonesty, etc. f against Mr. Marks, was read)—she never denied I had "acted in an honest, upright and gentlemanly manner"—I had the documents mentioned—I had no doubt about her sanity at this time—she showed her capacity by withdrawing the accusations—we were there probably an hour—I have not had any other document from her in regard to which her signature was procured—it was the act of a woman who, in a moment of rage, allowed herself to fall into the hands of certain unscrupulous enemies of mine, and who afterwards had a fit of remorse, and desired to undo what she had done in anger—it was a just act—she came to the office before the 18th October, once after signing—I knew her brother-in-law and her sister—she was not on good terms with them at that time—I have seen Lizzie Doyle once or twice since Mrs. Koppel behaved as if she were insane—I don't know how long she remained—I only remained until I could get out—I should think the whole scene did not occupy five minutes, if so much—I have not sworn anybody was insane before—the degree of seriousness depends on the result of the charge and the length of time detained—that was explained to me—it is not the case that the magistrate had no power except to commit for five days for examination—it was not the case then—this woman smashed everything in the office—the office was nothing but splinters practically—I cannot swear to a minute—I got out as soon as I could—I spoke to her; a man would under those circumstances—I do not remember what 1 said—no other person is here who was present—I have endeavoured in vain to get Mr. Volk, but some influence has been at work which has prevented him from coming—I have tried to get Mr. Oswald—I do not think I ever saw the office again—the paper was a going concern that day in every sense—the office being in splinters is a figurative expression for everything having been smashed up, which is the fact—I did not attempt to see Mrs. Koppel again that day—I did not attempt to see any medical man, nor any relation of Mrs. Koppel—I went in search of Judge Smith who was a friend of mine—I found him on the Sunday, I think, at his chambers, his apartments—I knew him as one of the most important men in New York—I swore the affidavit in the Court-we went up to the Court from his residence—he sent for his clerk—nothing had happened to me on the Saturday evening or Sunday morning—I swore the affidavit—it was

prepared by either Judge Smith or his clerk—I lunched with the Judge that day—I asked the Judge not to allow the warrant to issue until the following morning—it was natural I should not desire a woman with whom I had been on those relations should be locked up on the Saturday night—I have not charged anyone with being insane since—I only knew Jerome as the Judge's clerk—I do not know when she had become insane—she did not assert the place belonged to her; nor could such an assertion have been maintained—I remained in Court till after she was examined by a physician, about half an hour, till the case was disposed of—I did not know Dr. Haddon had expressed an opinion it was a gross outrage—it was not by Dr. Haddon the physician was induced to come—Dr. Heath was there—I had no hand in bringing him there, the Judge had—I was actuated by an honest motive—two witnesses were present for examination—she was released about four—I left. Volk in the Court; I did not want another scene—I was at the police-court on the morning of the next day—I knew that she had friends there—the matter was fully reported with most sensational headings—I learned journalism there.

Monday, December 15th, Tuesday, 16th, and Wednesday 17th.

HARRY H. MARKS (Further Cross-examined by MR. GILL). After the Saturday afternoon, when I had sworn that Mrs. Koppel was insane, to the best of my recollection I never returned to the office—the paper never appeared again; that was the death of the paper—I charged her simply with insanity, no other charge—I took no steps with regard to the damage done to my property—from that time I did not give her any money—I never made her any recompense for having charged her with insanity; she at once commenced an action against me for false arrest, claiming damages—after that, for two years she failed to prosecute the action—I made application to dismiss it in 1881, through Mr. Goodheart—her father was security for her in that prosecution, and swore he was worth at least £500, and was a householder—it would only have cost her 3 1/2 dollars (14s.) to bring the case to trial, that being the Court fees—she did not require the services of a solicitor or counsel, if her case wastrue—I had a solicitor to appear for me, and she had a solicitor to appear for her; Mr. Spelman appeared for her—I made no offer as to the child after that I have mentioned in August; I made no provision after the attempt to lock her up; the action was then pending against me—I did not know that the birth of the child was registered in my name—I don't know that it is the practice in America for the doctor to register the birth of a child—I never knew in July that it was registered in my name; I never knew it till I heard it read out in this Court; that was the first I ever heard of it—I never saw the child—I heard that it was brought to my house, but not to my knowledge—I did not send my landlady with it to the Commissioners or Charity, or what is equivalent to the Foundling Hospital—I have no personal knowledge of what became of it—I was told it was left in the street opposite the house—I have done nothing to provide for it—after the paper ceased I and a man named Volk started a paper called the Beer Glass, and advocated the use of temperance in drink—it advocated the use of beer instead of other alcoholic drinks—I was connected with it as long as it lived, and that was a very short time—I was then connected with a paper first called the Postal Card, afterwards changed to the Daily

Mining News; that was owned by Bothwell, who had been in the United States Army—at that time he was a financier and mining proprietor, and so forth—the Daily Postal Card was not used for Bothwells mining promotions—he was not connected with wild-cat ventures that I know of—it was not then that I made the acquaintance of Townsend Percy; I had known him since 1873—I think he wrote for the Postal Card—Edward Fox had nothing to do with it; he was on the staff of the New York Herald—Bothwell and I parted company about July or August, 1880, and I started a weekly mining paper in opposition to the Mining News, and my paper succeeded, and his failed—before I parted with him, Fox and I had not got possession of the paper; Bothwell remained in possession of it; Fox never had anything to do with the Daily Mining flews—the business of the Mining News was not carried on under the name of Edward Fox and Co.; you are getting the whole thing mixed up—I never had a man named Elkington in the employment; I nave Been him, I know him as a canvasser in New York; he was never connected with me in any way, nor with the Mining News—I never knew a man called Jimmy Head—I know James Head—he is a man of independent means—he is not the chairman of the Financial News, he is a director and large shareholder in the Financial News—I did not make his acquaintance when he was mixed up with the Mining News—I did not make his acquaintance till I started the Financial and Mining News in New York in 1881; that was a development of the Weekly Mining News, which I started myself, and after starting it I took Fox into partnership, and we brought out a daily edition; it succeeded the Daily Mining News, which had failed after my secession from it—it was during that time that sketches of the lives of persons connected with finance there were written—it was not the practice, to my knowledge, to send the sketch for the purpose of the person revising it—it is not true that Elkington used to take to people on the Exchange sketches of their lives, to give them the opportunity of revising them—it is not to my knowledge that Elkington did that—he did not do it for me nor for Fox; nobody to my knowledge did it—Elkington was never connected with the paper—I have said as plainly as the English language can, that he never had any connection with the paper, directly or indirectly, whatever—the Financial and Mining News was not devoted in a great measure to the criticism of mining enterprises; it was a little paper recording daily transactions on the Stock Exchange and the Mining Exchange—it did not criticism new ventures; it recorded prices—it was practically a price-list—at that time I was a member of the Mining Exchange—it was not merely a price-list, but with small paragraphs as comments, and other matters, comments on mining, and the gossip of the Exchange—the Mining Exchange was not started by myself; it was started by a number of very important men in New York, Ex-Governor General Lathom of California, and Mr. Drake McKay—there were two Mining Exchanges: the New York Miring Exchange was the older, and the American Mining Exchange was the younger; that was started in 1880; I joined it in the latter part of 1880 or the beginning of 1881—my qualification for joining it was not by paying 100 dols.; it was by buying the membership, and the membership was to be submitted to the committee, and after inquiry into the character of the candidate, he would be admitted or rejected—I continued a member till 1888—I ceased to be a member by the sale of my seat; I think that was shortly before I left

New York—I was a member of the governing committee—I do not know whether that is still in existence; I believe it amalgamated with the old Exchange, the two combined, and the Exchange is now called "The Consolidated Exchange"—at that time I joined the Oil Exchange—I continued a member of that till shortly before I left New York—I used to contribute articles to various newspapers; I used to write for the Sunday Times—I did not engage in any business distinct from newspapers—I did not start a business there with my brother Montagu; we had projected the establishment of an art paper, no other—we did not start a business for the employment of women, nothing of the kind—my brother is editor of the Art Amateur, and resides in New York; he is in New York now—I never engaged in any occupation or business, except those I have told you of—during part of the time I was in New York I was in partnership with Fox—I left him there carrying on the paper when I came to England for the purpose of starting a paper here with Fox—I came alone, that was in 1883—I was not joined with any one here in that enterprise—I had very little means when I arrived in England, I really cannot recall what means, not very much; I had no banking account in London—I do not remember pawning the keepsake watch to pay my first week's lodging; I was at my father's house when I first came; I stayed there three or four weeks, I then took lodgings in Argyll Street—a man named Piatt had lodgings in the same house, and Head—it was not in Little Argyll Street, I think it was No. 15, Argyll Street, just off Oxford Street, opposite a restaurant—that was not the time I parted with the Koppel watch—I cannot remember when I parted with it; to the best of my recollection it was some time after that—I had kept it for some years—to the best of my recollection I gave it in exchange, in part payment of a new watch, at Longman's; I don't remember it distinctly, I have not had time during the last few days to go to Longman's to verify it—to the best of my recollection I wore that watch to the end of 1883—I cannot give a more definite reply—I went from Argyll Street to 131, Regent Street; I had a room there, I think, on the third floor—I believe Arthur Cohen lived there afterwards; it was over Barnard's, the picture shop; that was at the end of 1883 or the beginning of 1884, I am not sure which—I think it was very likely there that I prepared the prospectus of the Financial and Mining News—Colonel Macmurdo joined me at that time in carrying out the paper. I had endeavoured to find the money from other sources, and had failed—I did not endeavour to borrow it, I tried to find somebody to supply capital to establish a paper which I thought would pay; I wanted some one to believe in the project as much as I did, and who would find the money in return for my doing the work, for my experience—I am not aware that Colonel Macmurdo had any paper at that time—the first amount he found was £1,000—when it was started it was the Financial and Mining News; I think that continued about a year, from January, 1884, to January, 1885; the word Mining was then dropped, and it became the Financial News about that time—I was in part proprietor of it from the day of its existence, and the original capital was £50,000—it was turned into a company when it first came into existence—I do not remember when it was reconstructed, my impression is there was no reconstruction till 1888—the capital was not enlarged till I had acquired control, that was in the latter part of 1888—during 1885 and 1886 the paper was

being printed by Messrs. Head and Marks—I do not think they were continually pressing me for payment of their bill—I swear they never pressed me for their bill; Colonel Macmurdo had guaranteed all payments; they may have pressed him—I did not know that acceptances and cheques were given and dishonoured—I think I knew the position of the paper—I did not know Colonel Macmurdo's secretary, Mr. Bosdett—I knew Buckland, the clerk, from seeing him in Colonel Macmurdo's office—to my recollection I never sent to Colonel Macmurdo for £3 to keep the bailiffs out; I think it extremely doubtful—I have seen Mr. Bosdett in the box—I knew the colonel had a shorthand writer, named Buckland—I made the acquaintance of Arthur Cohen the day after the paper started, he came to me with a letter of introduction; I employed him as a shorthand writer, paying him a salary; he is paid a salary now, either £6 or £7 a week, and he has commission on all orders he gets, a very considerable commission—my recollection is he commenced with a salary of two guineas a week—it is not within my knowledge that he has made a large fortune in the last three or four years; I should be very much surprised to hear it—I last saw him about three weeks ago, in bed, at his house—he became ill about a week or ten days before that, I should think—I do not know of his buying a 1,200 guinea picture, not in my presence—I believe he is recovering very slowly, he has had congestion of the lungs, and has been dangerously ill—I do not know whether he is well enough to be out in the evening—I have had actual control of the Financial News since about the middle of 1888—it was started in the interest of shareholders and investors, to give honest advice, to protect the public from doubtful companies, to criticism prospectuses, and, amongst other objects, to see that companies did not go into allotment with insufficient capital—I take the responsibility of everything that appears in that paper—I know the article that appeared in the paper the day after the Butterfield verdict—I have heard the extract read from it, in which I say that telling the truth is a fixed habit with me, and I do not mind the expense I may be put to in protecting the public from doubtful schemes—I have some knowledge with regard to company matters, I have considerable knowledge; and a great knowledge of what are called "wild cat" schemes; that is my own word—it is a common expression in America—there is an enormous number of mining companies in liquidation, something like a capital representing ten millions—during the trial of the Butterfield case I remember Sir Charles Russell examining me on that subject, and I remember giving the figures—I first had a banking account of my own in Galveston, Texas and in England within a month or two of my arrival in 1883; that was at the Kensington branch of the London and Provincial Bank—at the beginning of 1887 my account was at the Alliance Bank—a Mr. Barnard acted for me as broker—I had many brokers; I think Mr. Barnard was the largest operator for me—I think my wife had a housekeeping account at the London and South Western Bank; I think I had no other myself—the Rae matter was first introduced to me by Mr. Guedella; I afterwards saw Mr. Hume Webster—the prospectus had been got out in skeleton before I had anything to do with it, to the best of my recollection—of course, in the interests of the public I should examine it critically; I should think

more so in the case of a company I was going to promote than in any other company—I did examine it critically and carefully—at that time there were not anything like the number of mining companies in liquidation that there are now—I had some knowledge of the value to be attached to the reports of mining engineers—Mr. Penning was not a personal friend of mine; I knew him by reputation; I had never met him till I sent for him to come and talk about this—I believe he is now on the expedition of the British South African Chartered Company—I did not know any of the other persons personally who had made reports—Mr. Penning assured me that he had made the proper inquiries at the place, and I believed his statements—I believed the statement that it would be possible to earn an income from crushing alone of £28,000 a year; the calculation showed it—I believed it from the information he gave me, and from the reports of the other experts who had reported upon it—it was my view that the Transvaal properties owned in England had failed to realise the expectations; it was notorious that they had, and the cause assigned was excessive capital—I also believed that, apart from the £28,000 a year, it would be possible to earn dividends from other sources, by hydraulicing, and letting it out on tribute work—I think the first person I saw with regard to launching the company was Mr. Hume Webster to get the papers from him; I came in contact with Mr. Penning with regard to actually bringing it out—I introduced Arthur Cohen to it as soon as I decided to take it up; he was not a clerk then; he was then one of the sub-editors of the paper—I do not know what he was being paid—I invited him to see whether he could get his friends to take sufficient interest in the scheme—he and his friends were to be jointly interested with me in the promotion of the company—I do not know what the sum was that he found; he got some from a man called Wertheimer—I have heard there is an action pending against Arthur Cohen with regard to the matter—Mr. Eccersley was also interested in the matter to the extent of a quarter; to the best of my recollection he was to have a quarter, Arthur Cohen a quarter, and I a half—my brother-in law Charles Dawson Philpott was the only director I knew personally at that time—I did not know Pearson personally—I never remember Mr. Webster using such an expression as that after the matter had left his hands he would have nothing to do with it; that he would wash his hands of it—he took no interest in the matter—I believe he promotes a good many companies; he did not promote this one—I think I saw Mr. Bevitt and Captain Pearson before the meeting for allotment, I am not sure—Mr. Bevitt is very likely accurate in saying that the first time he saw me was at the meeting, when I was introduced to him as the promoter, I do not remember definitely—I say it was a perfectly honest company—it is the usual way in which companies of this character are promoted and brought out, the usual way in which mining companies are promoted; it is the customary way—according to my view it was brought out in a legitimate way; nothing to be ashamed of—it is the mode adopted by other companies; it is the practice that there should be a nominee vendor in a legitimate promotion, the almost universal practice, the practice in all great companies—it is immaterial whether the vendor is a man of straw or a man of substance; he only acts as trustee, that is all—he is to be treated as a principal up to a certain point; his signature is to be recognised as that of a nominal vendor who stands

within the relation of trustee to the actual vendors behind him; it was the same as Allsopps, Guinness, and every great company—it is not customary to disclose the fact that he is a nominee—the object of every prospectus is to induce the public to subscribe the capital asked for—if I had disclosed myself as vendor the capital might have been subscribed at once; but it was not the custom—I should not depart from custom in this case—I should think it would be a very irregular, and a very injudicious thing for the editor of the Financial News to put himself forward as vendor; if I had done so it might have surprised people very much—I don't know that it would have been a very startling thing—it does not matter who is the vendor, provided the shareholders are not injured by the choice of a nominal vendor—I don't think an omnibus conductor would do, I think you should select a man conversant with honest business matters—an omnibus conductor is not a man experienced in business matters; not accustomed to the duties of a trustee—he hasto read through documents, and make himself acquainted with the contents, and to sign them—in some instances Smith says he signed blank papers, they were not papers conveying the property—he was to study the documents put before him, to the extent of understanding their contents, that he might safely attach his signature to them—in no case were the shareholders to have any remedy against him—it was not material that they should know who the vendor was; they did not buy in the name of Smith—there is no responbility against the vendor—the directors may recover against the vendor, and the shareholders may recover as against the directors—I only knew Mr. Smith as an acquaintance of Mr. Barnard; I did not know he was a clerk; I had no knowledge of what his position was, pecuniary or otherwise; the introduction of Mr. Barnard was sufficient; I should accept any statement of his—I don't remember whether Smith asked to be employed as secretary—I don't remember whether I said he could not be secretary, but he might be vendor; yes, I told him he might be vendor; that is trustee for the vendor—I don't remember coming to any terms—I don't remember making any offer; I cannot say that I did or did not—in nine cases out of ten a vendor is a nominee—£200 would not be for writing his name; it is for giving his daily attention to documents, reading documents, and acting as trustee—my knowledge of his capacity was derived from what Barnard wrote to me, and his conversation with me; he said he had been in the City, and his general capacity was displayed in his conversation; I thought he was capable of acting as vendor trustee—I then got the prospectus out; it was printed by my printers—same of the prospectuses were brought to my office; some of them were addressed from there; very likely by my clerks—I don't know how many prospectuses were sent out, only 20,000 were printed—I selected Frank Barnard as the stockbroker—I only know from hearsay where he is—I know he gave evidence on commission in the Maxim-Weston case about two months ago, and he said he was about to leave England—I have heard he was in the South of France, where he goes every winter—there was nobody whom I was brought personally in contact with except Frank Barnard—I did not keep any books showing any record of my stock, etc., transactions with him—I keep my contracts up to a certain time, till they are closed—if the original capital asked for had been subscribed I should have had £25,000, and there would have been

£25,000 for the working capital, that would have been sufficient, more than the average proportion—I had it advertised, and advertised it in my own paper—I was desirous of getting the £25,000 in cash, if possible—I believe Mr. Eccersley is now in Greece, building a railway—the day after the prospectus was issued I had a leaderette in the Financial News; it would be in the leaderette column. (MR. GILL here read the leaderette:—"The Rae (Transvaal) Gold Mining Company, the prospectus of which is issued to day, comes into existence under very favourable auspices; its promoters have evidently profited by the experience of previous English mining ventures in the Transvaal, and they have been careful to avoid the errors by which they have suffered. The property has been favourably reported on by authorities of undoubted responsibility, including one member of the Board of Directors, who has personally visited and examined it. The capital has been fixed at a very moderate figure, and ample provision has been made for working capital. Under such conditions the Rae has every element of success, and we believe that its shares will prove a very safe and remunerative investment. Judging by the demand for shares which existed yesterday afternoon, already they are likely to prove a good speculation as well")—I thought that; I wrote that four years ago; I should not write it now—it was true; there was a demand for shares—I do not know that there is such a thing as making a fraudulent market in shares—it would be very difficult to say what a fraudulent market is—four years ago, when the mining boom was on, it was the almost invariable custom, when a new mine came out, for shares to be bought at a premium by people who did not apply to the company, but who would instruct a broker to buy them at £ premium, with a view of getting out at £ or I advance—it was the same as buying shares, and selling them, never having had them; they buy them for a rise, or sell them for a fall, bulling and bearing them—you can deal in shares without their coming into your possession, as with any other kind of shares, Government shares, and railway stock—it was reported to me that there was a demand for these shares—if the public had believed the Financial News they would have made £1,000 where they have lost £10—I was desirous that the public should contribute to the mine—I think such a leaderette as this was calculated to influence the public mind—it was for that purpose it was published—I have advised the public as to the purchase of shares for the last few years, at the rate of two hundred a day, on all classes of securities—I do not have lithographed letters prepared for that purpose—I saw the letter to Mr. White in this case; it was not lithographed, but it is lithographed in the pamphlet—I keep no record of the letters I send out to subscribers; as far as I know this was not one of a number—I think the body of it is in the writing of a clerk in the office, named Hilton—it is written in ink by a pen, not by any machine—I have only heard of two of those letters being sent out, and I think if I had sent any more I should have heard of them by now—I see a very small proportion of the letters that are sent out—this one (produced) was not a specially prepared letter—I do not know who composed this letter, "Referring to your inquiries for a good mining investment, etc" (Recommending the Roe Mine)—it was very likely written from general instructions in the office; it is practically a paraphrase of the leaderette there is a fee of 5s. for every fetter

written; answers in the paper are free of charge—that represents five shillings' worth of advice—that was written, no doubt, in the hope that the person would apply for shares—the other letter was written by another clerk nearly three years later. (Read.)—you cannot buy Columbias nor Gympie Great Easterns cheaper now—I do not know that you can buy Krugers for 3d. now; these shares fluctuate considerably—if Bertram Gold shares are to be picked up at 9s. 8d. at this time, are you sure they are not sold for more afterwards?—if you will hold shares long enough they will go to nothing; a man writes for advice about a speculation to make a turn of 6d. or 1s. per share; he is advised to go in and get out—no doubt I saw in my paper, in the Answers to Correspondents, advice to buy Rae Transvaal Gold Shares—I made myself acquainted with what was taking place between the issue of the prospectus and the closing day on which applications would be received—I knew that the actual applications from the public were between £6,000 and £7,000—I was present when the allotment took place, and advised the directors when I was asked—it would be the duty of every board of directors to be careful with regard to going to allotment; I do not know that it would be their duty to examine the names of persons who were making applications for shares—I knew the vendor had applied through nominees for over 19,000—it was a matter discussed between the broker, Smith, the solicitor, myself, and the secretary—I selected the solicitor—he was known to me, he had registered the company, he was not otherwise connected—I do not think he was a shareholder in the Financial News at that time, I think he became so subsequently—the directors ought to consider who the people are to whom shares are transferred, but I do not know as to whom they are issued; I did not hear that point arise, but up to a certain point it is, to see if they can pay on allotment—a broker might send in an application, in which case we should have a remedy against him; he would guarantee the application—Barnard may have signed some of these, and it is extremely probable that he sent me a guarantee of the people applying—I knew that applications were to be made by nominees, to be selected, it did not matter by whom so long as they paid on application for the shares—they were real applications from vendor's nominees—it was not intended that that capital should go into the company, it was to be paid to the vendors as the contract required—if those 19,000 shares had not been applied for, I think it would have been better instead of going to allotment on the £6,000 odd, to modify the agreement by which be would take a certain amount in cash and the balance in shares; instead of that the reverse was done, and the vendor applied for shares and paid for them the money which was to be paid to him for the property; it merely came to cross entries in the books—the result of that was that instead of having 2,500 shares merely, he had something like 25,000 plus 18,290—that probably gave us as vendors 43,290 shares—I do not think I looked at the application-forms or at the names—I did not know that Skeats was a woman who was living with Barnard, or that Chamberlain was a woman who was living with Benjamin, and I do not believe it to be the fact—I do not know Chamberlain; I never saw her in my life—I do not know a woman Hodges, who passed by the name of Chamberlain—I do not know Alexander Donald Barnard, and never saw him—these

four application-forms are all in the same writing, Barnard's undoubtedly; it was only a matter of form—it is not a sham application for shares—it is the commonest thing in the world when a new company is coming out for a man to telegraph to his broker, "Apply in my name for 100 shares, and sell at 1 per cent,"—as far as I know, Barnard was authorised to do that; I do not believe he would have taken the risk if he was not authorised—he knew £6,000 or £7,000 was all we could possibly get, and of that £4,500 was paid in cash; that left the company £2,200 and 25,000 shares; I insist on adding the shares—there was a modification of the contract in the way I have indicated by the vendor applying for more shares—I, no doubt, had an interview with Smith, because a letter was written by my instructions to make the arrangement—I do not know what Mr. Fry's salary was; I had nothing to do with the management of the company—after that allotment I continued this advice to the correspondents of the Financial News—Mr. Barnard sold my shares mostly, and I think very likely Campbell sold some—I am familiar with the Stock Exchange term "unloading shares"; that was done by Mr. Barnard through my instructions, he acting simply as the broker—besides the £2,200 and £475 of Churchhouse's money, making £2,675, the company had additional cash; I do not know what, but I know by the balance-sheet they had it—certain expenses had naturally to be incurred in starting the company—Barnard had £431, he had acted as broker to the company from the beginning, and he ha no other profit from it except as broker—I should say that was not a large fee—certain expenses had to be incurred in connection with the mine itself—deducting £1,844 12s. 5d. from the £2,670 would leave £825 7s. 7d.—I do not know what Fry's salary was—I saw the documents that were issued by the secretary from time to time; they were always sent to me—the cash-book would show Fry's salary—if the company were not kept alive, but died an early death, I should have had no chance of getting out of my shares—I do not know that Fry was engaged at a salary of £200 a month, I should be extremely surprised to hear it. (MR. GILL read part of the registered agreement, stating that for four months from 10th January, Fry should be paid £200 a month: £75 in cash, and £125 in fully paid-up shares)—I know nothing of what the assistant was to have—I do not know of any building necessary at the mine, except such as would be necessary for the erection of machinery—all mining failures in the Transvaal were due to the fact that large machinery had been sent out before the character of the ground had been ascertained; therefore, the directors of the Rae sent out, in the first instance, only a testing plant, a three-stamp mill; I don't know if it was worked by hand or water, but it was quite adequate to test the rock, because if it was discoved that the rock proved to be of value, and only a shipment, half a ton, had been sent to England, proving it to be of value, our 25,000 shares in the treasury, worth £25,000, would have been more than sufficient to find all machinery required—I do not know what was the available cash when Fry left in January—I see a year after Fry left, the cash in hand was £800 and shares—I do not know there were liabilities, some of which had not been met—the balance-sheet, in addition to the other figures, gives expenses at the mine, salaries and wages to the men, £43, passage money £139, plant and machinery £138, stores

£20, making £1,822; and it also gives Wm, Bevitt cash in hand £316. and cash at bank £541, total cash £858—I do not know that some of those were liabilities that had not been met, and I do not think that was the case; it cannot have been the case—I never got rid of all my shares—the promoters had 52,290 shares less what they had paid in part purchase of the property—of the 52,290 I had only 23,000 or 24,000—I don't know in what names I had my shares; I had some in the name of Head—all the 9,000 in the name of Goodman Levy are not mine, they are put there for the general promotion—that is an invariable practice—I see no objection to placing shares in the names of nominees—I do not know that Goodman Levy had any pecuniary position at all; it was not necessary he should have—I know who he is—I don't suppose he even knew he held the shares till he was told of it; he was simply a nominee—it takes place every day—he was told of it as soon as it took place—he was told, "I used your name for the transfer of shares"—at the time of liquidation I think I held about 5,000 shares, to the best of my recollection—I had purchased shares, but some of them had not been sold—I do not know that my shares were sold through any of the brokers—I should get rid of my shares through Mr. Barnard mainly, and he would hand them over to other brokers—I do not think I came in contact with Campbell over it; I think it was done through Barnard—for eight or nine months I was selling my shares to the best of my recollection—in January, 1888, I held 23,000 or 24,000, to the best of my recollection—they sold at varying prices—I cannot tell when I first purchased a share; 1 think very likely I did do so a few days before the meeting in May, 1888—I cannot fix a date when I did so; if it were done it would be done in the way of jobbing, and they would not appear in a transfer or anything of that sort; they would simply be a transfer in the market—I saw in July, 1887, an extract from another paper copied into mine: "Rae Transvaal shares are another cheap fancy. The Rae has the smallest capital of any of the South African Companies"; that would be true. (MR. GILL read what purported to be an extract from "Vanity Fair" in July, 1887, to the effect that shares might now be picked up at 10s., bat that in view of the excellent advices from the property they would not stay there long; that for a quick and certain profit a few Roes were as safe as any mining shares could be, and they should be bought before the arrival of the next mail advices)—I have no recollection of seeing Mr. Evans with regard to that—if it appears like that it was cut from Vanity Fair—I saw the advice at the time, and telegrams—they were sent for publication in my paper by the secretary, and published from time to time—this was a telegram sent by the manager on the property. "Alluvial payable; shall start ground. Alluvial gold coarse and fine. I am cutting a race for sluicing alluvial; cannot find reefs yet; have found auriferous quartz. Rich gold in alluvial"—I no doubt saw the report of the first ordinary general meeting, and the statement at the head of it in my paper—"Prospects of the Mine; Diamonds as well as Gold;" that referred to the statement made at the meeting—I do not know if that would help to work off the shares—"Diamonds as well as Gold" was only the heading to the article—"Have found rotten reef; have found rich reef; lode traced quarter mile on Rae farm; lode more than three feet wide. Water abundant; prospects good," was

Fry's report, the manager at the mine—I saw a letter sent to the shareholders on 14th July from Mr. Rae, the original prospector. (MR. GILL read the letter)—I do not know what cash they had in September, 1887; I do not know they were so short that they wanted to raise money to pay the directors' fees—I do not think I was applied to for money; to the best of my recollection there was no conversation on the subject—I never heard of Mr. Churchhouse except in this action—I do not know that he was a clerk in the Balkis Company—I did not find the money for Churchhouse; to the best of my recollection I never had anything to do with Churchhouse in the affair—I have no recollection of where the £475 came from, or whether the whole of it was ever found—I have no recollection that I heard of the company's issuing 2,000 shares, or of the matter, until I read it in the "Honest Journalism" pamphlet, which was published, I believe, in the early part of this year—obviously the directors were responsible for issuing those 2,000 shares for this money—I have no recollection whatever of having been communicated with in respect to that transaction in December, 1887—I should not have disapproved of issuing 2,000 shares to raise money to pay directors' fees; it is not an unusual thing to issue 2,000 shares at the market price; it is a very clumsy way of doing it; they ought to have been issued under a duly registered contract—I did not know Churchhouse, and to the best of my belief I never heard it till I read it in the pamphlet—Mr. Alfred I. Benjamin is in London now—I think he was a nominee of mine—Louisa Koch is my sister-in-law—Goodman Levy is my uncle by marriage—I know Sarah Dinah Cohen as Mr. Cohen's mother—Percy Cohen I know—I don't know Skeats or Chamberlain—I never saw them to my knowledge—I have never been to Florence Villa, or to Frank Barnard's place, The Hut, to my knowledge—I have purchased Rae shares ever since the liquidation—that was not after a circular had been issued talking of a prosecution; I purchased Rae shares as soon as it went into liquidation with a view to reorganisation—reconstruction is a very common thing in mining companies—no question of prosecution with regard to this had been mooted, or inquiries made, in May, 1888—I never heard of it—I saw no circular in May, 1888—I saw some green leaflets issued: by Mr. Perryman, who is instructing you in this case, and is behind you; not a circular like this (produced)—it was not Mr. Arthur Burr who first discussed the question of the Rae; it was Mr. Perryman, after I exposed the North Transvaal swindle; in consequence of it—Mr. Arthur Burr did discuss the question of the Rae in the Financial Monitor and Lion's Mouth—I did not purchase that paper—I do not remember whether Arthur Burr offered to refer to Sir Charles Russell, as arbitrator, the question as to whether the Rae was a fraud or not; I have forgotten it—I do not remember any such offer; I never had such an offer, or any to such effect—I did not see the offer published—I never saw such an offer—I employed persons to buy Rae snares for me; among others, Mr. Samuel James, a very respectable mining broker—I did not instruct him to send round to the names on the list of contributories offering to buy them at 1s. 3d. a share—he bought a great many for me—some were bought before May, 1888; not a considerable number; I cannot say how many—he bought some before May, 1888, and some up to quite recently, and he has still an order to buy from allottees and from shareholders on

the register—I will buy the Chamberlain and Skeats shares, if they are offered to us, at a high price; we have bought at a very high price, as high as 10s. or 15s.; not so as to control the meeting—I did not send a third of my proxies to the meeting—I have bought these in different names, not in my own; I cannot have them transferred; the transfer books were closed when this took place—I do not know how many I held at the time the £5,000 offer to release the promoters Was made; I should think at least half that number, and I think the resolution was carried by 35,000—I think Coken has held, and holds but very few shares since the liquidation—I did not offer any particular price, I instructed Sam James to buy Rae shares, to get as many, at any price he could get them at, and to put them down to my account, and I would pay for them—I have bought, and I am willing to buy in that way—I think 100 shares were sold at a premium after the allotment; that was the day after the leaderette in the paper—the highest price I have seen them quoted at in the Financial News was 11s., and from that down to 2s.—I saw Mr. Bevitt's report that was sent to the share holders when the balance-sheet was issued; Mr. Bevitt reports that although gold has been found on the property it is not, so far as he has been able to discover, in payable quantities—either Mr. Penning or Mr. Bevitt was wrong—Mr. Penning was not deceiving us; Mr. Bevitt said Mr. Penning might have been deceived by the property; its appearances were such as to deceive an honorable man—I think the majority of mining companies are reconstructed at least once—it is mentioned as being close to other mines in the neighbourhood—the Lisbon-Berlyn has been reconstructed three or four times—the public has not lost half a million over it—the shares are now worth 1s. 6d., something of that sort I think; they were issued at something low—this largely capitalised mine has paid people who have speculated in shares, because they have run up to 12s. or 15s.; not necessarily people who never had the shares—they have never paid a dividend, but they have paid speculators extremely well—these shares never went well enough to have sold, as a bear, large numbers of these shares; if certain things had failed and certain other things had happened I might have done certain other things—I believe now Grasskop is paying a dividend, I will not swear it—the London is a mine locally owned and locally managed I believe—I do not know if it is paying; I believe it is, but I only know from hearsay—you have not asked me about the Transvaal Gold Exploration Company, which is one of those in the neighbourhood, and adjoined—I had nothing to do with the promotion of it—I printed in the Financial News the report of the meeting at which the chairman made a full statement, and read Mr. Bevitt's letter—I never published any explanation of my part in the company—I never published in the Financial News that I was the promoter of the company—I went to the directors and offered them £5,000 to reorganise the company in May, 1888—I afterwards instructed Mr. Michael Abrahams to renew the offer I had made in May, 1888, for the benefit of the shareholders and creditors—I heard the letter read; it correctly represented my offer; it was to release me and release my affidavits and documents from the files of the Court—in addition to the Financial News I had an interest in other papers—I have never said I found the brains and that Macmurdo found the money—I have no recollection of any dishonoured cheque of Colonel

Macmurdo or the proprietors of the paper—I am aware the Hill's Waterfall was praised as one of the most valuable properties in the Transvaal—I did not then know A. I. Benjamin was one of its shareholders, nor Florence Skeats, Scard Barnard, nor that they, Ellen Hodges, Isobel Skeats, A. Barnard, and F. Chamberlain, were shareholders in the Maclennan—I have sworn I do not know Fanny Chamberlain—I have not received money from company promoters except for advertisements, and that the cashier receives; not through A. Cohen—I cannot swear after the many years I have edited the Financial Newt that I never had any business with any man connected with a company—I have never received money for which I gave no consideration—I have not received money from John Charles Cottam nor shares—I have no connection with the Water Gas, or Ashley Bottle Company—I have applied for shares in the Linotype and Moldicott Sewing Machine Companies—to the best of my recollection I have never received money from any company promoter—I have never received money through Barnard, except on differences in accounts on the Stock Exchange—Cottam is a promoter of companies—I have no recollection of ever having at any time had any business transactions with Cottam—I will swear that to the best of my recollection I never received a penny from him—I know Edward Beale, a solicitor; I do not know him as a company promoter, nor as having promoted the Wiltshire Brewery, the Trust Company of South Africa, the Simplex Typewriter, the Monte Carlo, and other companies—I never did receive money from him, or through Barnard or Cohen; or from any other person in connection with those companies—I know Ellenborough, he is a company promoter; also Plateau—I never did receive money from either of them—I know S. P. Gilbert; he is a promoter—I never did receive any money from him, nor through Barnard, or Arthur Cohen—I received a small cheque of about £40 from Gilbert, being the profit of some shares we bought in the market—I have not in these companies had shares allotted to nominees for which I have not paid—I do not know that Barnard was a promoter of companies—I have received numerous sums of money from Barnard, and have paid him numerous amounts; but I have never received from him anything in connection with companies except the profits which I have made—I know a Mr. Tarn, but have not received money from him except as profits on shares—I have not received money from advertising contractors for matters other than advertisements, to my knowledge—money may have been paid by an advertising agent in the office of the Financial News without my knowing anything about it—I saw J. D. Graham at my house last Wednesday night—he came and said, "I have been served with a subpaena; I suppose they want me to prove that I have bought Rae shares for you; shall I appear?'—I said, "You can do as you please; when did you get the subpoena?"—he described the manner in which it was left, and I said, "It is not a legal service, and you need not attend unless you wish"—I did not tell him to keep out of the way—I did not tell him I would indemnify him from anything arising out of his subpoena—I did not tell him there were many others in the same position, and who would not appear—I know Robert Phillips Noah—I did start another paper named the Evening Post—it was afterwards merged into the Evening News, of which I am part proprietor—Noah, I think, was employed as managing editor or news.

editor—he did not, that I remember, speak to me with reference to the Simplex Typewriter Company, but I have heard of that company—I did not tell him I knew there was a syndicate behind it, and I meant to go for it, nor say to him that I wanted £250 in cash and £1,000 in shares—it is a lie, and you probably know it—it is an infamous accusation, and utterly devoid of truth, as you must know it, for you know the character of the man, Mr. Perryman, behind and instructing you—I never had any conversation with Noah or any one else about the Simplex Typewriter or any such matter—nor did Noah, on the 16th of March, 1887, pay me eight £10 notes—Noah has only once in his life paid me any money, and that was a small payment off a hundred which I had lent him—I swear he never paid me anything in respect of the Simplex Typewriter Company at any date or in any form, nor has he ever, to my knowledge, paid any sum of money to Cohen—I do not know where Cohen's account was kept, I do not remember any conversation with Noah about the Charles Dickens Mine—I know the mine, I have no recollection of ever being offered any shares in it—I have no recollection of 250 shares being transferred to the name of Benjamin for me—I cannot swear after seven years as to every share I have bought, and under what circumstances they were bought—I was never connected with Claude Marks in any business in any shape or manner, direct or indirect; he was conducting the Mining Record in London—any statement made by him to Butterfield would be without my authority—I do not know that he made a statement to Butterfield; or that he had asked him for any shares, nor do I believe he ever did—when the case of Butterfield had been tried, I published opinions of the press—the statement published about me was taken from another paper, but it had nothing to do with mines, but attacked me in my private capacity—Burr took action against me for libel, and the summons was dismissed by the Magistrate; he subsequently had me indicted, and withdrew the indictment, and I withdrew the attacks, and the questions between us were referred to Queen's Counsel, Mr. Bosanquet—I do not know when the Financial Monitor ceased; there are so many of these papers started to attack me that I do not keep the run of them—at the County Council a political opponent of mine did endeavour to make capital out of it, but failed—I am not now on the financial committee, nor is Augustus Harris for the same reason, we have not the time—I purchased Lowden Hall in 1888, I think; a year after the Rae, and four years after starting the Financial News—I did buy a plater, if you can call that a racehorse—a plater has about the same relation to a racehorse as a lawyer has to an eminent barrister—my qualification to sit on committees was never discussed in the County Council—Mr. Williams asked me a question in the Council—I made an effective speech in answer—I did swear, in taking proceedings against Butterfield, I did not think he would remain—he was arrested—I did not think he would remain from what I knew of his former action in leaving California and deserting his wife—at the time this matter was pending my representative in New York was Townsend Percy—to Mr. Goodheart I gave instructions to act in the Koppel case, I cannot recall whether special or general—I had no other legal representative there except Mr. Goodheart.

Re-examined. My instructions related to evidence which I thought it desirable should be forthcoming—I had nothing to do with

the promotion of the Maclennan, or Hill's Waterfall Company—in relation to any of the companies, or to any company, there is no ground for suggesting that I directly or indirectly received money for blackmail—Noah was dismissed from my service—in relation to the Ashley Bottle Company Mr. Myers, solicitor, publicly stated that I had had money from Cottam; he said it at a meeting of the shareholders, and I quoted the statement in the Financial News, and said that Myers lied—Myers brought an action before the late Baron Huddleston and a special jury; the jury found a verdict for Myers, with one farthing damages, and Myers was ordered to pay his own costs—I have never in any paper under my control attacked private character I have had brought against me twenty-three actions in seven years; I have never lost one case, with the exception stated; I settled one by a payment of ten guineas out of Court, and the others have been in my favour or withdrawn—my father is the Rev. Mr. Marks—he is the leader of the Jewish Reformed Church section, and has been for forty-nine years—he gave me a good education—from fourteen or fifteen I have earned my own living, receiving no assistance except one loan of £500—up to September, 1883, I spent practically my earlier years in America; principally in connection with journalism—my career in America can be followed through journals there, absolutely, from 1872 to 1883—except this story as to Mrs. Koppel there is not one thing in that record of which I am ashamed—I have never by any one been charged with any offence, or fraud, or anything dishonouring to a man anywhere—this is Koppel's bill of sale of 1st April, 1878, three months before his death—it is his writing—Mr. Guedella told me the Rae papers were with Hume Webster—he said he had advanced £5,000 to Higham Benjamin on the property—afterwards I was put in communication with Penning—Penning had at one time 500 shares—after discussing the matter and reading the reports, I believed the adventure offered a fair and reasonable prospect of success—the prospectus is based upon an estimate that so much will be produced—the transfer was to F. J. Smith—the ownership was vested in him—a prospectus only states who the promoters are in cases where the vendor alleges he himself is the promoter—where paid-up shares are issued under a registered contract it does not matter in whose name the shares are put; it makes no difference in the liability of ordinary shares—these snares were issued to the vendor as part of the price of the property transferred to the Company—the shares I bought back were from persons whose names were on the books of the Company, and not in the hands of speculators—as a result of my connection with the Rae Company I have lost between £6,000 and £7,000—the secretary sent us communications from Fryer in the usual manner for publication—they were published—I had no reason to doubt the statements in the prospectus—until I had seen Bevitt's report I did not suggest the purchase of Rae shares—that was about March—I did not seek to help the shares off—Bevitt strongly recommended the purchase of the Frankfort, with a view to the reconstruction of the Rae—from that time I had bought and not sold shares—I offered £5,000 in aid of reconstruction before the resolutions were submitted to the meeting—I renewed the offer when the matter was being wound up in April last, for the benefit of the creditors and shareholders—I did not

seek to influence the selection of liquidators—I held or influenced less than half the 34,000 shares, for, although I bought in all directions, many were without proxies, merely transfers—after my intimation to cease connection with Mrs. Koppel I was inundated with letters, and soon I found this annoyance an intolerable nuisance—I did not see the documents relating to the Koppel case from October, 1879, till after 1887—they were in New York—alter the publication of the libel in the Press I wrote to my solicitor for all papers bearing on my career in New York—among them I found the papers produced—Judge Smith was a son of the Recorder of New York—Montagu Marks came to my office and abused me, I ordered him out: he refused, and I put him out—Benjamin was Barnard's clerk—Barnard was my broker—Arthur Cohen had a fourth interest in the Rae—I had no more to do with him—I have not done anything to keep Barnard out of the way—he was examined on commission in the Weston case—he has visited the South of France every year since I have known him—I saw Arthur Cohen about three weeks ago, in bed—he has been at Torquay suffering from congestion of the lungs—a daily paper like the Financial News is all outgoings at first—that paper now pays 50 per cent upon 50,000 ordinary shares, and 60 per cent, upon 50,000 preference shares—in 1884 I had most valuable information relating to the state of things in New York—it was a year of panic, in which prices fell heavily—that year I made a good deal of money by bearing the stocks as to which I had information, and by warning the public through my paper of impending crises days before the panic—I have examined the Financial News from its beginning to the present year, with this result: it has warned the public against going into companies which were withdrawn or have since failed, their aggregate capital being thirteen millions; it has given timely warning of every important decline in securities, and in most cases of impending crises; it has warned the public against inflation of Nitrate snares; it predicted the panic in Argentine securities, and advised holders of stock to sell; the advice has been sound, the information invariably accurate, and those who have acted upon it have saved money where they have sold, and made money where they have bought.

MAURICE GOODHEART . I am an Attorney and Counsellor of the Supreme Court of New York; I have been in the legal profession twenty-seven years—I have been twice elected Justice of the Peace for Connecticut—I am one of the prosecuting attorneys for Newhaven—I have known Harry Marks since 1873—I was his agent and legal adviser in New York—I have heard Mrs. Koppel's evidence—I was not present when the power of attorney and bill of sale were signed—I know nothing of them—in, 1879 Mr. Marks came to my office and said he wanted 350 dole, towards the purchase of the Jewish Times, for which he was going to pay 500 dols. in cash and 12,000 dols. by promissory note—I told him I would cheerfully lend him 350 dols.—his last repayment was in 1881—in May, 1879, Marks left me this letter of instructions. (Produced and read, allowing Mrs. Koppel 12 dols. a week and paying her rent 30 dols. a month, and making arrangements for carrying on the paper)—that was on his going to Europe in May—I carried out those instructions—sometimes Mrs. Koppel came to the office, and sometimes I sent her the money—I produce her receipts for May 24th, 31st, June 7th, 14th, 12 dols. each, 28th 10 dols., July

10th 25 dols., and return of bank-book with funds therein untouched—Marks returned in July—he was away about six weeks—I received from Peter Cook, her landlord, this receipt for rent—on 18th October, 1879, Marks came to my private house about seven in the evening, and made a statement, I then went with him to Mrs. Koppel's house—I told her I had heard from Marks she had gone with persons to a lawyer's office, and made statements which she desired to tell the truth about, and if so she could tell me; we sat down, with Mr. Marks at the table; I listened, and she told me in her own language substantially the contents of the affidavit—I dictated to Mr. Marks what she said, clothed in my own language, and every sentence Mr. Marks would read, indicating he had finished the sentence, and I would ask her if that was so, and she would say yes—at the end I read the affidavit to her and asked if it was true; she said "Yes;" I said, "Then please to sign it;" she signed it; then I asked her to stand up, raise her right hand, and be sworn; she said "Yes," and did so; I put my jurat to it, and there it is—I have heard of Mrs. Koppel's arrest for insanity—in October, 1879, Volk brought me some papers belonging to the Koppel estate and to Mrs. Koppel, and some belonging to Mr. Marks—I sent the Koppel papers to Spelman, the others I placed in safe-keeping under Mr. Marks's initials—those papers I seat to Mr. Marks in 1887—I had kept them between those dates—Mrs. Koppel commenced an action against Marks for false imprisonment—I represented him—I entered bail for him and demand for complaint—bail was given, and two sureties for 3,000 dols.—in 1881, upon a motion before the same judge who granted the original order, the action was dismissed for want of prosecution—I am not aware of any other proceedings against Marks in New York—I knew he was on the governing committee of the Oil and Mining Exchanges previous to his coming to Europe in 1883.

Grots-examined by MR. GILL. I was on intimate terms with Marks, and would have done anything proper and legitimate to assist him—I lived at Newhaven in 1869—I was admitted in New York July 12th, 1869 on motion of Judge Curtice—I made the acquaintance of Mr. Marks in 1873—I did not know Mr. Koppel, nor that Mr. Marks visited Jus widow—I knew nothing of the power of attorney at that time—he afterwards informed me he prepared one—it is the same writing as the declaration of Mrs. Koppel—I prepared no document for the purchase of the paper—a bill of sale is usual in a purchase, otherwise, unless you take possession the Statute of Fraud steps in and your writing is good for nothing—the bill of sale gives title—chattel mortgages are recorded in New York, but not bills of sale—there is no statutory provision that you shall explain to the person giving a bill of sale what they are doing—I could have acted for Marks—I am a Notary Public, and have been for years, appointed by five different governors—my Stubb's book in New York would show the transaction of the 350 dols.—he paid me back 25 dols. or 50 dols. at a time, the last instalment in 1881—his word was sufficient security, and is now—I have no documents or accounts with regard to the paper—I did not know of the terms of intimacy between Mr. Marks and Mrs. Koppel particularly—I heard she had a child—I knew of the bill of sale then—the declaration does have the appearance of being written straight off—it is usual to swear to a document written by anyone, provided it is not an affidavit in an action—I have taken hundreds of affidavits in anticipation of coming troubles—the object was to get the true facts—I have

not a list of books and papers taken from the office, I turned them over to Spelman—I have been staying with Mr. Marks in London—I came from New York by the Umbria on. 30th August, and reached London in September, before—this time I left in the Majestic on November 22nd—I was in New York in October—I did not know of Mrs. Koppel's passage being taken by the Urania, nor of her being taken to Philadelphia—I did not know Stevens—I heard Mrs. Koppel was coming by the Trava as Mrs. Jordan—I know Mr. Cummings, solicitor of New York—I saw the story told in this pamphlet in the Press—I saw many reports and comments in New York on the story—I contradicted them, the Messenger refused to publish the contradiction, and Mr. Marks had it printed and circulated in a two-page pamphlet—I saw Mr. Cole, the city editor of the Press—I think Percy was with me—we did not threaten proceedings—that would have been no use—Mr. Frank Hatton was the editor and proprietor—I did not ask him to retract the statement in the Press—I did not tell Cole it was useless trying any "bounce," the word has no significance with us, I know what "cherry bouncing" is—I asked Cole if in the future he published any worn-out statements against Marks, he would let me know; the story was ten years old—in America any person can proceed in forma pauperis, and the Court will order the proceedings to go on without any pay—Mrs. Koppel's solicitor could have applied for leave to put the plea on the Calendar, and have done it for 3.50 dols.—her attorney, upon whom the papers were served, did not appear on the motion to dismiss.

Re-examined. I had no notice that Spelman had withdrawn from the representation of Mrs. Koppel when I served my notice of motion for dismissal of the action—the Peake Mine was an American adventure—an action for libel in New York is practically a dead letter—I have tried to ascertain the whereabouts of Yolk and Oswald—I knew nothing about the Gustave Daniell bill of sale—I have seen the power of attorney given to Marks—it is appropriate and the usual form—it is usual to give a power of attorney to collect rents and insurances—the object is to put the person in the position of the party who executes it.

By the COURT. There is nothing irregular or unusual in the bill of sale to Marks—it is the usual form—I see nothing in it upon which the person executing should have had advice so as to modify it—it is a perfect instrument—it gives title to what is intended to be conveyed, and expresses what is required—it is regular and proper to give a power of attorney to another by a person incompetent to conduct a business—there is nothing unusual in it.

MAJOR GEORGE WASHINGTON SMILEY . For the last eight years I have been connected with floating companies in connection with properties, accounts of which are sent to me by my correspondents in America and elsewhere—I left California in February, 1880, where I had been residing for upwards of thirty years, and I went to New York, where, at the request of Mr. Latham and another gentleman, I assisted in the organisation of the Mining Exchange—I was originally chairman, and subsequently president—the chairman presides over meetings and executive matters—the president is head of the institution—a few months subsequent to the Exchange being opened in June, 1880, Marks became a member of the Exchange, and remained a member till he left in November, 1882—he was elected a member of the committee a few

months after he joined the Board—my knowledge of him extended only to exchange business where he was well known—I believe he was also a member of the Petroleum Exchange—I have heard portions of the Koppel story—I have not heard anything dishonouring to Mr. Marks since I have known him—I left New York in November, 1883.

Cross-examined. There was a Mining and Petroleum Exchange previous to my arrival in New York—it had been established some years—I think it was established in 1880, and during 1883 it was amalgamated with the existing Petroleum Exchange and the Oil Exchange—Marks edited the Financial and Mining News—I have seen Fox at the office of that paper—I had the upper part of the Exchange and he the lower—I did not bring out the Garfield Company—I assisted in the sale of it—Mr. Latham was the former Governor of the State of California—I believe he is dead.

NOT GUILTY .—The JURY added that they found the alleged libel was true, that the plea of justification was made out, and that the publication was for the public benefit. Mr. Marks was ordered to pay the costs of the plea of justification and of the defence generally.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-92
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

92. JOHN MORRIS, Unlawfully and maliciously publishing a false and defamatory libel of and concerning Harry Hananel Marks.

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

NOT GUILTY .—Mr. Marks was ordered to pay the costs of the defence.

NEW COURT.—Monday, December 15th, 1890.

[For the case of Clarke and Nye, tried this day, see Kent cases.]

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, December 16th, 1890.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-93
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

93. GEORGE SERGEANT (26) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing orders for £10 13s., £4 19s. 11d., and £9 18s. 6d., of Frederick Wilson, his master; also to stealing an older for £5 of his said master; having been convicted of felony at Newington, on 18th January, 1886— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-94
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

94. BENJAMIN WILLIAM SLYFIELD** (38) , to stealing a bible and overcoat, the goods of Henry Johnson; also to stealing two guns, the goods of George Youens; after a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell, on November 1st, 1887— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-95
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

95. WALTER EDWARD LORD** (32) , to burglary in the dwelling-house of Charles Huckling, and stealing five knives and other articles, his property, having been convicted at this Court on 27th May, 1889— Six Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-96
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

96. CHARLES STRUTTON (54) , to indecently assaulting Owen Jones and Harry Body with intent, & c.— Eight Years' Penal Servitude. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-97
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

97. WILLIAM EVANS (25) and WILLIAM ROBINSON (23) , to breaking and entering the warehouse of George Singer, and stealing a knife and a box of drawing instruments, the property of George Holland; they both having been convicted at this Court on 23rd October, 1889— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour each.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-98
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

98. WILLIAM THOMAS ANDREWS* (43) , to felo-niously forging and uttering requests for the delivery of gold chains, with intent to defraud; also to obtaining five gold chains by means of a forged telegram; also to stealing a silver sovereign purse, a silver cigarette case, and a case of razors, the goods of John Newton Mappin, after a conviction of felony at Marlborough Street on March 18th, 1889— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] And

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-99
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

(99) FREDERICK MARTIN THORNTON (46) , to embezzling the sums of £2 12s. 11d. and £8 13s.; also £4 6s. 3d., £5 12s. 1d., and £5 1s. 10d. of Arthur Row Parkhouse and others, his masters, who strongly recommended him to mercy [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]— Four Months' Hard Labour.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-100
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

100. ANNIE WILSON (40) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

WALTER ROBERT COOK . I keep the Bedford Hotel, Southampton Buildings, Drury Lane—on 24th November, about 9.15, the prisoner called for twopennyworth of rum, and gave me one shilling; I tried it in the handle of the engine, and it snapped in half; I told her it was bad—I did not hear what she said; I gave her the pieces back; she paid me with a good half-crown, and I gave her change, two single shillings and fourpence—she remained in the bar, and afterwards called for a quart of ale and gave me one shilling—I tested it in the handle of the pull; it snapped, and I threw the pieces on the counter and said, "This won't do; I shall send for a constable"—I did so, and when he came she tried to throw something over her shoulder; he seized her hand and took something from it—he pulled the four pieces of the two broken coins from her pocket—these are them.

ALBERT EDLIN (E 331). I was called to the Bedford, and Mr. Cook said, "This woman has tried to pass two bad coins on me"; I did not hear her say anything, but she threw her left hand over her shoulder closed; I seized it, and found these two bad shillings in it—I asked her where she got them; she made no answer—I put my hand in her dress pocket and found two shillings, five penny pieces, and another bad shilling, loose—I took her to the station; she made no answer to the charge—Mr. Cook handed me these broken pieces of two shillings.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin to H.M. Mint—these pieces of two shillings are counterfeit, and these three shillings also – one of the two taken out of her hand is from the same mould as one of those uttered—the three are of the same date, but not from the same mould.

Prisoner's defence. I am an unfortunate woman; the money was given me by a gentleman; I did not know it was bad.

GUILTY . She then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction, at Northampton, of feloniously uttering counterfeit coin on 22nd April, 1887, when she was sentenced to five years' penal servitude.— Five Years' Penal Servitude, having part of her former sentence still to serve ,

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-101
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

101. CHARLES BROWN (18) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

ERNEST WILLIAM HARRIS . I am an omnibus conductor, No. 5,877—on 2nd December, at 10.30 p.m., I was on my omnibus passing Wellington Street, Strand, and the prisoner got up and rode on the roof—I went up

to collect the fares; he gave me sixpence, and I gave him fivepence change and a ticket—he got down almost directly he had paid the fare, and within three minutes after he had mounted—I tried the sixpence with my teeth, and it bent downwards, and the other part was straight—I threw it away—I had not taken any other sixpence in that collection of fares—on December 6th, about the same time, the prisoner got on my omnibus at the name station—while he was getting up he asked me if I went to Charing Cross, and I recognised him by the way he spoke, and by two spots like warts on one side of his nose; he had a funny twang in his speech—he went to the top of the omnibus, I went up to collect the fares, and he gave me one shilling, I gave him a sixpence and fivepence in change for a ticket—I looked at the coin as he gave it me, and tried it with my teeth—it bent in the same way—this is it—I handed it to a constable, and charged the prisoner, I did not charge him with the sixpence.

JOHN SWINDELL (E 59). I was called to this omnibus; the conductor brought the prisoner down and said, "I charge this man with passing this bad shilling to me; on Tuesday night last, he got on to my omnibus and passed a bad sixpence to me, but left the omnibus before I discovered it was bad"—the prisoner said nothing; I said, "Where did you get this money from?"—he said, "I was paid it by my master, Mr. Pettit, of Compton Street"—I said, "Is that all the money you have in your possession?"—he said, "I have not another farthing"—I searched him on the spot, and found 3s. in silver, and 1s. 8d. in bronze, all good—I took him to the station; he never spoke a word—I searched him again at the station, and found concealed in the lining at the back of his coat this leather tobacco pouch, containing four more bad shillings—I did not rip his coat, there was a slit in the lining, and I put my hand in—I asked him how he accounted for having those four coins; he said, "That is the money I was paid for my wages to-day by Mr. Pettit"—I said, "Well, I shall go and see Mr. Pettit and inquire whether he paid you these five bad shillings"—he said, "Well, I will tell you the truth; I have not worked for Mr. Pettit for the last two years, what I have told you is all lies; I will tell you the truth now; a man gave me the coins,"

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . This single shilling is counterfeit; these four shillings in the tobacco pouch are also counterfeit, but from different moulds to the first—if a man's teeth almost met in a shilling, one part going down while the other was straight, I should say that it was bad; if he had bent it back again it would have broken—some of these shillings came from the same mould as some of those in the last case.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "I deny that I gave the conductor the bad sixpence on Tuesday night,"

GUILTY Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. The Court commended Swindell's conduct.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-102
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

102. DANIEL MURPHY (25) and JAMES DRISCOLL (19) , Robbery on Colome Baptiste, and stealing a watch and chain, and 15s. in money.

MR. BLACK, for the prosecution, offered no evidence.


OLD COURT.—Wednesday, December 17th, 1890.

Before Mr. Recorder.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-103
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

103. GEORGE ALLEN (22) , Feloniously, with a person unknown, assaulting and robbing George Abear.

MR. ARTHUR GILL Prosecuted, and MR. LYON Defended.

GEORGE ABEAR . I am a drayman, in the employ of Stansfield and Co., brewers, and live at Walham Green—I have known the prisoner about five years; on Saturday evening, 15th November, about a quarter to nine, I went into the Wheatsheaf public-house—I had a sovereign, a half-sovereign, a 2s. piece, and two half-crowns in a leather bag, and some loose coppers in my right-hand trousers pocket—the prisoner was there when I went in—I did not speak to him—I had several half-pints of ale, which I paid for with my loose money—I came out about ten minutes past ten, lighted my pipe, and set off to walk home; as I walked down the road I turned round several times, and noticed the prisoner and another following me—as I was going behind Walham Green Church the prisoner came up behind me and hit me in the head, and said, "Take that, you b—!" and knocked me down, and while I was on the ground he kicked me in the head, and while the other men kicked me about the body the prisoner put his hand in my right-hand trousers pocket, and took out my leather bag containing the money, and then they all ran away—this happened about a quarter of a mile from the Wheatsheaf—I got up and picked up my hat, and went home—I showed my landlady a large wound in my head, I bathed it under the tap and went to bed, and next morning I spoke to the police.

Cross-examined. I have worked for Messrs. Stansfield about two years—I left work on this day at nine—I might have had three or four half-pints at the Wheatsheaf, no spirits—I aid not take out my bag there—there were only three persons in the bar when I went in, the prisoner was in a compartment next to me with a dozen or fifteen others—the prisoner had watched and followed me about before this—I turned round and saw him close behind me two or three seconds before he struck me, I could swear to his voice—I was a little the worse for liquor—I did not know any of the other people.

GEORGE CRACKNELL (Detective T). On Sunday morning, 16th November, about ten, I arrested the prisoner at Walham Green—I said to him, "I am going to arrest you for knocking a man down and robbing him of 458. last night"—he said, "All right"—I took him to the station, and charged him—ha made no reply; only 6s. was found on him—I saw the prosecutor about a quarter to eleven that morning, he was out; his head was cut on the left side, and blood was on it; he was perfectly sober then.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I never saw the prosecutor on the Saturday night at all. I left work at half-past five, and was with my mother till about ten minutes to nine. I went to the George Hotel, and met two chaps, who asked me to treat them, and we went to the Jolly Brewers, and had three pots of beer; I left the Jolly Brewers and went to the George, and remained there till ten minutes past eleven, and then went home.

Witness for the Defence.

MRS. ALLEN. I am the prisoner's mother, and live at 39, Delamotte

Street—on 15th November the prisoner came to my home about six—he lives near me—he left me in the Lillie Road at a quarter to nine to go home, that is about ten minutes' walk from the Wheatsheaf—I did not see him again till next morning.


15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-104
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

104. HAROLD COLVER (18) , Feloniously wounding Hannah McCarthy, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

MR. GRIFFITHS Prosecuted, and MR. STEPHENSON Defended.

HANNAH MCCARTHY . I am living with my daughter, but on November 1st the prisoner's mother asked me to stay with her for a week, to do some washing and cleaning for her—on 21st November, in the early morning, about one o'clock, I was in the kitchen, minding the house; the prisoner and his mother and the two little girls came in, and I said one of the little girls looked very pale, and they had better put her to bed—upon that the prisoner said, "You b—old cow, I will go for you!" and he ran towards me, and struck me in the eye; whether he had anything sharp in his hand I can't say, but it knocked me down and I was cut; I tried to get up, and he put his foot up; I put up my hand to protect my face, and he caught me on the finger, which I nave lost the use of; I was getting very weak; as I was getting up he went to the dresser and took a knife and stabbed me in the cheek—T said, "Let me go to the hospital," and I was going through the passage and the prisoner and his mother followed me, and he said to his mother, "Don't let her out; can't you throw her down the b—cellar-stairs, and have Mrs. Hogg on her, unless she promises that she won't ruck"—I went outside and got a policeman, and gave the prisoner into custody—I went to the station, and a doctor attended to me there—the prisoner did not seem to me to be drunk.

Cross-examined. I was taken to St. George's Infirmary; Miss Adams, the nurse, asked me how the injuries were inflicted—I did not tell her that I had been to my daughter's house and had some words about a child, and that my son Alick had struck me in the face with his fist, and that I fell down and was kicked—my son has not been convicted of assaults of this nature; he never served five years that I know of; I have not seen him since the 13th August—they say he has been convicted, but that was three years ago—I don't know that he is in Holloway now for the same sort of offence—I have been living with my daughter in Penny Fields, Poplar—she did not turn me out; I did not go to ask the prisoner's mother to take me in out of charity; I worked for them, and they paid me—I had not been out the whole day—I did not come home about eleven with my face bleeding; I did not go and lie down; I was knocked down by the prisoner.

Re-examined. I said nothing to Miss Adams further than this, I received a letter the day I was taken to the hospital, and Miss Adams read it to me, and she said to me, "Who did that to your face?" and I said, "Mrs. Maidment's son"—that is the prisoner; he is a step son.

ALFRED WALKER (H 93). I was on duty in St. George's Street, Whitechapel, about two in the morning of 21st November; the prosecutrix came to me bleeding profusely from a cut on the left cheek—from what she said I went and took the prisoner into custody—I told him the prosecutrix charged him with cutting her, and I should take him into custody; he made no answer at the time; on the way to the station he

said, "Do you think I shall get more than six months over this job?"—he further said, "I don't care as long as I don't have to eat my Christmas dinner in gaol"—I observed blood on his hand at the station—he said, "When I come out I will do for her," or words to that effect.

Re-examined. He also said, "I know nothing about it"—I found no knife on him; I know nothing of the prosecutrix.

PERCY JOHN CLARK . I am assistant to the divisional surgeon of the H Division—on the early morning of 21st November I examined the prosecutrix; I found an incised wound half an inch long, cutting through the right eyelid; the eyeball was also cut, but not penetrated; on the left cheek was an incised wound two inches long and about a quarter of an inch deep; and there were two wounds on the little finger of the left hand—after I had dressed her wounds she was in such a weak state from loss of blood I sent her to the infirmary, and she remained there until she was discharged as cured—I have seen her since—the wound on the finger might have been caused by a kick; the wound on the cheek must have been inflicted by some sharp instrument; a table knife would do it—the wound on the finger is quite healed, but is probably stiff from being bound up; the eye has had to be covered up; that would affect the sight; there is still a certain amount of irritation in it.

Witnesses for the Defence.

EMILY MAIDMENT . The prisoner is my son—I have married again—my husband is in the employ of the West India Dock Company—I have known the prosecutrix some years—she came to my house before the 21st November, and I took her in out of charity; she asked me to do so—on 21st she went out several times, the 'last time was about eleven—when she came in she had had too much to drink, and her face was bleeding—I took her into the parlour and bathed her face, and got her to sit down and go to sleep—I asked her how the blood came there, and who did it—she said, "Alick, my son"—when she had gone out that evening she said she was going to see if she could find Alick—when she laid down she had quite a long sleep, and when she woke up she seemed so confused she did not know how it had been done, her only idea was to get out, and hardly knew what she was about;—she went out and came back with a policeman a long time afterwards—it is not true that my son struck her in the eye or knocked heir—I did not see him touch her—I have heard her evidence; there is not a word of truth in it; it is an entire fabrication—I sent her this letter when she was in the infirmary. (This referred to a case coming on, in which the witness expressed a desire for the attendance of the prosecutrix, by which she might perhaps make £10; it also stated that she (the prosecutrix) was frightfully drunk last night, but that should be over looked, and something might be done for her if she came)—the case there mentioned had nothing to do with this case, a different thing altogether, a case of slander—I thought at that time that the prisoner had been discharged, I went to the Police-court, and was told there was no prosecutrix, and I went straight into a place and wrote that letter.

Cross-examined. I told the prosecutrix long enough ago that she could be a witness if she liked and get £10—I did not say that was if she did not appear against my son—on the night in question my husband had some work about eight, he worked at night that week—I did not go out after eight; I might have gone for the supper beer; I had no spirits—my son might have been drinking a little—he did not strike the prosecutrix, not

in my presence—she fell in the passage several times—we have not had a table-knife on the dresser for years; we use small knives—my son did not say, "Don't let her out unless she promises not to ruck"; I don't know what that means—I went to the infirmary on the Sunday to see how the prosecutrix was getting on, and to know what my son was locked up for—I was at home when the policeman came and took him—I told him he had not done anything.

KATE ADAMS . I am a nurse at the infirmary—on 21st November I remember Mrs. McCarthy coming there; her face and eye were cut—I asked her how she had hurt herself—she said, "It was done for me"—she did not then say by whom—on the same afternoon a letter came for her; I gave it to her, and took it up to read, and when I got to the name I could not make it out, and said, "What name is this?" and she said, "Harold"—I said, "Is that your son?" and she said, "Yes, and he did it"—she afterwards said it was Maidment's son—I made a statement to the prisoner's solicitor to-day; I think I contradicted my first statement; what I say now is correct—it is in this way; the patient first said it was her son, but before I finished reading the letter she said it was Maidment's son—I was under the impression that it was McCarthy's son—I could not very well understand her, she was excited.

GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, December 17th, 1890.

Before Mr. Justice Day.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-105
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

105. JAMES AUGUSTUS McCLELLAN (28) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously sending a threatening letter to Henry Benjamin Gadsden, with intent to extort money; also to sending a like letter to George John Gadsden, with a like intent.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-106
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

106. SARAH SHERMAN (32) was charged on the Coroner's inquisition only with the manslaughter of Alfred Edward Macro.

MR. PURCELL for the prosecution offered no evidence; the GRAND JURY had ignored the bill.


15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-107
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

107. JAMES GWILLYM (28) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously sending to John Bourne two letters demanding money with menaces.— Discharged on recognisances.

THIRD COURT.—Wednesday, December 17th, 1890.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-108
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

108. ALFRED BAILEY (30) , Unlawfully attempting to steal certain letters from a letter-box.

MR. RICHARDS Prosecuted.

WILLIAM RAYNOR (Y 190). On 28th November, about 8.40, I was on duty at Penn Road, Islington, keeping watch on a letter-box at the corner in consequence of instructions—I saw the prisoner put his hand in the box—I then went to the box, put my hand: in, and found some sticky substance like glue in the aperture—the prisoner had got about fourteen yards away; I went after him, and said, "I shall take you to

the station for tampering with the letter box"—he said, "I don't know nothing about it, or what you mean; you have made a mistake this time"—I took him to the station, and found the left pocket of his coat all over with a sticky substance, and the same stuff was on the fingers of his left hand; he was asked his address, and said, "I refuse my address"—the aperture of the box was large enough for a man to put his hand in—it is one of the red pillar-boxes.

EDWARD GUDGEON (Police Sergeant Y.) I was on duty when the prisoner was brought into the station—he said, "It is very cold here, can I sit by the fire, and have my overcoat?"—that was allowed—shortly afterwards I noticed him fumbling about the left pocket of the coat, and presently he rolled something in his hand, and threw it on the fire, turning the hot coals on the top of it—I at once turned the coals back and found the lining of his left coat pocket, which had just taken fire, and it was smeared with some sticky substance—he said, "That is nothing, it is only a piece of rag I was going to burn"—he was then charged, and said, "I know nothing about it."

Prisoner's Defence. I have not a friend in the world. I can only say I did not touch the letter-box at all; I was only passing by. What was in my pocket had nothing to do with the letter-box.

The COURT considered that as there was no evidence that there were any letters in the box to steal, the case must go to the JURY on the third Count, which was for placing a noxious substance in the letter-box.

GUILTY* on the third Count. Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-109
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

109. WALTER REDDON (30) , Unlawfully obtaining 5s. from Charles Robert Cann, and an order for 23s. from Thomas Collingford, with intent to defraud.

MR. LEVER Prosecuted, and MR. ROUTH Defended.

CHARLES ROBERT CANN . I keep the Lyceum Tavern, 354, Strand—on 14th July the prisoner called, and said, "I have called from Carnaby's," or Carnaby and Co., "to see if your gas regulator wants repairing, as I was in the neighbourhood, at Haxell's, repairing theirs"—that is a few doors from me—as our regulator was a little out of order I let him see to it, and paid him five shillings—he gave me this receipt (Signed, W. H. Reddon)—the next day the wire broke, and I wrote to Carnaby's and complained—I paid him, believing he came from Carnaby and Co.

Cross-examined. That was the first time I had seen the prisoner—the regulator is very old, but it is not out of repair very often—nobody but Carnaby has ever repaired it—the prisoner presented Carnaby's card, and said, "I have come from Carnaby and Co,"

WILLIAM CARNABY . I am one of the firm of Carnaby and Co., of 13, Broad Street, Bloomsbury, gas apparatus makers; this is one of their business cards—the prisoner was engaged fourteen or fifteen months ago to canvass for orders in his spare time, for which he was to receive 25 per cent, commission—he had no other duties to perform; he had no authority to repair the gas regulator—he was paid his commission as soon as his work was done—he had no authority to receive money on our account—we have not received the five shillings paid to him by Mr. Cann; Mr. Cann wrote to us, and came to us, and was very short about the matter, and we told the prisoner he had no right to do work in that way, that he had got us into disgrace—I applied for the warrant.

Cross-examined. He was not entitled to receive money or do repairs—I had references with him—I actually gave him these cards to present, there was nothing extraordinary in his having twelve or twenty of them on him; Mr. Cann wrote to me to say that a wire had broken, and the regulator had not been properly repaired—we sent a man to repair it, who brought back this card and receipt—the prisoner had no receipt-books of ours, only order forms—I told him of the complaint, and he said that the repairs had been done by his direction—the man who did it was then with him—he offered to go back and see Mr. Cann, but I told him I thought in the state of mind Mr. Cann was in he had better not—I did not say he would get his head punched, but something to that effect—being a commission agent, he had a right to work on his own account—there were other complaints, and I made inquiries.

Re-examined. It was not till Mr. Cann complained that I heard of the 5s.—it was not for the purpose of working on his own account that I presented him with my business cards—he might receive orders for repairs and bring them to our place, but he was not to execute the repairs or receive the money.

THOMAS PARTRIDGE (Detective Sergeant E). I arrested the prisoner on a warrant on 18th November, which I read to him—he said, "I have a perfect answer to the charge"—he handed me a number of advertisement-cards and tickets in the name of Carnaby, and also this receipt book.

A JUROR. We are all agreed that there was no fraud, we think it is a case of spite— NOT GUILTY .

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-110
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

110. WALTER REDDON was again indicted for forging and uttering an endorsement on an order for 23s., with intent to defraud.

MR. LEVER offered no evidence.


15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-111
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

111. MARY ANN ROBERTS (45) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously personating Mary Ann Jones, with intent to obtain a pair of boots; also to forging a declaration under the Pawnbrokers' Act— Judgment respited.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-112
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

112. WILLIAM CALNAN, Feloniously wounding John Foley, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

JOHN FOLEY . I am a stevedore, of 3, Cross Street, West India Dock Road—on 22nd November, about 11.50 p.m., I was in the Eastern Hotel—I gave a man a penny to ask for some drink for me while I got a light for my pipe—I did not see the prisoner, and remember nothing till I was in Poplar Hospital—I said at the Police-court, "The prisoner was standing in front of me, and I had my face towards him, he struck me a blow on the side next him, and I fell insensible"—I believe that is true—that occurred—it is a long time since—(The COURT cautioned the witness)—the prisoner has been out on bail, but I have not had any communication with him since, I have been in Bromley Infirmary ever since—I do not remember his striking me a blow—I know him well, he lives against me, but I had had no words or quarrel with him—I have been in the infirmary, laid up since November 25th, under the doctor's charge—the prisoner has not visited me there, only my wife.

Cross-examined. I never spoke to you at all—I do not remember stealing a sixpence off the bar; I told you yesterday I did not.

By the COURT. I saw the prisoner yesterday afternoon across the road

at a public-house, while we were both waiting for this case to come on; he accused me of picking up a sixpence which I know nothing about.

JOHN BRYANT . I am a ship-scraper, of 9, jamaica Place, Limehouse—on 22nd November, about midnight, I was with Foley at the Eastern Hotel—he gave me a penny to call for a glass of ale for him—he was sober—I heard a crash, turned round, and saw him in the attitude of falling—he was bleeding from the side of his face—there had been no words or blows between him and the prisoner before that; he was taken to the hospital.

Cross-examined. It is not possible that Foley hit you while you turned round.

FREDERICK NEWBERRY . I live at 46, Gill Street, Limehouse—on 22nd November I was at the Eastern Hotel, and saw the prisoner hit Foley on the cheek with a glass which was in his hand; he did not throw it—he then dropped it—I knew them both—he had not been drinking out of that glass; he had had a drop, but he could walk straight—this is the glass. (A very large broken tumbler with afoot.)—it was smashed on Foley's race, and I saw it fall to pieces—I had seen no dispute or quarrel between them.

Cross-examined. You had a few words at the corner, a little dispute, but I could not hear them; I saw you gesticulating—I did not see Foley strike you—I was about four yards from you—there were two persons between us.

ROBERT GOLDIE , M. D. I am at the Poplar and Stepney Sick Asylum—three days after this the prosecutor was admitted as a patient—he was sent to us from the Poplar Hospital, as he is a needy man—he had an incised wound on his left cheek-bone, 1 1/2 in long, going down to the bone, and a slight scratch across his ear—there was no immediate danger—it will leave a cicatrix—three days afterwards he had an attack of erysipelas, and that made it dangerous—he is well now—this glass would cause the wound; it is very heavy—a few particles of glass were left in his face—it would require considerable force to do it.

HENRY BEER (K 237). On 23rd November Mrs. Foley called me to 12, Rich Street, and told me she had been to the station, and the Inspector directed her to me—I took the prisoner in custody—he said, "She aggravated me, and in the height of my passion I done it"—I got this glass from the public-house.

Cross-examined. When you were locked up I fetched a witness for you named Harry Rochester—you did not ask for him to be bound over.

The Prisoner called

JULIA CALNAN . I am the prisoner's mother—he is turned seventeen—his father is a labourer—we live at 12, Rich Street, Limehouse—the prisoner came in on Saturday night, 22nd November, bleeding from his nose and scratched in his throat, where Foley catched him with his fingernail.

Cross-examined. He came in as near as I can tell about five or ten minutes to twelve o'clock—it is not two minutes' walk from the Eastern Hotel—I did not see how he came by the wound—I was not examined before the Magistrate, as I was told that a mother would not be taken as a witness.

Prisoner's Defence. The prosecutor came into the hotel and took a sixpence off the bar, and went out with it, and a man blamed me for it

—the prosecutor came in again, and I said, "I was nearly locked up for the sixpence you took off the bar," He said, "What has that to do with me? you would soon put a man away. "I said, "I will soon put you away," and I had a glass in my hand, and I struck him. I had a witness, Harry Russell, but they have got him out of it somehow.

GUILTY of unlawfully wounding under great provocation. Be received a good character. Six Months' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Thursday, December 18th, 1890.

For the case of Samuel Raines Hamell, tried this day, see Surrey cases.

NEW COURT.—Thursday, December 18th, 1890.

Before Mr. Recorder.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-113
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

113. CHARLES WALLIS, Unlawfully obtaining by false pretences a cheque for £320, with intent to defraud.

MR. ELDRIDGE and MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted, and MR. LITTLER Defended.

SPENCER ROBERT LEWIN . I am a solicitor and a commissioner to administer oaths, of 32, Southampton Street, Strand—this declaration (produced) was made before me—I did not see the person sign it, but he declared that that was his name and writing, and that it was true.

JOHN EDWARDS . I am in partnership with Henry Isaacs, at 17, King William Street, Strand, as the Union Deposit Bank—we had had transactions with the prisoner and his brother, and on 14th January the prisoner called and said he wanted a loan—I asked him what his liabilities were; he said that they did not exceed £1,000, and that his income was £1,500 a year—my partner was there, and we agreed to give him a loan if he would make a declaration that what he had stated was correct—the loan was to be £400, and we were to give him a cheque for £320—it was to be repaid by instalments of £100 each month—he left the office with Walter Smith, our clerk, who afterwards returned with the declaration—I gave him this cheque (produced) to hand to the prisoner when he had made the declaration; it has been honoured and returned by our bankers—this is the promissory note, on account of which this cheque was drawn—two instalments of £50 each have been paid off the loan, we had a difficulty in getting the rest, and instructed our solicitor to take civil proceedings, and a writ was issued—we received this letter of June 3rd, purporting to come from the defendant—("Gentlemen,—I was much surprised at the issue of a writ on your behalf to-day after the conversation I had with you. I explained to you that I had had very heavy losses, but was anxious to pay you the whole of your debt in weekly instalments, after my brother's affairs were settled. To this I understood you agreed, but apparently, from your action, I am mistaken. I think it only right to tell you, before it is too late, that if you persist in pressing your action I can so arrange my affairs that you will receive a very small portion of your claim. I am very loath to do so, but unless you withdraw your action I shall certainly do so")—the civil proceedings were gone on

with, judgment was obtained, and the defendant paid nothing that I am aware of—he was subsequently adjudged bankrupt, and I attended the first meeting of his creditors on October 2nd, and the adjourned meeting on October 16th, when I discovered that there were two proofs in the bankruptcy; one of his father, Thomas Wallis, for some thousands, and another of John Carr, his father-in-law, for about £2,000—I discovered that those liabilities existed on 14th January, when the defendant called to ask for the loan—I then retired from the bankruptcy proceedings.

Cross-examined. I remained in the room—I instructed our solicitor to take criminal proceedings—Mr. Isaacs and I are the only partners in the Union Deposit Bank, Registered—the name has been registered at Somerset House three or four years—the names of the proprietors of the bank are registered, so that if anyone wants to know who they are they apply to Somerset House—"Union" relates to the union of myself and Mr. Isaacs, and we take deposits in—we state, "Capital £250,000"—whether that is true I do not think has anything to do with this case—I should say we have very nearly £250,000 engaged in the bank, and a reserve of £120,000; that is our money invested in the business—we have stocks and shares—I will not swear that we have got the whole of the £370,000 in the business—I am "Edward Johns, manager"—I reversed my name so that no one could interfere with the name in future—that would have been accomplished if I had called myself John Edwards—I am not subpoenaed; Mr. Isaacs is—he said that he was Edward Johns; we are both Edward Johns—we keep six clerks—we have got a large amount of money on deposit from the public—we charged £150 per cent, in this instance; but if we have security we charge 5 or 10 per cent.—we receive deposits at 4 £ per cent.—£113 per cent, does not always come home as in this instance—we say, "The full amount applied for guaranteed, without any deduction," but not in this instance—the first transaction we had with the prisoner's brother was in the previous year—it is very possible that in 1889 his brother was being threatened by us with legal proceedings; I offered to discount further with him up to £500, if he would pay back his first advance of £200—he suggested that his brother would be security for him, and a clerk went down to see the position of the security—I did not send the clerk down to press him to join, so that I might get my £200—eventually we got the defendant's signature, to the extent of £500, as surety for his brother—I do not know that the defendant paid the first two instalments of that—we got back our £200 quite, because they gave a promissory note for £500; for which they received £450; they would not have the full amount of principal and interest—we charged Charles Wallis three times the interest we did on the first occasion; you see there were two names, and of course that is more safe than one name—I do not know who took up these notes—I believe Mr. Isaacs is here—he did not come to Gatti's and persuade him to come to the bank, and say that there was a private door, and that we had had a duchess through that door the day before—I am not aware that Isaacs, in consequence of his dislike to come to the bank, took this notice to Gatti's Restaurant to sign—I will swear I was there when he called on 14th January; it was between ten and eleven a.m.—I have not got another business now; I had; I was a doll manufacturer—I do not carry

on a jeweller's business; I have an interest in it, but I have nothing to do with it—I do not attend there most mornings, and go to the bank in the afternoon—I refuse to give the name of the firm there—I refuse to say whether it is Percy Edwards and Co., of Piccadilly—I do not go there every morning—the prisoner's debts, other than those to his father and father-in-law, were over £1,000—I got a sheet stating all his debts from the Receiver in Bankruptcy—if you say that his debts were under £10,000, including mine, no doubt you are correct—when he asked for time I did not send word to my solicitor that no time was to be given because the old man would pay—I know that his father is a man of very considerable wealth—I said at the meeting of creditors that I would take nothing short of twenty shillings in the pound, but I did not say, "He has made a declaration which is false, but if I get twenty shillings in the pound I will take no proceedings"—he did not say, "I do not owe £1,000 business debts in the world"—that I swear—he did not say, "I am under obligations to friends, but as long as I am getting on in business they will not press me"—I understood that he, with an income of £1,500, a house full of furniture worth £1,500, and not owing £1,000, would come and pay me £120 per cent, for money; plenty of people do that—he did not say, "I am under obligations to my friends," and Mr. Isaacs did not say, "We don't trouble about that sort of thing so long as our money is perfectly safe"—something was said at the meeting of creditors about Mr. Wallis, sen., declining to be blackmailed, and that we might take what proceedings we liked—it was I who took the proceedings in bankruptcy—I do not know that at the time he made this statement he did not owe £1,000, except to his father and father-in-law, nor was I told at the meeting of creditors that it was solely in consequence of my proceedings that they had proved; nor at another meeting—I do not know that he has been a very heavy loser by his brother.

Re-examined. The £500 was advanced to his brother; £200 of that has been repaid—we did not issue a writ against his brother; he was made bankrupt by somebody else—we have never received the £300—the brother gave a bill of sale on his goods—I still say that the prisoner's debts exceeded £1,000 outside his father and father-in-law's proofs—we had not endeavoured to blackmail his father.

By MR. LITTLER. I do not remember Mr. Isaacs saying to Mr. Charles Wallis as to our clerk Smith, "Smith is a decent fellow, and not over well paid; give him a sovereign. "

ARTHUR HENRY COSSAR . I am a chartered accountant, of 85, Gresham Street—I was appointed trustee in the defendant's bankruptcy—the date of the receiving order is August 28th—the first proof was by John Carr for £2,608, £108 of which was interest—he incurred the debt on April 25th, 1889—there was a proof of Thomas Wallis for £7,316 14s. 6d., £6,000 of which was incurred before January, including interest—I was present at the bankrupt's examination, and those proofs were admitted—the house and furniture were assigned to his wife's father early this year, I think—the total amount of liabilities is about £10,000—he said that it occurred through losses in business and through his brother; he became security for his brother and a man named Sanders in Stock Exchange matters.

Cross-examined. There are a very large number of small items to trade

creditors—interest has been paid to Mr. Carr, but not to Mr. "Wallis, sen.—I was introduced to the matter at the beginning of November.

WALTER SMITH . I am clerk to the prosecutors—on 14th January I went with the prisoner to Mr. Lewin's office, and saw him make this statutory declaration—he read it in my presence—I am the attesting witness to the promissory note.

Cross-examined. I only saw him at the bank once that day, that was between 11 and 12 a.m.—he saw Mr. Isaacs and Mr. Edwards too—neither of them said, "This young man is not too well paid, give him £1," but he did give me £1—I am chief clerk, there are five others—I had something to do with the previous transactions with the brother—I think it was Mr. Isaacs who west down to the office. (The declaration was here put in, in which the prisoner stated, "The utmost extent of my liabilities does not exceed £1,000,")


15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-114
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

114. FREDERICK HENDERSON* (22) and GEORGE MATTISON* (22) PLEADED GUILTY to forging and uttering a receipt for the payment of £35, with intent to defraud. The prisoners had been fourteen months in custody on a conviction for possessing housebreaking implements, this offence having been committed previously.

GUILTY.— Four Months' Hard Laboar.

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, December 18th, 1890.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-115
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

115. ROBERT KEYMER (58), HENRY ENRIGHT (61), and THOMAS CHARLES CRAMER (52) , Conspiring to obtain divers houses by false pretences, not paying fair rents for the same.

MESSRS. MUIR and A. GILL Prosecuted, MR. PURCELL defended Cramer.

Keymer and Enright PLEADED GUILTY; and during the progress of the case Cramer, on the advice of his counsel, in the hearing of the JURY, said that he was GUILTY, upon which the JURY found him GUILTY. Previous convictions of a like offence were proved against KEYMER and ENRIGHT— Five Years' Penal Servitude each. CRAMER— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. The GRAND JURY made a presentment expressing their admiration of the conduct of the case, in which the COURT concurred.

OLD COURT.—Friday, December 19th, 1890.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-116
VerdictNot Guilty > no prosecutor

Related Material

116. THOMAS CHEETHAM (55) , Stealing forty-four gallons of soda, the property of Francis George Greening. The prosecutor did not appear.


15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-117
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

117. THOMAS CHEETHAM was again indicted for unlawfully obtaining £2 16s. 9d. by false pretences. No evidence was offered.


OLD COURT.—Saturday, December 20th, 1890.

Before Mr. Recorder.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-118
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

118. WILLIAM JARVIS (56) , Unlawfully obtaining two sums of £1,500 each, from Geoffrey Carr Glyn, and others, by false pretences.


GEOFFREY CARR GLYN . I am a partner in the banking-house of Glyn, Mills, Currie and Co., Lombard Street—the defendant has had an account there for twenty years in the name of G. H. Cousins and Co., trading as wool broker—we made advances to him from time to time on dock warrants—it was the practice, when a dock warrant was deposited for a loan, that a warrant letter should be filled in, which mentions the sum the merchant desires to have placed to his credit, and the description of the security—on August 1st, 1890, this warrant letter was brought to the bank with this dock warrant—the warrant letter describes the wool in the dock warrant; it is all printed, with blanks to be filled in by the person desiring the advance; this letter refers to dock warrant 6851, for eighty bales of wool lying at the London Docks, 320 cwt. medium, market price on August 1st 13d. 1b., and the amount is carried out as £1,940—that letter and the signature are in the defendant's writing, to the best of my belief—I produce a verified copy of the defendant's account with the bank, which I have examined; it shows the state of his account from August 1st to September 9th—I find that on August 1st, in accordance with this warrant, £1,500 was placed to his credit on loan; the amount standing to his account before that morning was £300 1s. 8d., and the same day £2,905 9s. 3d. was paid in; that gave him a credit of £4,046 5s. 11d., and on that day we paid cheques on that account, leaving a balance at the close of the day of £106 7s. 7d.—on 9th September this warrant, letter "D," with this warehouse-keeper's warrant, was given to us—the filling-in is in the defendant's writing—it describes the wool referred to as E 650, consisting of seventy bales lying at Brown and Eagle's warehouse, weight 220 cwt., market price on that day 1s. 4d. per 1b.; the total value at that price and weight is £1,717—£1,500 was placed to the defendant's credit on that day, because of these documents being placed at the bank and a loan being asked for—£200 was paid in on that day, September 9th; the balance before that morning was £95 13s.—£1,739 2s. 5d. was drawn out that day by cheques, which left a balance at the close of the day of £56 0s. 7d.—in consequence of information I caused inquiries to be made about the wool; I then communicated with our solicitor, and eventually with the police—September 15th was the last date on which the account was operated upon, and the account was left with a balance of £80 7s. 6d.—the last cheque was for £240, which was paid over the counter—I think one cheque was presented after that for £5,000, but we refused payment—the balance of £80 7s. 6d. was arrived at by taking the two advances as money advanced on sufficient security—I went to the defendant's office, but did not succeed in seeing him—I never saw him till he was brought back from Spain and charged on an extradition warrant; we received no communication from him during that time.

Cross-examined. He has been a customer of the bark for many years,

before I was born—I was summoned to produce our books for twenty-eight years, but I have brought none—this is his pass-book. (By this it appeared that from 30th May to 9th September, 1889, the defendant had loam amounting to £27,350, and during the same period his payments amounted to £28,350, including interest and commission)—the loans were for one month or two months—I cannot say that I saw him on 1st August or September 9th.

Re-examined. He never had a right to overdraw his account without security up to 75 per cent.—his usual balance last year was between £100 and £200 at the end of each day—it was always in his favour, we never let him overdraw, but we limited it to the amount of loan—it was nevermore than £5,000 at one time, which was secured by documents of title—it was all kept in one account—before he Was allowed credit to draw upon the papers were seen by me or by the firm—he was not put in credit until the letter and the warrant were brought in properly signed—they are generally brought signed, not filled up there—there is no credit till the papers are deposited.

THOMAS WILLIAM WATSON . I am foreman in charge of the ground floor, Crescent warehouse, London Docks—this dock warrant represents 80 bales of wool in the docks under my charge, D, 21 to 100, which weigh 129 cwt. 2 qrs. 23 1b.—I took a sample of the wool and gave it to Mr. Irwell.

Cross-examined. I weighed it on October 5th, 1889, the date of the receipt of the goods—no note of the weight was attached to the warrant—the weighing was to inform my employers what charge they should make—they have been weighed again this morning, and allowing for samples and for being in a dry place the original weight was verified.

FREDERICK WILLIAM RAND . I am a clerk to Messrs. Brown and Eagles, of 24, Coleman Street—they store wool there—there are ninety bales of wool there on a warrant marked "F," and dated September 9, 1890—that warrant was substituted for one for a larger quantity—those 70 bales weighed about 1 1/2 cwt, each—I weighed them on December 10, and the total weight came to 115 cwt. 23 1b.—I handed a sample of the wool to Mr. Irwell.

Cross-examined. I sat at the side of the scale and took the weights down—we had some bales of wool there weighing 7 1/2 and 10 cwt., but 3 or 4 cwt. is the average weight—we generally get Cape of Good Hope and Australian wool, but this was described in the catalogue as coming from Spain; that is lighter than the ordinary wool.

Re-examined. We keep ah account of each customer who has wool at the wharf—this 70 was a new warrant for a new consignment—we never mix Cape wool with Spanish—we keep an account of each bale; the consignee has the weight supplied to aim—no weight is put on the warrant, we take the landing weight with the order—this consignment was 100 bales; this warrant does not give the date, but the ship entered the docks on February 2nd, 1889, and these 70 bales are the residue of the 100 bales—there was a delivery out afterwards of 10 and then of 20 bales, and the 70 remained, for which this warrant was given—he was supplied with the weight of each bale—his order was necessary for the 30 that went out.

By MR. LOCKWOOD. As far as I can remember the prisoner has used our warehouse for storing all sorts of wool for twenty-six years.

HERMAN IRWELL . I am a wool broker, of 24, Coleman Street, and have a very large experience in the wool market—I received from the London Docks a sample of wool marked "OF" for examination—it is frontier wool from Spain, and the value of it on August 1st, 1890, was about sixpence—no Spanish wool comes to this country in bulk which would weigh 4 cwt.; bales of this class of wool weigh about 1 1/2 cwt.—supposing you have got the correct weight 119 cwt. 2 qr. 23 lb., it would be worth about £300—I also had submitted to me a sample of 70 bales from Brown and Eagles; that was Spanish wool of a similar description, but rather finer—I examined it on 17th or 18th September, and again later on; sixpence would be a fair market price for it on September 9th—it fluctuates half or 1/2 d. per 1b., according to the market—the 110 cwt. works out at about £245—I have known Jarvis thirty years, he has had considerable experience in the wool trade.

Cross-examined. I have only done business with him for the last four years; I do not know him to deal in wool, only as a wool broker.

ERNEST WARD THOMAS, JUN . My firm is at 17 and 19, Basinghall Street; by the prosecutor's direction I offered for sale by auction, on 29th June, 1889, forty bales of Spanish wool, lying at Brown and Eagles' wharf; it fetched 6¾d. per 1b.; a twenty bale lot was bought by Mr. Watson, and the rest by Hudson and Roberts.

Cross-examined. I had done business with Jarvis for twenty or thirty years in all classes of wool; we have not sold much, but we have bought largely for him, and also by private contract, some high-class and some low—he has borne the reputation of an honourable man.

JULIUS MOYES . I am manager to the Anglo-Foreign Banking Company, Bishopsgate Street, and have had business relations with the defendant; on 13th September he produced to me this cheque for £5,000 on Glyn, Mills and Co. (produced)—on 15th September he deposited a wool warrant with me, on which I made him an advance.

JAMES HENRY KINGSTON . I am manager to Glyn, Mills, Currie and Co.—on 15th September I went to Jarvis's office in Coleman Street, but could not see him—I only went once—I left a message with the housekeeper.

Cross-examined. I called between 4.30 and 5 o'clock.

EDWARD HARRY DEE . I am manager to Simmonds and Son, auctioneers, of Henley-on-Thames—the prisoner resided there at The Cottage, Marsh Hill, and on 19th September, in consequence of his instructions, I made an inventory of the goods in that house, and sold them by auction on October 1st; they realised £155 odd, which I paid on 8th October from instructions I received to a gentleman named Cameron; the cheque was for £137.

Cross-examined. Mr. Jarvis lived there in the summer-time; the tenancy was from year to year—he was obliged to leave in consequence of the property being sold—the character of the furniture was suitable for a cottage.

Re-examined. The cheque was to bearer, and Mrs. Jarvis's name was inserted by Mr. Cameron's directions.

JAMES ROSS . I was formerly cashier to Glyn, Mills and Co.; I know the account of G. H. Cousins and Co., and know the defendant as carrying on that business—I have seen the documents in this case; they

are in Jarvis's writing—he was the sole person carrying on the business.

FREDERICK DOWN (City Police Inspector). On 22nd October I received two extradition warrants for the arrest of Jarvis; before that I had another to arrest him here—I went to Henley, but was unable to find him—I then went to St. Sebastian, in Spain, and on 25th October found him stopping at the Hotel Commercial, in the name of S. Chamberlain—he was arrested by the authorities, and handed over to me on a British ship at Bilbao—I read the warrant to him, charging him with obtaining two sums of £1,500—he said, "It is not a fraud, it is a matter of account"—I brought him to England and charged him; he made no reply—£17 odd was found on him.

The prisoner received an excellent character.GUILTY. Strongly recommended to mercy by the JURY on account of his age and character. Judgment respited.


Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-119
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

119. STEPHEN HOLNESS (50) , Stealing a watch and chain from the person of Andrew Dawson.

MR. LAWLESS and MR. LEVER Prosecuted, MR. WARBURTON Defended.

ANDREW DAWSON . I am a West Indian, and a fireman on board the Essequibo steamer, belonging to the Royal Mail Company—on 19th November, about 11 p.m., a woman came up to me in the Victoria Dock Road—I went to a house with her; I do not know where it was—we went to a bedroom—I had no waistcoat on, and before going to bed I left my watch and chain in my pantaloons pocket—she did not go to bed; I left her there—I slept till 4 a.m., and when I awoke she was not in the room—an old lady came in and made a communication to me, and I missed my watch—I informed the police, and saw my watch at the station at two o'clock the next day—it is worth £6.

Cross-examined. My native country is Katola; I have made three voyages here—I bought the watch in Liverpool at a pawnbroker's shop last winter for £3 15s., and paid 5s. for a chain, but not this chain—the watch was proved by a goldsmith to be worth £6—there is an inscription on it, "Qui capis capitur"—the prisoner came and looked for me at 2 a.m. on the 20th; he said that he had bought a watch down the village and pawned it, and anybody who had lost a watch, would go with him and pay 10s., he could have it; he had it in pawn down the village—I told him I had lost my watch, and would go with him, and if it was mine I would pay the 10s. for it—he took me to a pawnbroker's, but it was closed, as it was eight o'clock—he said he was going away to New York at seven o'clock that night, and that was why he pawned it; he was with me from three o'clock till eight—I saw the pawnbroker at eight, and we all three went to the police-station—it was not I who gave him in custody, it was the pawnbroker—I know nothing of the prisoner.

ALFRED BLANDFORD HOULSTON . I am manager to Alfred Sutton, a pawnbroker, of Plumstead Road—on 20th November, about 9.40 a.m., the prisoner brought a watch and chain to pledge for 20s.; I said, "Does it belong to you?" he said, "Yes;" I said, "What initials are

there on it?" he said, "None, not that I know of"—I said, "Where did you get it from?" he said, "I bought it at Charing Cross last night"—I said, "There are initials on it, and also a crest; I shall detain it till I have made inquiries," and went out to find a detective; when I came back the prisoner had gone—he said, "I will go and fetch the man I bought it of"—I impressed upon him that we closed at 2 o'clock that day, Thursday—he did not return before 2 o'clock, but I received information at my house about 3 or 3.30, and went back, and he was outside the shop with half a dozen more and the prosecutor—I went to the police-station and met two garrison detectives who asked him the same questions as I had—I said "You had better go to the inspector and let him hear the charge"—we telegraphed for the keys of the safe and got the watch out—the prisoner was kept at Woolwich police-station till the watch was produced, and he was charged at Canning Town.

Cross-examined. I am not finding the money for the prosecution, nor are my employers; I do not know whether the prosecutor is—Mr. Willis prosecuted at both the hearings—the initials on the watch are J.W., and there is a crest or monogram—I know nothing about the prisoner.

HENRY COOPER (Detective Sergeant). On 20th November, about 7 p.m., I saw the prisoner detained at Woolwich police-station, and said, "I shall take you in custody for receiving this watch and chain, knowing it to be stolen"—he said, "I bought it last night up the Marsh, of a sailor, for 10s."—I took him to Canning Town station, where he was charged; he made no reply.

Cross-examined. I have seen discharges which were found on him—he has always been discharged with the highest character—the prosecutor was robbed in Whiteman Street, Victoria Dock Road; the Marsh is near there.


15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-120
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

120. CHARLES MAJOR (48) , Unlawfully obtaining goods by false pretences from Clara Jane Astley and others.

MR. WARDE Prosecuted.

CLARA JANE ASTLEY . I am the wife of Walter Thornton Astley, of 36, Leytonstone Road, a pawnbroker's manager—we are furniture dealers—in my husband's absence I have managed the business for the last two years—the prisoner first called on 21st October—he asked me if I had any what-nots for sale; I said no, I did not keep them this time of year, but I could procure some; he said he wanted two corner and one square—he said he would let me know when to send them—he said he was Charles Major, of Maude Villa, Montague Road, and had furnished his house, but wanted a few more things to complete it—I next saw him on Saturday, 25th October—he asked ill had any cheap decanters—I showed him three—he said if I would let him have them reasonably they would do nicely—he agreed to pay five shillings for the decanters—he asked if I had any knives and forks—I said, "I have none in stock, I can get you some on Monday"—he said he wanted them that day, as he had three captains coming to dine with him on Sunday—I told him I would lend him half a dozen of my spare ones—I lent him six of each—he asked me to send them up at once, as Mrs. Major would be going elsewhere to buy them—I sent them—he said, "I have been nine years manager to Messrs. Stephens, Smith and Co., 1 Cuba Street,

Millwall. I am in receipt of £20 a month, and have seventy men under me"—he produced these cards (Messrs. Smith, Engineers, etc., etc.)—he said, "I purchased my furniture at Light's, in the Curtain Road, for £139 cash; I wish I had known you before, I would have given you a good order. I know Mr. Richards, Light's manager, well; I want a lot more things to complete my house, and I may as well have them of you if you can supply them at a reasonable price"—I sent the decanters, knives and forks, to the house, with the invoices—I supplied him with the goods on the 27th—the total supplied was £37 9s. 1d., ordered at various dates, a lot nearly every day, up to November 6th—I put the prices in this book as the goods were sent—these are the invoices sent with the goods—the pencil figures £33 6s. 1d. are my son's—I sent the goods because I considered it he paid Light all that money I could trust him—they were to be paid for as soon as the Order was completed—I have identified some of the goods at the pawnbroker's, and some at the Furnishing Stores, Leytonstone Road; Wilkes's—I have not received a penny from the prisoner—my son has bronchitis, and cannot attend—I saw him this morning.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. You spoke of Messrs. Pilcher's afterwards—I said my father had been there a number of years—I did not say I knew it would be all right—that affected my mind, because I thought if you had been there it would be all right—you said your father had done business with them forty years, and they would stand anything for you—you said you had done business with John Clark and Co., of Billiter Street; you did not say I might go there for your reference, nor that you were receiving £70 a year from your father, and after that £100—I did not ask you for money—you agreed to pay when the order was completed, and I never could complete the order because you were ordering goods every day—I stopped sending the goods when I heard your character—my son did not dine with you every night—he went to put up some lamps, and stayed to tea and dinner together—you said you received £20 a month from your father as well as your employers—on Wednesday, 5th, you said you had received a letter from your father, who was coming on 12th from Jersey, when there would be a cheque for £50—you asked on the 11th if I could get a sewing machine for your wife, and all would go down in the bill, and you would pay all together when you got the £50, not that your father would pay—you never said your father was worse—nor anything about a telegram—your father has been coming for the last four years.

GEORGE BUSH . I am managing clerk to the prosecuting solicitor, Mr. Spackman—I was present at West Ham Police-court on 26th November—the prisoner was defended by Mr. Radcliffe, a solicitor, who cross-examined Walter Charles Astley.

[The deposition of Walter Charles Astley, of 36, Leytonstone Road, Stratford, of 26th November, was then read.]

JOHN STEPHENS . I am a partner of Stephens, Smith, and Co., of 1, Cuba Street, Millwall, marine engineers—we employed Major from the Tuesday in the week of 23rd August to 8th November, 1890, to solicit orders for the repair of foreign steamers coming into dock—he received £2, then £3 a week till 27th September, and £2 a week till 8th November—he had no men under him—he was not our manager.

Cross-examined. You were honest—I know nothing against you—you

did not superintend the work, but it is a man's interest who solicits orders to see they are executed properly—you were a runner—you did not collect monies—bills were signed by the captains, and moneys collected by my partner, the broker, or at the office—you got the account signed—you were not worth £3 to us; you were out all day—I have no reason to think you worked for others.

EDWARD HARE . I am a clerk to C. and E. Light, of Curtain Road, furnishers—I keep the books—Major has not had any furniture direct from us—he came to our warehouse the first week in February, and selected furniture—we supplied it to the order of the "Wholesale Furnishing Association, of 39, Moorgate Street—it was sent by their directions to Charles Major, 2, Bromley Street, Stepney—the amount was £117 18s.—the bulk was delivered in February, some in March—we have been paid by the Furnishing Association—Major has not paid any sum—we gave the receipts to the association.

By the COURT. I do not know the prisoner—I only know the goods were ordered to be sent to that name and address—I know Charles Major selected the goods—I do not know it was the prisoner.

JOSIAH ROBINSON . I reside at 39, Moorgate Street—I am bookkeeper to the "Wholesale Furniture Association for Direct Supply to Private Buyers, Limited"—on 29th January Major called, and I gave him an order to select furniture at Light's—he afterwards told me he had done so—I executed an agreement to supply goods to the amount of £106 11s. 4d.—the amount is £117—he agreed to pay cash for the deficiency (The agreement was to repay £5 a month, and £5 per cent, interest)—he only paid £3—he said he had been paying men, and was short—he wrote promising to pay—I made verbal requests to pay—we took possession of the goods under the agreement, but at the prisoner's request warehoused them at our warehouse, the agreement to continue—if he had paid we should have sent the goods to him—part are now sold.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You were leaving the house the day we retook possession of the goods—I fetched them away—I did not say I could not warehouse them more than a week; you said you were going to Jersey a few days, and would send part of the money—your father did not write—we kept the agreement and gave you a copy—the articles were scheduled.

GEORGE GALE . I am manager to George Fish and Co., 7, The Grove, High Road, Leytonstone, pawnbrokers—on 17th November the prisoner pledged these eight forks and nine spoons for 7s. in the name of John Major, 8, Leyspring Road, and on the 18th this liqueur frame for £1 5s. in the same name and address—he said, "I purchased the frame at your shop in the Commercial Road"—his wife pawned a quilt on 18th in same name and address for 5s.—on 24th a woman offered a table-cover in the name of John Major—Mrs. Astley has identified the articles—I asked the prisoner if the articles belonged to him—he said, "Yes, I have known Mr. Fish in the Commercial Road for a considerable time, and I have purchased goods there"—we have another shop there—I inquired, and found he had purchased there unredeemed pledges to the amount of £5 or £6—these are the tickets.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. My lad wrote some of the tickets—you gave me the address—the name first—you said you had joined a new firm, but did not name them.

ROBERT WALTER BASEMAN . I am manager to Messrs. Currie and Co., 22, Coleman Street, solicitors to Mr. Wilkes, o £ Harrow Green, Ley tonstone, furniture remover—Mr. Wilkes has warehoused a quantity of furniture at Harrow Road, Ley tonstone, at the prisoner's request, at 3s. a week—Mrs. Astley has identified it.

By the COURT. I have no power to sell—I can only hold the goods till I am paid.

The prisoner, in his defence, said he had lived an honest, industrious life; that when he ordered the goods he intended to pay for them, but was disappointed by his father, through illness, not coming as arranged on 12th October with a cheque for £50 and providing the money; that he had £70 a year from his father, a respectable ship builder and owner in Jersey, who was worth £50,000, and was employed at Mr. Gowan's at £2 10s. a week, and they and others would give him a good character.

GUILTY.—Strongly recommended to mercy by the JURY.— Judgment respited.

Before Mr. Justice Day.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-121
VerdictGuilty > manslaughter
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

121. ANNIE HOWE (22) was indicted for, and charged on the Coroner's inquisition with, the wilful murder of Eliza Ann Howe.


ANNIE SAUL . I am the wife of William Saul, and live at 3, South Street, Stratford—the prisoner is my daughter, she is a single woman—she has lived at home with me all her life, except for seven months when she was living with a man—one night, about ten weeks before this occurrence, she came back to live with me—she worked at Bryant and May's match factory for some time, and then went to another factory, and then went back to Bryant and May's; she was working there when this happened; she earned some weeks eight, nine, and sometimes tea shillings; she paid me seven shillings a week for her board and lodging—she had a child living with her, two years and nine months old, named Eliza Ann Howe—she had always supported it—on 15th November she came from work at three—we had a pint of ale at a beer-shop, and went home—we had words over the money; she only gave me six shillings instead of seven shillings—I scolded her, I said it was too little for her and her child—my husband gave her a week's notice; she said, "I won't take a week's notice, mother, I will go to-night"—she went out, and came back in about an hour, about halt-past four, from that to five, and had tea—there were more words about the money—she left between six and seven with the child; she asked for her child's clothes, and she took four pinafores off the line—I next saw her just on the stroke of ten; She returned without the child—she began crying—I said, "What is the matter with you, Annie?" she said, "I have done it, I have drowned my baby"—I said, "You must be a wicked bitch to take your dear baby's life;" she said, "I have drowned my dear baby; tell brother George to get a policeman, and I will give myself up"—nothing more was said, the policeman came and arrested her, and took her away—my husband was present—I did not hear her say anything to the policeman.

Cross-examined. She has always been an industrious, hard-working girl, in continuous employment—she always gave me seven shillings a

week for herself and baby, when she earned it; her wages varied—in that week she was away from work one day, and did not earn her full wages—it was after we returned from the public-house that she gave me the six shillings—I jawed her about that—I told the Magistrate and Coroner I had no quarrel with her; I was so excited I hardly knew what I was saying, I afterwards acknowledged that I had—I did not tell her to go, that I could not keep her any longer on six shillings—I heard Mrs. Butler and Mrs. Barrett say before the Magistrate that I did say so—I did not call her names before she left the house—when the policeman came, and she said, "I have drowned my child," I did not say, "Yes, you b—cow"—my husband said, "It is a great pity you did not drown yourself, and leave the child on the bank"—it was nearer six than seven when she left with the child—when she came back she was very much excited, and kept exclaiming, "I have drowned my child"—I know the father of the child, it was not the man she lived with—she never affiliated it upon any one—she supported it out of her wages, she was always an affectionate mother to it—she used to take it out on Saturday nights.

Re-examined. She did not tell me when she left that she was going to look for lodgings.

EMILY BUTLER . I am the wife of David Butler, of Stanley Road, Stratford—I know the prisoner—she came to my house on Saturday evening, 15th November, about half-past six or a little later, with her child—she asked for a lodging for herself and baby; she said she had had a row with her mother about 6s. instead of 7s., and her mother had told her to go, but her father said, "No, not till next week," and she said, "No, I will go to-night"—she said she could only give 6s. because she had lost a day's work—I said I would ask my husband about the lodging when he came home from work; she went away saying she would come back, but she did not, and I saw her no more—she was sober, but looked excited and worried.

Cross-examined. I had never seen her in that strange way before.

THOMAS BOWSHALL . I am a labourer, of 20, Union Street, Stratford—I know the prisoner—on 15th November, about half-past seven, I saw her in the George public-house, Stratford, with the baby—I asked her how she was getting on—she said "All right"—I got her a glass of stout and mild—I gave her two half-pints—I asked what brought her down that way—it might be five or seven minutes' walk from her mother's—she said she was waiting for a lady friend; I left the house, leaving her there.

Cross-examined. She appeared to be in drink—she was generally a very sober girl—I had never seen her in that condition before.

ELLEN BARRETT . I am single—I live at 23, Steele Road, West Ham—I have known the prisoner for some years—I saw her in Stratford High Street on Saturday night, 15th June, about half-past eight—she had her child by the hand—she was crying; I asked what she was crying for, she said she was looking for a lodging for herself and the baby, as her mother had told her she must go; she said she had only given her mother 6s.—I walked with her as far as the Green Man public-house—we went in there—she then told me that her stepfather said if her mother had not told her to go, she would have to leave that day week—we had a pint of ale between three of us; Eliza Loch was

with us—she stayed there with me about a quarter of an hour; she had been with me about half an hour coming along Stratford—when she left the public-house she did not say where she was going; she said she would not be long; she did not say she was coming back; I thought she was going home—it appeared to me that she was out of her mind; as the baby sat on her right hand she was tearing her hair with the left, pulling it out—she seemed strange—she was still crying when she left me.

Cross-examined. She seemed out of her mind from some trouble; I did not think she was fit to be trusted alone—she walked the child along at first, and then took it up in her arms—I think the one pint was all we had, but I could not swear one way or the other.

JENNY TRESADER . I am the wife of John Tresader, of 62, Stanley Road, Stratford—I know the prisoner well—I saw her on 15th November about half-past nine outside the Butcher's Arms, Stratford; she was walking along the High Street, leading her baby by the hand—I said, "Hallo, Annie, have you been washing her hair?" because her hair seemed thinner in front—she said, "No"—I stopped with her about twenty minutes—I said, "The child's eyes are still very bad;" she said they were better than they used to be—I gave the child a halfpenny, and left her—she was going towards Stratford Church, and towards the bridge—I saw her again about ten, outside 25, West Street, close to where she lived, in the adjoining street—she was crying—I asked my mother-in-law what was the matter; she (prisoner) recognised my voice and said, "Is that you, Jenny? you gave my child a halfpenny about half-an-hour ago, and I bought it a halfpenny worth of potatoes, the last thing its mother will ever buy it in this world"—I said, "What nave you done with your baby?"—she said, "I have thrown it over the Harrow Bridge"—I asked her if she knew what she was saying—she said, Yes, she knew perfectly well what she was saying, that she had done it, worse luck—the police then came up and took her away.

Cross-examined. She was very excited—the police came up directly after I spoke to her; when I saw her at half-past nine her appearance was strange, she appeared upset; I was shocked—she seemed to be coming from her home.

JOHN LYON (Policeman K). I was on duty on this night, and about half-past nine I saw the prisoner in High Street, Stratford—she came from the footpath by the side of the river, and was going towards the bridge—she had no child with her—she went into the High Street—about a quarter to ten I was called by a little boy to 3, South Street, and saw the prisoner standing on the footpath, and a crowd of people—her mother was fetched, I saw her stepfather at the top of the street; before I said anything the prisoner said, "Oh, policeman, I have drowned my child"—I said, "Do you know what you are talking about?"—she said, "Yes, I had a few words at home this evening with my mother, I then took my child out, went up the High Street and threw it over Harrow Bridge. I then came home and told my mother I had drowned my child, and asked for a policeman to be sent for"—I told her I should take her into custody—she said, "All right, sir, I will come with you;" I took her to the station—as far as I could judge she was sober, she appeared excited.

Cross-examined. And cried bitterly—I could not say whether she had

been drinking or not—the bridge is a very narrow one, it is in High Street, the main thoroughfare; there are gas-lamps along the High Street, and I believe there is a lamp on the bridge—ten o'clock on Saturday is rather a busy time, the shops are open and there would be a considerable amount of traffic—she came up the path from the river, there is a very steep embankment; the parapet is about 4 ft. 6 in high from the road, you can easily lean over and look into the river—Police-constable Blagden was with me.

JOHN BLAGDEN (K 230). I was with Lyon on this night in South Street, Stratford, and saw the prisoner; she was in a very excited state, and said, "I have drowned my child, I had a row at home," and her mother said, "Yes, you b—cow"—the prisoner said, "It is true;" I said, "Be careful what you are saying; it is a serious accusation you are making against yourself"—her stepfather then said, "It's a pity you didn't throw your b—self in with it"—she was then arrested—"I said to the prisoner going up" West Street, "How long is it since you threw the child over?"—she said, "Just now"—I said to Lyon, "You take the prisoner down to the Police-station, and will go and see if I can recover the body," for it was low water—I and Police-constable McKay dragged the river; but the body was found while we went to get some more drags half a mile off.

JAMES SHEHAN (Police Inspector). I was in charge of the station when the prisoner was brought in—I read the charge to her—she said, "I wish to say"—I said, "Wait a moment; what you say I shall take down in writing and produce at your trial"—she then made this statement, which I took down—"I wish to say I am very sorry it happened. If I hadn't been the worse for drink and upset I should not have done it; I liked the child too well for that, and I worked and kept her since she was born, out of my own money what I earned"—she signed it and acknowledged it to be voluntary—she appeared to be perfectly sober.

Cross-examined. This was at 10.35—she was quiet—Dr. Grugono saw her about twelve.

WILLIAM ROOKS (Police Inspector). I was on duty at the West Ham Police-station when the prisoner was brought in—I directed four constables to drag for the body, and went with them about 11.25—it was dragged ashore 300 or 400 yards below Harrow Bridge by McKay and a constable of the Lee Conservancy, and conveyed to the station, where it was examined by Dr. Grugono, and identified by Mrs. Saul.

MRS. SAUL (Re-examined.)I saw the body at the Police-station—it was that of the prisoner's child—the prisoner had a pint with me before she left the house with the child—that is all she had with me—she was sober when she came home in the afternoon—she was sober when she went out with the child between six and seven.

ATKINS GRUGONO . I am divisional surgeon to the police at Stratford—I examined the dead body of the child at the West Ham Police-station at twelve p.m. on 15th November—there were no marks of external violence, the general appearance being that of death from drowning—there was mud about the eyes and nose, such as might come from the bottom of the river—I made a post-mortem on the 17th, and found the cause, of death to be drowning—the body was shown me by Inspector Rooks—I saw the prisoner the same night at the Police-station—she was excited, and I said, "What is the matter?"—she said, "Had it not been for

drink and trouble I should not have done it"—there was nothing to show she had been drinking.

Cross-examined. I saw her at 12.15—if she had been drinking in the early part of the evening, a great shock about ten o'clock would be sufficient to sober her—there was a bruise under the child's scalp—the left side—I examined it and found the blood extravasated—it was probably caused by the child falling against something in falling into the water.

Re-examined. It was low water, and the bruise might have been caused by striking a stone in the bottom of the river—the bridge is about 14 ft. from the water at low water, including the parapet—the water would break the concussion.

By the COURT. The appearances were consistent with the child being thrown in from the footpath.

WILLIAM ROOKS (Re-examined.). At about 9.30 that night I should say certainly there were two or three feet of water under the Harrow Bridge—Dr. Grugono spoke of the time the body was recovered in the centre of the bed of the river—there was only about a foot of water then, and the tide ebbed for about another half-hour—the embankment on which the footpath runs is about 6 ft., I should say, above low and 2 ft. above high water—it is so steep that if the child had been dropped it would roll into the river.

ROSE ATKINS . I live at 1, Primrose Place, Stratford—I saw the prisoner on 14th November—she told me she had been turned out of Mrs. Chamberlain's, and said, "Ever since I have been home my mother has been very cross with me, and told me to go and do away with myself and the baby"—I told her not to do that, but to come and live along with me—she said, "But you are Bill Chamberlain's aunt"—I said, "Never mind anything about being his aunt"—she said, "If my mother turns me out I shall come"—she promised me she would come on Monday afternoon and bring the baby with her—Bill Chamberlain's is the house she lived at before she went to her mother.

GUILTY of manslaughter. Strongly recommended to mercy on account of the unhappy circumstances of the case. Five Years' Penal Servitude.

Before Mr. Recorder,

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-122
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

122. THOMAS ANDREWS (23) , Breaking and entering the dwelling-house of James Patrick, and stealing a stamp and a die, his property.

MR. LAWLESS Prosecuted.

JAMES PATRICK . I am a carpenter, of 17, Park Road, West Ham—on 27th November I had left my house locked up for three weeks or a month, and left the keys with Mrs. Stone—I received a communication from the police, and this case was shown to me which I had left in the house, and my name and address and a die are inside it—I found the house a little bit upset, but that was the only thing I lost.

Cross-examined. There are eight rooms; I only searched one—I felt the die in a drawer of the dressing-table.

EMILY STONE . I am the wife of James Stone, of 80, Park Road—Mr. Patrick is my sister's husband—I was looking after his house in his absence; I had the keys—I went there on 20th November about 8.30 a.m., and found everything right. I left before 9 o'clock, locking the

front door after me and taking the key away—about 9 p.m. I received a communication from the police and went over the house—the drawers were all pulled out in the front bedroom and the dressing-table disturbed.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner, I left the Venetian blinds up upstairs and down downstairs.

ESTHER COSIER . I am the wife of George Cosier, and live in Park Road, exactly opposite Mr. Patrick—on 20th November, about 7.30. p.m., I saw two strange men in Mr. Patrick's front bedroom; they were carrying a lighted lamp—I called my husband, but did not move from the door, and kept observation on the house, and saw two men come from the front door—the prisoner is one of them—they left the door open—my husband came up from the kitchen and went out, they started running and he followed them—I saw a third man outside the house, but I don't know whether he was with' them—I afterwards saw the prisoner in custody.

Cross-examined. They were about ten yards from the house when my husband went out—I am sure it was you, I identify you by your light coat, I should not know you by your face, but I noticed your figure—it is hardly 100 yards from our house to the top of Park Road—the other man wore a dark coat.

GEORGE COSIER . My wife called me about 7.30; I ran out of my front door at once and saw two men about ten yards from Mr. Patrick's house just beginning to run—I followed them; when they got to the top of the road I saw the prisoner throw something over a fence; he was one of the two; I followed him and caught him at the back of Park Road without losing sight of him—Mr. Jacobs, a friend of mine, came up and helped me to secure him, and with Mr. Baker's assistance we took him to the station—when he got to West Ham Church he said he would go no further—Detective Lloyd and I got over at the spot where I saw him throw something over, and Lloyd picked up this jemmy and case.

Cross-examined. I never lost sight of you when you turned the corner, I could see you over the fence, it is only about 4 ft. 6 in high, and I was only about a yard behind you—I thought I also saw you throw something away into the field, and took Detective Lloyd there; I had mentioned it to him before that—I did not search till Lloyd came—I had no lantern, but I struck some matches—I did not find anything there—I went into the front parlour of the house, and also upstairs, I held the lamp for the sergeant—I should take this case for a watch at first sight, but it is very light, not one-sixth part of the weight of a watch.

Re-examined. The prisoner has not had it in his hand since it has been found—I thought there were two places where the prisoner threw something, the first place was where we found the jemmy, I could not find anything at the other place.

HENRY JACOBS . I live at 74, Park Road—on the evening of November 20th I was at Mr. Cosier's about 7.30, and noticed four men opposite—I was in the kitchen and heard Mr. Cosier call out—Mr. Cosier went up first and I followed him, and saw him pursuing two men near the top of the road—the prisoner was one of them; I saw him catch him and I assisted him.

Cross-examined. I know you by your appearance and by your light coat; I did not see your face—nobody passed me—I am positive I did

not say in my depositions, "The two men were 200 yards off when I came out of 36"—that must be a mistake—I never lost sight of you—when I first saw you you were very nearly at the top of Park Road—it was a dark, dirty night; when I came out into the dark I could not distinguish anything at first, you were then several yards from me, all running.

Re-examined. I never lost sight of him till he was caught.

TOM BARTON . I lie at 27, Park Road—on 20th November at 7.30 p.m. I was standing in the bay window of my sitting-room, and Mr. Cosier called my name twice—I went out and saw him running, and two figures running ahead of him, one of whom disappeared to the right—I went to the left and was told something and went down Case Park Road, and saw a light flash and Cosier said, "Strike a match, I think he has thrown something away"—I went up and found Cosier holding the prisoner and Mr. Jacobs on his right—I helped to take the prisoner to the station—he said, "Take your hand off my collar, you have no right to take me"—I said, "Never mind the right, I will bear the responsibility"—further on he said, "You see that wall; I am not going a bit further than that, you will have to send somebody to fetch me"—I. immediately pulled him up.

Cross-examined. I saw four figures, but two were in front of Mr. Cosier—I said, "You are one of the villains who have been giving us this trouble for the last month," and I threatened to punch your b——head—Mrs. Cosier said, "They have got into Patrick's. "

JOSHUA HAMLIN (1 K R). On 20th November, about 7.45, I was in West Ham Lane, near the Police-station, and saw the prisoner brought along by Cosier and Barton—I saw him into the station and then went to 37, Park Road, and found the front door burst open by a jemmy—the front bedroom upstairs was in a state of confusion—I returned to the station and said to the prisoner, "You will be charged, with others not in custody, with breaking into 37, Park Road, but I cannot say what has been stolen"—he said nothing—I found on him four keys, a ring, and three pocket-handkerchiefs—at ten o'clock I received information from Lloyd, and next day, when I was removing the prisoner from the Police-court to the cell, after the examination, he said, "Lloyd got a little, bit fogged; I do not disown that I was there, but I like the truth. "

Cross-examined. I went into the front room at No. 37, I did not see the stamp case there—when you said, "I admit being there," I thought you meant in the house—you did not say, "I admit being at the top of Park Road;"Park Road was not mentioned.

JOHN LLOYD (Detective Sergeant K). On 20th November, at nine p.m., I went to 37, Park Road and saw Mr. Cosier—I got a lantern and went with him to a field at the corner of Park Road, and saw him pick up this jemmy, and about two yards from it I picked up this box—we searched farther on but found nothing—next morning I compared the jemmy with the marks on the door, and they fitted exactly, in two places—there was paint on the jemmy of the same colour as that on the door of the house—I saw the prisoner at the station at 10.15 p.m.—I told him I had found this stamp case; he said, "We got nothing, there was nothing in the drum to take," meaning the house—I said, "I am sorry to see you here."

Cross-examined. One room had been disturbed, the front bedroom—I did not go down to the cell and ask you who was with you—I did not say that if you closed with me I would make it light for you—I have known you fifteen years—you may have lived in Bow five years ago—(The COURT cautioned the prisoner that if he raked the question of character the JURY would have to go into it)—I have had charge of this jemmy—I kept it in my box—it was taken from me, and if you wish me to tell the Court the reason Sergeant Mellish will explain it—he and I are the only ones who have access to that box—we have not both keys of it—I was away, and as he wished to have the jemmy the box was forced, as it was wanted in connection with another charge against you—I am sure it is the same.

GEORGE MELLISH (Detective Sergeant K). I had this jemmy, the box was not found—it was handed to me by Sergeant Hamliss; I am sure it is the same—I produce a certificate of the prisoner's former conviction in the name of Edward Fletcher; his correct name is Edward Wells, and on the same day there-was another conviction.

Cross-examined. I know you well enough—I saw that you had given a wrong name and refused your address.

The prisoner, in his defence, stated that he met a commission agent named Greenfield that evening at the top of Parle Road, who had two friends with Aim; that they left him waiting for them; that he heard Mr. Cosier call out, and one or two men run past him, and Greenfield took of his coat and put it on his arm and told him to go out of the way, upon which he began to run, but being weak and-ill could not run far, and was knocked down and taken; that he never was down Parle Road, and that he could not find Greenfield.

GUILTY .—He was—then charged with having been before convicted of larceny, of which the JURY found him GUILTY upon the evidence already given.— Nine Months' Hard Labour.


Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-123
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

123. SARAH NYE (43) and LYDIA CLARKE (39) . Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted and MR. KEITH FRITH Defended Nye.

CHARLES DODSON . I am now manager to George Spencer Smith, of 25, High Road, Lee—on 11th November, about seven o'clock, the prisoner Clarke bought some soap, and gave me what I took to be a shilling—I placed it in an affair at the top of the till, where we place each coin separately, as it is taken, and gave her tenpence change—she then purchased a pot of extract of beef, and gave me a shilling—I bent it in a drawer and it broke in two—I gave her the pieces back—when she saw me trying it she said, "I need not have given you that, I have got small change"—she paid with a sixpence and three halfpence and went away—I then went to the till and found the first coin where I had placed it; I had placed no other coin there—it was bad—it works round and drops into the till, but this had not dropped in—as we take coins the others drop in; and this had not dropped in because we had not taken any more coins—one coin waits the arrival of another before it drops in

—no other person was serving—there were coins in the other compartments—I gave a description of the woman to the constable.

Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. I gave evidence before in this case, and the jury disagreed—only one other person was serving in the shop; she used the same till—this was Saturday night, but we were not very busy—I examined the money in the till half a minute after the prisoner left the shop—I cannot swear that the shilling which was found in the till was given me by Clarke for the soap—it had not dropped through; it was in a compartment by itself, into which I had placed the shilling Clarke gave me—I have not seen anyone from the Treasury since I gave my evidence—I should not like to swear that this is the one Clarke gave me.

Re-examined. The till was directly in front of me, and I did not see anyone go to it during that time—I identify this as the coin I took out.

HENRY JOSEPH SARGEANT . I am a butcher, of 104, High Street, Lewis ham, within a minute's walk of the High Road, Lee—on 8th November about 8 p.m. Clarke came and bought half a leg of mutton, price 2s. 4 1/2 d., and gave me a florin and a sixpence—I gave her 1 1/2 d. change, and she turned to go, when Barnett came in and spoke to me—I then tried the florin with my teeth—it was soft and it bent—my teeth went into it—this is it—I found it gritty, and handed it to Barnett immediately—he left the shop, and in about three minutes brought in the two prisoners and the half leg of mutton.

Cross-examined by MR. FRITH.—I did not try the florin in Clarke's presence—I was very busy—it was midnight and Saturday night—a great many women of the working classes were doing their marketing—I might have given the coin away innocently.

DAVID BARNETT (R 86). On 8th November about 7 o'clock I was on duty in the High Road, Lee, with Highland, and received from Mr. Davidson a description of a woman; twenty minutes after which I saw Clarke standing alone in High Street, Lewisham, and Nye came out of Mr. Noble's, a milliner's shop, and joined her—they went up the High Street, and Clarke went into a grocer's shop, Mr. Kidney's, 131, High Street, and made a purchase while Nye stood outside—Clarke came out and joined Nye—they went up High Street together, and crossed to the opposite side, and went into Mr. Thomas's boot shop, and Nye took a purse out of a black basket, took something out of it, and handed it to Clarke—Nye walked in front, and Clarke, nearly fifty yards off from Mr. Sargeant's shop, stood looking into a furniture shop; Clarke went into Mr. Sargeant's shop, and I saw her purchase a half-leg of mutton—I was waiting outside the door, and as she came out I went in and spoke to Mr. Sargeant, and saw him bite the coin, and then he handed it to me; it was the same coin—I went out and saw Clarke join Nye, they walked together about one hundred yards from the shop—Highland and I followed and stopped them—I said to Clarke, "I want you to go back to the butcher's shop; you have just passed a bad two-shilling piece"—she made no answer—Nye could hear that she said nothing; we took them back to the shop, and Nye said, "I must have taken it in change—she was carrying this purse in her hand—I took possession of it, and found in it two half-crowns and 7 1/2 d., all good; it is a similar purse to the one she took out of her basket—she had a

half leg of mutton in her basket, various articles of grocery, a piece of soap, and a packet of extract of meat.

Cross-examined by MR. FRITH. Nobody is here from the boot shop—one waited for the other while they went to make their purchases.

HENRY HIGHLAND (R 455). I was with Barnett on 8th November, and saw Clarke go into Mr. Sargeant's shop while Nye waited outside, and while Barnett was in the shop Nye was looking into a furniture shop about forty yards away—I saw Clarke come out and rejoin Nye—we followed them, and I took Nye in custody, and took a green purse from her hand; I examined it at the station, it contained a half-crown, three florins, four shillings, and 7 1/2 d. bronze; all good except one florin—on the way to the station Nye handed me another purse, a brown one, it was more worn than the other, and the catch was broken—she said, "This purse don't belong to me; it belongs to a woman; I don't know what is in it"—I found in it six shillings and a bad florin; four of the shillings were wrapped in the same paper as the florin, separated by the folds of the paper—at the station Nye said, "You handed me this purse"—Clarke said, "Yes, I picked it up in the street. "

LYDIA KEDGE . I am female searcher at Lee Road Police-station—I searched Nye on 8th November, and found a brooch on her, and on Clarke one shilling and ninepence halfpenny in bronze, a shilling and a; sixpence, all good—I found no money on Nye—Clarke said that she got it by mangling.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin at Her Majesty's Mint—these four shillings and one florin, wrapped in paper, are all bad, and so are these two shillings in this smaller purse; these other three shillings are counterfeit—this shilling found in the till is from the same mould as one found in Nye's purse—the coins are wrapped up in tissue paper—they are previously rubbed over with lamp-black, and taken out one by one.

The prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. Nye says: "I did not know what was in the purse; it did not belong to me." Clarke says: "I picked up the purse going along; I gave it to Mrs. Nye; she said, Why don't you go and buy some meat? she said she wanted to go home to her husband I went and bought some meat. I went home to my husband. "

Nye's Defence. Directly I was locked up I gave my name and address, and the police have had every opportunity of investigating my character.



Before Mr. Justice Day.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-124
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceDeath > respited; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

124. SAMUEL HAINES HARVELL (42) , for the wilful murder of Rosina Harwell.


PERCY OGDEN . I live at Battersea, and was formerly shop boy at 195, York Road, Battersea, an oil shop belonging to Sedgwick and Donald—the prisoner was manager—we were carrying on business at Plough Road at the time, and I saw the prisoner and Mrs. Harvell there on 2nd Decem

ber (we had left York Road on account of a fire), the deceased was then in good health—I left the premises about ten p.m., leaving the prisoner there—I got to the shop about eight next morning—the prisoner let me in and said he was going for a walk—he went towards the news paper shop, as was his habit—he did not come back, and the police came about nine—I did not know until after the police left that Mrs. Harvell was dead—as far as I know the prisoner and his wife lived on friendly terms.

Cross-examined. The prisoner lived at the shop with his wife and three children—the fire occurred on 6th November.

CHARLES LOCKWOOD . I am a newsagent, of 175, York Road, Battersea—the prisoner was a customer of mine—he came to my shop a little after 8 a.m. on 3rd December—he said, "Good morning," rubbing his hands as if cold, and asked me to oblige him with half an ounce of tobacco, with which I served him—he remained talking five or six minutes about the state of trade and the fire that had occurred—he was a very rush about sort of man and excitable, not in his speech but his manner—I did not notice anything unusual about him—his last words to me were, "I must be off."

Cross-examined. I have known him twelve months, and have always observed his restless manner and jerky kind of way.

ARTHUR JOHN HOPKINS .—I am a pawnbroker, of 147, York Road, Battersea, and have known the prisoner about twelve months—he purchased a revolver of me about 15th November—he said he was a good shot, and wanted it for practice, I believe—he asked for some cartridges; I said I had none for sale, but gave him a few of my own—about a week after he came again and asked if I had any more cartridges—I told him I had not, but I thought he could buy them in the Strand—he said he had tried the revolver, and done it up, as it did not answer properly, but it answered very well then; he seemed to be in his usual state.

Cross-examined. I do not remember his saying when he first came that the house in Plough Road was very open at the back—I knew that he was living there—I don't know the houses—I only gave him about half a dozen cartridges—all of the same kind—I noticed his restlessness; we were in the habit of going to see each other to have a chat.

WILLIAM GAME . I am a retired police officer, of 17, Cambella Road, Battersea—in July last I received a message and went to see the prisoner, who said he wanted me to watch a woman and a little girl, who would come out of a shop in the York Road where they then lived, at six p.m., and he would indicate them to me—I went there accordingly and saw them come out—he motioned towards them, and I followed them—they merely went into certain shops—I repeated my visits the following several nights with the same result—I afterwards saw the prisoner, and told him the result, and that he would not require me any more as the woman had gone away—he said, "A good riddance to her"—he sent for me again early in November, and said he wanted me to watch the same woman again—I did so for two or three days, and saw nothing that at tracted my attention—he told me to go again, but I did not—he paid me for what I did—on these occasions the prisoner appeared to be very excited, and used to run about with his hands up to his ears and so forth—he

never mentioned to me that it was his wife, but "some relation"—he fancied she went up to the corner of the Falcon Road to meet a man.

Cross-examined. She always had a girl with her of about fourteen.

GEORGE HUDSON (Police Sergeant B 2). I was on duty at Battersea Police-station about 8.20 a.m. 3rd December, when the prisoner came in And said, "I have shot my wife at 17, Plough Road; can I have a piece of paper to write my brother's address?"—at the same time taking a six chambered revolver from his coat pocket, and handing it to me he said, "Here is the revolver loaded in three chambers"—I said, "Is your wife dead?"—he said, "I don't know"—I sent for the Inspector—the prisoner said, "What would you do if your wife was a whore?"—I gave him a piece of paper—he wrote something, and took from his trousers pocket some cartridges.

JAMES MALONE (Police Inspector V). I went to the Police-station and found the prisoner in the sergeant's custody, who gave me this paper (produced)—I read it to him—"8.20 a.m., 3rd December, I have shot my wife at 17, Plough Road"—this revolver was loaded in three chambers—I asked him if she was dead, and he replied, "I don't know; what would you do if your wife was a whore?"—on the other side there is, "Mr. Haryell, 300, Battersea Park Road: "Dear James,—Take charge of the children, and go at once to 17, Plough Road, and take charge of every thing, S. HARVELL"—I asked him if he still adhered to his statement—he said, "That is quite correct, and so perish all whores"—the sergeant handed me the revolver—three barrels were loaded, two recently discharged, and one empty—I then went to 17, Plough Road, where in a back room on the top floor I found the dead body of a woman in bed, shot through the head—Dr. Carpenter was sent for, and after the post mortem he handed me this bullet (produced)—after seeing the body I re turned to the Police-station and said to the prisoner, "I shall take you into custody, and charge you with the murder of your wife"—he replied, "Very well, quite right."

FELIX CHARLES KEMPSTER . I am assistant divisional surgeon at Battersea—I went to 17, Plough Road on 3rd December, and on the second floor back room I found the body of a woman in bed, lying with her hand under her head, and her right arm across her chest—she must have been asleep when she was shot—there was a ballet wound in her right temple—there was no scorching or powder mark—I made a post mortem, and found a bullet embedded in the brain—I gave it to the inspector—she was four or five months gone in the family way.

Cross-examined. She had been dead three or four hours—I got there at about 10.10—death would be absolutely instantaneous—I cannot say whether she would sigh or not—it might be possible.

EBENEZER JAMES HARVELL . I live at 300, Battersea Park Road—I am the prisoner's brother—he had been married about fourteen years—there are three children, of eleven, eight, and four—he had been in the oil and colour trade about twelve years—he had been in the army—I went to my brother's house and identified the dead body of his wife—I had a conversation with him about his wife early in October—he said he believed she met either men or another man, I don't know which; and that he had engaged some one to watch her—I told him it was a ridiculous thing altogether—we had other conversations on different occasions; the last time I think was 1st December, when he was very

excited, and said; "I believe I have got the men"—he made an appointment with me for eight o'clock that night, but did not come—that was the last time I saw him before his arrest—I told him as to his suspicions he must be mad to think of such a thing.

Cross-examined. He has been remarkably excited in speaking on the subject, and has been more so in his manner since July or August—his wife was a thoroughly good woman—after the fire occurred in York Road he was reprimanded by his master for carelessness, which seemed to affect him very much—he had a sunstroke at Gibraltar, when in the army, some twenty years ago—he also received a severe blow on the head while in Ireland.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I have nothing to say, only that the wretch who brought all this on me ought to be here instead, of me. "

Witnesses for the Defence.

DE. JOSEPH W. WINTERBURN . I practise at Bridge Road, Battersea—the prisoner came to me for treatment on, I think, 13th October—he was suffering from a syphilitic ulcer on his tongue—he said it was of old standing—I examined him—the first or second time he came to me he asked me if I could tell him the symptoms of gonorrhea in a female—I asked him if his wife had a discharge, and he said, "Yes"—I treated him for old syphilis.

Cross-examined. He suggested that I should examine his wife—I said I would rather not.

Re-examined. It was a gummous ulcer, which indicates disease of old standing.

DR. JOHN WALKER SMYTHE . I am in practice at 13, Colebrooke Row, City Road—I attended the prisoner for about seven years up to within the last twelve months, when he left my neighbourhood—I treated him principally for syphilis, severe nervous excitement, and suicidal mania—he has once or twice said to me it was a fine night for a fellow like him to throw himself over Blackfriars Bridge—he appeared to be remarkably fond of his wife and children.

Cross-examined. The syphilis was of some years' standing, what we call tertiary syphilis—it is always amenable to treatment—the old disease will break out again, in which case it is not eradicated—it is very improbable that tertiary syphilis will be eradicated—it is a common thing for persons with tertiary syphilis to think they had better drown themselves—the mind gets unhinged.

By the COURT. We call it mania, a suicidal disposition.

DR. GILBERT. I am Medical Officer at Her Majesty's Prison, Holloway, and have had the prisoner under my constant supervision since 4th December, and have frequently examined him as to his mental con dition—he told me he had had a sunstroke at Gibraltar twenty years ago—that he was insensible between five and six hours, and was in hospital for three, four, or five days; he was not quite certain—he said his married life up to June or July last was quite happy, when he began to suspect his wife, and believed a man had been intriguing with her, but gave me no idea who he was or what he was like—he said when he entered his house at the back he could hear the front door slam, and imagined that this unknown man was escaping, or, vice versa; if he entered

at the front the man would go out at the back—it has been represented to me by those who have watched the prisoner that he has slept very badly; he has complained to me of a dull aching pain in his right temple—I have tested his head by tapping, and he flinches directly you touch him there—it corresponds with the place in which his wife was shot—I can't account for it except that it is an insane idea he has got.

By the COURT. There is nothing to suggest that a man would suffer in the part of his head where he shot anyone else—I believe there is such a tenderness, for he flinches there, and nowhere else—the only reason I can suggest is that he has so concentrated his attention on that spot where his wife was shot that he has become influenced with that idea.

By MR. BODKIN. He told me very often that he thought the pain must be due to the bullet being in his own head—he tells me he is constantly hearing a faint sigh which his wife made when she was shot, and that he has seen visions of his wife lying dead, and children appear—he is now of unsound mind, and was, I believe, on 3rd December—I believe he is suffering from mental disease.

Cross-examined. Supposing a sane man to commit an act of this kind I should be surprised at his being haunted by the dying sighs of his wife—I don't think it would be a natural thing—I should not say that it was an indication of itself that the man was insane—if he blew his wife's brains out I do not think it would be unnatural that he should not be haunted by the dying sigh of his wife—I am not astonished that he is restless in his sleep—if he saw visions of his wife I should certainly think his brain was affected; not if he dreamt it—I cannot find any other delusion he has except that he thought a man was committing adultery with his wife—that is a well-marked one.

Re-examined. I often find that the acts of a person who has an insane delusion are connected with that delusion—I think his giving himself up tends to show that he was of unsound mind—the fact of his having been restless and excitable, especially since July, helps me to form an opinion as to his mental condition.

By the COURT, I have had many conversations with him on all sorts of subjects—on all other subjects except as to hearing his wife sigh, and so on, he has been able to converse as most people can.

DR. HENRY CHARLTON BASTAIN . I have had considerable experience in mental diseases, and I examined the prisoner on 16th December, at the request of the solicitors to the Treasury, in order to ascertain his mental condition, and I thought him of unsound mind, and I should say that condition had existed for several months—I discovered no evidence of syphilis—syphilis is a cause of insanity—the sunstroke might have something to do with it, but it is a very long time ago, and there have been no symptoms in the intermediate time—I think when I examined him he was under a delusion—I examined his head—he complained of pain in the right region, where he flinched immediately from the slightest touch—I think that is part of the evidence of his derangement—he said the explanation of his feeling this pain, where he said he had never felt it before, was that since he shot his wife he thought the bullet was there—when I asked him how he thought the bullet could possibly be there he looked puzzled, and said, "Well, it is exactly in the same place, I am sure," and he seemed to think it

was a satisfactory account of it—he seemed confident it was there—I think his giving himself up and speaking as he did on 3rd December is quite consistent with his being of unsound mind, and more consistent than the notion that he was actuated by ordinary passion—there is often calmness after an outburst.

Cross-examined. The mere fact that a man had an unfounded suspicion of his wife's fidelity would not induce me to say necessarily that he was insane—that has not led me to my conclusion—if he, under that unfounded suspicion, blew out his wife's brains I should not say, necessarily, he was insane—giving himself up to justice after the act does not tell, nor would a man giving himself up for a crime he had committed be conclusive evidence that he was insane—the prisoner indicated to me the spot in his head—I examined the man as I should any ordinary person who came to me, to test his sanity or insanity—I asked him if he had any pain, and he replied at once, "Yes," and pointed to his head in that situation.

By the COURT. He had been examined many times before by previous witnesses.

By MR. FULTON. I asked him about previous disease as regards con sumption, and there was nothing mentioned to me about syphilis, nor was any complaint made to me that suggested the notion that he had syphilis—I examined him ophthalmically also, and found no evidence of disease of the brain—the optic discs were normal.

By the COURT. There may be a real foundation or not; I should say he had pain where he pointed, though the pain might not be occasioned by organic disease—of course there is very great difficulty in discriminating between an assumed pain and a real pain—I am accustomed to examine patients constantly, and the impression conveyed to my mind was that he did suffer pain—it seemed to me to be an after-result of the deed—the constant concentration of attention, on that part of the brain does conjure up a condition of things in which pain is felt—there is nothing more common than that mental concentration on particular parts of the body will occasion actual pain, and other actual changes in the body also, the seat of the nerves.

GUILTY . Strongly recommended to mercy by the JURY on account of medical evidence as to the state of his mind.Death. (Since commuted Penal Servitude for Life .

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-125
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

125. MICHAEL TULLEY (23) , for b—stl—y.

MR. DE MICHELE Prosecuted.


Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-126
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

126. ALFRED HARDING (24), JANE CLARK (24), and HENRY CLARK (23) , Breaking and entering the Church of St. Philip, Kennington, and stealing a bunch of keys, the property of John Hulme Walther and others.

MR. LINES Prosecuted.

GEORGE WILSON . I am verger of St. Philip's Church, Kennington—the Rev. John Hulme Walther is the vicar—on Sunday, 23rd November, a little before 8.30 p.m. I closed the church after service—the doors and windows were securely fastened and the doors locked—the vestry door was locked by the vicar in my presence—he tried it to see that it was

secure—the vestry windows were properly secured—there are two vestriea; you go through the choir vestry to the other, in which was au iron safe—there is no door between the two, only an opening—when I last saw the safe the doors were closed to but not locked—it contained the registers of the church and a bundle of keys—there was a difficulty in locking it, and we had to go to it to get an old register out—these are the keys (produced)—this jemmy, rope, candle, and matches do not belong to the church.

WILLIAM BURT (L 84). On Sunday evening, 23rd November, I was on duty in Kennington Road, close to the church—the vestry door is thirty or forty yards from the road—I examined the door and found the vestry door broken open—I blew my whistle, and in two or three minutes Ross came up—we closed the door and searched the church with my lantern, and found the three prisoners in the lobby of the north door, which was locked; it is divided from the church by swing doors—I said, "What are you doing here?"—Clark and Harding said, "We got drunk; we don't know where we are"—I said, "We shall take you into custody;" they made no reply—the female prisoner said nothing—we took them to the station—the first time we tried to open the lobby doors we failed, because they were being held inside.

Cross-examined by Harding. We pulled three times before we got it open; the second time it opened about a foot, and the third time we got in and found you.

JAMES Ross (L R 18). I heard a whistle blow, and went with Burt into the church, and found the prisoners between the north door and the swing doors—we had a difficulty in pulling the doors open, they were evidently held by some one inside—this iron hook was just inside the vestry door, it fits into the woodwork; by pulling that out they got the vestry door open—I found this candle and box of matches in Clark's pocket; he said nothing.

THOMAS NEAL (Police Inspector L). I took the charge at the station, and examined the church with a police lamp—an attempt had been made to enter the vestry by tearing away the lead and glass of the vestry window, but there were iron bars inside, and they could not get through—you cannot see the bars outside—I found marks of violence on the vestry door and on the hasp, and inside the vestry a table drawer was wide open, papers were scattered all over the floor, and in the inner vestry I found the safe opened, and the contents scattered over the floor, and a cupboard wrenched open, with a lock lying under it—I went into the church and found in a pew this knotted rope, which is used for lowering anybody from a window, and in another pew these keys on a cushion—the verger identified them as being taken from the safe—they were about ten yards from where I found the prisoners—I found this jemmy, which corresponds with eight or nine indentations on the vestry door and doorpost—I saw the prisoners as soon as they were brought to the station—there were no indications of drink whatever on any of them.

Cross-examined by Harding. The keys were not found on you, but they were in the iron safe when the verger closed the church.

GEORGE WILSON (Re-examined.). There are two sets of keys; this is a duplicate set which have not been used for five years—I took the others home with me but these always remained in the iron safe.

Henry Clark's Defence. When I was charged it was with breaking and entering with intent to steal; now I am charged here with stealing a bunch of keys which I know nothing about. My wife followed us into the church and begged us to come out.

Harding's Defence. When the inspector booked the charge he did not say we were charged with stealing the keys; now he says we are.

Jane Clark's Defence. I went into the church to ask my husband to come out—I worked up to the Saturday, as this was Sunday night.

HENRY CLARK and HARDING— GUILTY of church-breaking, with intent to steal. They then PLEADED GUILTY** to convictions at this Court—Clark on September 12, 1887, and Harding on July 29, 1889.— Five Years each in Penal Servitude.


Before Mr. Recorder.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-127
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

127. THOMAS TYSON (26) , Unlawfully assaulting Mary Jane Cotterell, with intent to ravish her.

MR. A. METCALFE Prosecuted.

GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour. The GRAND JURY and the Court commended the conduct of Police-constable Arthur Butt (V 612), who was injured by the prisoner.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-128
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

128. ALEXANDER McDONALD (17), CHARLES WILSON (17), and ALFRED JOHN SMITH (16) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing eight coats and other articles in the dwelling-house of James William Condell Fagan, and afterwards burglariously breaking out of the same.— Judgment respited.

15th December 1890
Reference Numbert18901215-129
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

129. JAMES GILLIE PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously marrying Annie Jane Neal, his wife being alive.— Four Months Hard Labour.


View as XML