Old Bailey Proceedings.
16th November 1896
Reference Number: t18961116

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
16th November 1896
Reference Numberf18961116

Related Material


Sessions Paper.








Short-hand Writers to the Court,










Sess. I-VI



On the Queen's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Monday, November 16th, 1896, and following days.

BEFORE the RIGHT HON. SIR GEORGE FAUDEL PHILLIPS, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir HENRY HAWKINS , Knt., one of the Justices of Her Majesty's High Court; Sir HENRY EDMUND KNIGHT , Knt., Sir REGINALD HANSON , Bart., M.P., Sir JOSEPH SAVORY , Bart., M.P., Sir STUART KNILL , Bart, Aldermen of the said City; Sir CHARLES HALL , Q.C., M.P., K.C.M.G., Recorder of the said City; Lieut.-Col. HORATIO DAVID DAVIES , M.P., Sir JOHN VOCE MOORE, Knt., JOHN POUND , Esq., WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN , Esq., WILLIAM PURDIE TRELOAR, Esq., JOHN CHARLES BELL , Esq., and GEORGE WYATT TRUSCOTT , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knt., Q.C., 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.


OLD COURT.—Monday, November 16th, 1896.

Before Mr. Recorder.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-1
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

1. WILLIAM WILKES was indicted for stealing four pairs of leather gloves of the West Ham Gas Company. Second Count—For receiving them.

MR. LYNCH Prosecuted, and MR. HUTTON Defended.

WILLIAM KEMP (Detective Sergeant.) On September 2nd I was with constable Lee outside the gates of Messrs. Berger's manufactory, at Homerton—I had spoken to Mr. Garston, the manager, and we were watching the gate of the factory—I saw the prisoner drive up in a horse and cart in company with another man; in the bottom of the cart was a sack, apparently full—the prisoner is a greengrocer and carman—the prisoner got out of the cart and entered the factory by the gate—I remained there while he went inside—he was inside for a minute and a-half; he then came out, crossed the road hurriedly, got up in the cart, and drove off at a rapid rate—I came out of my hiding-place, got up in a cart, and drove after him; Lee remained there—I went to the prisoner's house; when I got there the sack had been taken from the cart into a room at the back of the shop—I asked him what he had got there; he shot out the gloves, twenty-six pairs—I produce one pair; I should say they are new—some, not all, are tied together at the top; about half may be so tied—I examined the gloves; some of them are marked "W.H.G.C."—apparently an attempt has been made to erase the name, especially as to the others—this pair is apparently new—they are all new—I asked the prisoner where he got them from—he made a statement; he said, "I will tell you the truth and all about it, if you listen;" this is the statement (Read: "I, William Wilkes, of 16, Vallance Road, Hackney Wick, state that on several occasions I have bought gloves from a man named Jemmy Finch, of Bromley. He is a stoker, and works at the West Ham and other gas factories. The gloves are the same as these produced. I always give him 8s. a dozen. The gloves, I believe, are collected by Finch from stokers at West Ham and Beckton. About two and a-half years ago Finch told me the gloves in future would be marked, as so many had been

seen outside the works. I told him they were no use to me if they were marked, as nobody would buy them. Since then he has brought me some not marked, several times. I used to buy some off the foreman at Bromley gas works, but he is dead; his name was Samuel Haynes. About two months ago Finch brought me some; they were marked G. L. G. C. I refused to have them. I have bought some off the foreman at West Ham, but I don't want to get him into any trouble. I did buy some off Finch two months ago, and those I sold to Berger and Son. I signed that receipt you have got ('B' produced). I have also bought some off Alfred Moore; he works at West Ham gas works, and lives in West Ham Lane. I have also bought some from stokers who work at Beckton gas-works, but I don't know their names; but I don't think they were stamped. This afternoon I went to Berger and Son's factory, Morning Lane, and saw Mr. Andrew's, the foreman. I said, 'I brought some gloves.' He said, 'There has been a row about them. The governor thinks. they are stolen. If I was you I should take them back home, and send word up to say you have not got any. I left the factory at once. There was two dozen and two pair. I bought them off Finch; they are not marked."—I have not been able to find Finch—I have made inquiries—I arrested the prisoner on the night of September 5th—I told him the charge was receiving—he said, "It is a very bad job"—I have also received from Messrs. Berger thirty-two pairs of gloves, four pairs of which are marked.

Cross-examined. I do not know whether Finch is still working at the gas works—I made inquiries, and they told me he was not there—when I went to the prisoner's house he took the gloves out of the sack and threw them on the floor—I saw the thirty-two other pairs of gloves on the Thursday at Berger's—I left the twenty-five pairs at the prisoner's house, after taking one pair away with me, and they were there when I returned on the following Saturday; they had not been removed—I produce one pair of gloves coming out of the sack—the others were handed to me by Messrs. Berger.

JOHN WRIGHT . I am assistant-engineer to the West Ham Gas Company—I live at the works—we supply gloves similar to these to the stokers—they come from Sage, of Watling Street—some of these are marked with our initials—I recognise these as our Company's property—many of them are not marked; each glove is not marked—I recognise these four as belonging to the Company—the marks have been to a certain extent obliterated—they are all new gloves.

Cross-examined. Other companies have their gloves differently marked—they are not made exclusively for us—we commenced to mark our gloves two and a-half years ago—out of all the gloves produced only five pairs are marked with our marks—the men get one pair a month, whether the other a are worn out or not—we fix the life of a glove at a month—if a man makes his glove last longer, he does not do what he likes with it; he has no business to take the others—they are given out to the men to prevent burning their hands—I never knew them to use a pad—they are not allowed to take them home to use—when the new ones are given out they do not give up the old ones—I do not ask them what they have done with the old ones—shovels are given out in the same way—they are all stamped with our initials; the men cannot take them home

—the men would not have any legitimate use for the gloves at home—I have never known them taken home; we provide lockers to put them in—sometimes the men use their bare hands, without gloves—I don't suppose we should suffer any loss from that—they might use a pad—we did have a notice posted up in the office that the old gloves should be returned—that notice was afterwards taken down—about two and a-half years ago I heard that the men sold the gloves—I never knew them use a pad—the gloves are generally worn out in a month—the workmen had no right to sell the new gloves—they are given out to them to use in the works.

ROBERT FRANCIS ANDREWS . I was foreman at Messrs. Berger and Co., collar manufacturers, at Homerton, until this affair—I was in their employ fifty years and a-half—I first knew Wilkes about 1892—I bought some gloves of him, such as are used by my employers—on September 3rd he came to the works—I said to him, "Have you not got the gloves?"—I think he said, "Only a few"—I said, "If you have not got any gloves, you had better write and tell them so, for I heard the others were stolen that I had previously bought in July"—I paid him a shilling a pair for five pairs—this is the receipt, the body of it is in my writing, but I did not pay him—what are described as "cuffs" here are gloves—the balance of the gloves were handed over to the police—before this the prisoner had driven into the yard—the police had been to me before the time he came on foot—I did not see that he had left the cart in the yard.

Cross-examined. I don't recollect his coming on foot before—every transaction was done openly and above-board.

By the COURT. The police had been to see me before September 3rd, and I had been told that the doves were stolen—I supposed he had not got any worth having—I knew that I was buying at less than the market price—I did not think they were new gloves—I don't think any of these produced have been used.

WHEELWRIGHT. I am storekeeper to Messrs. Berger and Sons—on July 14th I received four dozen of these gloves from Andrews—I handed them over to the police.

EUSTACE LARGE . I am a member of the firm of Farrance and Large, glove manufacturers, of Watling Street—this is a receipt for gloves supplied by us to the West Ham Gas Company—these gloves (produced) are similar to those represented by this invoice, and I think the invoice relates to some of them; there is a little difference in the kind of leather.

Cross-examined. I do not say they are all ours—we make for several companies—thousands of gloves are made every year.

Witnesses for the Defence.

HENRY JOHN CHAMBERS . I live at 89, Chaplin Road, and am an outside porter at Victoria Park Station—I was in the employment of the Whitefriars Gas Company for nine winters in succession, beginning thirty-nine years ago; I worked at the brickfields in the summer—I am sixty-eight—I have been a porter at Victoria Park Station for five years; before that I was employed at the White Lion public-house—I last worked at gasworks about six or seven years ago; I worked then at the Imperial Gasworks in Margaret Street—I got gloves similar to these given to me

—I did not hare to return the old ones—the men could do what they liked with them; that was the custom.

JOHN WILSON . I live at 162, Armour Road, Old Ford, and am a gas stoker—I have been in the employ of the Gas Light and Coke Company for about seventeen years, and am there still—a pair of gloves similar to these is given out to each man every month, and I have had them once a fortnight—some stations allow new gloves once a fortnight, and others once a month; there are different rules at every station—we never have to return these gloves; you can do what you like with them; I never saw any rules up to the contrary.

By the COURT. I think myself justified in selling the company's gloves, although they are given me to work with; if I like to mend a pair to last longer I can save one pair and sell them—I have not sold them to the prisoner; but I have sold them to different men, and given them away—I could not tell the names and addresses of people to whom I have sold them, but I have given away new gloves and sold them to old road sweepers who have worked in our line, and who come and ask, "Have you a pair of mittens you can sell or give me?"—I cannot tell the name and address of any person to whom I have ever sold a pair of these new gloves; I only met them in the street.

Guilty of Receiving.

The Prisoner then >PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony in September, 1879.

Wright stated that he had no reason to suspect that gloves had been taken from stock not issued to workmen. Detective Kemp stated that he believed large quantises of gloves had been obtained from workmen in a different position to the ordinary stokers who ought to use them; that for the last ten years he had known the prisoner as carrying on a very respectable business as a greengrocer and carrier, but that on two or three occasions he had cautioned him as to his companions, as lie was a man easily led astray.— Judgment Respited, to allow the Prisoner an opportunity of satisfying the COURT that he had bought the gloves from workmen, and that they had not come from the stores. The COURT commended the conduct of the police in this case.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-2
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Corporal > whipping

Related Material

2. WILLIAM WADHAM (19) and THOMAS TAMPLIN (18) , Robbery with violence on Joseph Emanuel Blank, and stealing his watch and chain.

MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted.

JOSEPH EMANUEL BLANK . I am a secretary, at 84, Leman Street, and live at Dalston—at 5 p.m. on October 8th I was in Cambridge Road, waiting for a car—I suddenly felt a blow on the back of my neck, and was tightly squeezed round the throat—I attempted to defend myself, and I felt my antagonist (whom I do not recognize here) tug at my chain, and go over ray pockets—after a while he crossed the road, and I endeavoured to follow him—Wadham raised his hand in a striking attitude as I crossed the road—there were more than two men—I crossed the road as soon as I could collect my self, and I saw Wadham, and I also saw the street down which several of them ran—I gave information to the police—I was struck several times; my chain was torn to pieces—I cannot swear to Tamplin, but I identify Wadham as one of the men who took

part in the robbery—my impression is that Tamplin is one of them; I am positive about Wadham—this is a piece of my chain.

Cross-examined by Wadham. When I went to the station the inspector asked me to pick out my actual assailant, and I looked round and said I did not recognize the actual assailant; then I was asked if there was anybody I knew, and I picked out you.

WILLIAM HENRY MOORE . I am a printer, of 60, Fownes Road—on October 8th I was inside my door, and I saw the prosecutor waiting for a car, and on the opposite side of the road there were five men; one of them crossed arid cuddled the prosecutor from behind round the head with his left arm, and passed his hand down and stole his watch-chain and ran away with it—the prosecutor followed him, and the two prisoners and two other men came across and picked up the fragments of the chain—I stooped and picked up a bit of it, and Wadham tried to snatch it from my hand, and said it was only 9-carat gold—I said, "This is my share of the plunder," and I handed it over to the police and described the prisoners, and they were apprehended—they were acting in concert with the other three men; I identify them—they got in front of the prosecutor to prevent his following—it is an every-day occurrence almost in front of where I live.

THOMAS DAVIS . At 7.30 p.m., on October 8th, I saw the prisoners in Cambridge Road, and said, "We shall take you to the station for robbing a gentleman of his chain earlier this afternoon"—Tamplin said, "All right; we will go quiet; you cannot say we had it"—when charged they made no reply—Moore at once identified Tamplin, and after a time the other prisoner.

Wadham called

ESTHER WADHAM . I am your mother—you were at home in the afternoon—you must have been at home about five o'clock, I think, because of tea time and my other children coming home—it was on a Thursday; I cannot tell the day of the month—we do not always have tea exactly to the minute; we sometimes have it when we can get it.

Cross-examined. Our house is about twenty-four yards from Cambridge Road—I did not go to the Police-court when my son was before the Magistrate—I did not know he was arrested till the Sunday night, when the policeman came up and told me—he did not send for me to give evidence that he was at home on the evening of the 8th.

Tamplin called

ELIZABETH TAMPLIN . I am your mother—you were at home the best part of the day; I cannot say exactly what time, until about 3.

By the COURT. I was not asked to go to the Police-court and give evidence—I did not know he was arrested till he sent me a letter from Holloway—he had been committed for trial then.

J. E. BLANK (Re-examined by the COURT). I was unable to attend the last Session owing to the injuries I received—ever since my return I have had to consult a specialist, and I have not recovered my old state of health yet, and cannot follow my duties.


WADHAM then PLEADED GUILTY**to a conviction of felwy in February, 1896, and TAMPLIN**!to one in June, 1896. Detective Davis stated that the prisoners belonged to a dangerous gang of lads of their own age who infested the neighbourhood and lived by robbing people who could

be easily robbed by reason of infirmity. WADHAM had been twice, and TAMPLIN four times, convicted.— Each Nine Months' Hard Labour, and Twenty Strokes with the Cat.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-3
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

3. HENRY WILLIAM MAYO (20) PLEADED GUILTY to forging and uttering a notice of withdrawal of £49 10s. from a deposit account in the Post Office Savings Bank; also to two indictments for forging and uttering notices of withdrawal of £49 12s. 6d. and £30; to forging and uttering a receipt for £49 10s.; to stealing, while employed in the Post-office, a metal stamp belonging to the Postmaster-General; and to unlawfully making false entries in books of the Post Office Savings Bank. MR. RICHARDS, for the Prosecution, described the systematic frauds by the prisoner as the largest ever attempted on the Savings Sank Department of the Post-office.—Five Years' Penal Servitude.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-4
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

4. ARTHUR HENRY SEATON (20) , to stealing from a post-parcel a tobacco pipe and case, the goods of the Postmaster-General.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Nine Months' Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-5
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

5. CHARLES MANNING , to forging and uttering a receipt for 10s.; also to stealing a post-letter containing a postal order for 10s., the property of the Postmaster-General; he being employed under the Post Office.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Twelve Months' Hard Labour. And

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-6
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

6. PAUL ULLRICH (18) , to forging and uttering a notice of withdrawal of £10 from the Post Office Savings Bank; also to three indictments for forging and uttering receipts for £10, £20, and £5.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Six Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Monday, November 16th, 1896.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-7
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

7. EDWARD HARRISON (30) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. WARBURTON Prosecuted.

EMMA STEAD . I am the wife of Edwin Arthur Stead, a baker, of 60, College Street, Chelsea—on October 19th, between three and four o'clock, the prisoner came in for three penny scones—I put them in a bag, and he asked if I would change a half-sovereign, putting a coin on the counter; I took it up, and found it was a Jubilee sixpence—I said, "This is not a half-sovereign; where did you get it?"—he said that he took it in the Brompton Road—my husband came into the shop, and I showed him the coin.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I am confident you said it was a half-sovereign.

EDWIN ARTHUR STEAD . I am the husband of the last witness—on October 19th I heard what my wife said, walked into the shop, and found the prisoner there, and saw the coin—I said, "This is not a half-sovereign; it is a Jubilee sixpence, gilt"—he made no reply—I said, "Very well, I will give you change if you will come out with me"—he did so, and I gave him in charge.

Cross-examined. You did not snatch the coin out of my hand; I gave it to you—you did not say that you just had it given you by a cabman, but I heard you tell someone else so—I went out with you because you said that you wanted to find your brother—I heard you tell somebody else that you had taken it from a cabman after you had been given in custody

and when we were in the cab going to the station with two policemen—you walked quietly, and gave no trouble whatever.

ARTHUR BARBER (85 B.) I took the prisoner on October 19th—he said, "Being hard up, I met a cabman I know, who asked me to get him three scows, and when I came out he was gone, and I was given in custody"—I produce the coin.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am inspector of coin to the Mint—this is a gilt sixpence.

Prisoner's Defence: "I was hard up, and asked a cabman I was friendly with to lend me a couple of shillings; he said, 'I am going to see my father, who is in the hospital,' and sent me to the shop with the coin to get it changed, and when I came out he had gone."

ARTHUR BARBER (Re-examined.) He said he did not know the cabman's name; he only knew him as Coggs, and that he was on foot, and not in charge of a cab.

GUILTY .— Three previous convictions were proved against him.—Six Months' Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-8
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

8. HENRY JAMES THOMAS. (54) , Unlawfully attempting to obtain £10 from James Terrell by false pretences.

JAMES TERRELL . I am a solicitor, of 45, Finsbury Pavement—on October 15th the defendant called at my office; I had known him before—he said that he was entitled to some money under the will of Mrs. Parker, who I died in New Zealand, and it was then in the Bank of New Zealand, and before he could get it he had to take out letters of administration—I said that I should like to see the letter; he called, but I did not see him—he called the following day and handed me this letter. (Addressed to Mr. Thomas, Royal Bank of New Zealand October 9th 1896, from John Wells, the English manager, stating that he was instructed by their head office to inform him that his cousin, Anne Hill, having been buried in her wrong name, he would have to take out letters of administration for the amount due to him, £9,070.) He asked me if I could lend him £20 while I was taking out the letters of administration—I said that if it was all right I would, and then he came and said he wanted £10 to pay his rates and taxes—I went to the address there given, but found no such name—when he called on Saturday I gave him in custody.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. It is the custom to advance money for clients sometimes—I traced out the genealogical map, but that was before I saw this letter—it may have been on the 16th—I take the date from the call-book, which is made by a clerk, who puts his initials—your name is in the book—I only had one caller on Tuesday.

FREDERICK HOLMES (City Detective.) On October 15th the prisoner was given into my custody for endeavouring to obtain £20 by fraud—he said, "Not £20; I only asked for £10"—this letter was not delivered by the Post-office till the 14th.

Cross-examined. I found that you have been in that neighbourhood fourteen or fifteen years—you are a traveller.

The Prisoner, in his statement before the Magistrate, said that he did not ask for the money till Mr. Tyrrell offered it.

J. TYRRELL (Re-examined by the Prisoner.) I did not tell you that if

you wanted anything there were three gentlemen going out, clients of mine, and that if you wanted money you could have £10, £20, or £30, or that I could get it for a consideration.

The Prisoner called

JOHN M. GARLAND . I am clerk to the last witness—some few weeks ago the prisoner told me that he was going to sue a company, which he was manager to, because he could not get his money; I said, "The governor will do it for you;" that was on October 13th—he also said that he thought he would put another matter in his way, as he had some money coming from New Zealand—this was about 5 or 5.30—he came to the office door and asked me to come out, while he spoke to me about the company Mr. Terrell came up the stairs, and I said, "Here is Mr. Terrell"—this was on the 13th; I goby the call-book; these are my initials; that is an indication that I saw him first, and then my principal—he told me he was coming into some money, and I may have said, "If you want money; why don't you ask the governor?"

ETHEL THOMAS . I am married to the prisoner, but I am his deceased wife's sister—on October 14th I answered the door to the postman, and took in a letter—I took it into the kitchen; he opened it and read it—I said, "That is another application for rates"—he said, "No, it is another on letter from New Zealand"—this (produced) is the letter and envelope—Tuesday, October 13th, we went out together at ten o'clock and returned at five; I never lost sight of him all chat time—we were in the City about eleven a.m., near Finsbury Pavement—we were not there again in the afternoon—I do not know Mr. Tyrrells office; I have never been there; I have heard of him.

Cross-examined. I was examined at Guildhall; I do not think I mentioned our being out on the 13th—the Magistrate did not ask me—I heard Mr. Terrell say that it was on the 13th that my husband called—I have seen the defendant several times since he was committed for trial—this is the letter which I say I received on Wednesday night, the 14th, by post between six and nine o'clock. (Both the letter and envelope were type-written from 17s., Victoria Street, Westminster, and stated that the money was in the Royal Hank, New Zealand, and that the witness must administer, as the deceased had been buried in her wrong name.)

MR. CURTIS. In January, 1895, the prisoner told me that he had a share in the estate of his aunt in New Zealand, and I took some instructions from him—I asked if he had any correspondence; he brought me a bundle of correspondence, and in February I communicated with New Zealand, and an answer arrived in March, stating that the lady was alive.

Cross-examined. This is the letter I received.

The Prisoner, in his defence, stated that he was not only entitled to a share, but to the whole of the money left by his aunt in New Zealand, with whom he had been communicating ever since 1868, and that he heard that die had made her will, and that her property was to be divided at her death between him and his cousin; that the correspondence ceased suddenly, and he received a letter from a Mr. Becker, announcing that the estate was worth £6,800, and was only waiting for the death of his cousin Alice, who was living with a gentleman to whom she was not married, which caused further postponement, and

when she died she was buried in a name which was not her own; that, in this difficulty, he went to Mr. Tyrrell for advice, but never asked for money; but Mr. Tyrrell said, "Don't go to oilier people for money, you can have £10, £20, or £30 if you like to give me your note of hand; come tomorrow morning"; but that he did not go, as he found a letter at home containing a cheque. He denied being there on the 13th and contended that the call-book was made up in a most irregular way.

JAMES TERRELL (Re-examined.) The prisoner came for the money on the 16th, before I gave him in charge—sometimes one clerk writes, and another initials it, and sometimes I make the entries—the prisoner did call on the Thursday; I saw him and my clerk.

GUILTY .—Recommended to mercy by the JURY.— Three Months Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-9
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

9. CHARLES ESDALE WYATT (33) PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining cigars from Frederick Violet and others by false pretences. (There were thirty or forty similar cases against him.)— Judgment Respited. And

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-10
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

10. GEORGE HENRY HUGHES** (27) , to forging and uttering an order for the payment of £23, with intent to defraud; also to stealing a bag and other articles, the goods of the London and North-Western Railway Company, having been convicted at Harlesden on April 9th, 1896.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Twelve Month's Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, November 17th, 1896.

Before Mr. Recorder.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-10a
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

10a. THEODORE AUSTIN GAMBLE (36) PLEADED GUILTY to four indictments for forging and uttering certain valuable securities, with intent to defraud.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-11
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

11. THOMAS GROUT, Feloniously having in his possession by night, without lawful excuse, an instrument of housebreaking.

MR. ARMSTRONG Prosecuted.

EDWARD WALKER (900, City Police.) On October 30th, at 2.30 a.m., I was on duty in Cutler Street, Houndsditch, and saw the prisoner peeping round the corner towards Goring Street—I chased him, and caught him at the corner of Bevis Marks—I said to him, "What is your game?"—he said, "Nothing"—I felt him down, and found on him this jemmy—he said, "Give me another chance, old man; you are off your beat here"—I took him to the station and charged him with attempting to break and enter 48, Houndsditch—I found the bolt of that house had been forced; he was within ten yards of that house when I saw him.

Prisoner. It is not an ordinary jemmy, there are hundreds of them made—I never ran away—there was another man with me.

Witness. I saw two men at the corner of Goring Street, but I did not see the other man afterwards.

GUILTY .—He, PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction of a like offence on November 19th, 1894; and other convictions were proved, the sentence on two of which were Four Years' and Ten Years Penal Servitude.—Six Years' Penal Servitude.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-12
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

12. THOMAS HARRIS (23) and HENRY ARMSTRONG (65) , Stealing £20 of Robert White Gallagher.

MR. C. F. GILL Prosecuted.

CHARLES GEORGE HATTON . I am in the employ of Mr. Gallagher, stockbroker, of 37, Walbrook—on January 8th he sent me to the London and South-Western Bank to cash a cheque for £30—I cashed the cheque there for the £30, for which I got a £20 note and a £10 note—I started back to the office with the money—on my way back, in Lombard Street, a man tapped me on the shoulder, and said, "You have just cashed a cheque at our bank"—I said, "What bank?"—he said, "The London and South-Western Bank, in Fenchurch Street. Do you know any thing about that cheque?"—I said, "Yes; Mr. Vickers signed it"—he said, "You go and tell your master to come back to the bank at once"—he told me to run to the office and fetch him, and asked me to give him the money; he said he would take the notes back to the bank while I went to fetch my master—I gave him the two notes, and went straight back to my master and told him what had happened, and gave a description of the man to whom I had given the notes—he was a short man, about thirty, with a short moustache, wearing a dark coat and a round felt hat.

Cross-examined by Armstrong. I did not see you before I saw you at the Mansion House.

Cross-examined by Harris. I did not see you before I saw you at the Mansion House—I do not say you are the man that stole the money; he was about your build, but I could not say it was you.

ROBERT WHITE GALLAGHER . I am a stockbroker, at 37, Walbrook—Hatton was in my employ—on January 8th I sent him with 14 cheque of Mr. Vickers' to the London and South-Western Bank, to get changed—I wanted a £20 note and a £10 note—the boy came back and made a statement to me—I afterwards communicated with the police.

HARRY VERNON VINE . I am a cashier at the London and South-western Bank, Fenchurch Street—Mr. Vickers has an account there—on January 6th a boy came and presented a cheque for £30, drawn by Mr. Vickers—I cashed it with two notes, one for £20 and the other for £10—the £10 note was numbered 02649, dated May 23rd, 1895.

WILLIAM HENRY D'OYLEY NICHOLLS . I am a clerk in the accountant's office of the Bank Note Department of the Bank of England—I produce a £10 note, No. 02649, May 23rd, 1895.

ALEXANDER BANFIELD . I am a salesman to Charles Baker and Co., Limited, of Tottenham Court Road—on January 8th Armstrong came to my department, and bought a boy's suit of clothes for 15s. 8d.—he tendered in payment a £10 note—I recognise him.

Cross-examined by Armstrong. I next saw you in the dock at the Mansion House.

WILLIAM JOHN PEPPIN . I am an assistant to Charles Baker and Co., Limited—on January 8th this £10 note, No. 02649, May 23rd, 1895, was tendered in payment of the sale by Banfield at the shop—the prisoner Armstrong tendered the note—I endorsed it at the time with my signature, and the initials of the cheque upon which the goods were purchased.

Cross-examined by Armstrong. I next saw you in the dock at the Mansion House.

WALTER SELBY (Detective G). I know the two prisoners in the name of Restall—they live together at Jerusalem Court, Clerkenwell.

Cross-examined by Harris. I have known you for a considerable time; I know your brother as well—I first knew you some six years ago, through your being about the neighbourhood of Clerktmwell—I am quite sure your name is Restall.

JESSE CROUCH (Detective-Sergeant, City.) On January 8th, about 10.40 a.m., I was in Oracechurch Street, and saw the prisoners with another man, not in custody—I know Armstrong—they were loitering outside the side entrance of the London and South-Western Bank, in Gracechurch Street—they were there about five minutes; they then crossed the road, and went down Lombard Street, the other man not in custody taking the lead—they turned into Change Alley, where I lost sight of them—Harris was dressed in a similar way to what he is now; he had a bard felt hat.

Cross-examined by Harris. There are several corners in Change Alley, and you must have turned to the right or left; I could not see you when I got to the first of the two corners—when you turned into Change Alley I was at the corner of the London and County Bank, about 200 yards from you—I could not tell which entrance the boy went to—I did not speak to anybody—I made no report of this at the time—I remembered it from a certain occurrence that took place on that day—I am sure it happened on Wednesday, January 8th, at 10.40—I can remember the two men.

JOHN OTWAT (Detective, City.) Shortly before eleven o'clock on October 31st, I was in Lombard Street—I saw the prisoners and another man not in custody, loitering there—I suspected them, and kept them under observation—they spoke together, and separated and walked into Clement's Lane, where Harris placed himself in a position to see the entrance to the Clydesdale Bank, the other two men keeping a distance down the lane, and keeping a look-out—after a few minutes they joined and spoke, and walked into Lombard Street—there the man not in custody placed himself at the corner of Abchurch Lane, where he had the view of four or five different banks, and appeared to watch the entrances, the other two men standing at a distance, but so as to keep him in view—after a time they again joined, spoke together, and then separated and walked into Clement's Lane and King William Street—they came back through Lombard Street into Plough Court—there Harris stood at the entrance, and the other two men a little further back—Harris could see the entrance to Barclay and Co.'s Bank—several hads passed the court, and all the prisoners followed them, until they passed the neighbourhood of the banks—then they spoke together, separated, and walked into Fenchurch Street—Armstrong stood outside the London and South-Western Bank, watching the entrance, the other two prisoners standing some thirty yards away, on the opposite side of the way, but able to see Armstrong—a boy left the London and South-Western Bank, and I saw Armstrong had noticed him, and he followed him—when opposite the other two men Armstrong raised his hat, as a signal—the other two men crossed over and joined Armstrong, and they continued to follow the boy into Philpot Lane—in the middle of Philpot Lane Harris took off his overcoat, and banded it to Armstrong—they all three

separated, and Harris ran after the boy and stopped him at the corner of Philpot Lane and East cheap—as he was leaving the lad I caught Harris, and the other two prisoners ran away—at that time three officers were passing—I shouted to them to detain Armstrong, who was running away—the third man by that time had disappeared—I said I was a police officer, and they would be charged with frequenting the streets for the purpose of committing a felony—Harris said, "I don't know what you mean"—he became very violent—we took him to the station, where he refused to give any account of himself, and refused to be searched—Armstrong gave the name of Armstrong, but no address.

Cross-examined by Harris. I had to call assistance to get you to the station; it took two of us to get you there—you were violent at first, till you saw you were overpowered—you struggled to get away, and pushed me about, trying to make me release my hold on you—at the station it took six men to hold you, and you had to be taken into another part of the station and searched—you were violent as soon as I arrested you.

WALTER MISHOW . I am an office boy—on October 31st I was sent with a cheque to the London and South-Western Bank—when I came out of the bank I was on my way back to my employers, when Harris came up and spoke to me—after he had spoken to me' the detective arrested him.

Cross-examined by Harris. You asked me where Addle Lane was; I said I did not know; I would show you where Idol Lane was, and you said that would not do—you said no more; you were just going to leave me when the detective caught hold of you.

Armstrong, in his defence, complained that he had not been identified until he was in the dock, and said that the witnesses were mistaken, and that he was not the man.

H. V. NINE (Re-examined by the COURT). The cheque was cashed between 10.30 and 11.


Armstrong then PLEADED GUILTY** to a conviction of felony in September, 1890. Two other convictions were proved against him. Sergeant Bryan stated that similar robberies had occurred once or twice a week for the last four years, and that they had ceased in the City since the arrest of the prisoners. There were two other indictments against Harris for similar offences.

ARMSTRONG— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

HARRIS— Three Years 'Penal Servitude. The COURT and the GRAND JURY commended the conduct of the police in the case.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-13
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

13. FREDERICK WHITE (24) , Feloniously breaking and entering the shop of George Rushbrooke, and stealing a vest and other articles, his goods.

MR. BLACKWELL Prosecuted.

HENRY DORMAN (346, City.) Between 3.30 and 3.45 a.m. on October 31st I was on duty in Little Britain—I heard a crash of glass, and looked into Smithfield, and saw the prisoner put his hand through the window of Mr. Rushbrooke's, 59, West Smithfield, and take out a pair of gloves, a handkerchief and a waistcoat—I seized him, with the goods in his hand—I took him to the station, and charged him—he said he did not break the window; he saw the hole in the glass, and thought he might as well

have some of the things—I looked inside the window, and saw this piece of brick—the interval between hearing the crash and seeing the prisoner was momentary—I did not see anyone else near the window.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. Not a moment elapsed between the noise of the glass breaking and my finding you there—I simply had to step off the kerb into the roadway to see the prisoner.

GEORGE MONTAGUE . I am manager to George Rushbrooke, a clothier, of 59, West Smithfield—these things are his property—they were in the shop when I left it on October 30th—I did not lock up the premises, but I saw them locked up by the shopman.

The Prisoner's Statement before the—Magistrate: "I am quite innocent of breaking the window; I was looking for work; coming through, I saw a man running; I saw a hole in the window, and, as I was hard up, I took the things out."

The Prisoner, in his defence, stated that he was looking for work in the market; that he heard the crash of glass, and, getting to the window ten minutes afterwards, was tempted by seeing the hole.

GUILTY of Larceny.

He then PLEADED GUILTY* to a conviction of felony in November, 1895. One other conviction was proved against the prisoner.

Eight Months' Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-14
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

14. JAMES CAWLEY (60) PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining a coat and 27s., the property of John Peacock and others, and to a previous conviction at this Court; other convictions were also proved against him.— Six Months' Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-15
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

15. WILLIAM HENRY CHARLES MANTLE, Unlawfully obtaining one penny from Emmeline Barton by false pretences. Other Counts, for obtaining 2s. and 1s. from other persons.

MR. HEDDON Prosecuted.

EMMELINE BARTON . I am a domestic servant at 63, Weston Park, Crouch End—about the end of July or the beginning of August the prisoner called at the house and asked me if I would subscribe to the Free Meals and Fresh-air Fund for Poor Children at Stepney—he said, "I come from Stepney, from Dr. Carlisle, of Dalgleith Place, Stepney"—I gave him a penny; he wrote something in a book, and went away—he came back in two or three days, and said he was going to take some poor children to Weymouth—I told him if he would make me out a paper I would get what I could, possibly—a little while afterwards he brought me this paper. (This was headed" £2 wanted to send twenty poor children for a week. Address. Mantle, Dalgleith Park.") The persons who subscribed were persons of my own family, and friends; I collected the money, and handed it to the prisoner—I afterwards received this letter from the prisoner. (This was dated from Weymouth, and asked for assistance to discharge a balance due of 8s.) In consequence of that letter, I sent him 2s.—when he told me he was collecting for this fund I believed his statement—it was in consequence of that letter that I sent him the money.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. You said your home was at Weymouth, and that you and a friend were taking some children down there

—I believed that he was honestly sending this money for these poor children.

FRANK LUKER . I am secretary to the Church Army, at 130, Edgware Road—the prisoner has never been employed to collect money for our charities—we have a Fresh-air Fund—the Rev. W. Carlisle is our hon, secretary; he lives at Dorking—he would have an address at Dalgleith Road.

SAMUEL GALLEY . I live at 31, Hermitage Road, Wood Green—I work on the New River—on a day in September I found in the river this parcel, containing these books and papers—I handed them to Mr. Green.

BENJAMIN JOSIAH MANTLE . I am a policeman on the Great Western Railway, at Weymouth—I reside there—the prisoner is my son—on Saturday, August 8th, my son came down to me—I did not meet the train, but I saw the train come in—I went to meet it, but having to go on duty at six a.m., I did not remain—the train passed me while I was on duty, and I saw my son in a compartment by himself—my wife went to meet him, and I saw him twenty minutes afterwards—he passed, and I opened the gate and admitted him—he remained with me from then to the 24th—I saw him every day—I never saw him in company with any children—I asked him what he was doing—he said he was a cook and waiter—I said, "Are you leading an honest life?'—he said he was on board wages at 10s. a week; that the family had gone to Bournemouth; he merely came down on a visit—he said he was coming for a fortnight.

BESSIE LUXTON . I am a domestic servant, at Roslyn, Haslemere Road, Crouch End—in August the prisoner came to the house, and asked me to take an alms-bag upstairs to my mistress—he said he was collecting for it—I took it up, and made a communication to my mistress—she gave me two sixpences—I put them in the bag, and gave it to the prisoner—I believed what he said, and in consequence of that I gave him the shilling.

Cross-examined. I am sure I put the two sixpences in the bag—I think it must have been at the latter end of August that you came.

JOSEPH CHAPMAN (Detective Sergeant, Y.) About half-past one in the afternoon of November 2nd I was at High Barnet, in company with detective Wilkinson—I there saw the prisoner—I told him he would be charged with obtaining various sums of money from a Miss Barton; also with obtaining 1s. from a Mrs. Grant, of Fortis Green Road, by a false and fraudulent pretence—he made no reply—I conveyed him to Highgate, where he was detained—this parcel of books and papers was brought to the station by Galley—when I arrested the prisoner he was in the act of collecting money with this box. (This had on it, "Church Army, Rev. W. Carlisle, Director. Amount wanted, £360; 400 poor children. Meals and fresh air, etc") I found on him this bag, which has been identified—he was charged at Highgate Police-court with obtaining money from Miss Luxton—he made no reply to the charge.

Prisoner's Defence: I belong to a chapel at Wood Green, and had a box given me, with an authority to collect money for charitable objects; last spring I was collecting on my own responsibility to take poor children to Weymouth for fresh air; I gave my right name and address; the books found in the New River by Galley were handed by him to another man,

who is not here, and it was nearly a month after that before any proceedings were taken against me.


He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at Clerkenwell in August, 1894, and other convictions were proved against him.—Three Tears' Penal Servitude.

The COURT and the GRAND JURY commended the conduct of Sergeant Chapman.

NEW COURT.—Tuesday, November 17th, 1896.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-16
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

16. ALFRED POULTON (20) and GEORGE POULTON (18) PLEADED GUILTY to burglary in the dwelling-house of Agnes Eliza Huggins, and stealing three coats and a candle, her property; also to burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Solly Fabian, and stealing three pairs of boots and other articles, his property; George Poulton having been convicted at Chelmsford in June, 1894. Several convictions were proved against George, and one against Alfred. GEORGE— Seven Years' Penal Servitude. ALFRED— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-17
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

17. WILLIAM EDWARD WATKINS (31) , to feloniously marrying Louisa Jane Smith, his wife being alive.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Two Days' Imprisonment.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-18
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

18. GEORGE SAGE (20), WILLIAM LOADER (20), and BEN COOPER (19) , to burglary in the dwelling-house of Robert Sage, and stealing a ring and other articles and £3 10s. in money; Sage having been convicted at Clerkenwell on, 1894. [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] SAGE— Nine Months' Hard Labour. LOADER and COOPER— Two Months' Hard Labour each.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-19
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

19. JOHN WELLS** (45) , to breaking and entering a chapel, and stealing a contribution—box and divers pictures, the property of William Hibberd; having been convicted at Clerkenwell on December 18th, 1893.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Three Months' Hard Labour, having Nine Months still to serve of his previous sentence.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-20
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

20. JOHN PRATT (67) , to unlawfully obtaining £2 5s. from Francis Gladwin, £1 1s. from William Wilkins, and £1 1s. from Arthur Fenner, with intent to defraud.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Judgment Respited.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-21
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

21. GEORGE WALKER (20) and GEORGE ZAHL (20) , to burglary in the dwelling-house of James Causton, and stealing £9 12s. in money and various articles, his property; having both been before convicted of felony.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Six Months' Hard Labour each. And

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-22
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment

Related Material

22. ALBERT KILBY (20) and CHARLES CAKEBREAD (20) , to burglary in the dwelling-house of Benjamin Appleton Read, and stealing thirty-seven shoulders of leather, his property. [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.]

KILBY also PLEADED GUILTY to assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty.— Nine Months' Hard Labour each on the burglary; and

KILBY— Nine Months more on the assault.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-23
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

23. THOMAS O'BRYANT (77) , Unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

MR. BODKIN Prosecuted.

FREDERICK GARDNER . I am a chemist, of 54, Piccadilly—on October 30th, about three p.m., the prisoner came in for a pennyworth of pills, and tendered a florin—I noticed a scratchy appearance on it, tested it with

nitric acid, and found it was bad, and told him so—he said he had taken it off a 'bus in change that evening—he offered me 1s., but as I had no change I handed it back to him—he came again that day week at three p.m. for a box of pills—I recognized him immediately—he gave me a florin with scratches on the head, just like the former one—I said, "You came here a week ago with a bad one"—I tested it, gave it back to him, and asked him to leave the place—going out, he tendered me a 6d., which I refused—after he had gone a few yards I pointed him out to a constable, who brought him back, and I gave him in charge.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. On October 30th I took the coin out of your presence for two or three minutes, and showed it to a porter—the nitric acid blackened it, and it effervesced—I gave it back into your hand.

Re-examined. I have never seen either of the coins since.

ANTHONY GEORGE (26 C.) On November 26th Mr. Gardner pointed out the prisoner to me, and when he got to the corner of Clifford Street I asked him if he had been in a shop in Piccadilly—he said, "Yes," but he did not know whose shop—I asked him where the 6d. was; he said he threw that away with the florin, because he did not want to be caught with it in his pocket.

Cross-examined. Mr. Gardner was not satisfied as to what the first date was that you were in his shop, and I went back to see if it was within ten days.

The Prisoner's Statement before the Magistrate: "I deny passing the florin; I deny being in the shop on the previous occasion."

Prisoner's Defence: How are we to know whether Mr. Gardner is right? How do I know what became of the coin after it left my pocket?

GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin on March 3rd, 1888, upon which the JURY found GUILTY of felony. Several other convictions of Mint offences were proved against him; he had been twice sentenced to Seven and twice to Five Years' Penal Servitude.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

OLD COURT.—Wednesday, November 18th, and

NEW COURT.—Thursday and Friday, November 19th and 20th, 1896.

Before Mr. Recorder.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-24
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

24. GEORGE HERBERT FRANCIS (31), CATHERINE ALICE SINCLAIR CLARISSE ROWELL (38), and WALTER GERARD GEORGE JONES (40) , Unlawfully conspiring to obtain and obtaining by false pretences divers sums of money from Victor Honour, with intent to defraud.

MESSRS. BODKIN and RANDOLPH Prosecuted; MR. OVEREND Defended Jones.

Francis and Rowell, and MR. HORACE AVORY Defended Jones.

VICTOR HONOUR . I am an Austrian, and a naturalised subject here—I have traded as a money-lender and bill-broker at 131, Jermyn Street—in April, 1896, Bentley introduced Francis and Rowell—about April 15th I saw Francis and Rowell at my office—Bentley said Francis was the son of a General in India, and Francis confirmed it—Bentley said Rowell was a widow, and was entitled to £60,000 from an uncle, and to two houses,

76 and 78, Brewery Road, settled by an aunt—Francis said he was trustee to the settlement—I was told the aunt was about eighty-three or eighty-four years old—Bentley showed me these letters (Nos. 12 and 13) about two weeks afterwards. (No. 12 was dated from 4, Park Place, St. James's, March 18th, 1896, and asked Mr. Bentley whether he could do anything in the matter of a lady who was raising a loan of £2,000 on freehold property, 76 and 78, Brewery Road, Hottoway, of the present value of £2,800 settled on her by her aunt, aged eighty-three; and stated that the matter was in order; the solicitors were Munk and Co., of 40, Broad Street House; the security was absolutely clean, as far as borrowing was concerned, a fact which, as trustee, the writer, Francis, could answer for; No. 13 was dated from Broad Street House, and dated March 26th, and was to the effect that Mrs. Firman, of Brewery Road, had settled upon their client, Mrs. Rowett, two freehold houses in Brewery Road, the rentals of which were £60 a year each, and that Mrs. Rowell had instructed them to negotiate for a mortgage of her interest to the extent of £1,500, which they expected to carry through within the next two or three weeks; it was signed Munk and Co.) On April 14th, after the conversation at my office, I went with Francis and Rowell to the office of Munk and Co., solicitors, Broad Street—I there saw Jones—Bentley introduced me to Jones, and said, "This is Mr. Jones"—I said I saw written on the door, "Munk and Co; "I thought he was Munk—he said, "Oh, I am a partner to Munk; this is just the same"—I said, "They are stating that you are arranging for them money on the two houses, 76 and 78, Brewery Koad; you are the solicitor; they are stating you are the family solicitor"—he said, "Yes, I am"—I said, "To Mrs. Rowell?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Are you the family solicitor to her aunt?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Are you acting?"—he said, "Yes"—I said, "Is the settlement revocable? What is the nature of the settlement, supposing I let her have the money? I might let her have the money, and in another couple of days the aunt might take away the settlement"—he said, "No, that cannot be done, because it is irrevocable; the aunt is responsible for any action she has done through me; you will be safe for the money"—I said, "Did the aunt consent that the niece should charge it?"—he said, "Yes"—he said they were buying a public-house, which was a big bargain, and it was with the aunts consent that she should borrow money on the houses—I said, "How do you know, supposing the houses are already charged?"—he said, "They are not charged; I am the solicitor" to it, and I state to you they are not charged"—I said, "I shall want so that you shall state that her aunt does not charge already"—he said, "Certainly not;" this was a first charge—they wanted £200—I agreed to lend that—this document was drawn up by way of a charge at Jones's office by Jones—I told him what I wanted, and he put it into English; I did not give him the exact words, I could not do so—he started to write the document in the way of a memorandum, and I thought he was a very innocent family solicitor, and did not know how to draw up a document; and I said, "You will excuse me; I will tell you what I want, and you will put it in English," and I told him what I wanted, and he put it all right—that document mentions a settlement of March 18th, by Louisa Firman upon her niece—from beginning to end of this transaction I

never saw any such settlement of March 18th—Mrs. Rowell signed this document at Jones's office—for the advance of £5 and £200 I was to take this bill for £300, payable on May 1st—when I was first introduced to Jones it was as the solicitor for Mrs. Rowell, but after he spoke to me very kindly and nicely, I said, "Shall I call my solicitor?" and he said, "If you like; I can act for you," and I said, "I don't mind this"—I think I paid him £1 1s. on that occasion, and he gave me this receipt for it—I left Jones's office and went to the bank, and they cashed this cheque for £200 which I had drawn at my office, and handed over to them in Jones's office—I paid the £5 in Jones's office—I gave this notice of charge, dated April 15th, to Messrs. Munk and Co.—Jones drew it up; it is in his writing—I got this receipt for the notice of charge—I kept the bill for £305—Jones gave me the receipt for the notice of the charge, signed "Munk and Co."—on April 21st I saw Bentley, Francis, and Rowell at my office—they wanted another £100 upon this further charge on the same security—I agreed, and drew these two cheques for £15 and £50, and took this bill for £145, drawn by Mrs. Rowell, and accepted by Francis—the charge recites the same settlement of March 18th, and was executed by Catherine Rowell in Jones's office—it is witnessed by a clerk to Munk and Co.—I did not go there personally then; my clerk went—this is the notice of charge in my clerk's writing, and this is the receipt for that notice. (Acknowledging the notice, on behalf of Mrs. Rowell, of the advance of £5, and of the discount of the bill for £145, and undertaking to repay the £145, and £5, in addition to the previeusadvance of £305, out of the first moneys received by way of mortgage, which was then being negotiated, and as to which they were not aware there was any hindrance to its being carried out in due course. This was signed, "Munk and Co."). On May 1st Francis called, and wanted money and clothes, and he took £50 in money and clothes for himself and Bentley, I and he gave me a bill for £150—this is the cheque by which I made the I advance—I took no charge for that; it was done personally with Francis, because I thought he was all right—on May 9th Francis, Rowell and Bentley called again, and I agreed to make a further advance of £200, and did so by these cheques for £150 and £50—I took a charge by way of this endorsement upon the last charge—I gave the usual notice of charge, and got this receipt of that notice, signed "Munk and Co."—I also took a bill for £600, and got back the bill for £150 which Francis had given on May 1st—I saw Jones myself in regard to that transaction, and got this receipt, signed "Munk and Co.," for £1 1s. costs, written by Jones—on April 15th I asked Jones, "Where are the deeds?"—he said, "They are with the other side's solicitors: you cannot see them now"—I do not think he named the solicitors—after the advance on May 9th I made further inquiries of Jones about the deeds, and said to him, "You are taking of me more money, and they promised me the deeds, and I consider now it is a big amount; I think I am entitled now myself to the deeds, and I might write it low, at five per cent., if you get the deeds, because the amount is a big amount"—he said, "A parson has got hold of them"—I said, "You told me the other side's solicitors"—he said, "76 and 78; one house belonged to the late husband of Mrs. Firman, and as he dropped dead suddenly, there is no question the house is the property of Mrs. Firman, but she must put in order"—he said, "Those deeds the

old lady gave up to a parson with whom she was acquainted, to take care for her, and this clergyman had put it in the bank, and drawn £80 on it"—I said, "I don't mind to give £80 to get the deeds if this is all the stoppage; it is not worth while"—he said, "Not at all; I can prosecute him"—I wrote him a letter, and he said "The clergyman or the solicitor, "I don't remember which, "wrote to me, and promised to return the deeds within a week"—I went to him again another day, and he told me, and a clerk of his also told me, they had already got an appointment on Friday to get the deeds—afterwards I think he told me that the old lady had got the deeds and stuck to them—I had conversation with Francis and Rowell about the same thing—Francis told me the same thing about the old parson, and said the whole stoppage in the business was through the old parson—Rowell used to say the same thing—Francis gave me this letter (No. 6), from Mrs. Firman, 76, Brewery Road, with a deep mourning border. (This was to the effect that she was sorry she could not at present send the deeds, as one of the houses was in her deceased husband's name, and his business man was transferring it to her name, and as soon as everything was in form he (Francis) should have everything as he said; she hoped he was looking after her daughter Kate's interest, and all business matters for her, as she was now too old to be troubled with those things; but she felt she could always trust him). On July 3rd, I had a visit from Rowell, Francis and Jones—Jones brought some deeds under his arm, and said, "Now, you are safe like the Bank of England; you have got a £5 note in your pocket"—that was when, he handed me this settlement (No. 4). (This was a settlement between Louisa Firman, as settlor, and Catherine Rowell and George Herbert Francis, and witnessed and declared that in consideration of natural love and affection and 5s., Mrs. Firman granted to Rowell and Francis, and the survivor of them, 76 and 78, Brewery Road, to have and to hold the premises in trust for Rowell after the death of Mrs. Firman. This was sealed and delivered by Louisa Firman in the presence of Elizabeth Tucker, and by Francis and Rowell in the presence of Jones)—I said to Jones, "Here is Tucker, a woman; why did not you witness the signature?"—he said, "Oh, this is just the same"—I said, "Supposing she died; I suppose Mrs. Firman has not got only Mrs. Rowell; she has someone else after her, and they might kick up a row, and say she signed it not with her own will; I should rather like, for safety, as we don't know when the matter is going to be settled, her solicitor to witness it"—he said, "It does not matter; that is not different; I am a solicitor, and I tell you so; my father's will is witnessed by his footman"—he said he had not time to wait for Mrs. Firman's signature; he had got something else to do; it Was an old woman, and it would take a long time to sign, so he did not want to bother—I kept that document, after he had taken it away and stamped it, and brought it back to me—the date on it is July 3rd—I said to Jones, "My charge is made previous to this date, and you should recite the whole of the previous settlement of March 18th"—he said he had not been able to do it in any other way—afterwards certain further advances were asked for, and I advanced £170, and took these two statutory declarations (Nos. 33 and 34) from Rowell and Francis respectively in Jones's presence. (These were identical, and were to the effect that the signatories were the Catherine Rowell and Herbert George Francis mentioned in the mortgage deed; and that 76 and 78,

Brewery Road, mentioned in the mortgage, were the absolute property of Louisa Firman). I got this letter of August 1st from Jones—an arrangement was made with all three prisoners that I should take a mortgage of this property—the mortgage was to be £1,400—this mortgage deed (No. 5) was given to me executed). (This deed was dated July 31st, and was between Rowell and Francis of one part and Honour of the other part; it recited the settlement of July 3rd, and that the two houses were Rowells absolute property under that settlement, and stated that in consideration of £1,400 advanced by Honour, and, £100 interest, Rowell, an beneficial owner, conveyed to Honour all her interest under the settlement of July 3rd, and she covenanted for herself and her trustees to deposit the title deeds of 76, brewery Road with him, and she, Francis and Mrs. Firman agreed to pay interest, and undertook not to assign, underlet or part with possession of the premises without Honour's consent. It purported to be signed by Rowell, Francis and Firman in the presence of Elizabeth Tucker and W. Gerard Jones, Solicitor). This document (No. 35) was given me by Jones—before I parted with the money I asked him to write all he knew about it, and he said, "With pleasure"—I said, "You see I cannot get the deeds, and they are delaying, and you want me to part with more money, and I should like to have everything settled by you, because you are a solicitor, and if you state it, I believe it"—it was written in my office—some he wrote himself, and some I asked him to write—I asked him what he told me to put in writing—the whole of it is in Jones's writing. (This, signed "W. Gerard Jones," stated that he was retained by Mrs. Firman in connection with the settlement of 76 and 78, Brewery Road upon Rowell, which he was instructed to draw, and that he had been retained to act for Mrs. Firman, Rowell, and Francis in connection with the mortgage of those premises to Honour; that he had been consulted by them, and had advised in connection with all the transactions with Honour and the mortgages; that he had seen the deeds relating to the property, which was freehold, and in the name of Louisa Firman; that her title was not encumbered in any way, and that Mrs. Rowell had not mortgaged her interest or tncumbered it in any way, except the prior interest with Honour, which was now to be cancelled). Upon getting this document and the mortgage deed I gave these three cheques for £625, £500, and £275, making £1,400—my clerk went with them to the bank—the previous bills which were at the bank were taken up with the money represented by the cheques for £1,400, and the difference of £170 Rowell kept—a little while after I saw Francis and Rowell again, about the equity of redemption—Jones brought this document (No. 39), and said he had prepared it—Francis and Rowell said they would sell me the equity of redemption if I gave them another £100—I agreed to buy it, but the document was not executed, because in the meantime I determined to make some inquiry as to the value of the houses before I advanced more money—I sent my clerk to make inquiries, and he came back and reported to me, and then I sent for the prisoners—I told them all three, "I heard it is a beastly fraud; I don't believe it; it is impossible"—Francis laughed at it, and said, "Your clerk has been drunk"—Mrs. Rowell denied it; they all denied it; they were very cool—Jones said, "It is impossible; what! you think I am a fool? I am a gentleman;

I am a solicitor. Do you think I would go in for a thing like this? It is all right"—they laughed at it, and were very cool, and I thought there was some mistake—Jones came alone to see me one day—he said, "I am a gentleman, and everything is all right," and he made a couple of appointments to go and see Mrs. Firman, but he failed, and in the end he said, "She is an old woman; we should frighten her if we go together; let me go by myself"; and he was supposed to go and see her, and he came to me the day after, and said, "I went to Mrs. Firman, and I told her her position, and I explained it to her; that if she does not give up the deeds we can make her give them up; but it seemed she did not understand at all her position; she thought directly she would give up the deeds she would be turned out of the house, and I explained to her that she cannot be turned out of the house, because the mortgage on the house is only after her death, and then she was satisfied, and she would give up the deeds in another couple of days"—I got no deeds after that—I went to see Mrs. Firman, and after I came back I saw all the prisoners separately—Francis said, "The old lady did not know what she was saying, and Mrs. Rowell gave instructions to the old lady to say nothing; and so she did not say anything. Mrs. Rowell told the old lady, if anybody comes tell them nothing, and so she did not tell you anything, but she did not understand what she was saying; it is her house, and she has the deeds in her possession, and you will find everything all right"—I told Jones that Mrs. Firman had denied all knowledge of this, and the houses were not hers, and she was a tenant, and he said, "I will issue a writ against Mrs. Firman; she is a fraud," and he said a lot of things like that—after that I got this letter (No. 40) on September 12th, from Francis on paper with the heading of a club at Park Place, St. James's. (This, signed "G. Herbert Francis" stated that, with reference to their recent transactions re Mrs. Firman, in the course of next week he should pay £300 on account of the debt, and that he felt that as it had been made a matter of pure honour, and his promissory notes had been handed back. Honour was entitled to the greatest consideration). I did not get the £300 mentioned there—I did not get back a farthing of my money—I went to my present solicitor, and this prosecution began—the defendants were committed for trial some days before the last Sessions here—I paid Jones £15 for costs; I have receipts for £5 and £3—I advanced to the prisoners £775; and then there was £15 for costs to Jones, £10 I lent Francis on one occasion, and £25 the discount of some small bill to Rowell—I advanced over £800 to them, and I paid £120 commission to Bentley—I got none of it back—I believed the statements made to me, in reference to the two houses, that they were the property of Mrs. Firman, who had settled them on Mrs. Rowell; that Francis was the trustee, and that I was taking a security for the money I had advanced—on the faith of that I parted with my money.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. Bentley was well known to me; I believed he was acting in bona fides—I made no inquiries about Francis—I did not make the first advance on the acceptance of Francis solely—before the date of the first acceptance I did not make any advance to Francis—I did not attempt to see Mrs. Firman for some time, because I depended on Jones; he told me that she would be very much upset if I

went straight to her, and so I left it all to Jones—I should not have parted with the money if Jones, the solicitor, had not made the statements to me—I have had some dealings in reversions—I cannot say that is my business—I make no distinction in the amount of interest I charge in advances on reversions and on acceptances—I do not charge 600 per cent, on reversions; if people are pleased to give it to me I accept it, that is all—I advanced the money upon the statements made to me—I did not advance the money upon the statement that Francis's father was a General in India, but that statement made me think I should believe his statements; if a man is respectable you trust his statement—I went to see Mrs. Firman, with my clerk—he first went by himself about the neighbourhood, but did not see her—my clerk said to a girl at the door that he wanted to see Mrs. Firman, and Mrs. Firman came out, and he said, "we wanted to know are the houses belonging to you?"—she said, "I am only a tenant, and a monthly"—he said, "Does not 76 belong to you?" and she said, "No"—he said, "I am a Christian, and you are a Christian; we must speak the truth," and I said to her, "We must speak the truth; we want you to tell us, are you a rich woman or not?"—she said, "No"; somebody helped her with 5s. a month—I said, "All I want to ask you is is this your signature?" showing her the mortgage, I think—she said, "No"—I said, "Will you write me your signature?'"—she said, "I am not going to give strangers anything more; I am afraid to give strangers any more information"—I said, "Do you know Mrs. Rowell?"—she said, "I know Mrs. Rowell"—I said, "Did she come to you?"—she said, "She did not come to me, and I do not want to see her"—I asked her whether Mrs. Rowell was her niece—I did not say she said she did not know her—they had told me that she had thirteen cottages somewhere, and asked her, had she got somo cottages—she said, "No; I have not got no cottages"—the defendants had tried to borrow more money from me on the cottages; that was my reason for asking about the cottages—I said, "Have you got some more property?"—she said, "I have some money in the Savings Bank"—I did not say anything to Mrs. Firman about her getting into trouble, or about Francis and Rowell being likely to get into trouble—I asked if she knew Francis—she said she saw him once—I asked her if Rowell was her niece, and she said, "Yes"—it seemed to me Mrs. Firman did not understand what a settlement meant; how could I ask her if she had made a settlement?—I don't remember that these cheques were not cashed on the day the declarations were sworn to, because the bank was closed when the cheques were given—the declarations were sworn on the 31st, I cannot remember the time—I do not think that the declarations were already prepared, so that the cheques should be cashed at the bank before four o'clock—I remember that they took of me £25 as a temporary loan till next day, when they would cash the cheques, as they did want money very badly—I do not think that the declarations were put before the prisoners to sign at the last moment, so that they could get the money at the bank before closing hours; I will swear it was not so.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I affirmed instead of taking the oath, because my conviction is, if a man wants to tell the truth, he can tell it on his honour better than anything else—I am an honourable man—I said at the Police-court that I affirmed instead of swearing, because I was

tired of swearing; that is my real reason—I do not believe in making the Bible so cheap; I saw so many swearing—my places of business are 131, Jermyn Street and 36, Moorgate Street, and Arthur Street, Covent Garden; nowhereelse—I carry on business under the names of Dent and Honour—I do not go in the name of Shakespear—I think I used that name a very short time in business, three or four years ago—I did not call myself Milton; that was my manager—I only use those names for the purpose of advertising, as people object to paying in cheques to their banks signed by names which are advertised in the papery as money-lenders; when I come to know people I never deny my name is Honour, and nearly all my clients know that that is my name; there is no secret in it—I did advertise in the name of Shakespear—I cannot say that when I started business in England I used the name of Shakespear, because I started a perfumery business (which I have still) in the name of Honour—when I started the money-lending business in England I used the name of Shakespear—I do not use the name of Milton—at my Jermyn Street premises there is painted up "Milton, Manager"—my clients want everything strictly private—my clerk's name is Winters, but he took the name of Milton, because his name is known in the money-lending trade, and it is for the benefit of our clients and for adverting—when we do business we tell the client our name is Honour, and we sign the bills Honour—my name is Honour, I swear; it is the translation of my real name, Ehrlich—Bentley, who introduced this business to me, is also called Bentote—I have known him two or three years—he has sometimes brought me business; I cannot say how often—I should think he is a money-lender's tout—I don't think he id here; I have not seen him—I see him frequently—I think I saw him a week ago in London; I do not know where he is now—I have not taken any steps to secure his attendance here—before producing the letter, Bentley verbally gave me the account of this matter, and who Francis and Rowell were—he said Rowell was entitled under this settlement to these two houses—he got £120 from me—I don't know that he had something from Francis, and I have not heard it, but I should say he did—Bentley at the time was under committal for trial on a charge of fraud; I knew that—I did not understand that he was getting this money to assist him in his difficulties—he has not been convicted, I think—he had no office on April 15th, but about June, I think, he had an office, after this happened—all agents are anxious to get money—Bentley went with me on April 15th to Jones's office, and introduced me—I don't think I understood from Bentley that he had already been to Jones's office and seen him—Bentley gave me this letter from Munk and Co. after the first interview, in conversation; he gave it me a couple of weeks after April 18th—I had not seen it when I made the first advance on April 15th—when I went to Jones's office I should think there were a couple of clerks there, and I saw someone I identified as Mr. Munk, I think; he walked behind us, knocking about the office; I did not know it was him at the time—I asked for Mr. Munk, and they told me he was out—I have seen him now—I think I saw him at the office on that day, but he has not been introduced to me—I saw more than one clerk—I think, when we were discussing the terms of the document that was to be drawn up, the shorthand writer was present, because he was called in to take down what I wanted; and Jones

said, "Tell him what you want, and I will put this in English"—the clerk took down in shorthand what I wanted—I don't remember if he went into the next room and wrote it out—I know Jones wrote it in his writing, but I do not remember what happened—I still swear that Jones wrote out the whole of this charge of April 15th in my presence—the shorthand clerk did not take it down and go into the next room, and write it out, and bring back this document; this is in Jones's writing—I cannot tell whether that man (McNair) is the clerk who took it down in short-hand; I would say he is not; I will not be responsible for this—Jones never denied to me that he wrote this letter, signed "Munk and Co."—Jones did not point out to me on April 15th, when the clerk was in the room, or at any time, that the settlement was only signed in draft—I saw a draft of it; my solicitor has it—it was handed to me by Jones nearly at the end of the business, before the settlement of July 3rd—I do not know what you mean by draft—I do not call this the draft, because he wrote to me: "A fair copy of the draft of the within settlement was signed by Mrs. Firman, in the presence of a witness, on May 18th, 1896. Mrs. Firman has received notice of the advance made to Mrs. Rowell by Mr. Victor Honour"—this has been endorsed to me to keep me quiet, because I asked him very much for the deeds—when this was handed to me I did not understand from Jones that Mrs. Firman had signed a draft of the settlement only up to that time; she signed a settlement—this is a draft, but a copy of it is a settlement—I swear that on April 15th there was no conversation or statement about this settlement only having been signed in draft, because he says he was negotiating a loan, and a loan cannot be negotiated on nothing—I told Jones he was not drawing up a document in the right form, and corrected it—I said, "Shall I have a solicitor?" and he said, "No, I can act for you also"—Jones did not say to me, "You ought to be represented by a solicitor"—I think I said that I can take care of myself, because he said to me, "You should be a solicitor"—he flattered me, and I said, "Well, I can take care of myself"—I thought at that time I could take care of myself, and did not want a solicitor; if it is a straightforward way, I can take care—he has been my solicitor—I asked Jones to register this deed of settlement at the Middlesex Registry, and he took it of me to register it, and search if there were not other charges on it—I think he registered the settlement in the Middlesex Land Registry—I called several times at his office to ask him for the deeds, but I don't think I called on July 9th—I called on one occasion, when the same clerk who was there on July 3rd was present—Jones did not tell me in the clerk's presence that he had tried to get the deeds until he was sick of doing it, or that excuses were constantly being made by Francis and Rowell for not bringing them—I swear he never said it in that way; he might have said it in some other way; he did not say, "Excuses have been made"—he told me not to part with any money if he was not present, and he said, "I will take care of you; you are a foreigner, and I will protect you"—he advised me to buy the equity of redemption—at one of the interviews I suggested to Jones that he should write to Francis, saying that I was going to consult another solicitor—he suggested it to me—he said, "If I write a letter to Mr. Francis, that you are going to another solicitor, and are worrying for the

deeds, I think it will bring them up"—we spoke of it together, and I thought they were trying to get on the deeds money from someone else; that was what he suggested also—of course, I considered him as a friend of mine, and I thought I would stick to him; and he said he would write a letter—it must have been said that doing it might frighten them into bringing the deeds—I think a letter was then written out in my presence by Jones to Francis. (MR. BODKIN objected to MR. AVORY putting to the witness the contents of the letter. MR. AVORY stated that he was going to ask whether certain words were not those dictated by the witness). We went away to have a drink, and I never saw the letter written, and I never dictated it—Jones wrote a letter, I think, and Francis came up to me a day after, and said, "I have a letter from Jones"—I believe he had one—I did not notice any letter in his hand when he came, and I did not read it, nor ask him to read it—Jones told me he was going to write to Francis that I was going to another solicitor," and he said, "You must not go to another solicitor; I will make it all right," and I promised him I would not go to another solicitor—I don't think I said just now that a letter was written by Jones to Francis in my presence—he said he would write, and I said, "Will you write it now?" and he said, "Never mind; I will write it when you are going away," and he asked if I would like a drink, and we went and had one; I know now the letter was not written in my presence. (The shorthand-writer read from his notes the passage:):"Q. And was a letter in your presence then written out by Jones to Francis? A. I think it was.") I am sure the letter was not written; I take the responsibility on me that the letter was not written in my presence—Jones only told me he had written that I had got another solicitor; I do not know what he wrote—Francis told me, I have got a letter from Jones"—he did not tell me it was a letter in which Jones threatened he would go to another solicitor—I did not ask Francis what it was about, and he did not tell me—I know we had conversation; I think it was that he would bring up the deeds—Francis did not say that Jones was calling on him to produce the deeds, and threatening, if he did not do so, that I was going to consult another solicitor—Francis said, "You will have the deeds"—I think I understood that the letter that was spoken of had some reference to the deeds—I do not suggest that I have any document purporting to be signed by Louisa Firman in Jones's presence—I do not know how I can know what Francis and Rowell have done with the money they got from me; I don't know what my solicitors have done; they have not reported to me—I suggest nothing—I cannot remember when I first ascertained that Mrs. Firman was not the owner of these houses; it was on a Sunday—I sent my clerk, Winters, after August 1st, I think; it was before they asked me to sell the equity, and about the time when the last deed was drawn, which was to purchase the equity; if that deed is not dated I do not remember the date—I cannot remember the date—it was the same week after the equity of redemption was bought, and about the same date, but I cannot tell the dates—I went to see Mrs. Firman on a Sunday, a week or two after my clerk had been to make inquiries—I was not satisfied by Winters report that the houses did not belong to Mrs. Firman—I told the prisoners when they next called that I had found the houses did not belong to Mrs. Firman; that

was what the clerk told me, and I wanted to see what they would say—I did not believe it, but I told them I did; I thought there was something in it—I thought the clerk had made a mistake—I first believed it when I wentmyself, a week or two after Winters had been; I don't remember the date—to tell you the truth, I did not believe it; I told him I believed it, but I did not; I thought he bad made a mistake; I believe it now—I first believed it when I went by myself on the Sunday; that was a week or two afterwards—I saw Francis several times after that, and Jones also, about the business, to get the deeds; they still kept on saying that Mrs. Firman did not tell me the truth—I did not know whom to believe; they assured me that Mrs. Firman was a liar—after seeing her I still felt a doubt whether the houses belonged to her or not—I don't remember the date I first went to the Police-court and made a criminal charge—warrants were granted for the arrest of Francis and Rowell, and a summons against Jones; I knew that Jones was a solicitor—I did not find out that he was well connected; he told me himself that he was well connected—he said, "Will you release me for £1,000?"—he offered me £1,000—I said, "How can you get?"—he said, 'I can get it; I have rich relations, an uncle"—he said they were not business people; I think he told me the name was Hooper—that was before I went to the Police-court—I know Harold Cox, a relation of Bentley's; he introduced me to Bentley originally—I did not meet him and discuss this matter with him, never—he came to me—I don't remember telling him that I had been swindled by Francis and Rowell—I did not say, "But I shall get my money out of Jones all right; lawyers can always find money "; it is a perfect lie—on the day Francis and Rowell were arrested Cox did not call on me; I swear that—he called on me at twelve o'clock at night, on the Saturday, the day they were arrested—I did not say that before, because you asked me about the day; it was twelve o'clock at night; he did call on me that night—I don't remember his asking me if Jones had been arrested; he said nothing about Jones—I think all he asked me was, "I want to see my uncle"—Bentley is his uncle; he did not ask if Jones had been arrested; I did not say, "No"—he did not say, "Why not?" nor did I say, Don't you think that was clever of me?"I am certain of that—he did not say, "If Jones is not arrested he will go round and get the money"—he did not know anything about the money—do you think I would speak to him about my business, a boy?—I only talked with him in the passage about a moment, or two or three—I did not discuss the business with him; he only said, "I want to see my uncle; has he not been to you?" and I said, "No"—I did not tell him a few days after that I should require him as a witness—he did not say that he knew nothing, and could not help me; he said the other thing altogether; he said he had been to a lot of money-lenders to find him; that he had put his foot in it—I don't remember seeing him again a few days afterwards—I did not ask him if he knew about Jones's business, and if he thought I should get the money—he did not say that he understood Jones was a gentleman, and well connected—Arthur Newton and Co. were my solicitors, and acted for me in this prosecution—I did not instruct them to do anything—I merely showed them the papers, and left them to do the best they could—in my opinion, there were eight people mixed up in this prosecution—I did not want to be cheated—I have lost a lot of money

through people taking advantage of me—I have lost a half of my capital—I don't know that Newton wrote to Jones before criminal proceedings were instituted—I don't know at all what they have done, I have no idea—I am not aware that Jones called on them at their office in answer to their letter—I know they reported to me that Francis had been to the office; I don't know about Jones—I remember the notice of charge of April 15th, which Jones wrote out, and I signed—I think I told him what to put down.

Re-examined. I was naturalised this year—I was examined at the Police-court, I should think, three, four, or five times—I look at documents 14 and 17—I see some words written in the first line of 14—they are in the same handwriting as the body of the document—I also look at 17, and I say that the writing at the end is the same handwriting as the body—the draft settlement of March 18th was shown to me—I got it from Jones, much after the first advance of April; I do not know when, it might be after the first, second, or third advance; I got it at my office; he came there with it—I told him I had become anxious, because I quite understood that the settlement was already resisted; but he said it was not, it was an equitable settlement—I said, "Mr. Jones, there are so many excuses; is there not something wrong?"—he said, "I will give you a writing," "and he wrote this bit in the fold of the document: "A fair copy draft, signed by Mrs. Firman, in the presence of the witness, this 18th Marsh, 1896.—Signed, W. G. JONES"—at the time he wrote those words I had made some advances to Francis and Rowell.

By the COURT. I was pressing for the original deed, and he brought that, and wrote that in the paper—I went to Arthur Newton and Co., and from that time I did not interfere in the matter—I did not make a specific suggestion that a summons should be taken against Jones, and a warrant against the other two—the summons was returnable on the 25th, and on the week after I went to the Police-court—I did not know he was an undischarged bankrupt.

By MR. AVORY. At the Police-court I said that I had not at any time telegraphed to Jones; I think afterwards I remembered that I did—I did not send it; I think Bentley sent it on his own account; he must have signed my name; I am sure I did not sign it—I employed Bentley in my business—I don't write English—I am not aware that I addressed him as "Jones, care of Munk and Co., Broad Street"—sometimes my clerk does not ask me how to write.

JAMES WINTERS . I am a clerk to Mr. Honour, of 131, Jermyn Street—in April last I got instructions from him, and went to Munk and Co., of Broad Street—I there saw Mr. Jones—Mr. Bentley was with me—we had some conversation with Jones about the two houses, 76 and 78, Brewery Road—he gave answers on the subject to the effect that they were freehold houses, the property of Mrs. Louisa Firman, that Munk and Co. were solicitors in the matter, and were raising a large loan of £2,000 on the houses, which they hoped to carry through in about a month—they were getting it from three parties—I made notes of what he said—I then went back, and had a conversation with Mr. Honour—on April 21st I saw Jones again, and then returned to Mr. Honour with these charges—one was the endorsement on the second charge—on August 1st I went to the bank with Mrs. Rowell; she had a cheque for £140—she cashed that cheque, and he received the money and paid for the bills, and took away

the balance—Francis and Rowell always said that Jones was their solicitor.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I am called Milton, but my name, Winters, is well known in the profession—I first went to Jones's office on April 14th; Bentley went with me—before we went there Bentley told me it was good business; he represented the case; he did not tell me the particulars; he told me the outline—we trust to a firm of solicitors; we don't compare solicitors to agents—when I first went to Jones I asked him if he had the papers, and he said they were in the hands of Mrs. Firman; he had not got them—I think I first went to make inquiries of Mrs. Firman about August 28th—I saw her in company of Mr. Honour; I had never been to her before I had been to the neighbourhood and made inquiries—I was not perfectly satisfied that she was not the owner of the houses; I was very nearly so, but not altogether—I went on the Sunday, with Mr. Honour; I heard what she said—I was satisfied then that she was not the owner—I saw Bentley after that, very often—I saw him in the street yesterday—he never told me how he came to know Francis; I did not inquire into that at all; I left it to Mr. Honour—I simply went to make inquiry; I saw two clerks there when I first went to the office; they were not in the same office with Mr. Jones—I took down the answers Mr. Jones gave.

Re-examined. Mr. Jones's office was partitioned off from the clerks; a door led into it—the clerks were in and out.

MR. HOXOUR (Re-called) I think Mr. Bentley sent the telegram; it was signed in my name—this is the telegram: "Jones, care of Monk and Co, Kindly coin up, am waiting to see you—important."

ELIZABETH FIRMAN . I live at 76, Brewery Koad, Eolloway; I am a widow—my husband died on 30th of March last—I shall be sixty-nine next birthday—I think my husband died about the end of March; I can't recollect the day exactly, it was on a Sunday—I have lived at 76, Brewery Boad, sixteen years—I paid £40 a year, and rates and taxes; I paid £3 6s. 8d. a month—I let lodgings—I had nothing to do with No. 78; I never lived there, or had anything to do with it—Mrs. Rowell is my niece—my maiden name was Martin—she has an uncle named Daniel Smith; he is a gardener, I think; I don't know much of him—I did not know that she had an uncle, Smith, who had been a publican, and a wealthy man—I know Francis; I had seen him about twice; that was just after my husband died—he called at my place one morning; Catherine came in first, and he after; I did not know Jones; to my knowledge, I had never seen him till I saw him at the Police-court—about a week after my husband's death Rowell called on me—she said, "How do you do, aunt?"—I said, "How do you do?"—I told her my husband was dead; she remained a little while, very comfortable—she came again in about a week, and said, would I be answerable for her little girl going to school?—she was very good, and I said I would—she said, would I sign a paper for her to go to school?—I said, "Yes"—I signed a piece of paper; it was a paper of the ordinary colour; I am not sure, I never looked particularly, I did not read it—I did not afterwards sign anything else—I signed a little piece with my name only; no others, to my knowledge—she came to see me afterwards, and I signed another little piece—I said, "Have you got another piece?"—she said, "Yes," and I signed, but

I don't remember signing two or three pieces—I remember one occasion when Mrs. Tucker was there at dinner time—I think she saw me sign a paper—I never on any occasion knew what was in the document that I was signing—I was not the freeholder of 76 or 78—I had nothing to do with them—I did not know who was the freeholder—I paid rent to Mr. Brett, the lawyer's agent; he is here—I had no knowledge in April, May or June this year, that I was dealing with the freehold of those two premises—I had never said anything to Rowell or Francis about settling that property on Rowell—I never appointed Francis as my trustee—so far as I know, there are no honest papers relating to that property bearing my name—the signature to the first of these papers is not my writing; I never done that—this (No. 1) looks like mine, but I don't think it is; it is witnessed, "Mrs. Catherine Rowell"; I don't know whose writing that is—the signature, Louisa Firman, on this (No. 2) does not look like my writing—at the bottom I see the signature, "G" Herbert Francis—I never saw that before; I never remember signing a document when Francis was in the room—the signature to this (No. 3) is not mine—I see the settlement, parchment; I don't think the signature to that is mine; it seems to be something like it; it is not mine—I see Mrs. Tucker's name as a witness to the signature, but I never wrote it; there was a little piece of newspaper laid on the paper on my table when I wrote; I was having my dinner at the time—I never saw any sealing-wax on the paper that I wrote—I never wrote the signature on this paper (No. 5, the mortgage)—I am sure of that; it has some red sealing-wax to it; I don't recognise that; I see that Mrs. Tucker has signed it as a witness—Mrs. Tucker came to me about two or three times, I think—(looking at No. 6) I never signed that—I don't know whose writing this letter is; I don't know the handwriting—I have had black-edged paper like this in the house—none of the papers shown me were written by me—I cannot identify or describe the piece of paper upon which I wrote my name; there was a piece of newspaper laid over it, and I only saw the edge of that where I wrote—I remember Mr. Honour coming to see me once, on a Sunday—I only asked him what he said, because I did not understand him—I never gave Mr. Jones instructions to prepare my will; I never saw him in my life, to my knowledge—this paper (No. 18) I cannot read; I never heard it read—I never had property of this description.

Cross-examined. I have some nieces besides Rowell, some brother's children somewhere; one is grown up, my brother's daughter Charlotte, but I never see him—I was on affectionate terms with Mrs. Rowell—she came to see me at times—the house I lived in was a ten-roomed house; I let some of it; Mrs. Rowell was aware of that; she is a widow, and has four children—I never promised that I would do various things to help her; I wanted somebody to help me—I never told her that after my death I would provide for her, because I had not much—I never told her that I would do something to improve her position—she came to visit me of her own accord—she did not come very often till very lately—she came several times in the week after my husband died—she had conversation with me as to how I was left after my husband died; she knew I had not got any thing—J was expecting to have an allowance from the parish; I am as poor as that—I don't know exactly the colour of the paper I signed for her—I did it in kindness for her child, to go to school; I did

not think it was to help the mother—I never had the curiosity to read it—I don't know how many papers I signed; I signed my name about three times, I think—the second time she came I said, "Have you got anymore papers?"—she said, "You may have to sign some more, but the more names you put down the sooner she will get to the school"—Mrs. Tucker was present the first time I signed a paper, and she wrote a letter, but I don't know what was in it, more than the dead—I did not put my name to that letter; she said she wrote a letter to Mr. Francis, begging him to keep one of the little girls—I can't tell whether that letter was written on black-edged paper; it was written on my table; it was thanking Mr. Francis for taking care of the little girl—I kept one little girl to help me—I did not sign that letter—I think Mrs. Tucker was present once afterwards when I signed a paper—I don't know whether she signed them or not; she signed her own name—I never saw her write any other letters; no one else wrote a letter, and asked me to sign it; I am sure of that—I don't know who placed the deed of July 3rd on the table—I don't know which paper it was that had the piece of newspaper put on it—I think altogether I signed two papers—I don't remember Mrs. Tucker bringing more than two—when Mr. Honour came to see me I did not have any long conversation, with him; I was asleep; he spoke to me, and I did not understand what he said—he did not ask me for any information with regard to my niece—he said, "Do you know anything about this paper?" and I said, "No"—he said something more, I don't know what; another gentleman was with him, Mr. Winters—he said, "Don't talk to her too fast, because she is rather eldish," and then he went to the door, and did not come buck—I don't recollect anything more that was said—I was afterwards asked to attend at Mr. Newton's office; I told them all I knew about it.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I do not remember how many persona came to see me about this; my memory is rather bad—I do not recollect as well now as I did before the Magistrate; I have had a deal of misery—I remember being at the Police-court—when Mr. Honour came to see me, I was frightened; and did not know what to say; I was excited; I had been to sleep, and just woke up—I did not think I was going to be put out of my house—I never gave it a thought; I had paid my rent—I did not know what these people were coming about; I had never seen a deed—I do not know what a deed is.

Re-examined. I never saw anybody who represented himself as a solicitor to me in this matter: I never had a solicitor in my life—I never saw Jones at my house.

ELIZABETH TUCKER . I live at 29, Forest Road, Dalston—I became acquainted with Mrs. Rowell more than a year ago—in the spring of the year she called on me (she had been calling regularly before that, I had been doing needlework for her), and wanted me to go with her to her aunt, whom I did not know before—I went with her to Mrs. Firman, 76, Brewery Road—we got there after the aunt's dinner—Rowell said she wanted to get her little daughter Amy into a school, and asked her aunt to put her name to a rather long paper, telling her she was getting names to get the little girl into the school—her aunt was very pleased, and put her signature to the paper—the paper was not read to Mrs. Firman—on another occasion I went there, and Mrs. Firman signed the same paper,

I think, or a paper relating to the same matter, in my presence—I saw Mrs. Firman write this signature to this settlement of July 3rd, and I put my signature as a witness—Rowell said it was a paper that had something to do with the school; I think this is the paper I saw; it was folded in a different form—I also saw Mrs. Firman sign this document, and I witnessed it—I wrote this letter on black-edged paper, which Mrs. Firman signed—Rowell dictated it to me—she can write; I do not know why she dictated it to me—I wrote it in Mrs. Firman's room—I do not know that she was present—I did not see it after I had written it—Rowell took it; I don't know where to—I don't think I saw Mrs. Firman sign it. (This was the letter (No. 6), of June 27th, which had previously been read.) I think Rowell read that to me from a letter—she thought I could write or copy it better than she could—she gave me no reason for my writing it, and not she—I afterwards went to Honour's office, 131, Jermyn Street, with Rowell—she had to go there on business, and I was out with her—they spoke of business matters there—I took no part in it—I did not see my signature to certain documents there—I was asked if Mrs. Firman had signed, and I said I had seen her sign.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. I think I went twice to Mrs. Firman's; on the first occasion I signed some documents—I did not particularly notice if the paper signed by Mrs. Firman, or any part of it, was covered over—there was no concealment—I did not notice if the document on the second occasion was covered over in any way—I should not have thought there was any concealment—I think I could have read it if I had wanted, but I did not—I was in the room with Mrs. Firman on the second occasion, the whole of the time Rowell was there; I did not leave it—if any other paper had been signed I must have noticed it—Mrs. Boyce was not present when I wrote this letter—Mrs. Firman was not present when Rowell dictated it to me—I think it was dictated at Rowell's house—I saw Mrs. Firman sign it, at her own house, weeks after, I think—I do not think there was a bit of newspaper over all the letter, except where she signed—I think it was a considerable period after I wrote the letter that Mrs. Firman signed it—I don't know in whose possession it remained after I wrote it—Rowell did not ask me to go to Mrs. Firman for the purpose of Mrs. Firman signing the letter; I was at Rowell's, and she called on her aunt, and we both went in—Rowell wanted her to sign her name to a letter; I did not take notice what it was for, but something was said about Mr. Francis; she said, "I want you just to sign your name to this letter"—I don't think Francis's name was mentioned in connection with the letter.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I have known Rowell more than two years, and Francis not a year, I think—I did not see Francis at Mrs. firman's, or in connection with this matter at all, only Rowell—I don't know if the letter from which I copied this one of June 27th was in Rowell's writing; she had it in her hand—I did not notice it.

Re-examined. I wrote as she dictated; I don't think I knew her, writing before this, not till afterwards—I received letters from her—I had no difficulty in reading her letters when I got them.

By the COURT. I saw Rowell ask Mrs. Firman to sign two papers and the letter altogether—the second one was doubled up small when she and

I signed it; there was just space for her and me to put our names—I had no idea what I was signing, but I heard her on both occasions tell Mrs. Firman it was something to do with getting the girl into a school.

By MR. AVORY. I did not know Jones before this trial—I attended at his office with Rowell one afternoon, when I was out with her—I could not say when, or whether it was before or after I wrote this letter at dictation—I think it was before she had those papers—I don't know if I told Jones, in Rowell's presence, that I had seen Mrs. Firman sign these documents—I only went there to wait while Rowell went in to transact some business; it may have been afterwards.

By the COURT. Very likely I did say before Jones that I saw Mrs. Firman sign these papers; but it must have been afterwards—I was asked if I had seen Mrs. Firman sign something, and I said, "Yes," and I had.

Thursday, November 19th.

EDWARD BARRETT . I am a house agent, at 54, Southwark Bridge Road—I know Mrs. Firman, of 76, Brewery Road, Holloway—I act for the freeholder, and collect her rent of £3 6s. 8d. per month—her husband was a tenant till March this year, and she took on the tenancy at his death—the freeholder is the Corporation of London—there is no pretence for saying that she is the freeholder, or that her husband ever was.

JOHN WOOLETT . I am an estate agent, at 58, Cloudesley Road, Barnsbury—I collect the rent of 78, Brewery Road, for the freeholders, the Corporation of London—the lessee is Mr. Brinsmead—Mrs. Firman had had no interest in it since 1882, to my knowledge.

FREDERICK CHARLES WILDASH . I am a solicitor in the Comptroller's Department of the Corporation of London—the Corporation is the freeholder of 76 and 78, Brewery Road, and the deeds are in the Comptroller's possession—the Corporation cannot sell without the authority of an Act of Parliament—the lessee is Henry Wallis.

ROBERT PETER PARKER . I am a clerk in the Sun Life Office, 63, Threadneedle Street—that office never tendered to Munk and Co. in respect of any advance on 76 or 78, Brewery Road.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I am on the actuarial staff—any loan would come under my notice when it had been entertained—any loan that is definitely offered is entered in a register whether it is entertained or not—it is definitely offered if we have proper particulars—we should not enter it till we had particulars.

Re-examined. If it had got as far as our tendering for the property the particulars would appear in the register.

By the COURT. If a firm of solicitors wrote and asked us to advance money on freehold property a record would be kept.

FREDERICK WILLIAM MUNK . I am a solicitor, practising at Broad Street House—Jones is an old schoolfellow of mine—he is not a partner in my business—it was arranged that he should have a seat in my office with a view of his renewing his certificate—he had an interest in my business to this extent, that he or his friends had provided certain funds to cover the expenses when I moved into Broad Street House, and when he got his certificate it was arranged that he should have an interest in the business—he had no interest as a partner—letters relating to matters of mine which he was personally attending to in the office he could sign Munk and Co., but he was not entitled to sign Munk and

Co. on his own account—I was not aware that he was signing Monk and Co. in matters of his own—I had no business with Francis or Rowell—I cannot find in my office any press copies of any letter from my firm, or any record in my books of costs paid to my firm by Honour—I have no record of any transaction with Honour at all, except an entry of writing to him for payment; but that is not in this matter—the bodies of these letters (Nos. 1, 2 and 3) are all in Jones's writing—No. 2 is signed "G. Herbert. Francis and Louisa Firman," and No. 3 is signed by G. Herbert Francis, and witnessed by Mrs. Rowell—the signature to the settlement (No. 4) is Jones's writing—the Attestation clause, and the signature to No. 5, the mortgage, is in Jones's writing—No. 9 and 13 are in Jones's writing—in the mortgage of April 15th (No. 14) the interlineation on the first line, "By way of statutory mortgage," is in Jones's writing, and I think the "As beneficial owner, "I am not quite certain—I think the handwriting of the body of the document if my clerk, McNiar's; it has his initials—the foot-note to the letter of April 15th (No. 16) is Jones's writing, and the signature—No. 17, the letter of April 15th and the signature to it are in Jones's writing—I think all No. 18, Mrs. Firman's will, is in the writing of a clerk—No. 20, an indenture by way of mortgage, is in Dolman's writing, I think—No. 21, a letter of April 21st, is something like Jones's writing, but I could not be certain about it; it is not written by anybody who had authority to sign Munk and Co.—Nos. 22, a letter of April 21st, 28, a letter of May 9th, and 35, a letter of August 1st, are in Jones's writing—No. 39, the draft assignment of the equity of redemption, is engrossed by our stationers, and not signed—Nos. 46, a letter of December 13th, 1893, and 52, a letter of May 4th, 1894, are in Jones's writing, and all the writing on this draft deed of March 18th, is Jones's writing.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. I acted for Francis nearly eighteen months ago, I should think—I never acted for Rowell.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I have known Jones all my life; we were at school together, and near neighbours—we first became associated in business about 1881, when we started in practice together as solicitors—the partnership lasted about two years-after leaving me he joined the firm of Powys and Sons, in Lincoln's Inn Fields, paying a considerable sum of money to go in—I think after that, when his father died, he came into several thousand pounds—the business of Powys and Sons ultimately became involved owing to the defalcations of Mr. Powys, I believe, and that brought Jones into the Bankruptcy Court; he very honourably paid up the defalcations of his partner—I had an office in the Haymarket previous to my present office in the City; Jones used to have his letters addressed there—he had been in an office at Adam Street, Adelphi, and when he left there his letters were addressed to the Haymarket—I took him into my office the latter part of last year; he provided £300 towards the expenses of the new office—as soon as he had renewed his certificate it was contemplated that he should have a share of my business and profits on payment of a further sum—certificates have to be renewed in November—it was undoubtedly understood that he contemplated renewing his certificate this November—his last certificate lapsed in 1893, I think; he suffered from very bad health after his bankruptcy—I think he was getting his previous clients together

again—when you have let your certificate lapse you must get a certificate from a practising solicitor before you can renew it, and he was going to get one from me—besides him I had two clerks, McNair and Dolman; they had authority to sign letters in the name of Munk and Co., connected with business in the office—for some time after taking the office in the City I kept on that in the Haymarket, and then I had notice to treat from a railway; I was at my office in the City every day—McNair and Dolman, have occasionally signed "Munk and Co." without adding "p.p.," and their initials, though, as a rule, they add them; it was generally unimportant letters they so wrote—I had not done business for Honour prior to April 15th, but since then there are two entries of instructions to sue people—Jones gave me the particulars, and letters for payment were written—I knew something was going on in the office in connection with Francis and Rowell—very probably their names are entered in the call-book—the initials of the person who saw them would be put against them—I have no doubt their names are entered, and I presume Honour's also—I only saw him in my office once, Jones introduced him, and I shook hands, in a casual way as I passed out—I am not sure if at the time we had had instructions—I did not know at the time that he was a money lender, not for ft long time afterwards—I knew it before this prosecution started—I heard Honour swear yesterday that this document was written out by Jones in his presence—I have no doubt it is in McNair's writing—it is signed by McNair as attesting witness, and it is quite obvious that that signature is in the same writing as the body of the document—there are two interlineations in Jones's writing; they are formal amendments, such as a lawyer might put in correcting the clerk—this purports to be a flimsy copy of a letter of July 9th, 1896, from Jones, not in his writing, I think; the signature is his—it is addressed to G. H. Francis.

Re-examined. Jones's bankruptcy must have been about 1892, three or four years ago. (MR. BODKIN read letters Nos. 1, 2 and 3. No. 1 was dated July 31st, 1896, and was addressed to Honour, and signed by Louisa Firman, and stated that with reference to the mortgage deed of the same date, in connection with 76 and 78, Brewery Road, upon which he had advanced Mrs. Rowell £1,400, the freehold houses in question, which she had settled upon Mrs. Rowell, were unencumbered and were of the rental value of £60, and the deeds were in her own possession or control, and that she was lawfully entitled to them. No. 2, signed "Louisa Firman and G. Herbert Francis," and addressed to Rowell, agreed to Rowell paying off Honour the sums owing by her and Francis out of the moneys now about to be advanced by Honour to them under the mortgage deed of July 31st, 1896, the balance to be retained by her for her own use and benefit. No. 3, dated July 31st, 1896, signed "Louisa Firman and G. Herbert Francis" and addressed to Honour, authorised him to hand to Rowell the amount agreed to be advanced under the mortgage deed. The signatures to these three letters purported to be witnessed by Rowell.)

ALBERT WISDOM . I am secretary of a club at 4, Park Place, St. James's—Francis was a member up to August 21st, 1895—since then he had has no connection with the club, and no right to use its note-paper—this is some of our note-paper—the club occupies the whole house.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. It would be irregular for strangers.

introduced by members to use our writing-paper, but I suppose it is done occasionally.

THOMAS BUTTON . I live at 47, Stamford Road, and am clerk to a builder—I am the leaseholder of 26, Glaze more Road—Francis and Rowell lived in that house as tenants at £33 a year from March, 1895—I knew them as Mr. and Mrs. Francis—this agreement for tenancy is signed by G. Herbert Francis and Catherine Francis—prior to letting the house I asked for references, and I got this memorandum from Francis, with the names of W. G. Jones, 29, Poplar Grove, West Kensington, and another person—I wrote to the references and received this letter (No. 9) in answer, from Jones. (This letter, dated February, 1895, testified to Francis's thorough respectability and responsibility for the rent named, and stated that he was engaged in business in the City, and, it was believed, made a fair income, besides having good prospects; that his father was a gentleman of some position in India, and that he should not hesitate to accept Francis as a tenant.) They left the house about the end of January this year—about £11 was owing—I put the brokers in; there was nothing to realise on, as there was very little there.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I wrote to Mr. Thompson, the second reference, and received a satisfactory reply—Francis, at the time, gave me as his business address, Fore Street, in the City—he said he was a commission agent.

FRANK PILGRIM . I am messenger at the Incorporated Law Society—this book is the roll of registered solicitors who have taken out their certificates—the name of Walter Gerard George Jones appears here as having been admitted in November, 1878, as a solicitor, and as having taken out his certificate down to 1891—the minimum age of a solicitor is twentyone—his last certificate expired on November 15th, 1891.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. He is still a solicitor upon the roll, but he has no certificate.

WILLIAM EVANS . I am a tailor, of 13A, George Street, Hanover Square—in September, 1893, Jones, whom I knew as a customer, called with Francis, and Francis gave me an order for about £30 worth of clothes—I was not paid—Jones said Francis was a man with great expectations—Jones paid me fairly punctually.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. Jones has continued my customer practically up to to-day—he only owes me about £6 now; I should be glad if all my customers were as good.

SARAH ANN BAINES . I live at 47, Doughty Street—my husband is a messenger—in 1893 and 1894 I kept a lodging-house at Charles Street, St. James's—I knew all the defendants—they did not lodge with me—I have seen Francis with Jones, and I have seen them separately—they were introduced to me by a gentleman who was a lodger of mine—Francis gave me these cheques (Nos. 47 to 50), and I gave him cash in exchange for the amount of the cheques—I passed them through my bank; they were not met—I spoke to Francis many times about them, and eventually I got this letter from him (No. 51). (This, dated April 20th, 1894, and addressed to Jones, authorised him to pay Mr. Baines £25 on account of money received on his (Francis's) account.) I took that to Munk's office—I asked Jones about it when he came to 16, Charles Street—he gave me this document (No. 52). (This, dated May 4th, 1894, stated that Francis's order

upon Jones to pay her £25 on Francis's behalf, and out of moneys coming to Francis was in order, and that he would communicate with her further on the matter in tin course of the next week.) I did not receive any such communication, or any part of the £25—I saw Jones and Francis after that—Jones said they were having money, and that I should be paid—Francis said he was having money paid into his bank, and that I should be paid—I got none of it.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND. I do not bet—Francis put 10s. on one horse at his own wish—that was the only one—I remember his backing it—it won.

ANGEL POSNER . I am a dealer in jewellery at 39, Russell Street, Covent Garden—in October, 1893, I saw Francis, who said his father was travelling with the Prince of Wales, and had an estate in India, and that he was coming into a great deal of money, and would I let him have some jewellery—he got from me two rings and a pin, value £40—I asked for payment, and Francis asked me to come to Jones, and Jones would sign the bill, or put his name to it, and the money would be right when it became due—I went to Jones with Francis—I got this promissory note (No. 43), dated October 2nd, 1893, "Fourteen days after date: I promise to pay Mr. A. Posner the sum of £50 for value received, G. Herbert Francis," payable at 18, Adam Street, Adelphi, endorsed by Gerard Jones, A. Posner, p. A. Harris—a noting slip is attached "Principal £50, noting n/p 2s. 6d., £50 2s. 6d. Not within no orders"—18, Adam Street, Adelphi, was where Jones' office was then, and that was where I took it to—after the bill was dishonoured I saw Jones and Francis many times—I said to Francis, "Am I to lose that money?"—he said, "No; you will be paid"—so it went on for a month—Jones, said he had lost a great deal of money with Francis—I wanted Jones to pay the bill; he said he had not got the money, but when Francis had the money he would pay me the bill—I got no part of my money back.

Cross-examined by MR. OVEREND.£50 was owing—I did not know Bennett—he never acted as my solicitor—I am not aware that Francis had paid him money on my account.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I passed on the promissory note to Harris, who went to Parrett to recover the money, and he did not get any because I did not get any—I do not know what became of Parrett—I had to refund the money and take the bill back—I paid the bill to Harris, and he discounted it for me, and when it became due it was protested and came back, and Harris took proceedings against Jones—Jones told me he had paid money to Parrett on account of this bill—he did not tell me that Parrett had absconded; I did not know it till I saw in the paper years after that Parrett had been struck off the Rolls—they told me all kinds of stories; one told me they had paid £20, another told me £15—I never saw this receipt for £5 before; I have asked Jones to bring receipts if he had any, but I never saw them; this £5 may have been for expenses; I have not received anything.

JOHN GILBERT . I am a money lencler, of 105,. Great Portland Street—in December, 1893, Francis and Jones called on me—Francis represented that he was entitled to some money under a will or reversion, a will I believe, and asked me to lend him some money—Jones, who was his solicitor, corroborated that, and I lent £200 on Jones's representation—this

joint promissory note was given by Francis and Wells, who was also present; Wells was at that time an undischarged bankrupt—Francis also gave this charge, dated December 11th, 1893 (No. 44). (This document was made between Francis and John Gilbert, and witnessed that whereas Francis was entitled to a reversion of £1,000 per annum, under a settlement made by Robert Nisbett, on the death of Francis's father, and whereas Francis was endeavouring to raise £5,000 on the security of the same through Jones, in consideration of John Gilbert discounting a bill for £250 due February 11th, 1894, Francis charged the reversion in favour of John Gilbert to the extent of £250, and authorised Jones to pay John Gilbert £250 out of any moneys to be advanced to him upon the reversion.) I received this letter from Jones. (This, dated from 18, Adam Street, December 13th, 1893, acknowledged the receipt of notice that Francis had charged his reversion to the extent of £250, and undertook to repay that amount out of the first moneys raised on the same security.) None of the money has ever been repaid—I have seen both Jones and Francis since—I saw Francis once at Charing Cross Station, and I believe I asked him why the money had not been paid—I really do not remember what he said, it was three years ago—I saw Jones at his office, Adam Street, and asked him why the money had not been paid; he said there was delay, and that it would be paid—I went to him several times, but on subsequent occasions he was not there, he had disappeared from Adam Street altogether—I endeavoured to find out where Jones and Francis were, but I could not find either of them—I came to the conclusion I had been swindled.

Cross-examined by MR. OVERTON. I was not aware, when I advanced the money, that it was for the benefit of Wells, and not of Francis.

Cross-examined by MR. AVORY. I have previously lent money on a reversion; in the ordinary course I generally take a charge on the reversion first—I frequently draw that charge myself; occasionally I got a solicitor to draw it—I understood that Jones was acting for Francis; I understood from Jones that he was trying to raise money for Francis on this reversion—I do not take a statement from a borrower in order to be able to prosecute him if it turns out to be untrue; it is to show the position he is in, and bring it to his notice—he can infer, if he likes, that if it is untrue I can prosecute him—I believe the indenture is in the ordinary form given in such cases, where the solicitor is understood to be trying to raise money on a reversion; it is very much like the same form as I use in other cases—it in not word for word the same in every case.

Re-examined. It was drawn up in my office; I don't think Jones was there when it was drawn up.

CHARLES ARROW (Inspector C). I received warrants in this case on September 18th, the day on which information was laid before the Magistrate, and Mr. Arthur Newton applied for process on behalf of Mr. Honour, and asked for warrants for the arrest of the three prisoners—the Magistrate suggested that a summons should be granted against Jones—the summons was issued immediately the warrants were executed, and served at once, and then Francis and Bowell were remanded to the return day of the summons—on the morning of September 19th I went to 11, Albert Road, Ilford—Rowell opened the door—Francis was in the house with her—when they were together I told them I was a police-officer, and held warrants for their arrest—I first read the warrant to Francis,

and he said, "I saw Honour last night, and he promised that he would give me till Monday"—I then read the other warrant to Rowell; she made no answer—I searched their premises, and then conveyed them to Vine Street Police-station—they were charged—they made no reply—I found at 11, Albert Road a number of bills and papers, some of which have been produced—I caused the summons to be served on Jones—the case was remanded in the ordinary course till the committal for trial.

ANGEL POSNER (Re-examined by MR. AVORY.) This document is dated November 24th, 1893, and is a receipt for £5 paid by Jones on behalf of Francis; and this appears to be another receipt for £5 paid by Jones.

ELIZABETH TUCKER (Re-examined by MR. AVORY). I think I only went once to Jones's office with Rowell—I think I told Jones that I had seen Mrs. Firman sign a document—I could not remember what document it was—I saw her sign two; whether this settlement was one I could not say—this is my signature, as a witness—I saw Mrs. Firman sign it—I could not say if this was shown to me in Jones's office; it is like it—I cannot say if I told Jones I had seen her sign two—it was one or the other I spoke to Jones about; it may have been both.

Re-examined. I don't remember the dates—I went to Honour's office with Rowell—the only time I saw Jones at his office was when I went with Rowell; nothing took place in reference to deeds on that occasion—I told him that I had seen Mrs. Firman sign one of these documents; I have no doubt about it.

The following witnesses were called on behalf of Jones;—

RONALD MCNAIR . I am a clerk to Messrs. Munk and Co., 6, Broad Street House—on April 15th Francis and Rowell came, and Bentley followed shortly after, and then Honour came—I showed Honour into the room, and remained there for a few minutes—Honour said, "Is this Mr. Jones?" and one of them, I think Bentley, said, "Yes"—Honour asked Jones to draw up a mortgage of Mrs. Rowell's interest, under the settlement made on her by Mrs. Firman—Jones said, "The settlement is only in draft; you ought to be properly represented by a solicitor; I would prefer that it should be so"—Honour said, "I can take care of myself"—I left the room—Mr. Jones afterwards rung for me; I answered him by the telephone which runs from the private room to the clerk's office in which I was—he called me, and I went into the private room—Jones said to mo, "Mr. Honour wants to draw up his own mortgage; I have protested against the business being done in this irregular manner, and I wish you to bear witness to it"—Honour said to Jones, "You write; I will dictate to you"—Jones said, "As you are in a hurry will not it save time if the clerk takes it down in shorthand?"—Honour assented, and he dictated the charge of April 15th to me, and I took it "down in shorthand—when Honour was about half-way through it Jones said, "This is being done in a most irregular manner, and I won't be responsible for it," and, turning to me, he said, "I wish you to remember it later"—Honour said, "Allow me, Mr. Jones," as if he did not want to be interfered with; he said, "I always do them like this," and he finished dictating it then—I read it over to Honour from my short-hand note—he said he was satisfied, and then I was told to write it out—I went into the next room and did so; this is the transcript of my notes (No. 14)—the body of it is in my writing—Rowell signed it in my presence, and I attested it—the two interlineations are in Jones's

writing—after I had witnessed it, Honour said, "I should like to give you something for your trouble, Mr. Jones," and he put £1 1s. on the table—Jones said, "Anything I expect to get I must get from Mrs. Rowell"—Honour pressed it on him—I saw Jones write—I do not know whether it was a receipt or not—Honour repeated that he wished Jones to have something for his trouble—after that day Francis and Rowell called several times at our office and saw Jones—I have heard them more than once promise to bring the deeds to Jones, in reply to his asking them to do so—Rowell has said, "We cannot let you have them just yet"—I have heard him ask more than once for them—I have heard Rowell say that, owing to Mrs. Firman's age and infirmity, it was difficult to get her to attend to business, and that was why they could not get the deeds—Jones said on one occasion that if he did not get them he should go to Mrs. Firman himself—Rowell said that would be no good; that Mrs. Firman never did anything without her—the interviews were friendly; they seemed civil to each other—I heard high words one morning between Jones and Francis; I could not distinguish the actual words—I was present on July 9th, when Honour called—he asked Jones if he had been able to get the deeds yet—Jones said, No; he had not; he had tried very hard to get them. "In fact," he said, "I have tried till I am sick of doing so "; and he said Rowell and Francis were always making excuses for not bringing them—Honour said, "I must have the deeds "; and then he suggested to Jones that he should write a letter to Francis asking for the deeds, and said, "You see, I shall consult another solicitor if they don't give up the deeds, if they don't produce them to me"—Jones then dictated to me a letter which I took down in shorthand and transcribed—Honour suggested what Jones should say—Jones signed it—this is a copy of the letter—I should say the letter was posted in the ordinary course in the office. (Francis here stated that he had received the letter.) The letter was copied on these loose sheets because we used sheets out of an old letter-book to save expense—we have some copy letter-books, numbered; but we nearly always take copies on loose sheets, and keep them with the papers in the matter to which they belong. (The letter to Francis was to the effect that Honour was extremely angry at things being allowed to dawdle on; that he must beg of Francis and Rowell to call next day, when he was instructed to register the deed of settlement, and that Francis must then explain to Honour why the deeds were not handed over at once, as, if it were not done forthwith, Honour would instruct another solicitor to enforce their immediate delivery.) I heard Rowell speak of this business in the office—from what I saw and heard of Rowell and Francis, I saw no reason to suspect that the business was not genuine—in the mortgage deed of July 31st there is an interlineation in Jones's writing—Mrs. Firman undertakes, in this deed, to produce the title-deeds within fourteen days, and Jones had inserted a clause providing that the trustee, Francis, shall be responsible for the production of the title-deeds—I have seen Rowell sign her name, and I know her writing—I should say this letter of March 18th, to Jones, is in her writing, and also this addressed to Munk and Co. (The letter of January 16th, 1894, stated that she would be in a position to let Francis have £1,000 within six weeks, and instructed him to protect her interests and be prepared to act for her under her uncle's settlement. The

letter of March 18th, requested him to act as her solicitor, and obtain for her a mortgage of £2,000 on the property in Brewery Road, lately settled on her by her aunt, Mrs. Firman.) I have heard Francis and Jones speak of money alleged to be owing to Jones by Francis, and I know Francis owed Jones about £600; Jones told me—I heard Jones ask Francis to let him have some money back as soon as possible.

Cross-examined. I was at the Police-court one day when Honour was in the box—I cannot say that I heard any questions put to him about the conversation on April 15th—I first gave a proof of my evidence about three weeks ago, since the last Sessions—I made that up solely from my recollection—that was the first time I had been asked to recollect what had taken place in the preceding April—I prepared it myself, and sent it to Jones—no suggestion was made to me that I should be called at the Police-court—I had seen Francis and Rowell at the office several times before April 15th—Jones had been at the office since December—I saw Rowell once at Munk and Co.'s office in the Haymarket—all the time the Honour transaction was going on Munk and Co. were at Broad Street House—since Jones has had a seat in Munk and Co.'s office, and before April 15th, I have only seen Francis there—he came several times, shortly before April 15th—I made no notes of what took place on April 15th, when Francis, Rowell, and Bentley came—I have not kept my shorthand notes in which I took down the indenture from Honour—Jones asked me to remember the transaction, and twice protested against the irregularity of Honour's proceedings—I made no notes to assist my memory—I thought Jones objected to them coming to do it in that kind of way, Honour drawing up his own mortgage—Jones suggested to Honour that he should have a solicitor to act for him—Honour said he preferred doing it himself, and that he would do it himself; he wanted to do it his own way—while I was in the room I was looking for some papers—I could not help hearing the conversation—one thing that impressed it on me was Honour's manner of saying the words, his bad English, and Jones seemed very much upset at Honour wanting to do it himself—Jones did not proffer his services as a solicitor to Honour in my hearing—I did not see the receipt given for £1 1s.—this receipt is in Jones's writing—I don't think it can he said that Jones acted as solicitor for Honour on that occasion, although he received £1 1s. for costs—Honour pressed the £1 1s. on him, and said he wanted to give him something for his trouble—it might be called costs; it seemed to be a gift—Honour dictated this indenture to me in legal phraseology, and I took it down from him, but Jones had to help him now and then when he got mixed in his English—he only had to be helped once or twice—Jones did not dictate the document to me after Honour had said what he wanted—Jones stopped Honour, and protested it was irregular at the part where the deed speaks of consideration—I don't think the consideration is properly stated; it first speaks of £5, and then of a bill—I did not see the £5 paid; no one knows what is given for the bill—I saw Jones write something after Honour pressed a guinea on him—that might have been the receipt for the costs—I cannot say what mortgage Munk and Co. were negotiating on April 15th—I never heard of the Sun Fire Office having anything to do with this business, nor of Mr. Yansittart or Mr. Warner—I did not hear of any letters going to the Sun Fire Office or other people about this matter—I think I saw all the letters that came to

the office; so far as I know there was no letter about a mortgage being negotiated at this time—when Honour was dictating this document to me Jones sat at the table; he had no pen or pencil, and made no notes—I never take down shorthand notes in a book; I very seldom take anything in shorthand now—it was part of my duty to tike down letters in short-hand if required; I did not keep any book for the purpose, but used slips of paper—the endorsement of this draft in the fold is in Jones's writing—I first saw this fair copy draft, signed by Mrs. Firman, about the beginning of April, in the office, among Jones's papers—generally when Mr. Munk goes out of the office he says where he is going, and so does Jones—I never heard Jones say he was going to see Mrs. Firman; I cannot say he ever told me he had seen her—it is usual for a solicitor to enter up his daily doings—we have such a book—I have not looked to see where Jones was on July 3rd, or whether he had appointments which took him away suddenly from Brewery Road—I only remember Honour coming to the office once and pressing for the deeds; that was when this letter was written—the copying-press is in the clerks' office—I never press-copied a letter to a parson who had deposited these deeds for £80 with his bank; I have no knowledge of such a letter being sent—retainers are generally kept with the papers—I saw a letter from Mrs. Firman, and signed by her, on Jones's desk; in April, I should think—it was on blue paper—Jones said, "That is Mrs. Firman's retainer; put it in the drawer"—I should think it would have remained there—after Jones was summoned he continued to go to the office—he took his papers to his solicitor, I think, Mr. Abrahams, of Marlborough Street—I did not see the retainer in the office after Jones ceased to go there—the only kind of excuse I heard from Francis or Rowell for the non-production of the deeds was the age and infirmity of Mrs. Firman—I went to the Middlesex Registry in respect of this matter—I registered this deed of July 16th—you have to register the title of property in Middlesex, and every mortgage and transfer, and anything affecting the title—I never went there to inquire whether Mrs. Firman was registered as the freeholder, or anything of the kind—I registered the mortgage of July 31st; I did not then search the register—the fee for searching is about 2s. 6d. or 3s.—this draft will is in my writing—Jones asked me to draw up a will of Mrs. Firman, leaving all her property to Rowell—I suppose that was on July 30th—I saw no instructions from Mrs. Firman to prepare her will—Jones was alone when he gave me those instructions—I believe he got them from Rowell; I did not hear them given, but I believe a will was executed—I believe the fair copy of a will was made from this draft by the other clerk, by Jones's instructions, I should say—I cannot say what was done with the fair copy will; I have never seen it since—I did not see it executed, or hear of its execution—my only reason for saying I believed a will was executed was that a fair copy was made—I should say the sheet on which this press-copy of the letter of July 9th was made came from a book which is at the office—the book was only partly used, and was not used in the office generally, and it had some unused leaves—these were unused sheets taken out of old letter-books, not Munk and Co.'s letter-books at all—I don't think I can produce any other flimsy copies of other letters written by Jones in reference to Francis and Rowell's transactions—I don't remember press-copying any other letter except this of July 9th—it

did not strike me at the time as strange that letters about raising money on reversion were not copied—I was in Mr. Munk's employ, not Jones's—I knew Jones when Mr. Munk's office was in the Haymarket—I only knew Jones by sight when he had an office in Adam Street.

Re-examined. A letter-book, in the proper sense of the word, has never been kept at Messrs. Munk and Co.'s office at Broad Street—letters have always been copied on loose sheets like these, and put with the particular papers they belong to—I have not been with other solicitors, but I have been in and out of plenty of offices, and it is a common practice to copy letters on loose sheets of flimsy—I should say it was a very convenient way—it is done at one or two places—the advantage is that if you have an action, and have to produce letters, you do not have to take the letter-books to the Court—Jones told me to register this settlement at the Middlesex Land Registry; any person going there could see it had been registered—it was equally open to Honour as to a solicitor to go and search at the Registry; anybody can go—when Honour first came into the office, on September 15th, and said he wanted a mortgage drawn up, Jones's first objection was that the settlement was only in draft—I did not hear Honour ask to see the draft, or anything more said about it—I should say a charge ought to come after the settlement had been executed properly and formally.

ARTHUR HENRY DOLMAN . I am an admitted solicitor and clerk to Munk and Co.—I was in the office on April 15th, when Honour, Francis and Rowell came—either McNair or myself showed Honour in—the same day I saw McNair writing out a document from a shorthand note in the clerks' office while they were there—I looked over him and read it at the time, and made some observation about it—while he was writing Bentley came out once or twice and asked if it was finished—after that day I more than once saw Rowell and Francis at the office—I heard Jones ask them for deeds twice, if not three times—they said they were in Mrs. Firman's possession, and there was a trouble in getting them—Francis's, Rowell's, and Honour's names wore entered in the call-book each time they came—I knew from the conversation between Francis and Jones that Francis was indebted to Jones in a considerable sum of money; I heard them mention it once or twice—I don't know Francis's writing—since they have been at Broad Street, Munk and Co. do not keep a bound up letter-book; every letter is taken off on a separate sheet—I have been in other offices; I have not seen that done in any other office.

Cross-examined. All letters written in the office by Munk and Jones were taken off on sheets—copies of letters written by Jones, and signed "Munk and Co., "I would be kept in the office—I suppose Jones would have the copies of letters he wrote to Francis and Rowell; they are not in the office—I do not know anything about them—I could not say that all the letters Jones wrote were copied on these flimsies, because I may not have been in the office when he was writing some, but every letter I saw written was taken off—Jones asked me to make a fair copy of this draft, and I did so, and gave it to Jones, who took it away with him, and I did not see it again—I did not receive instructions to prepare Mrs. Firman's will; it is in my fellow clerk's writing.

Re-examined. I think Jones told me at the time that Mrs. Rowell had then him instructions to draw up Mrs. Firman's will.

ELPHINSTONE ELMSLEY HENRY . I am a commission agent and financial agent, at 14, Adam Street, Adelphi—I believe, I took that office in September, 1893—at that time Jones had a room in my office—he was engaged in various business matters connected with his bankruptcy—while he and I were at that office I was introduced to Francis by Captain King and Mr. Huddersfield, J.P., of Persecornwall Manor, Dorsetshire—Captain King was then an overwriting agent for an insurance company, a salaried agent—I had not known Mr. Huddersfield before; he was introduced to me at the same time; he and Francis came together—Francis said he was entitled to a reversionary interest in a property called Lambdon, in Berwickshire, contingent on the death of his father, I believe, and I am not sure he did not say of his mother—he said his father was in the service, in India—he said he came to me to raise money on this reversion—I sent him that day, or a little later, to Mr. Hanrot, a solicitor, of 14, Bedford Row, who is now dead—he was a money-lender—I saw Mr. Hanrot with reference to this matter—possibly Jones may have advanced money to Francis; I don't know; I think very likely he did—some time after, in 1893 or 1894, while I was still at the Adelphi office, Francis came and produced a deed: to Jones—I saw it for a few minutes. (MR. BODKIN objected to the admission of evidence about a deed produced by one prisoner to another some time back. The RECORDER ruled that he should admit it.) I remember an endorsement on the deed of the name of Firman—my recollection it that it purported, to be a conveyance to Mrs. Firman of freehold property somewhere in Holloway; Brewery Road as far as I recollect—it was produced, I suppose, to raise money on; the matter was thought no more of—he did not leave the deed there—I cannot recollect whether a note was made of particulars, but my impression is some note was taken, because I took a synopsis of the particulars to Hanrot in reference to it, and asked him, first to advance, and then to see whether it was possible to obtain money on the security—I had nothing to do with the business—then it dropped—I saw Rowell in Francis's company at that time, and since—she was introduced to me at Adam Street by Francis.

Cross-examined. I live at 14, Chapel, Street, Bedford Row, where I have three furnished rooms—I don't recollect the name of my landlord for the moment—I took the chambers some time ago—I pay my rent to agents in Great James Street; I have forgotten their names for a moment—I last paid my rent about two months ago, five guineas for a quarter—I have three rooms at 10s. a week—I don't remember the agent's number in Great James Street—I can produce the receipt for my rent if necessary—I had offices at Adam Street in 1898—I made a mistake if I said I was there now; I was last there in 1894—I had three rooms there—I was the tenant—I forget the landlord's name; he was a land surveyor, or something of that sort—I sent my rent to somewhere in Whitehall; I cannot remember the name—I have a bad memory for names—I remember the name of Mrs. Firman—I saw Mr. Munk at Adam Street occasionally, seeing Jones—I don't know where Hunk's office was then—I was a tenant at Adam Street for six months I should think—my name was up, "E. E. Henry," with no description—I was financial agent, who is a commission agent—a financial agent brings together a borrower and a lender, and gets a

commission—I cannot say I know many money-lenders—I am not a money-lender's tout—I carry out mortgages—I introduce people to money-lenders—I have a recollection of Mr. Gilbert some years ago—I have seen and spoken to him here to-day—I introduced him to a lady on one occasion who wanted to raise money—I knew Mr. Hanrot pretty well—his nephew and Reed were charged with conspiracy—I knew Reed as a money-lender; I have borrowed money from him myself and paid him back—I knew Francis as living at Charles Street—I suggest it was in 1894 that Francis first knew Jones—I should think Jones first knew Rowell then; I did not know her previously—very likely I was in Adam Street as a tenant in January, 1894, and left at midsummer—rent was due at that time—I cannot recollect if I saw Rowell introduced to Jones at my office—Francis was introduced to Jones for the purpose of raising money on a reversion of the Berwickshire property—I did not suggest Francis and Jones should go to Gilbert; I never recollect hearing they went to Gilbert together about it—about two months after the introduction of Francis to Jones this other deed was produced by Francis, who showed it to Jones, and then took it away—I had a glance at it—I did not notice whether there was a certificate of registration at the Middlesex Registry on it—some notes were taken by a clerk—I did not make a synopsis from the deed itself—I have not seen them since—I had two clerks in my office; one was Jones's and one mine—I did not know Jones before 1894—he was introduced to me by Signer Brunnelli; Jones was going through the Bankruptcy Court at the time, and Brunnelli said I had taken offices in Adam Street, and perhaps he would like a room there—he did not do solicitors' business at that place—I was first introduced into this case a few days ago; Mrs. Jones asked me—I made no statement of what I was going to say—I saw no solicitor who was appearing for Jones to my recollection—I saw Mr. Abrahams to-day; I saw him for a moment before, but I have never had conversation with him—I have never seen the prisoners' solicitor to have a conversation or to talk to—Jones wrote and asked me to go and see him at Holloway, and I saw him there; I gave him no statement or proof.

Re-examined. This is the receipt for money I paid to the solicitors for preparing the agreement when I took the office at Adam Street, Adelphi, on September 20th, 1893—Hopgood and Dowson were the solicitors acting for the landlord.

By the COURT. I was at Adam Street for about six months—King introduced Francis to Jones, in my presence, at the Holborn Restaurant—that was before Jones came to Adam Street—we were introduced to Francis by King and Huddersfield at the time I took my office in Adam Street almost—I knew nothing of the application to John Gilbert on the Lambton reversion; I heard they had raised money from Gilbert through a Mr. Wells, whom I know—Wells was paying 20s. in the £, and leaving a surplus.

HAROLD GEORGE COX . I am a financial and general agent, residing at Walthamstow—I would rather not answer whether I am an acquaintance or relation of the Mr. Bentley mentioned in this case—I believe it was in February last I made Francis's acquaintance; I met him in a casual way—he asked me to procure him a loan of £150 on the security of Ro well's reversion on two freehold houses in Brewery Road, and settled

upon her by her aunt, Mrs. Firman, Aged eighty-three—he said he was one of the trustees, and he know it to he true—later on, in consequence of what I heard, I called at Munk and Co s, office in Broad Street, and there I saw Jones—it was towards the end of March—I asked Jones if he could produce the deeds; I said I wanted to obtain further particulars about the business—I said Dr. Francis (he had been described to me as Dr. Francis) had asked me to obtain a loan, and I asked Jones it he could produce the deeds relating to the property—Jones said, "I have not got the deeds, and I cannot get them; I think you had better wait till we have something to show"—I said, "Dr. Francis told me the settlement deed was signed"—Jones said, "That is not so; the settlement deed is not yet executed"—I left the office—I met Francis and told him what had taken place, in Rowell's presence—they said there was some difficulty in getting the deeds produced—Rowell said she had a rich uncle, and she expected to benefit financially at his death—from what Rowell and Francis said I did not suspect the thing was a fraud—I could not accept their word; I should accept the word of a solicitor; if I asked him, Is this business in order? and he said "Yes, "I should believe him—on the day that Francis and Rowell were arrested, I called on Honour late in the evening—he had mentioned this matter to me a short time before they were arrested—he told me he thought he would get the money from Jones; solicitors could always find money—on the night of the arrest of Francis and Rowell I asked him, "How about Jones?"—he said he had been served with a Police-court summons—I asked him why he had not been arrested too—he said, "Don't you think that is clever?"—I said, "I suppose you mean that if Jones is not locked up he will find you the money"—he said, "Yes"—a few days after, Honour said he should require me as a witness—I said there was no evidence I could give on his behalf that I could see—he said, "I must have you as a witness; you shall have £5 for your evidence"—a few days afterwards I happened to call on him—he asked for my address, saying he had lost it—I had given it to him—he said he should want to subpoena me—he said he had instructed his clerk as to my evidence—lie asked me if Jones was well connected—I said I believed he was, and he was a gentleman.

Cross-examined. The business of a financial agent is to obtain money for people, I presume—that was my business; it is not now—I first commenced business as a financial and general agent about a year ago, at my own address, The Hollies, East Avenue, Walthamstow—I have lived there about eighteen months—my mother is the tenant—I am nearly twenty-four—I had no office—I did my business in London, in the WestEnd, in the neighbourhood of Jermyn Street and Piccadilly—I was not a sort of man in the street; I did not meet people in the street, or in public-houses, and introduce them to money orders—sometimes I was introduced to them by other people—I met them at other people's offices whom I knew, financial agents—I introduce people to money-lenders; I am not a tout—I am related to Mr. Bentley; he is an accountant, I believe—at present I believe he is a financial agent, and introduces people to money-lenders; just what I have been doing—Francis did not go with me when I called on Jones—I went alone to obtain further particulars about the business for a solicitor, in Mansion House Chambers, Eldred, I think—I was referred to him by some people

before whom I had put this business—Eldred represented the lenders, and said he should want to know certain particulars before his clients would part with the money, and so I went to Jones to learn about the Brewery Road freehold—I might have reported the result of my inquiries to Mr. Eldred—I did not see Eldred again, because the replies Jones gave me were not satisfactory—Jones said the settlement deed was not executed; that was about the end of March—Jones did not tell me the settlement had been signed in draft by the settlor—he did not mention a signed draft, or suggest that any document connected with the settlement had been signed—I was first spoken to about coming hereto give evidence about six or seven weeks ago—either Mr. Munk, or Jones's clerk, I think, first spoke to me—McNair subpoenaed me to come here after the committal and before the last Sessions—I gave no proof before the committal—I gave no proof until I gave it to McNair—Honour has bills of mine, but I don't owe him any money.

Re-examined. I have known Honour between three and a-half to four years—I have been on intimate terms with him, and frequently seeing him—my visit to him was not quite so late as twelve, after the arrest—I know him intimately—I have no personal animosity against Honour—he has never asked me for the money on my bills—I have a subpoena.

Jones received a good character.


FRANCIS— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

ROWELL— Four Months' Hard Labour.

JONES— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Wednesday, November 18th, 1896.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-25
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

25. JOHN HEBDEN (37) , Unlawfully obtaining credit, he being an undischarged bankrupt.

MR. HUGHES Prosecuted, and MR. WARBURTON Defended.

RALPH ETON . I am a clerk in the Bankruptcy Court—I produce the file in the bankruptcy of John Hebden, of 43, Fitzwilliam Street, Doncaster, fish and game salesman and commission agent—he was adjudicated bankrupt on February 7th, 1893, and has not been discharged—I believe the defendant is the man.

Cross-examined. I am not a Doncaster man; I come from Sheffield—I do not know that since the bankruptcy the father has carried on the business himself—I cannot tell you anything which happened after the bankruptcy.

CHARLES WELBOURNE HALL . I am a solicitor and registrar of the County Court, Doncaster—I know the defendant; my bailiff has had him in custody several times—he is the John Hebden mentioned in the Bankruptcy proceedings; he has carried on business at Doncaster continuously ever since in the name of John Hebden; he has been sued in that name, and brought actions in that name—when he came before me I asked him about them, and he said that they were his own debts—his private residence is 43, Fitzwilliam Street, and he has a stall in the market.

Cross-examined. This is the first time I have heard that he became assistant to his father in 1894—I have not seen any of these cards (produced)—there is no name over the stall—he was sued as John Hebden for goods sold—when he was in custody a young man came and asked to see his father—I cannot undertake to say that anyone was in business

with the prisoner, but the young man went down with the bill to try and get the money.

ABRAHAM JOSHUA BRISLEY . I am managing director of an Australian society—on September 13th I received this letter from John Hebden respecting Australian rabbits, and about a welk afterwards the prisoner called at my office, and I told him that, as I said in my letter, I could not supply him—I took him to Mr. Tabor in Leadenhall Market—he said that he had a large business within a radius of twenty miles, and had horses and carts—he said, "My son discovered your brand on some crates"—he did not mention anything about bankruptcy to me—he did not buy anything.

Cross-examined. He did not mention his father—I have never seen a son of the prisoner's.

CHARLES JAMES TABOR . I am a salesman of Leadenhall Market—Mr. Brisley brought the prisoner to me, and introduced him as a friend of his who wanted to buy rabbits—the first entry is September 23rd, twelve crates of rabbits; I gave him a price; he said that he came from Doncaster, and did a large business, and if I treated him fairly he would do a large business, but he would try and get them cheaper, and if he wanted them he would wire—I afterwards sent him twelve crates at £2 a crate—he has never paid me a halfpenny—he did not mention that he was an undischarged bankrupt—he handed me a label with "J. Hebden and Son" on it, and said that he traded in that way, "and Sons," or "and Co.," or "Limited"—I afterwards received a telegram and sent him twenty more crates which he has not paid for; he also sent me a telegram on the 28th, which came to £24, which he has never paid—on the 29th I received this letter, and sent him forty crates more, value £48—the total value is £119—I got another telegram from him, but I had heard something—I received another letter from him with "and Son" struck out as it is now—on October 3rd, after my book-keeper had sent his account in I received this letter, "Your account received, and beg to say if you wish to be paid, you must explain your solicitor's letter to a person in this town," &c.

Crass-examined. I had one letter with "and Son" erased—I do all my business through a banker.

EBBING RUSSELL . I am a solicitor, of Great Winchester Street—my firm received this letter, "Your account is not only due, but you have the letter from Mr. Tabor; we should never think of parting with the money under a month when it becomes properly due."

GUILTY .— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-26
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

26. JOHN TAYLOR (40) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Samuel Stanley, and stealing a watch-chain, his property.

MR. LEVER Prosecuted.

SAMUEL STANLEY . I am a watchmaker of 48, Mortimer Street, Marylebone—it is a jeweller's shop; I sleep upstairs—I was awoke about two o'clock by the breaking of glass—there are iron bars in front of my window; I opened it, and saw a woman opposite, and the prisoner in front of the shop; he crossed towards New Portland Street—I put my clothes on, took my whistle, and went down and opened the door quietly, and saw the prisoner with his hand in the window—he did not see me; he was so intent upon what he was doing;

—he was close to the bar with his hand in the hole; I blew my whistle, and he ran away—I went very quietly, having my slippers on, and caught him; he said, "It was not me; I know the man who did it; he has gone that way"—the police came, and I gave him in custody—it was thick plate glass—this chain (produced) is mine; it was hanging in the window—the inspector showed it to me at the station.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. This was about one o'clock, but I cannot say exactly, as I was asleep—I saw no other man—there were nine silver chains in the window—I take the valuable things out every night; I have gas burning in my shop, but there was no light in my room—I did not come down till I saw you turn back, and then I was ready for you—the plate-glass was worth about £4, but it was insured; it could not have been broken by the hand—I did not see you break the window or take the chain out, but I saw your hand in the window.

ELLEN BUCKERIDGE . I am the wife of Edgar Buckeridge—on November 5th, about ten minutes to one, I was in Mortimer Street, just opposite No. 48 and saw two or three men; and when I got to the milk shop I heard a crash, and saw two men walk from the shop; the prisoner is one, the other went round a turning; the prisoner went back to the shop, and then walked away very quick, and came back, and a whistle blew, and he ran away and the prosecutor after him, who stopped him.

Cross-examined. I did not see you break the window, but I saw you run away from it—when I heard the crash you did not remain long enough to put your hand in and take anything out, but you went to the window a second time—you were there ten minutes.

WILLIAM LEE (Police Sergeant 21 d). On the morning of November 5th I was on duty in Great Tichfield Street, heard a police whistle, and saw the prosecutor chasing the prisoner—I ran, and came up at the same time—the prosecutor said, "This man has broken my window"—the prisoner said, "Not me; the man has gone down there"—I found the window broken, and a large piece of paper covered with treacle on it—the last witness said, "That man did it"—on reaching Wheatfield Street the prisoner struggled and fell down; a cabman assisted me in getting him to the station—he said, "I know nothing about the b——window."

Cross-examined. The woman said, "It was him and another man that did it"—I did not see you drop anything; no handkerchief was found near the place.

WILLIAM WALL (329 B). On the morning of November 5th I searched the footway in Mortimer Street, and found this chain, about ten minutes after I saw the prisoner taken.

Cross-examined. I was on the spot when you were apprehended—a woman there said that you were the man who did it—I saw you leave the shop, but did not follow you.

Prisoner's Defence: The woman states that she heard a crash, but did not see me break the window. If I had broken it I should have put my hand in and taken the chains. What man would take one chain when he could take a dozen? These people have been told by the police what to pay. No doubt the police took the chain out of the window, and then said that they found it in the road. Had I done it the instrument with which it was broken must have been found on me.

GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at North London Sessions on May 23rd, 1892, when he was sentenced to Five Years' Penal

Servitude. Several other convictions were proved against him, and he is still under ticket of leave. He has spent thirty-three years in prison.— Seven Years' Penal Servitude.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-27
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

27. DAVID HOLLOWAY (38) , Indecently assaulting Annie Fichel.

MR. MUIR Prosecuted, and MR. BIRON Defended.

GUILTY .— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Thursday, November 19th, 1896.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-28
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

28. WILLIAM THOMAS BAKER , PLEADED GUILTY to sending a letter to Evaline Smith, demanding money with menaces. He received an excellent character.—Five Months' Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-29
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

29. THOMAS HAYDON (56) , Feloniously sending to David Haydon a letter demanding £10 with menaces.

MR. HUTTON Prosecuted.

DAVID HAYDON . I am a wholesale provision merchant, and live at Brownswood Park, Finsbury Park, North London—the prisoner is my brother—on October 14th I received this letter and envelope—they are in his writing—it is dated from 60, Holborn Viaduct. (The letter stated that the witness was indebted to him, and demanded the balance of account, viz., £10.) I also received this other letter in pencil in the prisoner's writing; the envelope is in a clerk's writing—the prisoner said at the Police-court that the letters were his writing.

ALFRED WARD (Policeman N). I arrested the prisoner on October 3rd, outside 60, Holborn Viaduct.

GUILTY.—Strongly recommended to mercy.— Discharged on Recognizances.

THIRD COURT.—Thursday, November 19th, 1896.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-30
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

30. HARRY RUSSELL (27) , PLEADED GUILTY to conspiring with Richard Dunn to obtain a situation as barman. He received a good character. Three months' without Hard Labour. (See next case.)

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-31
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment

Related Material

31. CHARLES RICHARD DUNN (49), WILLIAM KIRK (35), and ARTHUR KEAN (35) , Unlawfully conspiring to induce Charles Gordon to take Kirk into his service as barman.

MR. GEOGHEGAN prosecuted, and MR. HUTTON appeared for Kean, under whose advice Kean stated that he was GUILTY on the Third and Fifth Counts, and the JURY found that verdict.

CHARLES GORDON . I keep the Duke of Gloucester, St. John's Road, Hoxton—on October 5th I was in want of a potman and barman, and saw an advertisement in the Morning Advertiser—I wrote to. the address given, 3, Munster Street, N., and Kirk called on me and gave me this card, "Mr. R. C. Dunn, Gibson Square, Islington"—my barmaid was leaving the next day, and she left before Kirk came—I had another, and am entirely satisfied with her—I also had a barman and an assistant potman; I had known them both over twenty years—I have since discharged the barman for drink, but there is nothing against his honesty—I asked Kirk

where he had been living; he said at the Goodson Arms, Goodson Road, Rotherithe; that Mr. Dunn, his late employer, was the landlord, and that was his private address on the card, and that he had been ten months in his service, and had left six weeks, because the house was changing hands—I told him to call again between nine and ten, and I would, in the meantime, see Mr. Dunn—on the same evening I went to 60, Gibson Square, and saw the prisoner Dunn—I said that I thought of taking William Kirk—he said, "He is a very good man, and has been with me ten months, six months at the Goodson Arms, and four months at another house"—I told him that Kirk said he had been in his service up to six weeks ago—he said that it was quite right; he was hard-working and honest; the only fault he had was he took a little too much drink when he was out for a holiday—Kirk called the name evening, and I engaged him to come on Wednesday, October 7th, in the afternoon—he came—I leave the change that is required for the day on a shelf behind the bar, and that is changed every time I go along the bar—it is made, up of shillings, half-crowns, sovereigns and half-sovereigns—on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday, after Kirk came, I missed money—I was in the bar on Sunday, the 11th—the hours on Sunday afternoon are from ten to three—Kirk was serving all the time—I had a till in the bar, containing £13 7s., which was change left for the evening; it was one of Cox's patent tills—it is a corner-house with four entrances—the doors were fastened with an iron shutter and bolts at the bottom—I saw my potman bolt them—the £13 7s. was safe at 5.30, and at ten minutes to Box the potman and barman came up, and the till was gone—I examined the outer shutter, and it was lifted up about a foot—it could not be lifted up without the bars being unfastened—the shutter comes down outside, and the bolts are inside—it must have been lifted much higher for a person to get in and out—I went upstairs at five, and the children went up to get their tea at twenty to six; they generally go up at that time, and that would be known to the people in the house—I did not go up to tea as well, I was lying down, taking a rest—Kirk had asked leave to go out, and went out about 4.15, but I did not see him leave—one of my servants would let him out by the private door—he came back about nine o'clock—he was arrested on Monday, the 12th, for obtaining a situation by a false character—I did not miss money after that—a constable was outside the door with the till when I opened it—I would not have engaged Kirk if I had known that Dunn had left the Goodson Arms in 1888.

Cross-examined by Kirk. The barmaid came on Thursday, and you on Wednesday—I had a good character with her, and she is with me now—I am thoroughly satisfied of her honesty.

By the JURY. The shutters were shut closely; you could not get a sixpence in—there are two doors where the prisoner went out; that door has not a shutter to it.

ALBERT BAIN . I am manager to Mr. Armthorpe, the licensee of the Plough Inn, Tottenham—I required a barman, and on October 6th I saw an advertisement in the Daily Chronicle, wrote to the address, and Kean called in the evening, and gave me this card, "R. C. Dunn, 60, Gibson Square, Islington—he said he had been employed by Dunn at the Goodson Arms, and had left six weeks before, in consequence

of his disposing of the house—I wrote this letter to Mr. Dunn on the 8th, "Dear Sir,—A. Kean has applied to me for a berth; I believe he was in your employ five months as potman and barman; kindly let me know, and you will more than oblige, yours truly"—on the 9th I called at 60, Gibson Square without seeing Dunn, and on getting home I found this telegram, "Arthur Kean was in my employ ten months, during that time I found him honest and a good worker. "I then wired to Kean, and he came in on Monday morning, October 12th; and on the Tuesday morning very early, he disappeared—I believed that he had been eleven months in the service of Mr. Dunn, of the Goodson Arms, and that is why I took him.

Cross-examined. You were only in my employ twenty-four hours, and I kept you out of the bar as much as I could.

WILLIAM THAYERS . I am a licensed victualler of Ealing Dean—on August 5th I saw an advertisement in the Morning Advertiser for a barman; called at the address given in Shoe Lane, and left a message; and in the afternoon Kean called with a written message in his hand—he told me he had been employed by Mr. Dunn, of the Goodson Arms, and had left three weeks before—he gave me Mr. Dunn's address, Slaughton Street, Islington; I called there three times, and did not see Dunn—I wired to him and received a reply, and wired to Kean—I engaged him; he was there six weeks, gave me a week's notice, and left—I had no fault to find with him while he was with me.

EMILY FRANCES PORTER . I am a clerk in the Goswell Road District Post Office—on October 9th I took this message for dispatch, "Arthur Kean was in my employ eleven months; during that time I found him honest, sober, and a good worker."

THOMAS FRANK DELF . I am clerk to the licensing justices—I produced the register of the licenses of Rotherhithe Road—there is no public-house called Goodson Arms, Goodson Road, Rotherhithe—44, Good a on Road has an additional off-beer license—I find that C. W. Dunn came into that house on September 26th, 1888, and the license was transferred to him on December 12th, the name year—according to the register he has not hell the license ever since—he has ceased to be on the register.

Cross-examined. No. 44 is a licensed house; they sell beer there.

ALEXANDER MCMULLEN (Detective G). On August 12th, at two o'clock, I went with Sergeant Nicholls, and took Kirk—after leaving the house he said, "I admit getting the situation by a false character from Dunn, but I never stole the till."

ALFRED NICHOLLS (Police Sergeant G). I was with McMullen when he arrested Kirk—at six o'clock the same day I went with Gordon, and saw Dunn let himself in with a latch-key—I mistook him for the land-lord, and said, "Good evening, Mr. Underwood"—he said, "My name is not Underwood"—Gordon said, "That is Mr. Dunn, who gave the man a false character"—he attempted to take his pocket-book out of his pocket—I took it, and found Mr. Bird's letter in it—he said, "It is quite true; I did keep the Goodson Arms three years ago—"I said, "You did not keep it at this time"—he said, "No"—on October 16th I was on duty in Gibson Square, keeping watch on No. 60, and saw Kean; he made a statement to me.

SIDNEY PRICE SMITH . I keep the Gate House, Hampstead Road

—Kirk was in my service from February to July, 1896—since he left there have been two applications for his character.

ARTHUR KEAN (The Prisoner). I have pleaded guilty to two counts of this indictment; I have known Dunn about four months; I made his acquaintance down Hackney Road—Albert Grant, a barman, introduced him; I am a bookmaker—Grant said that Dunn was a publican, and would give me a character—I had never been in his service—I agreed with Dunn that I should say that I had been in his service eleven months—I got a telegram from Grant, and left the situation because Dunn was arrested—I have seen Dunn about twenty times—I saw him at the "White Horse, Liverpool Road, before he gave me the character—I have seen Grant with him—Dunn never visited me at Mr. Sayers.

Dunn produced a written defence stating that he had given good characters to Kirk and Kean knowing them to be honest.

GUILTY on all the Counts except the 5th and 6th. Dunn had been under the observation of the police for twelve months, and had given false characters to other servants, one of whom was his own daughter, who was caught stealing and discharged.

DUNN— Twenty Months' Hard Labour.

KIRK— Twelve Months' Hard Labour.

KEAN— Three Months' Imprisonment.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-32
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

32. HENRY MOWER (65) , for a libel on Edmund Reed. MR. DRAKE Prosecuted. The prisoner stated that he was

GUILTY , and the JURY found that verdict.— Discharged on Recognizances.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-33
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

33. THOMAS SAYER (28) and ALFRED POPKIN (20) , Stealing a box and 56 lbs. of currants, the property of the London and North-Western Railway Company.


MR. KERSHAW Prosecuted.

HENRY MANN (City Detective). On October 30th I was in the Minories, and saw a van going northward; Sayer got into it by the tailboard, and handed out a box of currants to Popkin, who walked away with it—Sayer got down and joined him—I gave Popkin in custody, and followed Sayer into King Street, and took him—I told him it was for assisting another man to steal a case of currants from a van—he said, "I don't know anything about a van; I am going home"—a London and North-Western Railway carman came up and identified the box.

Cross-examined by Sayer. As you passed me you said to Hopkins, "Come on, hurry up!"

THOMAS DANIEL EVANS . I am a carman to the London and North-Western Railway—on October 30th I had several boxes of currants in my van; I missed one and got off, and went and found the prisoners detained by a constable—I identified the box—Sayer said nothing.

Sayer called

ALFRED POPKIN . I have pleaded guilty to stealing the box, but as to Sayer being with me, he is totally innocent—I told the detective I was carrying it for a gentleman to Tower Bridge—he brought Sayer to me, and I told him I did not know him.

Cross-examined. I did not get into the van myself and take it out—I did not follow behind—the constable is wrong—I do not know who the man was who gave it to me; it was in the Minories—he walked on in front.

Sayer's Defence: The detective came behind me and tapped me on

my shoulder and said he took me in custody for stealing a box of currants—I said I knew nothing about it—he brought Popkin up, and I said I did not know him; I had never seen him before.


He then PLEADED GUILTY**† to a conviction at Clerkenwell on April 24th, 1893, and five other convictions were proved against him.— Five Years' Penal Servitude.

POPKIN— Six Months' Hard Labour.

OLD COURT.—Friday, November 20th, 1896.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-34
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

34. ALFRED CARTER SAVORY, Feloniously setting fire to certain things in the dwelling-house of Frank Watts, with intent to injure.


JAMES EASTON produced and proved a plan of the premises.

FRANK WATTS . I keep the Coach and Horses public-house in Mitchell Street, St. Luke's; the prisoner has been in my employ as manager about two months—on the night of October 26th three men came to my private residence in a cab; one was Henry Alford—I went back with them in the cab to the Coach and Horses—on the way we got out at the White Horse, about 300 yards from the house—we discharged the cab; I left the three men in the cab, and I went on to my house—that was about ten minutes to twelve—the prisoner's wife was at the first floor window—she said something to me through the window—I went into the house, and went up to the room on the first floor—I heard the door opposite unlocked just as I got on the top—the prisoner's wife came out and spoke to me—I then went into the kitchen—at the top of the cellar stairs I smelt smoke—I then went down the cellar stairs—I went first into the beer cellar—I there saw nothing, only the gas light, a slight light—you have to go through the beer cellar to get to the spirit cellar the cellars there is a partition with pieces of wood, and spaces of two and a-half inches between them—in the beer cellar there was a cask of whisky standing, containing about 53 gallons, very strong—seeing smoke coming from the partition, I rushed to the partition, and there saw a few bunches of straw—I saw the prisoner standing over a box in the spirit cellar, leaning over some straw that laid on the box, and which was full of empty bottles, with straw round them, ready to send away—there were about two and a-half dozen in a box, which holds about three dozen; this (produced) is uk box; it stood on the ground, about nine inches high; there was some paper underneath the box; there was a lid on the box and on it four straws alight—the box was standing close to the partition—there was a shelf on the box, about fourteen or sixteen inches; it was made of woodwork—there were three bottles of whisky on the shelf—I said to the prisoner, "Savory, what have you been doing?" very sharp—he said, "I will put it out, I am putting it out"—I pulled him away from the box; I pulled the straw off—I helped him, and the straws were put out, he helping and I helping—I called for the potman; he came down; I aid to him, "The fire is all out"—he went into the cellar; I said, "Is it

out?"—he said, "It is; there were a few sparks; I put them out"—I think the prisoner had had a few glasses to drink; he had been drinking; he was next to drunk—he had a revolver in his pocket; it was loaded in six chambers—he did not take it out of his pocket; it was taken from him at the station; I did not see the revolver, I have not seen it yet—I gave him in charge—he was to stay in the service till the following Thursday; it was a notice in writing—he was going to leave on the following Friday.

Cross-examined. The floor of the cellar is concrete—I held £50 of the prisoner's as guarantee while he was in my service—after his committal I and he met at my solicitors' office, and I gave him back the £50—I simply said to him, "Good morning"—I was not very angry with him—he stated before the Magistrate that he had in his house £100 worth of furniture unassured; he had a piano—I should not have received this man in my house if he had come in drunk—he seemed very strange in his manner—he made a noise in the cellar—I pitched him over; he fell; I pitched him on the floor—he seemed very silly and mad, partly from drink.

Re-examined. My things were not insured at this time.

GEORGE REYNOLDS . I am potman at the Coach and Horses—about a quarter or ten minutes to twelve on the night in question I went to the spirit cellar—some time after the prosecutor went down, I heard the words, "George, George "by the governor—I ran downstairs—I saw them both struggling on the ground; I saw the remains of some paper like blotting-paper.

Cross-examined. I was in the house the whole evening—at 9.30 I saw the prisoner; he had a row with his wife, which upset him considerably—the straws spoken of are like those put round champagne bottles—the prisoner was going to send some live pigeons to Berkshire that morning, and that was the only straw in the house that I know of; they were to be put in a hamper.—the night before one of the casks of ale had gone cloudy had complained of that to the prisoner; that was the reason he went down into the cellar—when I went down the prisoner was on the ground and the prosecutor on the top of him—there had been no attempt to turn on the taps of anything inflammable—I searched the cellar, and there was nothing of the kind.

GEORGE BASTIAN . I am a carman, and live at 25, Mitchell Street, St. Luke's—I was at the Coach and Horses on the night of October 26th, at a quarter to twelve—I saw a lot of chaps there—I saw Mr. Watts come in; he ran through the bar, and went inside—after the prisoner was fetched up from the cellar he said, "I will burn the b——s out"; that was after the thing was all over—I was standing close behind him; I can't say who was in front.

Cross-examined. He was very excited when he said this; there were about ten or twelve people in the bar; he did not shout the words out; it was quite a whisper; he was mumbling to himself—I should say he had had two or three glasses; I should say he was quite drunk—I mentioned—I his expression to Mr. Watts after the prisoner was taken to the station did not know that they had had a struggle in the cellar; if they had that would make him excited.

JOSEPH PATRICK (Police-Inspector G). About five minutes to twelve on the night of October 26th the prisoner was brought to the station.

where I was in charge; he was detained there till 12.40; after he had been in the station about twenty minutes he said to me, "I should like to know what I am brought here for?"—I said, "For attempting to set fire to the Coach and Horses public-house"—he said, "Surely I could burn the old boxes before I left"—the charge was read over to him; the charge-sheet is not here—I went into the public-house and examined the cellar under the box—I was shown the straws which were lying on the box; the box was standing on a stool—at the end of the box, the farthest from the partitions, it was scorched as if fire had been underneath; the stool was also scorched; this is it—I carefully examined the stool; the end of it was slightly scorched at the bottom; directly underneath it I saw some burnt paper.

Cross-examined. The spirit vessels in the cellar were not scorched—I have made inquiries about the prisoner's character; they were very satisfactory—he was drunk and very excited—he was much quieter after the charge was read.

CECIL SPENCER (93 G). At 11.40 on October 26th I was called by the prosecutor to his house—he made a statement to me, and I went into the cellar—I arrested the prisoner—on the way to the station he said, "What are you going to charge me with? I was only burning a hit of paper to leave the place tidy."

Cross-examined. He was not the worse for drink; he was not drunk; he was not in his sober senses; he was the worse for drink; he was excited, rather wild and strange in his manner, totally different from his usual manner.

The Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate described the fire, as an accident.


THIRD COURT.—Friday, November 20th, 1896.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-35
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

35. ALFRED JAMES HENNIKER (32) , Stealing £5, £5 and £10, the property of Henry Prosser, his master.

MESSRS. SPOKES and SHERWOOD Prosecuted, and MESSRS. KEMP, Q.C., and LYNCH Defended.

HENRY PROSSER . I am a bill-discounter and money-lender, of Lendenhall Street—the prisoner had been in my service for three years on June 30th, when he left—when I left the office on Friday evening, May 8th, I left the prisoner £5 for the purposes of the businesses appears by the office diary in his writing—I do not go to the office on Saturday usually—I next went on Monday, at eleven o'clock—I examined the diary with the prisoner—he told me "A friend of my brother introduced a man to me to borrow £5"—I said, "Have you seen your brother?" because I knew his brother, but not the friend—he said, "I have seen my brother, and he is good for the money"—the name of the borrower was A. F. Rogers; he said he was employed at Smith-Payne's Bank as a clerk—he gave me this bill of exchange, purporting to be accepted by Rogers—there is this entry on May 8th in the office diary in the prisoner's writing, "Left cash, £5, A. F. Rogers (from Field) had £5, and paid 5d."—5d. would be for the bill stamp—whoever is sitting in my

office and seeing callers enters the full names of the callers in the office diary; he does not initial it, because I can tell who makes the entry by the writing—the prisoner has never accounted to me for that £5—on May 11th I handed the prisoner £15 for the purposes of the business,—next and that appears in the diary in the prisoner's writing, "Left cash, £15" day, the 12th, I was at the office; I examined the diary with the prisoner, and asked him what he had done with the £15—he told me a man, named P. Martin, had called, introduced by a friend of his named Bradburne, and that he had lent him £10 out of the £15—he said Martin was employed at the Queensland National Bank—he handed me this bill he of exchange, purporting to be accepted by Martin for £10 and interest—said, "I have made inquiries at the bank, and the man is all right and I find he is employed there"—except by giving that explanation and handing me this bill, he has never accounted for that £10—Bradburne was a friend of the prisoner, and had introduced other customers, and had borrowed money from me—I had never seen him—the prisoner was entitled to 5 per cent, commission per annum on friends—on introduced by Bradburne, because he had introduced Bradburne Friday, March 6th, I handed the prisoner £5 for the purposes of the business—the entry in the diary is, "Left cash, £5," and after that is, "Charles Goodwin had £5, and paid 5d. for the stamp"—I was next at the office on Monday, March 9th—I examined the diary with the prisoner—he accounted for the £5 by giving me a bill purporting to be accepted by Charles Goodwin, of 13, Albion Crescent, Barnsbury, and the Queensland National Bank, Princes Street—he said, "Goodwin is a friend of Bradburne's, and is employed at the Queensland National Bank; I have inquired, and find he is all right"—he has never accounted for that £5 beyond giving me the bill and that explanation—the bodies of the bills are in the prisoner's writing; it would be his duty to write them out; whoever lent the money should write out the bill—I had no suspicion as to the writing of the name of the acceptor—I find these press copy letters of May 18th and June 30th, to Goodwin, and June 20th to Martin (asking them to remit the amount of instalment due)—they were not returned through the Dead Letter Office—there are entries in the bill-book in the prisoner's writing on March 7th, "C. Goodwin (Bradburne)," "A. F. Rogers (Field)," and May 11th, "P. Martin (Bradburne)"—the names in brackets are those of the introducers—Field was a friend of the prisoner's brother at SmithPayne's Bank, and Rogers was supposed to be a clerk there—all those bills were dishonoured when presented—I have not been able to find, any of the acceptors—on June 30th the prisoner left on notice; his work had been done so badly for the last six months, I told him it was better that he should find another place if possible, and he told me he had been he able to find another place, and left me—he left me by mutual consent—called two or three times afterwards to explain certain matfers of business, and on August 27th he called at my request—I asked him, "There have been many bills forged; are your people all right?" meaning his connection—he said, "Yes, they are"—I said, "Well, some of them seem to get very much in arrear; I wish you would go and give them a call. Will you give them a call for me, will you go and see them?"—he said, "Yes"—on the evening of the same day I wrote this letter—I had mentioned Martin's bill that morning

—Martin was one of Bradburne's connection—on August 24th the prisoner called in reply, and said he had not had time to go round—I made an appointment to meet him at London Bridge Station at four Hicks o'clock to go to Peckham, where Hicks, my senior clerk, had lived—had robbed me of £4,000 or £5,000, and bolted—he confessed to £5,000, but the books have been falsified—the prisoner did not keep the appointment at London Bridge—on the evening of August 24th I wrote a letter, of which this is a press copy, to the prisoner. (Asking him to call next day, between eleven and 2.30, to give an account of certain transactions.) He did not call—on August 26th I wrote to him, saying that, unless he called next day, and gave a satisfactory explanation of certain transactions, a warrant would be issued against him—he did not call; I received this letter from his solicitor—I handed certain documents and books to Mr. Inglis for the purpose of comparison.

Cross-examined. I have described Hicks as my manager—he had no control in the office—he had been with me about fifteen years—he has admitted that he has committed forgeries—I have got a warrant against him—he gave me a list of some of his forgeries—among others in that list is the name of "P. Martin" on a bill for £13—Hicks did not admit anything before he left me—this is the only bill for £13 of Martin's that I have—I believe this is the bill to which he referred—Hicks has stated that he forged the name of Rogers to a bill for £6 10s.; this is the only bill I have for £6 10s.—Goodwin's name is not on this list—I have found: out other forgeries than those admitted by Hicks—I knew the prisoner had gone into business himself as a bill-discounter; I cannot say exactly the date I learnt it—I did not tax him with it on August 24th, or say, "You have been writing to my customers"—I was not annoyed at his I going into business—I do not know of his writing to my customers—did not say I would get an injunction against him if he did not give up his business—I never complained of his going into business; I had noreason—I to—I don't think he would get my customers if he went into business was not generally absent from my business for months together; I used to come to town about twice a week—the customers did not know Hicks and the prisoner a great deal better than me—some of the small customers never saw me, but the big ones did—I think I said to the prisoner, "I hear you are going into business on your own account," that was all—I am gradually reducing my business, as the books will show—I did not suggest to the prisoner that he should give me £300 to square it, or offer to square it for £300—I did not write to my solicitor to square it for £300—I saw the prisoner and Mr. Wilson in the presence of my solicitor, and Mr. Wilson said, "Will you take £300?" and I said, "I leave the matter entirely in the hands of my solicitor"—Mr. Wilson is the prisoner's father-in-law—I said to him, "It is not a question of money at all; I have been robbed of £4,000 or £5,000; I must have the facts told me; I cannot tell which, are forgeries and which are not"—I refused to see him without my solicitor, who was there the whole time—my solicitor suggested that he should employ his solicitor—I did not refuse to see the prisoner in the presence of his solicitor—Mr. Burgess called, with the prisoner's brother, and I said, "Is Mr. Burgess acting for you?" and he said, "No"—I do not know that Wilson and his brother were brought on the scene because I had offered to square the matter for £300—there was no

thought of squaring—the prisoner's brother said, "Will you see Wilson?" and Wilson said, "Will you take £300?" and I was careful to have my solicitor there, because I was told they would set a trap for me, and I refused to make any offer—I see his brother here—I did not offer to settle the matter if they would pay £300; I did not know half the forgeries then, and I knew he could not pay it; he owed me £100 himself—I found out part of these defareations on August 23rd, but it was a month before I found out all—I applied for a warrant on October 8th—I did not think anything of the £300 offer; I left the whole matter in my solicitor's hands—the £100 the brother owed me has been paid—one of my customers came, and said it was rather annoying that my clerk should stop him in the street, and ask if he wanted to borrow £50, and I said I thought he should go to Manchester—this was on or about August 23rd, after I had begun to find out the defalcations; I had my suspicions at that date—they said, "Will you take £300?" and I said, "Before it takes place I must have definite explanation of these matters; I don't know if they are forgeries or not, I want the truth and the facts "; and the brother said, "He will go to Manchester; he has a business of his own," and I said I must leave it to my solicitor—I did not require or request him to go to Manchester; the suggestion came from the other side—I complained of my customer being stopped in the street—that was before August 23rd; it is difficult to say the date—I had seen the prisoner on the 21st and two or three days before—the stopping my customer did not trouble me; I thought it was rather foolish—I mentioned it in the course of conversation; I did not complain of it; I thought if I told him I knew about it, he would not do it again—to the best of my belief, I did not write to my solicitor to settle the matter; the whole matter was discussed at the interview, and I left it in his hands—there is no letter in my press copy letter-book to my solicitor to settle for £300—Ross was in my service—I did not give him the letter to copy—I have my letter-book here, and there is no copy in it; Hooked through the book, because I had notice to produce all the letters—I do not put business letters in my private-book—I have only one private-book—I prosecuted McBride, and he afterwards brought an action against me and recovered damages; the Judge stopped the case and suggested that certain mistakes had been made, and gave McBride £15 more than I offered him—I don't remember prosecuting anybody else—I cannot pledge my word to every single word used between me and the prisoner—I spoke to him about Martin's bill, and he said Martin was at the Queen land Bank, and was introduced by his friend Bradburne, and "I have made inquiries "; I can swear he said that—the prisoner would not act under Hicks's orders; Hicks had his work, and the prisoner his own—if Hicks lent money, Hicks would take the bill—I trusted Hicks—it was my rule in the office that whoever lent the money was to draw the bill, and be accountable to me—if Hicks had consumed his own money, and brought or sent on anyone to the prisoner, the prisoner would give the money to Hicks, and Hicks would have to sign for it—I have no entry of such a transaction; the prisoner had his money, and Hicks had his own—I left out blank cheques, for Hicks principally—the prisoner, and Hicks, and Ross, all wrote in this book—on Tuesday, 17th, there appear entries by all three; they were about the office on that day.

Re-examined. McBride was thought to have stolen my barrow at my place in the country; there was a flood on the river, and the barrow was washed away, and he thought he had a claim for salvage; next day he came and paid he had made a mistake, and asked me not to be hard on him—I said, "Don't bother;" and when the case came before the Magistrate I did not trouble—the Judge stopped the case—since Hicks absconded I have seen a letter from him, in which he says he would receive all communications sent to the prisoner—I received this letter from him (the date of the envelope, 20th) enclosing the list of bills—some of the £4,000 obtained was used in paying off back bills—I have seen another letter from him about the bills—in the list of fictitious names Martin's and Rogers' names appear, and Goodwin's does not—on August 23rd I had no evidence against the prisoner of his having forged any of these acceptances; I had suspicions—it took me more than a month to clear up the matter—I had not then consulted an expert or anything of the sort—on August 24th I wrote, asking the prisoner to come and explain matters; he did not come, and then on August 26th I wrote that I should issue a warrant if he did not come—I must have been quite satisfied by that time—on August 24th I went to Hicks's house and had an interview with Mrs. Hicks, and I wrote the letter of 24th in consequence of something she told me—between 24th and 26th I found out a good deal about the prisoner, but I did not find out any evidence of forgery against him at that time—I found out certain things—I consulted my solicitor generally—I did not write the letter, threatening a warrant, by his advice; I found receipts in the prisoner's writing—it is difficult to say the date when my solicitor advised me that the prisoner had committed an offence; I think he advised me of that before I wrote on August 26th—I wrote this letter to the prisoner's brother on August 27th. (This asked him to call immediately, and stated that Hicks had embezzled thousands.) I had known the prisoner's brother for two or three years, and I wanted to induce him to come and tell me all the real facts—I wanted the matter cleared up because all my books were in confusion—on the 28th Mr. Q. F. Henniker, the prisoners brother, called—during the interview my solicitor happened to call—I never asked the prisoner's brother or his father-in-law to square the matter—when the brother came he asked if I would see the prisoner's father-in-law, who was outside; and the father-in-law then came in and made a suggestion to me—I never agreed to stifle or withdraw this prosecution—I never instructed my solicitor to enter on any terms about withdrawing the prosecution—I heard the prisoner had gone into business with people, and had left a month afterwards; I simply know what his brother told me, and one man came and complained to me; and I looked on it as a sort of joke—either the prisoner's brother or Mr. Wilson said he had been in business in Manchester, and I said, "I think it will be best"—there was only the one conversation about it, some where near the end of August—I cannot say if it was before I threatened the warrant—I did not know on August 23rd that he had forged these acceptances—I did not take out a warrant before October 7th, because the brother said the prisoner was away, and they did not know where he was, and they had been looking for him all over the country—my solicitor said; "You can-not do anything now," and advised me to go through the books, and find out all I could—I thought the prisoner was abroad—I wanted to get the whole thing clear—his solicitor called, and I declined to see him.

RANDALL BRABURNE . I am an accountant at 70, Bishopsgate Street—the prisoner introduced me to Prosser—I once introduced a man to Prosser through the prisoner—I did not introduce anyone named P. Martin to the prisoner in March, or at any time—I do not know anyone of the name, a clerk at the Queensland Bank, or of 10, Ashburn Grove, Dulwich—I did not introduce to him anyone named G. Goodwin, of 13, Albion Crescent, Barnsbury—I know no such person.

Cross-examined. I am not a customer of Prosser's now.

MAYNARD HARE . I am a cashier at the Queensland National Bank, 8, Princes Street—no such person as P. Martin or Charles Goodwin has been in the employment of that bank during the twelve years I have been there—no such persons keep accounts at that bank, so far as I know—they are not known there in any way—as far as I know, I never saw the prisoner before I saw him at Guildhall.

HERBERT SAUNDERS HENNIKER . I am the prisoner's brother, and a clerk to Smith, Payne and Co., bankers—I have been there about eight years—during that time no person named A. F. Rogers has been in the bank's employ—the prisoner never inquired of me with reference to an A. F. Rogers at the bank—I did not introduce an A. F. Rogers to borrow money; I know no one of the name of Rogers.

Cross-examined. The prisoner resided at Herne Hill, and was there between August and October, with the exception of frequently going to Brighton from Saturday to Monday—with that exception he was always at Herne Hill, and there was not the slightest difficulty in finding him.

JOHN HENY TOUGH . I am a clerk in the prosecutor's employ—I went to try and find 37, West Street, Eltham, the address given of A. F. Rogers on this bill of exchange—I could not discover any such street or person—I also tried to find 13, Albion Crescent, Barnsbury, but could not find any such crescent—I went to 10, Ashburn Grove, Dulwich; I could find no P. Martin there.

Cross-examined. I inquired of a policeman at Eltham, but he did not know West Street; I then asked some of the people living there, and they said they had lived there some time, but did not know such a street—I could not find it.

HENRY PHILLIPS (Detective Sergeant, City). Savage handed over to me the prisoner at Bishopsgate Police Station on October 8th—I read the warrant to him; it was for stealing £20 on or about March 20th—he said, "I shall not say anything about it now"—on the way to the Guild-hall Police Court, in a cab, he said to me, "Don't you think Prosser could be squared?"—I said, "I don't think you had better say anything more about it."

Cross-examined. I did not tell him that Prosser had been trying to get squared.

WILLIAM SAVAGE (Detective City). I arrested the prisoner at Herne Hill after he had left his house—I said I was a police officer, and was going to arrest him on a warrant for stealing £20 in April last, the moneys of his late master—he said, "It is not stealing. How do they make it stealing?"—I replied, "I don't know, only what is stated on the warrant"—almost immediately after he said, "Have they seen Hicks yet? He is no further away than I am"—on the way to the railway station he said to me (no one else was present), "Do you think Prosser

can be squared?"—I said, "I cannot say nothing about that"—I brought him to Bishopsgate Station, and handed him over to Phillips.

Cross-examined. No other policeman was with me at Herne Hill; no other policeman saw him coming out of the house—I don't know why I was not examined at the Police-court—I made this memorandum of the conversation at the time, when I got to the railway station—only the prisoner was with me when I put it down—that was all he said about squaring—lie did not use words that led me to think an attempt had been made to square it.

By the COURT. I told Phillips that the prisoner had made two separate statements to me—I cannot say why I was not called before the Magistrate; I was there—my memorandum is not in a book, but on this piece of paper, which is a copy of the warrant.

Re-examined. I wrote it about ten minutes after it was said at the railway station—no one asked me to go and give evidence—a solicitor was employed, and conducted the prosecution—I did not tell him of my evidence at the Police-court; I had told my superior officer.

GEORGE SMITH INGLIS . I have been occupied as an expert in handwriting for a great number of years—I have had submitted to me these three bills and diaries for 1895 and 1896, containing the writing of the prisoner, and two letters—I believe these three acceptances to be in the writing of the prisoner, though some of the letters have been disguised. (The witness pointed out instances of alleged resemblances.)

Cross-examined. I have been examined a good many times—I am always as positive as I am now; I do not come into the box unless I am—I have made mistakes—I was called and sworn, but not examined in the Parnell Commission—I would rather not answer whether I was there to give evidence, if called on, that the letters were in Mr. Parnell's writing—I have on many occasions differed from the verdict of the Jury—only two letters have been placed before me in this case; this is one of them—I have seen this envelope lately. (The witness was cross-examined at to the formation of various letters in the compared documents.) I have not been asked to compare these acceptances with Hicks's writing.

Re-examined. The diaries contain entries in Hicks's and in the prisoner's writing—I still act for the Treasury; I had a case last week.

GUILTY Three Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Saturday, November 21st, 1896.

Before Mr. Recorder.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-36
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

36. THOMAS BROUGH CAMERON (61) , Feloniously marrying Alice Martha Quartermaine, his wife being alive.

MR. PURCELL Prosecuted, and MR. GEOGHEGAN Defended.

LOUISA PENRITH . I am a widow, and live at 43, Cecil Road, Upton Manor, Plaistow—I was present at St. Pancras Church when the prisoner was married to my niece, Georgina Field; I don't remember the date; she lived at Wisbech—I saw them living together for ten or fifteen years.

Cross-examined. I cannot say whether she deserted him in 1880; I know she did not live with him; she has been leading a wandering life, going through the country—that is my cousin (pointing)—I do not know

that she suffered a month's imprisonment for ill-treating her children, or for assaulting him—I heard yesterday in the witness' room that she summoned him before Mr. Biron for desertion—it was reported that she was dead; I cannot say that it was two years ago—I half believed it, but afterwards found that she was alive.

ALICE MARTHA QUARTERMAINE . I was married to the prisoner on April 29th, 1895; I had known him over two years, and all his family—he represented himself as a widower.

Cross-examined. I have lived on the happiest terms with him—I do not prosecute—his daughter, Georgina, who is now in Canada, showed me a letter stating that his wife was dead.


16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-37
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

37. CHARLES CLARKE (19) , Feloniously shooting at Robert Charles Pault, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

ROBERT CHARLES PAULT (172 J). On July 9th, about eight o'clock, I was on duty; the prisoner's sister asked me to go to Eastwood Street, and I saw the prisoner sitting on the window-sill of No. 9, with a revolver in his hand—he put it up and took aim at me, and I felt the bullet pass by my cheek—Russell was with me; he made a motion to reach him; and the prisoner turned the revolver on him—someone else was coming into the street, and I sent for more assistance—the prisoner stood with his back to the wall, so that we could not get behind him; I did not see him again till October 19th; he was quite sober—I had never seen him before.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. Almost at the moment the revolver went off I could see your eye at the end of the barrel.

FREDERICK RUSSELL (74 K). On July 9th I was with Pault in Eastwood Street, and saw the prisoner sitting on a window-sill, with a revolver in his hand—he got up and fired deliberately—I tried to close with him, and he covered me with the revolver—we backed down the street, and he went into No. 18—he could see the constables coming into the other end of the street—I did not see him again till October 19th.

Cross-examined. You were perfectly sober.

HENRY FREESTONE (628, City). On July 9th I was in the neighbourhood of Eastwood Street, heard a report, and saw the prisoner with his back to a wall, and a revolver in his hand—Pault and Russell were ten or twelve yards from him—I did not see the revolver fired, but I saw the smoke in the street—he was sober; he went into 18, Eastwood Street, and the next I saw of him was when I identified him on October 19th.

WALTER BEARDWELL (207 K). On October 19th I arrested the prisoner in Dobben's Road—I had a description of the man who shot at Pault, part of which was that he had two marks on the back of his left hand—he said, "All right, governor, I am the right one"—going to the station, he said "I am glad I am caught, I was going to give myself up."

WM. REED (Police Sergeant). On October 19th I was on duty at Bow Station, and found the prisoner detained there; I asked him his name, and read the warrant to him for shooting at R. Pault, with intent to commit murder; he said "Yes, that is right; I am the man; I did it; I was drunk; I threw the revolver away, and went into the country; I am satisfied; I am the man right enough."

Witness for the Defence.

ROSIE ROACH . I am no relation of the prisoner, only a neighbour—I have got a husband; he is a seafaring man—I live at No. 9, and the

prisoner lives at No. 13, with his mother and sister—they were all quarrelling; the mother was bad, and had to go to the hospital in the morning, and she refused to give the prisoner anything to eat, and told him he ought to go and earn it—the prisoner's sister was sent for a constable—I saw something in his hand, and told his mother he had got a revolver—two constables were there—he fired in the air; I was about eight feet from him—I am a German—the bullet could not have gone near the prisoner's head—the prisoner walked up the street and told the policeman to walk on; he said, "Clear out," and pointed the revolver at them, and mode them walk backwards down the street—I said, "What did you do that for?"—he said he did not do it to hurt anybody, he only did it to frighten them; he could have killed five or six of them if he liked; he went away, and never came home—I was with him all the morning, cleaning the place, because his mother had gone to the hospital; he was sober in the morning, but was drunk when he came back about three p.m.—I told the Magistrate he was drunk—I cannot say whether he drank any more afterwards—this took place between six and seven—I had had a couple of drinks with the prisoner before twelve o'clock—he was not at his mother's house all day; the went out, and came back about 6.30.

Re-examined. He said to me, "If I can't hurt you I will frighten you," not to the policeman; I did not hear what he said to the policeman.

R. C. PAULT (Re-examined). I did not search for the bullet; it went straight up the street—there is a high, wall, but it is fifty yards from where he stood.

By the Prisoner. There was no bullet.

GUILTY of a common assault. The RECORDER informed the JURY that they could not give such a verdict on this indictment.NOT GUILTY .

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-38
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

38. CHARLES CLARK was again indicted for assaulting Robert Charles Pault, a police constable, in the execution of his duty.

Robert Charles Pault and Frederick Russell repeated their former evidense.

Prisoner's Defence: I did not back the policeman down the street; I mover moved from the door.

GUILTY .—He had been previously convicted of maliciously wounding.

Ten Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Monday, November 23rd, and Tuesday, November 24th, 1896.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-39
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

39. THOMAS MURRAY was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury.

MR. C. MATHEWS and MR. COLAM Prosecuted, and MR. C.F. GILL Defended.

HERBERT EDWARD BRIDGER . I am clerk to the Justices—I produce my notes taken on the charge against Parrent at Hampstead Police-court, on September 29th, before Edward Gotto, Esq., the Magistrate, and remanded on bail to the next day, which was the Court day, and on the 30th Mr. Percival Smith, Mr. Gotto, and General Young word

present—this is a copy of the proceedings on those two days, furnished by me—the charge was wilful damage; it appeared on the charge-sheet on the 29th. (The notes were here read.) He was convicted in several penalties—he had no solicitor—I don't think he asked for a remand that he might have legal assistance and witnesses, I cannot remember—he appealed against the decision, but he had no legal right.

Cross-examined. There was no feeling on the part of the Magistrates against the defendant as far as I know—Mr. Hammond usually sits, and Mr. Gotto; they live close by—this case was not treated differently from any other case; it was remanded from the 29th to the 30th, in order that there might be more than one Magistrate there; only enough evidence was taken to justify a remand—there was no professional man on either side—the notes I take are taken roughly, for the information of the Magistrates—he said nothing on the 30th about the Magistrates increasing the fine to enable him to appeal—the notice of appeal is dated October 3rd, and was given by a solicitor, Mr. Freke Palmer—an application was made to the Magistrates subsequently to increase the amount—the application for a warrant for perjury was made on October 28th to Mr. Bascoville Smith, Mr. Gotto, Mr. Mowett, Mr. Morris, General Young, and others: by Mr. Stanford, a solicitor, and a summons was granted—the Magistrates come as suits their convenience—the prosecutor was represented by Mr. Colam, and the defendant by Mr. Wontner—the summons was dismissed.

Re-examined. Mr. Parrent himself asked for a remand—Mr. Anderson, his employer, was there—I cannot remember whether, on September 30th, any application was made for the case to be postponed—I know Mr. Anderson; he is a nurseryman; he was going to give the prisoner a character—I do not remember that he made any application; I remember no application by anyone—Mr. Anderson handed a letter to the Justices; it was among my papers before' I came here to-day—I do not know whether I read it. (This was a written application that the case should be postponed for seven days, and offering to become bail for him.)

By the COURT. On Wednesday, 30th, he was fined for wilful damage—the Magistrates act under my advice when they wish for it—there were six Justices; there was no difficulty in getting a rota.

ALEXANDER SANDON . I am a surveyor, of 107, Queen Victoria Street, and have had considerable experience—on November 18th I went with a copy of the Ordnance map to Nuttall Gardens, which leads into Finchley Road, and measured the streets with it—it is correctly drawn to scale—the distance from Belsize Mews to the corner of Nutley Terrace and Netherhall Gardens is 762 yards, and from there to the corner of the slope, leading to Frognal, 116 yards, and from the bend to No. 34, Frognal, is 108 yards, and from No. 34 to Arkwright Road, 103 yards—I examined the two pillars at No. 34; they are composed of brick, with red sandstone cape—the height of the north pier is 5 ft. 3 1/2 in. high, and the south pier is 5 ft. 9 1/2 in.; there is a gradient—the caps are fixed on with cement, and some of thom with mortar—No. 48 is mortar, but both caps were cemented; there is a square base, an ornamental thing with a ball—I estimate the weight at upwards of 300 lb., including the base on which, it stands, from where it is said to require more than one man to move it—I tried to move it; the position of the cap, 5 ft. 9 in., is such that you

can get the whole force of your body to play upon it—it is fixed with a dow—it is not loose.

Cross-examined. It is not very red brick; it is bluish-red, a red brick, very well fired, which makes it harder and changes its colour—the quality of the mortar would make a difference; some is much better than others.

Re-examined. Before the ball could be broken off you would have to displace the whole cap—these brindle bricks do not dust or powder.

ALFRED WILLETT , F.R.C.S. I am a surgeon, of 36, Wimpole Street—I have just retired from the post of Lecturer on Surgery—I examined the prosecutor's arm last Tuesday morning, November 17th, and found an old fracture of the olecranon process of the ulna, the bone at the extremity' of the elbow; it had been repaired by ligament, which is the most usual way—I found that the muscles of the upper arm had considerably wasted, and measured about one inch less than the right arm—when the arm is down he has considerable power, but when it is raised he tells me the little finger and the ring finger become useless—the use of the arm is very materially impaired when raised above the shoulder—he would have some power of pushing weights, but very little compared with his right arm—his arm was in a condition such as I should expect to find—his right arm was not exceptionally powerful.

Cross-examined. He told me Mr. Edward Jessop had set his arm, and that he had been to him to have it examined before he saw me—Dr. Lewis Archer had called on me the previous evening, and asked me to examine the arm, and said that there might be medical evidence on both sides, and that he had taken great interest in the case, but did not say that he was a witness, and I did not ask him—I know Mr. Jessop and Dr. Lewis Jones—the first person who mentioned this matter to me was Mr. Archer.

LEWIS ARCHER . I am a surgeon, and have practised in Hampstead a great many years; I have only just left Avenue Road, where I was thirty or forty years—I examined Parrent on the day before I went before the Magistrate—I found he had sustained very serious injury to his left elbow, not of recent date—the effect was that he could not raise his arm straight, like the other, and if you supported it for him at the shoulder it fell over; there was no power at all—he would not be able to exert any pressure on anything at the height of his head, pushing or lifting, not above his shoulder—there is no exceptional power in his other arm; he is able to work, but he has had a severe attack of pleurisy on his left side, of which I found traces—it has left very considerable adhesions, and it is quite impossible that he would be able to do any hard work since his accident; he told me that he used to be able to run five miles.

Cross-examined. I take a great interest in the case—I had never seen the prosecutor before—he told me he had been to Mr. Edward Jessop, who set his arm—he did not tell me whether Mr. Jessop had formed an opinion as to his muscular capacity—he told me that someone had written to Mr. Jessop to say that he had made a capital job of it ten years before—I did not know that he had gone to Mr. Jessop in this case; I examined his muscles generally—I have heard Mr. Willett's evidence, and I disagree with him; the muscles of the forearm are all right—I went to Mr. Willett of my own accord; I did not take a statement from

him; I told him the story—I do not think I mentioned that I was a witness in the case; I asked him if he would see me tomorrow—I had no interest in the case except to see a poor man righted; I considered he had been cruelly treated—I have said, "My evidence was based on what he told me," but it was based on what I saw—I believe he was speaking the truth—if I was dealing with a man who was injured in a railway accident, I should have in some measure to rely upon his statement told me how he felt when he put his arm up—he can use his arm below his shoulder, and can raise his hand to his head—I went to a friend at the end of last week to ask him to see a patient; I did not hear that a doctor from Hampstead might be called—it did not occur to me to go to a man who lived in the neighbourhood—Mr. Jessop practises in the same district that I do, but I have never met him; he lives close by—in a large district of that kind there are a great many doctors.

ADAM PARHENT . I have been a gentleman's gardener for many years, and twenty-three years in the same employment, in private service; but the staff was reduced, and I became a jobbing gardener in March, in the employ of Robert Wood—my wife keeps a little dairy—I am a member of a benefit club which meets at the Load of Hay—I was at a meeting of the club on Monday evening, September 28th, the night before I was arrested—after the business had been done, the landlord, Mr. Martin, asked me to go with him to see a new take house, with a flat, iron roof, which he had built, and he wanted to know whether it would be better to have straw under it, to keep it warm—we had to go through a yard, and along a bricked passage, perhaps a yard wide, perhaps not so much; I passed the remark that it was very narrow for a horse to go through—we came back through that passage to the bar, and I left the house about 10.55—five or six men came out at the same time, and I walked with more than two of them down England's Lane—that is a long way before we got to Belsize Lane—we stopped at the Washington, and my friend said, "You paid for the glass we have had, come and have some more"—we arrived at the Belsize Tavern at past twelve o'clock—the time for closing there is 12.30, and before I had finished my glass of ale the house was cleared, and eight or ten of us came out and waited there, and more men came out; there might have been twenty of us—I went along Belsize Lane, and turned into Belsize Mews; one man left me there, and another twenty, or it may be fifty, yards further on—I live two miles beyond Frognal—before the first friend left me, the clock struck a quarter to one outside the Mews—that is the clock at what they call the New College; but it has been there over thirty years—I walked on with my other friend, and only stopped to wish him goodnight, and he went into his house—he is a coachman—I then went to Daleham Mews, and stopped two or three minutes to eat, and then went on through Nutley Terrace, and kept straight along till I gotto Netherhall Gardens; I went across the gardens to the left to go down the slope, but I did not get there, as the prisoner came and took hold of my right arm, and said, "Old fellow, I have got you now"—I looked at him, but did not know him; he had uniform on—I said, "I do not know you; what do you mean? I thought you were somebody I knew, coming up like that?" he said, "That is all right; you must come along with me, "I said, "Where?" he said, "Why, to the Police-station" I said, "What do I want to go to the Police-station for?"

he said, "That is all right; you are a builder, are you not?"I said, "What do you want to ask such a question as that for? I am walking home to Cricklewood, where I live, what are you taking me to the Police-station for?" he said, "Why, for pushing off a pillar cap"—I walked with him to the Police-station up Nutley Terrace and Maresfield Gardens, and crossed the road into a passage, and went into Hampstead—we crossed the end of Fitzjohn Avenue into the passage walk—when we got to the station a constable opened the door, and I could not hear what was said—I was told to go and sit down—I was there half an hour, and got up, and went to the inspector's room, and asked if I could not go home—I was not charged—I went and sat down, and got up a second time, and a policeman told me to sit down again and be quiet—Mr. Maxwell came, and I was then charged with damaging his pillar—I said that it was no such thing, that I was not there, and asked Mr. Maxwell if he could not bail me out—he said that he could not, because he did not know me; he had forgotten me; he asked me if I had not better wire and tell my wife—I said "No," because she was very ill, and I sent for Mr. O'Hara, a butcher—Mr. Martin, the landlord of the Load of Hay, bailed me out at seven a.m.—I had to appear before the Magistrates at ten o'clock, and only had time to go home and have my breakfast and come back, and the case was remanded till the next morning, when I had no legal adviser, but Mr. Anderson, my employer, attended to me—after the prisoner had given his evidence and the value of the damage done, I said, "Can I have a remand for a week?" and Mr. Gotto said, "It is sworn evidence of the constable; you must pay the money, or go to prison"—the Magistrates fined me £3; and £4 damages; I paid all of it except Mr. Maxwell's share, which he refused to take—when I asked for a remand before the case was heard Mr. Gotto denied me, and Mr. Anderson asked the Chairman for a remand for a week; the Chairman asked him what he had to do with the case—there are two ways to Cricklewood; one by Nettlehall Gardens, and the other by Frognal—I went round to the left; 'it would have been out of my way to go by Arkwright Road; I go down this little piece of slope—I had no business in going home to go that way—it is not true that I knocked, or attempted to knock, any of these caps off; I was never in that part of Frognal at all—it would be a quarter of a mile out of my way to go that way home.

Cross-examined. I never saw the defendant before, and never had any dispute with him—I do not suggest that the police have any animus against me—I have been out at night before, and walked the same way—we pay our money at the club, and have a convivial evening—when the club is over we do as we like—we pay sixpence a week—I ceased to be in regular work in March, and then worked as a jobbing gardener, as an able-bodied man at full wages—I had not been working that day; Mr. Anderson had nothing for me to do—I had done nothing for him for a fortnight—I had not worked for anybody—I do any ordinary work, not haymaking, but I daresay I have killed 100 sheep at Wood-lands since I had the accident—I had been employed during the fortnight—I have animals at home, and if I attend to them I do not have to pay other people; and I have to clean harness, and I had been at Barnet Fair—the benefit club meets at 8.30, I believe—I have been a member since last Christmas—there is no difference in the subscriptions

of the members—I got to the club about 8.20; I left the train at 8.10—I remained in the Load of Hay about half an hour, and went to Kentish Town to see a man about a cob, but he was not at home, and I went back to my club, and got there about 9.45—I did not have to pay the sixpence; you can go on for six weeks if you like; they don't strike you off—I went the first time to kill time; when I went the second time, I remained till about 11.10, chatting with my friends—I had a glass of ale the first time, and either ale or whisky the second time—it took me three-quarters of an hour to go to Camden Town—I went to the Washington, and had a glass of ale there, and then to the Belsize, where I had a glass of ale—I say that I never got into this slope at all—there are pillars in Netherhall Gardens, whether there are caps I cannot say—I say that this man, who had never spoken to me in my life, came up to me in Netherhall Gardens, a place where no damage was done—a gentleman dressed in black met me after I got to Maresfield Gardens—I saw one person pass me—if I had not been stopped I should have turned down this slope, towards Finchley Road—I say that the prisoner, stopping me, did not tell me what I was charged with, but he asked me if I was a builder; he did not tell me what the complaint against me was—he did not take me through Netherhall Gardens to the station; I knew the way better than he did, because I knew the place before the houses were made—I never thought about the way being along Netherhall Gardens; I believe he has said that that is not so, but I do not think he has said so before—the way might be to continue along Netherhall Gardens till we came to Shepherd's Walk—I do not know the distance, but it is all up hill; we both turned round and walked the way I came—I do not know now that that would be going away from the Police-station—I did not ask him any question; he did not point out to me the place where one of the caps had been knocked off—when he spoke to the inspector I could not hear what they said; they talked to themselves—I am fifty-four years old—I went there because I thought I was going to be liberated, or else I don't think I should have gone; I thought it was a mistake, and that I should be able to explain it—he did make a statement to the inspector in my presence after talking to the inspector—when he went in he said that he charged me with pulling off a pillar-cap at Frognal, and I said, "That is an untruth"—he never, till the day of the hearing, said that it was about a quarter to one when he saw me go to several houses and push at something, or that he saw me come from Netherhall Gardens into Frogual and push at several pillars, and that when he was ten yards from me he saw me push a pillar over—he did not say at the station that he could not make the statement of the circumstances under which he arrested me; the inspector asked him what he brought me there for, he said, "For pushing a pillap-cap off at Frognal;" and I asked him why he did not ring the bell, and fetch Mr. Maxwell out—I was put in a cell after Mr. Maxwell left—the inspector told me to sit down, and asked me if I could account for, some brick rubbish on my shoulder—I said that if it was there it was unbeknown to me—he spoke about it, but he could not show it to me—I asked him how it was I could not see it—he said because my whiskers had it—I Am not aware that there were any marks—I might possibly get brickdust or mortar on my coat if I was moving a cap, I get all sorts of things on my

clothes—I heard him give his evidence next day—he said, "I pointed out to him the brick-dust and mortar on his coat, and asked if he could account for it,"—that was at the station—on the second day Mr. Gotto said that the case was decided—he was not the chairman; Mr. Smith was the chairman; I have known him for years—he has no spite against me, nor has the clerk; why should they?—the constable and the inspector gave evidence before I was convicted, and Mr. Maxwell, Mr. Albue, and Mr. Sharp were called—there was only I and the inspector present when I was arrested—I cannot raise my left arm over my head; I can use it underhanded—I have tried lifting things, and am obliged to put them down—Mr. Jessop tried to set my arm, out he never done it—he did all he could, but he said it was too far gone—the constable said something about my having my arms over my head—it was after that that I went to Mr. Jessop as to the state of my arm, and whether I am strong enough to push one of these things over—he said, "No" in a conversation of more than twenty minutes—lie tested the strength of my arm, and so did Dr. Archer, up against the wall in his office—he did not test the strength, but he tried how high I could hold it up—the other doctor unfastened the window, and I could not lift it up.

By the COURT. I did not go to Dr. Jessop after I had been fined—it was the day before—I asked for an adjournment because I wanted to bring witnesses that I was not there—I had the remand from the 29th to the 30th—after I had been fined, neither I nor Mr. Anderson asked the Magistrates to increase the fine—I did not know what he meant by the fine—after I had been fined I employed a solicitor, Mr. Freeke Palmer, but I left him and went to Mr. Sanford, and went with him when lie applied for a warrant against the constable.

Re-examined. I was not taken back to 34, Frognal, after I was arrested; I never saw it—by doing work underhand, I mean that I oak wheel a barrow thirty or forty yards, or carry water, or in nailing a fruit tree; I have to get a ladder, if it is above my head, or some steps; I cannot even hold a nail above my head.

WILLIAM WALTER MARTIN . I am owner of the Load of Hay public-house, Haverstock Hill—a benefit club is held there, of which the last witness is a member—Monday, September 28th, was a club evening, and I saw Harris there—I have a stable at the rear; the roof is corrugated iron—Harris went there with me—there is a narrow passage, about two feet six, composed of reddish bricks, on one side; it is not plastered in any way, and a projection had been cut off the corner on, I believe, the same day—we had not to pass the broken corner to go into the stable—it I was dark when we went along the passage—I had to strike a light.

Crow-examined. I went back into the house with him—I noticed nothing on his coat-sleeve.

FREDERICK PERKINS . I am a coachman, of 3, Burdett Yard, Belsize Road, Hampstead—I have lived three years with my present master, Mr. Bardell—I am a member of the club at the Load of Hay, and so is Parrent; Jones is not—I left the house, with Parrent, from 9.30 to 10 o'clock; we walked to the Washington Hotel, and from there to the Belsize Tavern, and left at 12.30, when they called time—Jones came in; he is another coachman—I went outside with him and Parrent, and stood talking; we then crossed the road, and were talking some considerable

time, and I heard the clock strike a quarter to one—we were then at the corner of the Mews, where I live—we stopped at the top of Belsize Crescent, which is a turning before you get to Belsize Mews—I am not certain whether it was the clock of the College or of St. Stephen's Church that I heard—I said, "Well, Parrent, I am going in"—I left Parrent and Jones there, talking together.

WILLIAM THOMAS JONES . I am a coachman, and live at Hampstead—I know Perkins and Parrent—on the evening of September 28th I was at the Belsize Tavern, and after closing time we stood outside talking, and then we crossed the road, and were talking again, and Perkins said, "It is a quarter to one; I am off to bed"—it took ten minutes to get from there to Belsize Gardens.

HENRY ROBERT PINK . I am a builder, of 35, Winchester Road, Hampstead—I have been twenty years in Hampstead, and have been a builder thirty years—I examined the pillar by 34, Frognal, the day before I was summoned; I cannot tell you the date—the capital had then been re-fixed—I have had a good deal of experience in lifting weights—looking at the weight of this pillar, it is not possible for one man to push it off with one arm; I tried it, and could not do it; I tried another which was not so strong, and could not do it with one arm—it would not be possible for a man with one arm to push it round, nor if he had two good arms—I tried one myself, and if it wife loose he could not turn it round, he could push it over—its being turned round suggests that there must have been one person—the weight is from two and a-half to three hundredweight—two or three were turned round, and several more were loosened, and a little bit out of the square.

Cross-examined. I tried to move two, one of which had been re-fixed, and another which was loose; I could not see underneath the one which was re-fixed, but I should say it had been bedded on with mortar and finished up with cement—if you used cement partially there would be some advantage—that was the one I was taken to, the one that had been put on again—some of the others I saw had been moved—some mortar is better than other—I tried to lift one of the others; I did not want to break it—I do not mean that I tried to push it off; if the cap was on loose mortar it could be turned round by a powerful man, but it would not tumble off, because it has got the whole basement to stand on—I tried to push round one on loose mortar, and could not do it—I have said, "It is a very different thing to lift it than to push it; of course, it would be ask to lift it;" that is just what I did—Mr. Anderson took me there—I do not remember a doctor being there—I took down two pillars last week which had had a blow from a cart.

Re-examined. The pillars are eighteen inches by eighteen; they are Luton bricks, very hard; you can rub nothing off them.

EDWIN ANDERSON . I am a nursery gardener, of Forest Park Gardens—I have been there fifty years—Parrent works for me; I have known him as a gardener twenty-five years—I remember him having the accident; since that he has complained for five or years of his left arm; when he works he cannot lift it up—he is not able to do any work which compels him to raise his left arm above his head with any weight; of course, he can lift it up to some extent.

Cross-examined. He has put up a fowl-house for me, and has done

some weeding—I pay him full wages—he may or may not have moved trees; I am not always with him—I have said that he superintended putting up my hay; he works as a handy man, moving trees or anything; required, a rose tree or a sapling.

Evidence for the Defence.

EDWARD JESSOP , M.R.G.S. and L.R.C.P. I practise at Fitzjohn Avenue, Hampstead—the prosecutor came to me some weeks after the fracture of his elbow joint, and was under my care two or three weeks in the spring of 1890—he came again on November 3rd, this year, the day before this case was coming on at the Police-court—I examined him; I had both his arms stripped, and compared them, and gave him some motions, a sort of muscular movement—I asked him to open a window in my consulting-room; it was locked, and he could not open it; I unlocked, it, and he lifted it with his left hand—I then got him to hold his left arm above his head, which he did in a fairly satisfactory way; I then put a stool in his left hand; he held it straight up by the leg for from fifteen, to thirty seconds, and I concluded that for my own purposes I had. examined him sufficiently—his right arm was very good—I afterwards went, with a friend, to see the place, and with my left arm raised one of the pillars three inches, and my friend came and stopped me—the pillars are all the same, to all outward appearance, except in height; of course, the stonework projects beyond the brickwork, and if you get your hand underneath you get great leverage—from my examination of the pillar and of the prosecutor, he certainly could not push it over.

Cross-examined. In the window the sash was balanced by the weights—it was a bamboo stool that he held out for fifteen seconds; it weighed,. probably, about eight pounds, and was about three feet high from the ground—I should say that it is light—it is used for people to sit on for me to examine them—I put it into his hand when it was up, he did not raise it—I did not test him to see if he could raise the stool to that height; it did not strike, me to ask him to raise the stool from the ground—I am probably five feet nine high; I never measured myself—I cannot say whether the stone was five feet nine high—I could raise it three or four inches—to all appearance, the caps at 16 and 34 are identical; this one had the ball on—I stood on the ground—the place is on a hill, and I fancy they get higher—I am sure I lifted it three inches—I did not attempt to turn it round.

Re-examined. I have no interest whatever in this case except to tell, the truth—I am here on subpoena—I have been twelve or thirteen years. in practice.

By the COURT. Mr. Alfred Willett is a very eminent man in the profession—I agree with him that the arm is very much impaired, and the muscles of the upper arm considerably wasted—he describes it correctly as an old fracture which has been repaired by ligament; I think the work is extremely good, but he came to me to see if he could get moremotion.

THOMAS STEPHEN SHARPE . I am a builder, of North Hill Avenue,. Highgate—I assisted in building the whole of these houses at Frognal thirteen or fourteen years ago—it would be possible for a moderately strong man to push off the cap and ball by lifting his hands up and pushing it over—lifting them or pushing against them would make them

loose—they are made to adhere to the pillars by ordinary mortar—I do not think they used mortar more fourteen years ago than they do now—I have no interest in this case.

Cross-examined. I am the owner of the property, and got part of the damages awarded—I said before that a man would have to use both arms; I did not say that it would take four or five minutes to do it; that is a mistake; I said it would take four or five minutes to push them all off—to turn them round from the ground, you would push one corner; that would take some time—the whole thing would not turn over in pushing them round, but it is flat—headed—pushing one corner would not have a tendency to push the thing bodily round—if I were twisting it I should only take one corner—it would take a minute—I could do it with one hand.

Re-examined. I said, originally, "The cap was pushed off"; a single man could do it; it would take force to push 34 off; a man would have to push it a little to get it loose; I could push a cap off myself, with one arm."

By the COURT. I said last Monday week, "Two caps were pushed off and broken "; there is only one ball in the whole—the first I knew of it was that damaging the pillars was going on was on the Monday week; it was in consequence of information given by me that the police were watching; I went to the station myself.

WILLIAM GARNER . I am a builder's foreman, of 53, Rosslyn Road, Hampstead—I know the houses in Frognal; I do not own them—I examined those pillars and caps last Monday evening—I tried to lift one of them, and I lifted it so that it would have easily gone off, using both hands—it was not a matter of difficulty; an ordinary man could push them off with two hands, a man of my stature and my strength—I tested it in the presence of a divisional inspector—when I was trying it the cap did not go into its place again, but I put it back into its place—it had never been properly beaded—if there was a little cavity where the water could get in it would be easier—I saw it a week ago last night—I was not called before the Magistrate before—my height is 5 feet 9 inches.

JOHN HOLLAND (Subdivisional Inspector S).—I am stationed at Hampstead—I went with Inspector Nichols to look at these pillar caps in Frognal on October 30th—I tested them in order to form an opinion at to whether a man could tilt them, and push them over—I found I could do so—the caps were about the level of my head—if I had pushed them another two or three inches they must have gone over—I was in uniform, and had my cape on—as I put the cap back some of the mortar from underneath fell on my cape, and the inspector brushed it off.

Cross-examined. I had to use both hands—I am 6 feet 9 1/2 inches—I do not consider myself very powerful—the caps are about two feet wide at the base—you would have to lift one edge considerably before you could throw the centre of gravity over the edge of the pillar; I should say the higher you pushed it up, the easier it would be—the stone was on the top of the brick pillar, which was 5 ft. 9 in. exactly in height—when you begin to lift you are lifting on a fulcrum, which is nearly two feet away from you; you would not have to raise it a foot before it would fall over, but I did not go to the extent of its falling over—the weight was still on my hands while I was pushing; I think if I had put it three inches higher it

would have gone over—I had to put my hands up to my head in order to do it—some mortar came out when the stone fell back on to the bricks—I have not scolded and reprimanded officers for not discovering this; I have drawn their attention to it, and begged them to be on the alert—eighteen cases of wilful damage had taken place in the same neighbourhood within three weeks of this occurrence, and had been reported by the owner of the property or by the police—strict injunctions had been given to the police to keep an active look-out, with a view of arresting the perpetrators—caps had been pushed off in Maresfield Terrace and Nutley Terrace, and one in Frognal beyond the Arkwright Road, but not in this part of Frognal—Frognal is a long winding road—there had been no damage in this part before—the prisoner was on a beat on the 28th; he would go along one side of Arkwright Road and into Fitzjohn Avenue, and come down towards the Finchley Road, turn to the left through that part of Frognal, return again into Arkwright Road, go down Finchley Road, and back into Frognal—I have no power to reprimand—a constable has not been discontended about this matter, or left the force with reference to the matter—a complaint was not made that on this very night a pillar at Edge Hill was disturbed—three other cases occurring that night were reported next morning; the report in the book states that they were in Nutley Terrace, adjoining 13, Maresfield Gardens, at 16, Netherhall Gardens, and at 39, Fitzjohn Avenue, which is at the corner of Nutley Terrace—they were all three corner houses—the policemen who made those reports would have come on the beat at ten p.m. and would patrol from then till six a.m.—two policemen reported those three cases; they would report to the sergeant in charge of the patrol as soon as they met him—Tedman, who made the report of the damage Netherhall Gardens, is not here; he has left the service—he sent in his resignation a fortnight before this occurred—he left to better himself, and is now at Luton.

By the JURY. I did not experiment with the cap at No. 34; I took the measurement; it was five feet nine and three-quarter inches, and I went to a similar one half an inch lower—the caps are the same weight all the way down; they are all the same thickness—I lifted up the cap comparatively easy; I can do it now with the same one.

Re-examined. The prisoner has been a little over two years in the force; he entered it with a good character, and he is a man of good character.

By the COURT. The Magistrates' attention was directed to the fact that cases of this sort had been reported—I would not like to say their attention was directed to the fact that on this very night three other cases of wilful damage at different places were reported.

GEORGE LANG (359 s). On Monday night, September 29th, I was on beat duty at Hampstead—my beat was through Nutley Terrace into Netherhall Gardens and Finchley Road, as far as the North Star public-house, up the College Road and Fitzjohn Avenue, into Nutley Terrace again—it takes me about an hour to go round—on that night I saw Parrent; I knew him when he was in service; he is a gardener in the neighbourhood—I was standing by Daydawn Stables, at the corner of Nutley Terrace and Netherhall Gardens, and I could flee Daydawn Stables and clock, when Parrent passed me on the other side; he came from the

direction of Fitzjohn Avenue, down Nutley Terrace—upon getting to the corner he turned to the right, into Netherhall Gardens, and went down the slope that leads into Frognal; I saw him leave Netherhall Gardens and go down the slope—it was 12.40—I stopped there a minute or two, and then continued to walk my beat.

Cross-examined. When I first saw Parrent he was coming through Nutley Terrace towards where was standing, and he was at the corner of Maresfield Gardens—waited till he came to where I was standing—could see him easily during the whole time. (The witness, at Mr. Collams request, marked upon a plan the spot at which he alleged he stood.) I was not standing in a gateway, so that Parrent could not see me—I did not say before the Magistrates, "I was standingn a gateway; Parrent went (along Netherhall Gardens and. turned down Frognal"—I said was standing at the corner—there was a gateway by the corner; might have said was just by the gateway—I said, "The gateway of the house I stood in is in Nutley Terrace, near Nether-hall Gardens"—I might have said I was at the gateway; I was at the corner near the gateway—the gateway is in Nutley Terrace, near the corner; it is the gateway of Loggia, Mr. Carrington's house—that gate-way is not far from the corner—you cannot see the slope to Frognal as you stand in the gateway; coming to the corner, you can see the slope quite well—standing in the gateway of Loggis, you can see the clock of Dawn Stables, will swear—you can see it by leaning forwards and looking out towards the stables—I saw the clock just as came to the gateway; was there scarcely a minute when Parrent passed me—you do not have to cross the road to see the corner of the slope to Frognal—I can see Netherhall Gardens from the gateway, but not where Netherhall Gardens turn into Frognal—to see the corner of the slopento Frognal, you would have to go as far as the corner and look round—Loggiss on the opposite side of Edgehill—you would have to come out of the gateway and walk a few yards to see the slope to Frognal—there are semidetached villas in Netherhall Gardens—when Parrent passed was standing in the gateway of Nutley Terrace—I went to the corner and watched him round the corner; saw him go along Netherhall Gardens and turn into the slope to Frognall—from the time he passed me watched him right round the corner; never lost sight of him—he did not knock off the pillar-caps at Edgehill at that time—I could not say the pillar-cape were knocked off at that time; it was not my beat—I did not reportt—it was opposite to me; it was not done at that time, am sure—I could not tell you whether at 12.40 the piers were all right at Edgehill, because was on the other side of the road.

Re-examined. I was not on fixed duty, but on my beat—when we come to a corner, we stop and have a look round—I have been seven years the force.

By the COURT. I recognized Parrent directly I saw him; I had known him three or four years as a respectable man in his station of life; did not suspect him of going to commit any crime—I did not follow him to watch him; it was on my beat.

JAMES WARD (475 s). On Monday night, September 28th, was on duty in plain clothes from five p.m. to one a.m.—I had no particular beat; I was on special duty with regard to this question of wilful damage that had been going on—I got to the station about two minutes past one;

Parrent was there then—the time a charge is taken at the station is entered—I had been in and round Frognal, among places, that night—the last time I had been in Frognal was about 12.30; I came right through there from Arkwright Road—the caps on the pillars were all right then—I saw Parrent on that night in Nethernall Gardens, at the corner of Frognal, at the top of the slope—I have known him for fifteen years—he passed me about three yards from the corner of the gateway; he was going down the slope—it was about 12.40—I walked forward a little way towards Netherhall Gardens, and remained there till I went off duty—I saw Parrent turn up Frognal towards the Arkwright Road—at that time I am quite sure Edgehill was all right; I had passed it—I saw Inspector Nichols at the station—I bade Parrent Good morning" at the station, not in the road—I did not notice anybody in plain clothes—as soon as I got in the door of the station I told the inspector I had been Parrent pass Edgehill into Frognal—I was not called before the Magistrate, because there was a misunderstanding by the inspector as to where I saw Parrent.

Gross-examined. I was at the top of the alone leading to Netherhall Gardens—Parrent passed me within a few yards—I knew him, but I did me within a few yards—I knew him, but I did not say "Good morning"—he did not see me—I was standing beside the gateway of the house called the "Weald" at the top of the slope—the gate was open, and I was standing just inside—he had hardly passed when I came out; I could not have seen if I had remained in the gate-way—I kept hidden while he passed, and did not let him see me—I looked round the corner immediately afterwards—I had reasons for doing so—I did not suspect him at all—he was the last person in the world I should have suspected; I should not doubt him—I saw him turn the corner—it was just a matter of form watching him; I don't say I came out with that intention—I heard Parrent, the same night at the station, say to the prisoner and all who were there. "It is a mistake; I was not there;—the sergeant and inspector were both there—I said, in the presence of Parrent, the inspector and the sergeant, that I saw him turn both corners—I was not called next morning; I was in Court.

Re-examined. I heard Parrent say at the station that he was going down the slope—I have been in the Police force just on sixteen years.

THOMAS NICHOLS (Inspector S). I have been in the Police force nearly twenty years—I was in charge of the Hampstead Police-station on the morning of September 29th—Parrent was brought in by the prisoner at one o'clock—this is the charge-sheet—the sergeant who took the charge, and who is here, put the time down on it; I am sure it is correct—I went into the charge-room and said to the constable, "What is the charge?" and he said, "Pushing pillar-caps off in Frognal"—I made no note—I am quite certain he used the plural, "caps"—I asked him to tell me what he saw the man do—the prisoner said, "I was on duty in Frognal at a quarter to one. I saw a man turn from Netherhall Gardens into Frognal. I saw him go to several houses and push at something. I crept down the side of the wall towards him, and when about ten yards away from him, I saw him push the pillar-cap at No, 34 over. He crossed over the road. I went over, and took him into custody. I took him back, and showed him the damage he had done. I then brought him to the station"—Parrent said, "He has made a mistake; I came through Nutley Terrace, Maresfield, and

Netherhall Gardens, and was going down the elope when the constable stopped me and took me into custody"—I noticed that there was some red brick-dust on Parrent's coat, right on the top of the right shoulder—I asked him if he could account for that—he said he did not know it was there—I directed him to sit down, and sent Ward round the neighbourhood to see if he could see anyone who would come up and charge the man—he afterwards brought Mr. Maxwell, the occupier of No. 34, and he signed the charge-sheet—Ward came in almost immediately after the prisoner and Parrent; he practically followed them in; he would be coming off duty at one o'clock—he is a plain clothes officer—the defendant's statement was made so that Parrent could hear it; the prosecutor was in the dock, and the prisoner by his side, and I was at the desk and listened to what the constable said, and to what Parrent said—I did not attempt to prevent him saying anything—I have no feeling against him; I never saw the man before—the case came before the Magistrate the same day—only the police represented the prosecutor—it was adjourned to next day, and he was convicted—Ward told me in the charge-room that he had seen him in Netherhall—that was said in the way of conversation long before the charge had been taken—rightly or wrongly, I speak from what Parrent had said, that he was going down Frognal when he was arrested, down the slope.

Cross-examined. He said that he was passing from Netherhall Terrace across Maresfield Gardens—he said, "It is a mistake; I was not there"—I knew that he was disputing that he had been in Frognal at all—he denied all knowledge of Frognal—he said, "I was not in Frognal," and Eastwood said, "I saw him turn into Frognal; directly a man turns down the slope we say he is in Frognal"—he said that he was not there, but he was arrested there—I understood Ward to say, "I was in Netherhall Gardens, and saw him turn down the slope"—he never said that he saw him turn the second corner into Frognal—it was after the question about his appeal that I first heard that he turned into the place where the damage was done—I did not hear Ward say, "Why I saw you there," and I should have heard him if he had said it—as to it being his duty to ring up the proprietor, I think in his place I should have done as he has done.

Re-examined. McGibbon took the charge—I should have no power to take a man unless I saw him committing wilful damage.

McGIBBON (Policeman). I entered the charge, and entered one o'clock as the time it was made—it was first written as far as "Maxwell," and the rest was added at eight o'clock next morning, when, the owner of the house turned up—I took down the original charge.

Cross-examined. I put down the charge at the time Mr. Maxwell came, about 2.30—I was not at the station when the prisoner was brought in—the person who entered the" one a.m." did so on the statement of somebody else an hour and a-half afterwards.

J. HOLLAND (Re-examined by MR. GILL). I went to this stable at the Load of Hay, and examined the brickwork there and the wall leading to it—the right wall is an old wall, built of old brick, and the left with white brick, nearly new—the passage is two feet six inches wide; here is a portion of it, taken on November 13th—I was told that the place which was freshly cut was cut on the day Parrent was there—it is my experience

that fresh brickwork is dusty, but I should expect it to be the same colour as the brick itself—it is old stock brick, some brown and some red.

GUILTY .— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

NEW COURT.—Thursday, November 26th, 1896.

Before. Mr. Common Serjeant.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-40
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

40. JOSEPH GARCIA (27) , Stealing a purse, a bottle of whisky, and 4s. 6d. of Sarah Emmett from her person.

MR. SELLS Prosecuted, and MR. GREEN Defended.

SARAH EMMETT . I am a widow, of 14, London Street, S.E.—on Sunday, November 8th, I got into an omnibus at the Elephant and Castle, and sat next but one to the door on the left, getting in—two or three persons were in the omnibus—two men got in at Waterloo Station, and the omnibus was then full—they sat right at the end, and then came and gat on my right-hand side—a lady was on my left—I do not recognise either of them here—they got out at the corner of the Strand, and a man jumped on the tail-board of the omnibus—I put my hand in my pocket, and missed my purse, two florins, sixpence, some halfpence, a biscuit, and a little bottle of whisky—I had paid my fare at Waterloo Station, and put my purse back in my pocket.

Cross-examined. The "houses" were just closing when I got into, the omnibus—when the man spoke to me I went with him to Bow Street Station—he did not speak a word, except that he knew the men—he said on the step of the omnibus that he was a detective, and asked if I had lost anything—he asked me where the men got in, and which one sat next me; I said the one with an Inverness cape on—I have not got any of my property back.

HENRY HANCOCK (Detective L). On November 8th, in the afternoon I was in Waterloo Road, and saw the prisoner having his boots cleaned at the corner, outside the York Hotel—I have known him five or six years, and the other man too—after the prisoner had his boots cleaned he stood back in the public-house doorway, and I stood facing him, and as soon as the other man had his boots cleaned they walked to Waterloo Station, and met the Camden Town 'bus, and sat on the right—there was one lady next to the conductor, and the prosecutrix next, and the prisoner next—I would not get on the 'bus for certain reasons, but I followed to the Strand, and then spoke to the last witness; she was agitated, and did not seem to realise what it meant—as soon as I got information from her I looked, but could not see the men—I took her to Bow Street—she entered a charge, and I gave the names and addresses of the men, and that evening I went to Leman Street Station, and saw the prisoner, detained by Detective Smith—I said, "That is the man—the prisoner said, "That is not a proper identification; what is it for?"—I said, "For stealing a lady's purse in an omnibus from Waterloo Street, Strand"—he said, "Instead of my being in the dock, you will be at the Old Bailey for perjury"—the conductor appeared next morning, and picked out the prisoner, who said, "What time was it?"—I said, "Between three and a quarter past"—he said, "I was serving behind my brother's bar at that time."

Cross-examined. I kept them under observation some time—I said before the Magistrate that the prisoner put his back against the public-house, waiting while the other had his boots cleaned. (This did not appear in the depositions.) After the evidence had been read over, I noticed that they had not got the time, and therefore I did not notice that that was omitted—I followed the omnibus to Wellington Street—I did not ask the lady where they got in, or if one was sitting next her; if she says so, it is not true; I saw where they sat—I heard that the prisoner was arrested on my information, and went to Leman Street—the public-houses had closed ten minutes before I saw them get into the omnibus—where a man is serving in a public-house I should expect him to be behind the bar about three o'clock, but he would not be serving—his brother-in-law's bar is off Cannon Street Road—I took the number of the conductor, and saw him at the station, but did not speak to him.

FREDERICK HENRY WILDE . I am an omnibus conductor, 13023—on Sunday, November 8th, I was conducting an omnibus from the Bennet's House, Camden Town, to Waterloo Road—two men got in; the prisoner is one of them—there were four ladies there, and the men sat between them—the other man sat next the lady who lost her purse; he had a cape on—they both got out at the Strand, and paid with a florin—I went to the station next morning, and saw a number of people in a row, and picked the prisoner out.

Cross-examined. Anybody who gets on the omnibus can go the whole way for one penny, but everybody does not go the whole way—there is not much traffic across the bridge on Sunday, but we do not go much quicker—we go quicker than a man can walk; seven miles an hour; there would be no difficulty in a man running and keeping up with us—if he ran he could get to Wellington Street as soon as we could—I only saw I one man running, and hailed him; it was Sergeant Hammond—directly I he came he asked if anybody had lost a purse—I don't believe he asked me where the two men got in—I saw Hancock at the station, but did not speak to him before I went in to identify—there were about two dozen men there; there were a dozen in the row I picked him out from—I was not called on the Monday morning because I was telegraphed for elsewhere, and gave my evidence on the Friday—they got out with other passengers, and I do not know which got out first—people often pay me with two-shilling pieces, but I had several coppers.

By the COURT. I had no difficulty in picking out the prisoner as the man who got in at Waterloo with a man in an Inverness cape, and got out at the Strand.

SIDNEY TEMBLETT (Detective E). On Sunday evening, November 8th, I was in Leman Street Station, and found the prisoner detained—I told him I was a police officer, and was going to take him in custody for stealing a purse at three o'clock that afternoon—he said, "I can prove where I was at that time"—the prosecutrix could not be found, and he was detained all night—he was identified in the morning, and made no reply.

Witnesses for the Defence.

HENRY COLLUM . I am a beer-house keeper, and am the prisoner's brother-in-law—on Sunday, November 8th, I saw him at five or ten

minutes before three o'clock, very near closing time—he lives with me—when he came in he went behind the bar—he did not go out till he was arrested at a little before seven, in my presence, by Smith, a policeman.

Cross-examined by MR. SELLS. He left my house first before I was up—when he came in I looked at the clock in the bar—I do not know whether he then went and served behind the bar—I was serving behind the bar.

Re-examined. I looked at the clock because it was nearly closing time, and I had to get the people out—when he was arrested the constable asked me if he was in; I said, "Yes;" he asked me where he had been that day—the constable did not say at what time the man had committed the offence, and I did not ask.

RAY YOUNG . I am a Jewess, and a tailoress, of 3, Langdale Street—on Sunday, November 8th, I went to Mr. Collum's beer-house, near closing time, to get some stout, and saw the prisoner, whom I knew to be the landlord's brother-in-law, behind the bar, he was serving, but he did not serve me—it was, as near as possible, five minutes to three o'clock.

Cross-examined. I am not a relation of Mr. Collum—two people were serving behind the bar, and the bar was full—I noticed the clock—I do not know whether they put the clock on a little in a beerhouse—Mr. Garcia had his coat on.

By the COURT. My attention was first called to this the same evening, about nine o'clock, when I heard that he had been taken in custody—I heard that he had committed the robbery at a quarter to three; that is what Mr. Collum told me—I do not know why I did not go to Bow Street and tell the Magistrate—I did not go up on the Tuesday or Wednesday—I went into the beer-house after the Sunday, I did not go every day—that is where I get my beer—he told me on the Friday to come to the trial—he did not say what a pity it was I did not come before—he knew I was very busy on Friday—I have been here ever since Monday—I was told that if I had attended before the Magistrate I should have been entitled to my expenses.

CHARLES SMITH (Detective H). On Sunday evening, November 8th, I went to the Old House Revived and asked for Garcia—he was called down, and I told him he would be charged, with another man, with stealing a purse and money some time that afternoon, in an omnibus—he said, "You have made a mistake"—Solomon did not say that Garcia was in the beer-house all the afternoon, and never went out—I first heard on the following day that Solomon was going to allege that he was not out of his house—that was Monday night—he said he had been in his house, but went out at 12.30, and came in about a quarter to three—he did not say whether he saw him go out at 12.30.

Cross-examined. Langdale Street is just opposite this public-house, where the female witness lives—the prisoner said that he had been in the house all day, and had a witness to prove it.

GUILTY **†.—He then

PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction at Chelmsford on October 19th, 1892.— Twelve Months' Hard Labour, having still to complete his former sentence.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday and Wednesday, December 1st and 2nd, 1896.

Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-41
VerdictMiscellaneous > unknown

Related Material

41. HENRY HESS, Unlawfully printing and publishing a false and defamatory libel of and concerning John Wright.

The prisoner PLEADED NOT GUILTY, and handed in a plea of justification.

MR. HORACE AVORY and MR. NELSON Prosecuted, and MR. C. F. GILL and MR. T. MATHEWS Defended.

MR. AVORY demurred to the plea of justification upon the grounds that it did not justify the libel and innuendo, which it was bound to do, and that it did not give particulars of the matters relied upon in order to show that the libel complained of in the indictment was true. MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS overruled the demurrer. MR. AVORY asked leave, if it were necessary for the due progress of the proceedings, to join issue upon the plea of justification; the plea of.

NOT GUILTY remaining to be tried. MR. GILL said that he did not desire to do anything which would avoid the matter being inquired into. MR. AVORY afterwards stated that, in consequence of the judgment upon the demurrer, he felt considerable difficulty in the JURY being called upon to determine the issue raised by the plea of justification. It seemed doubtful, after the demurrer had been overruled, whether he was in a position to invite the JURY to give a verdict upon that plea. After consultation with MR. GILL, and if it had his Lordship's approval, he would propose that the JURY should be discharged from determining the issue.

MR. GILL having acquiesced, and the COURT having assented to this course being adopted, the JURY were discharged from giving a verdict.


Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-42
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

42. GEORGE CROUCH (21) and WALTER LEE (17) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing a purse and £1 3s. 3d. from the person of Mary Ann Wylee, Crouch; having been convicted at Middlesex Sessions in October, 1895.

CROUCH**.— Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.

LEE, Six Weeks' Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-43
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

43. JAMES McGRANN (40) , Maliciously wounding John Connell, and occasioning him actual bodily harm.

MR. METCALPE Prosecuted.

JOHN CONNELL . I am a foreman at Silvertown Gas Works—I have never seen the prisoner before—on October 27th my wife and I went home at 12.45; we got indoors, and about four steps up the staircase, when the prisoner came to the bottom, and got hold of me by my legs, and pulled me down again—I got two slight kicks on my ribs, which did not hurt me much, but I got a kick on my jaw which, fractured it, and rendered me insensible—I came to, and saw my wife bleeding—she got a kick on her head—I still attend the hospital as an outpatient.

ELLEN CONNELL . I am the wife of the last witness—I went with him to Poplar on October 26th, and returned at 12.30 a.m.—I had been drinking, but I was not drunk; I had had sufficient—I had a can in my hand,

with ale in it—in getting to our house we passed the prisoner at his own door; he lives about five doors off—as we passed, he called my husband a foul name, and used filthy and abusive language; he followed us to the door, and, as I went to close the door, he shoved me against the wall, and pulled my husband downstairs in the dark, and when he got him on the ground he kicked him, about five times, and made him insensible, and dragged him away, and I went up to make peace between them—I did not know that his jaw was broken—I picked him up, and gave the can to Mrs. McGrann, and she struck me with it; I bobbed my head, and then the prisoner kicked me on my head—he was not on the stairs then, but I stooped to avoid the can—I was bleeding, and both I and my husband went to the hospital, and he is not able to go to work yet—we had no quarrel with the prisoner or his wife—there was no fight.

Cross-examined. My husband and you did not fight in the street through my asking you to drink out of the can, nor did he say that you were my fancy man—I never saw you before in my life, and never asked you to go into the fields with me.

GEORGE DOBSON (Police Sergeant, 12 K). I am stationed at Canning Town—on October 24th, about 4.15, I was at Canning Town Station, and the prosecutor and his wife came in, both bound up—in consequence of what they said I went and saw the prisoner, and said I should take him for violently assaulting the prosecutor and his wife—he said, "I have not been out for four days," and his wife said that she had not been out since five o'clock—she was charged with an assault with a can; that was dealt with by a Magistrate—the prisoner said nothing about the assault.

Cross-examined. You did not say that you had not been out for four days, and that you then went out and had a fight with this man.

DAVID CHARLES BEES . I am house-surgeon at the Seamen's Hospital; Mr. and Mrs. Connell came there on October 27th; his right lower jaw was fractured, and three of his upper teeth were loosened, and his cheek wounded, which I stitched up—his teeth will never get tight again—the injuries would most likely be caused by a kick—Mrs. Connell had a lacerated wound on the side of her head, not very serious.

Cross-examined. He did not say next morning that the injuries he received were the consequences of a kick and a fall.

Evidence for the Defence.

ELIZA SAXTON . I live with my husband in this house, 46, Martin Road, and take in a little washing—they came home, and Mr. and Mrs. Connell jumped about their room, and they have threatened my life; it is not the first, second, or third time they have insulted me—I opened my door; I was in my night-gown, and saw them outside—I have never spoken to them—I do not know what he is; he walks up and down the street—I did not open the door to let them in, they burst it open.

By the COURT. They have been my lodgers about four months—I have had to give them notice; when I try to get them to keep quiet they threaten my life, and my little ones lie on the floor and kick because they are so frightened—I have complained to the police about them.

Cross-examined. I am not on friendly terms with the Connells; I gave them notice to go—I saw them all three on the ground outside by the kerb; the woman had a can in her hand; they were all gone when I got up, and my mats were in the street—they were drunk, and the prisoner had had

a drop—I do not know whether my mats being outside indicated a struggle inside.

ANN WALLIS . I live at 144, Martin Road—my husband works in the docks—I heard them quarrelling outside, and looked out at the window—Mr. McGrann said, "What do you mean by it?" and they got fighting, and fell down together—they were all drunk; they are a noisy, drunken lot—my husband was in bed—he did not get up—we live next door to them.

Cross-examined. I did not see how the injury was caused to Mr. Connell—I have said "Good morning" to Mrs. Connell; she comes home rather late, but they come home together; generally drunk.

Prisoner's Defence: It was a fair fight, and he fell on the kerb, and began kicking, and I walked away and left him.

GUILTY ***.—Five convictions were proved against him, and the police stated that he lived on the prostitution of women.

Fifteen Months' Hard Labour.

Before Mr. Recorder.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-44
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

44. CHARLES HACK and EDWARD MALLETT , inflicting grievous bodily harm on Elizabeth Tottle.

MR. SYMMONS Prosecuted, and MR. LEYCESTER Defended.

ELIZABETH TOTTLE . I am the wife of John Tottle, a labourer, of 18, Pelly Road, Plaistow—on Sunday evening, October 18th, I went to my brother's, 10, Sweet Street, about five minutes' walk from Pelly Road—I left there at 9.50—on my way home I went into the Raglan public-house and drank a glass of ale, and paid for it—I was by myself—as I came out the prisoners were standing outside—Hack put his foot out, so I as nearly to throw me over—I told him to be careful what he did—he I made use of some expression which I could not hear—I went towards the railway bridge on my way home; before I got to it I turned, and saw the prisoners following—I crossed the bridge, and then Hack caught hold of my shoulder, and Mallett pushed against me—I took no notice, and walked on, and they walked with me—at the corner of Beall Street there is a plot of waste ground, and there they would not let me pass one way or the other—Hack said, "If you don't let us do what we want, I will knock your b—brains out"—I said, "You have made a mistake; I have nothing at all to do with you; why won't you let me pass?"—I crossed into Milton Street to get away from the plot of ground and go home, and they followed me—Hack struck me in the neck, and Mallett pulled my hair, and kicked me in the back—I screamed, and fell to the ground, and lost consciousness—the next I remember is that I saw a constable beside me, and he carried me home—I saw a doctor next morning; I was under his care for some time—I am not yet recovered—I cannot sit without great pain; I shall have to get a letter for the hospital.

Cross-examined. I know the prisoners by sight, by their passing my I house; I had no conversation with them—I did not know their names at the time—I gave a description of them, and was then told their names—lived in I knew that Mallett the street facing my street—they both live near me—I had had no quarrel with either of them; I had never spoken to them before—I did not speak to them in the public-house—I do not know Mrs. Hanson or Nelson; we were not in the public-house with the

prisoners—Mallett did not stand me a glass of rum—I only had the one glass of ale all day—I paid for it myself—my brother did not send for any beer—I did not say in the public-house that I was frightened to go home, as my old man was going to break my neck—I had no quarrel with my husband—I had been to see my brother's children, who had been very ill—I had seen my husband that day—it is not ten minutes' walk from the Lord Raglan to the place where I was assaulted—the public-houses close at ten on Sunday—they were calling out closing time when I left the public-house—I should think it would be about 10.10 when I was assaulted—I did hot see or speak to any other man after I came out of the house, and before the constable was there—when the constable picked me up, and stood me against the wall, I told him who I believed the people were; I could not walk.

Re-examined. I should think it took me about twenty minutes to come over the bridge and be stopped—I am not certain to a few minutes—I said at the Police-court it was ten minutes—I was cross-examined at the Police-court—I think it was suggested that I had been drinking with the prisoners on this night at the Raglan, and also at the corner of Felly Road—that was untrue; I had not had anything with them.

HENRY BROWN (512 K). On Sunday, October 18th, I was on duty in. Stratford Road—the Lord Raglan is about 600 or 700 yards from the Stratford Road on the other side of the railway—I saw the prosecutrix coming across the piece of waste ground, about 200 yards from the foot-bridge, on the other side of the London and Tilbury Railway—she was in the prisoners' company—it was about 10.45—they passed me, and I saw nothing more of them—I next heard a woman's scream, and went in the direction it came from, and in Milton Street I found the prosecutrix lying across the footway, unconscious—it was near the piece of waste ground—I took means to revive her, and, when she came to, she made a complaint—her husband had not come on the scene before she made a complaint—he assisted me to take her home—I met him after I had conveyed her about 100 yards—when she became conscious she gave her name and address—she made a complaint after I had seen the husband; I believe he had been told, and so came up—when she got home she made a complaint; in consequence of which I went to 60, Russell Street, Plaistow—I there saw Hack in bed, about 12.40 a.m.—I said, "I am going to take you into custody for being concerned with another man in assaulting a woman in Milton Street last night"—he said, "No, that is right; I saw a woman; she said something to me; I said, 'Go away, or I will knock your brains out'; she, said,' Are you young Clifford?' I said, 'No, I am young Hack; I will knock your brains out'"—I took him to Tottle's house—she said, "That is the man that struck me in the face"—Hack said, "I did not; God's truth"—she said, "Yes, you did"—he said, "Yes, I smacked you; God blind me! who would not?"—I took him to the Police-station, and he was charged—he said nothing in answer—on the same day, at 2.10 a.m., I went to 22, Stanley Street, Plaistow, where I saw Mallett—I said I should take him into custody for assaulting a woman in Milton Street last night—he said, "All right, sir"—I took him to Tottle's house, and confronted him with the prosecutrix—she said, "That is the man who kicked me"—he said, "You Are a liar"—in answer to the charge, he said, "Very well,

Cross-examined. I have made inquiries about the prisoners, and find they bear very good characters—they have both been in regular employment for about four and a half years.

ELIZABETH TOTTLE (Re-examined by the COURT). I have lived with a man for eight years; he is not my husband—I am a widow.

HENRY BOWN (further Cross-examined). Hack has a wife and child—I did not know him before—I had not seen the prisoners before I saw them walking with Tottle—there was nobody about at the time, and, coming across this piece of waste ground, I looked to see who was about; beyond that, I had no particular reason for noticing them—it was about 10.50; the public-houses had been closed fifty minutes—Tottle showed no signs of trying to get away from the prisoners; they were not molesting her—about ten minutes afterwards I heard the scream—two men went up with me; one was in his shirt-sleeves; he stood by her—I saw him come out of a house opposite; he crossed the road as I came round the corner—the two men came from the Stratford Road; one is the cornchandler—I had to run about 150 yards before I got to the spot—I was out of sight of the spot where she was assaulted when I heard the scream, so that there was time for the two men to get right away—I made my note of the conversation with Hack at his house directly after he spoke, and while I was waiting for him to dress—I have the original note here—he did not say, "She ought to be smacked for telling such lies"—he said, "I smacked you in the face. God blind me! who would not?"

Re-examined. She was unconscious when I came up—I am certain the prisoners are the two men I saw with her a little while before—the woman was walking slightly in front, and the men were very nearly level with her—going the way she said she did over the bridge, it would take her about ten minutes to walk from the Lord Raglan public-house home—the waste ground is 300 or 400 yards from the Lord Raglan—I cannot account for her being there at 10.50—there were no signs of her having had anything to drink that night—there was no smell of drink when she came to—her shortest way home was not over the bridge, but the shortest way was the most lonely.

JOHN GALLEY FRASER . I am a surgeon at 9, Cecil Road, Upton Manor—about 11.45 p.m. on the 18th I was called by a constable to Tottle's house—I examined her—she was suffering from shock, and complaining of great pain and tenderness in the lower part, both in front and behind, so much so that I could not examine her properly—I found that part of her bowels were prolapsed—there were no bruises whatever, and no signs of drink—the account she gave of being pulled down and kicked would account for the injury I saw—it is usually a chronic thing; a sudden strain might cause it—it was very red and extremely tender, which showed it was not chronic—at the time I formed the opinion that it was of recent date, and I think so still—if a woman had chronic prolapse of the bowel, I do not think that having connection would tend to make it inflamed and cause pain—she was about ten days under my care; I have not seen her since until to-day.

Cross-examined. If she is pregnant, she has not been so for more than three months—a chronic prolapse would not affect a pregnancy at that stage—if the prolapse was caused by violence, it would require considerable violence—I do not think one kick would be sufficient to cause it—a

kick sufficiently severe to produce prolapse of the bowel would leave a terrific bruise, if not laceration—I do not think a woman suffering from prolapse of the bowel would lose consciousness if she stumbled, or did anything of that sort.

WALTER PATCHER (503 K). I went with Brown to Hack's house on the Monday morning, the 19th—Brown said he should take him and confront him with Mrs. Tottle—after he was so confronted, she said, "That is the man that struck me "; and he said, "I did not; she said, "You did"—he said, "God blind me! who would not?"

Cross-examined. I made no note of the words—I am prepared to pledge my oath those are the exact words he used.

HENRY BROWN (Re-examined). They were about fifteen yards from me when I saw them on the waste ground—the prosecutrix did not ask me for any protection.



Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-45
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

45. THOMAS MANNING , for an unnatural offence.



Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-46
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

46. GERTRUDE PARKE, Unlawfully making transfer of her property, with intent to defraud her creditors, and EDWIN EVERSHED , aiding and abetting her in the same.

MR. HORACE AVORY and MR. GUY STEPHENSON Prosecuted; MR. JELF, Q.C., and MR. WAKELEY Defended Evershed; and MR. CHARLESMATHEWS Defended Parke.

WALTER JOHN SOPER . I am manager to Mr. Dibden, dairyman, of High Road, Peckham—at the end of May Parke owed Mr. Dibden £22 odd for goods supplied to her at Cleveland House, Clapham Park, which is a private asylum or home—Miss Parke told me she was the proprietor—in consequence of a letter received from her on June 1st, I called to see her, but did not see her—I was referred to her solicitor, Mr. Evershed, of Moira Chambers, Ironmonger Lane—the next morning I saw a letter from Mr. Evershed, addressed to Mr. Dibden—the letter is destroyed, but was the same wording as the letter "A" (produced), and headed: "E. J. Evershed, Solicitor, 17, Ironmonger Lane, Cheapside. Dear Sir,—My client, Miss Parke, of Cleveland House, Clapham Park, has handed me your account to attend to on her behalf. I shall be obliged if you will let this matter stand over for a short time, as I am endeavouring to arrange a sale of certain investments of hers which should realise a large sum, when I will send you a cheque for the amount owing to you. Kindly let me hear whether you agree to this proposal.—Yours faithfully, EDWIN J. EVERSHED"—I went to Mr. Evershed's office that same afternoon—I told him I had called about Mr. Dibden's account against Miss Parke—he said, "Yes, it

will be seen to shortly; I am realising some settlements which will bring in some money," and he hoped to get them settled that night, as he had a client ready to buy—he said that Miss Farke had been living in a fool's paradise, as she had been trusting to her solicitor, Mr. Brooks, of Old Jewry, and an accountant, who led her to believe that everything was all right, out now he hoped to see into things, and get things settled in a business-like manner—I then asked him if he thought we had better make her pay for the goods that were left—he said things would be settled shortly, and that he was sending an accountant down to audit the accounts, when he would settle the whole account, and send us his own cheque once a month for the current account—I said, "Then, am I to understand you will settle the whole account within a fortnight, and the other account at the end of the month?" and he said, "Quite so"—I then refrained from taking any steps to enforce my claim—I saw other creditors—I took my account to Mr. Evershed at the first interview—it had not been previously sent in—in consequence of what I read in a newspaper I went and saw Mr. Evershed on June 25th—I continued to supply Miss Farke with goods every day, between my interviews with Mr. Evershed—I told Mr. Evershed I had come to know why we had not received the money as promised, the old account—he said there had been a hitch in the business; that, in looking through the settlements, he had found they were not so valuable as he thought, but his client was still willing to buy at a price, which price he had submitted to Miss Farke, and that he had received a letter from her, asking how he dare interfere with family matters—I then asked him if he knew if Miss Farke had any money—he said she muse have some, as she was paying for things that came into the house, but he did not know; he had not seen her bank book—I then asked him if he was aware that Miss Farke had given a bill of sale for £400, dated June 16th or 18th—he hesitated—I asked him if it was with or without his knowledge—he said he knew it—I said, "All I can say is, it looks very black," and that I thought there had been plenty of time to have divided the £400, and to have given each of us creditors a little of it—he said he was going, down that afternoon to see Miss Farke, and he did not wish to make any more promises till he had seen her—he said he was arranging a partnership with a Doctor Ferriier—he told me to come and see him on Saturday, and he would give me the whole particulars—I went and saw him on the 27th, when he shrugged his shoulders, and said he was sorry to say it had fallen through, as his client had declined to have anything to do with the settlement and also the doctor—I asked him what he intended doing; whether he intended calling a meeting of creditors, or making Miss Farke a bankrupt—he said, "I shall have to place myself in the hands of the creditors"—I asked him what day; he said he did not know exactly; he would know on Monday, and would leave the papers with the creditors—as I got to the door I asked if Miss Farke was at home, and could I see her—he said "No;" she was ill in bed through the bother—on July 1st I went to Cleveland House about mid-day—I saw three servants leaving the premises—I went again on July 3rd, about eleven p.m.—I saw a large van, and some men removing the furniture"—I spoke to the men—I went the next morning, the 4th, between seven and eight a.m.—I saw a van-load of furniture out in the roadway, waiting to be removed.

Cross-examined by MR. JELP. Cleveland House is very large, and in about five acres of ground—I knew other persons were supplying goods—I said before the Magistrate I thought there would be some danger of not getting paid, as there were other, creditors, and if we waited we stood a chance of getting a dividend; that if we gave time for the settlements to be realised, that would be the best chance of getting our money—Mr. Evershed said there was a settlement, and he had a document in an envelope on the desk, similar to this produced—it was at the second interview I understood there were shares which the lady and her brothers had under the settlement—I did not object to the bill of sale if I got a share—I did not go to see Miss Parke, I sent—Mr. Evershed gave me to understand I was to look to his giving me a cheque in payment every month—he did not say he was going to pay out of his own pocket; he gave me to understand there was a good surplus to work with—I have heard part of the money realised was in the hands of the solicitor.

Re-examined. At the first interview with Mr. Evershed I understood the whole thing would be settled in a fortnight—when, on the 25th, the fortnight was up I had seen the announcement of the bill of sale.

JOHN SHEPHERD . I am a grocer at Brixton Hill—I supplied goods to Miss Parke, at Cleveland House—about the end of May about £49 was due to me for goods supplied—I had pressed for payment—on June 2nd I received this letter from Edwin J. Evershed (in the name terms, an the letter to Mr. Soper)—in consequence of that letter I abstained from doing anything further till July 1st, when I saw Mr. Evershed at his office—I told him I came about Miss Parke's affair, and asked him if he had realised on the investments—he said, "No, and, presently, that he thought them worthless—I asked if he knew where Miss Parke had gone to; he said, "No"—I said it looked very bad Miss Parke running away and leaving her creditors to find out where she had gone to—I asked him who discharged the servants—he did not answer that—I said it looked as if the creditors would not get anything—he said he was afraid not.

Cross-examined by MR. JELF. When I got the letter of June 1st I saw other creditors—I found they had letters to the same effect—I came to the conclusion it would be best to wait awhile, and she might be kept afloat—Mr. Evershed told me on July 1st an attempt had been made to raise money, but it had broken down—I took no note of his answer—he said he had personally tried to realise the investments, but found them worthless; not that they were of less value than he expected—I had not then seen Mr. Soper—I believe I said before the Magistrate that I asked where Miss Parke had gone to.

HOWARD BOON . I am manager to Messrs. Hogg and Co., wine merchants, carrying on business at Balham—Miss Parke had been a customer, and in May I was pressing her for the payment of her debt of £23—I wrote several letters, asking for money, and got replies that we should be paid—some of the letters are in Court—I got her letter on May 7th. (Hoping the investments would be realised, stating' the arrangements for a partnership, and enclosing cheque for £10 on account). I continued to supply her with goods till I got a letter of June 5th. (Referring Messrs. Hogg to Miss Parke's solicitor.) I called at the solicitor's office, and on June 11th, after a letter from Mr. Evershed of June 9th. (A similar letter to Mr. Soper's.) I called again—in consequence of that letter I did

nothing further till June 25th, when I called and saw Mr. Evershed—I said I had been referred to him by Miss Parke, and asked if there was any likelihood of arriving at a settlement—he said not for the moment, as he did not know how Miss Parke's affairs stood, but he was sending an accountant to go into them; there were certain settlements in which Miss Parke was interested, and he hoped these would be realised, but at present he could do nothing—as I was leaving the office I said I had heard Miss Parke had given a bill of sale—he said he was aware of it—I had sent him my account at Miss Parke's request.

JAMES ROBERT COOK . I am a butcher, carrying on business at 45, High Road, Balham—Miss Parke was a customer, and at the end of May last she owed me £50—I received this letter of June 1st (in the same terms as Soper's), and in consequence refrained from taking any steps with regard to my claim—in consequence of something I heard on June 27th about Cleveland House I went to see Mr. Evershed on June 29th or 30th—I said I had called with regard to his letter and Miss Parke's affairs, and asked him if he had any money for me—I said I had read of a bill of sale, and that there must be some money about—he said, "Yes," it was quite right with regard to the bill of sale, but he had nothing for me, and wished me good afternoon—I said I thought he was morally responsible to me, as I had waited on the faith of his letter.

Cross-examined by MR. JELF. He did not say, "There is nothing at present for you."

SYDENHAM HALL . I am a clerk at the Bills of Sale Office in the Royal Courts of Justice—I produce the filed copy of a bill of sale, dated June 18th, 1896, purporting to be given by Gertrude Parke, of Cleveland House, Thornton Road, Clapham Park, to Joseph Edward Sutton, of Mecklenburgh Square, on the furniture and effects of Cleveland House, and there is a schedule of the goods—some of it is in printed form—it is given in consideration of £400, receipt of which the said Parke acknowledges—it is attested by Edwin John Evershed, and it is accompanied by his affidavit—on July 2nd satisfaction of the bill of sale was. entered on the file by means of an affidavit signed by the mortgagee, and attested by affidavit of Edwin John Evershed before Master Wilberforce,. as appears by the endorsement.

Cross-examined by MR. JELF. The bill of sale appears perfectly regular—taking it off the file must only be by application to a Judge—I have looked up three cases in which affidavits have been expunged by order of a Judge—a Master has not the power—we issue a summons—I have never known a case of a bill of sale being registered, and then a postpone ment of the payment of the money—I have known of a case where no money has passed—then the bill was not taken off; the wrong man had been satisfied, and the parties put in execution—if the money did not pass the bill would be bad.

ALFRED ALLENBRO . I was Miss Parke's butler from April, 1895, to the end of June, 1896—Cleveland House was conducted as a home for persons of weak intellect—I first saw Evershed there the first week in May last—he was introduced by Mr. Arthur Parke—he visited the house several times; on two occasions stopping the night as a guest—a Mr. Westall came the first week in June—he seemed concerned in business with Evershed—he came to see him, and was there with him—

Mr. Jackson came on Tuesday, June 23rd—I saw him in communication with Mr. Everehed—Jackson and Evershed took an inventory of the goods in the house—Miss Parke took no part in taking the inventory—she was in one of the rooms upstairs, I believe—Miss Parke left the house on Saturday, June 27th,. between four and five p.m.; she said she was going to the seaside, and would return in a week's time—she did not return while I was there; I left on July 1st—Jackson came to the house on Monday, June 29th, about ten a.m.; he took a further list of the furniture—I saw him, with a book, taking down a list of the things in the house—he asked me for some keys, which I gave him—he had a woman with him—he stayed till two p.m.—the woman did not appear to be a lady; she walked about the house, and did not do anything in particular—she took charge of the plate; she had the keys of the cupboard—about eleven the next morning, the 30th, Mr. Arthur Parke discharged me, but I refused to go that day—he went away, and returned at six p.m. with Jackson and Evershed—Evershed suggested I should go that night, without any payment; I refused because it was late—it was about seven p.m.—I said I would go the next morning; I went the next morning—on that morning, July 1st,. Evershed came and paid the five servants, but nothing in lieu of notice—Evershed said on the Tuesday I should have to go and see him at his office; I went to see him on Thursday, July 2nd, but did not receive any wages from him then—on the Tuesday I had this paper, saying I should get them in the course of a few days. (Producedpaper, signed by Evershed, acknowledging that £2 4s. 3d. was due to witness for wages in lieu of notice.) On July 2nd Evershed said he could do nothing further until he had held a meeting of creditors—I called on him again on July 9th—he said it would be useless to call for a few more days, as there were some things to be sold, and until money was realised upon the furniture and goods he could not pay it—on July 2nd I saw one of Carter-Paterson's vans at Cleveland House—I saw a writing table and carpet removed into the van—the day Miss. Parke left she was not well, but, so far as I know, was not in bed—Evershed had been there on June 26th.

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. The house was for the reception of all patients desiring to go into a nursing home—they could be attended by their own doctors if they desired—there were doctors attached to the establishment who came to see patients: Dr. Sutton, Dr. Ferrier, Dr. Dunbar, and Dr. Rayner—the establishment was carried on from April,. 1895, till June, 1896—Arthur Parke, the brother, who introduced Mr. Evershed, lived in the house a considerable time before and after Miss Parke left—another brother, Mr. Arthur William Parke, was there some time—patients were in the house during the last week Miss Parke was there—when she left she took two of them with her—she did not tell me what seaside she was going to, but 'she went to Victoria Station—I heard her give that address—I had heard of the question of raising money about the time Mr. Evershed came—he generally came to see the brother and sister on business in the evening—afterwards, about June, an accountant, Mr. Rigby, came several evenings and examined the books—I saw Westall on one occasion, I believe in June, I would not say it was the 25th—Jackson came after Westall—I believe that was June 26th—Miss Parke seemed a great deal worried about her affairs about then

but not so as to keep her room—Arthur Parke was there, and a Miss Wyatt, a nurse—Miss Parke was gravely unwell the week before she left—she was in her room on June 26th; I was not aware she was ill—she may have dressed and come down to see Evershed—Eyershed said we should receive our wages, but not at first—I did not mention that before the Magistrate as coming from Evershed—on July 9th Evershed said there had been a small amount realised—the total amount paid to the five servants for wages was £17 12s. 9d.

Re-examined. When Miss Parke went away on June 27th, so far as 1 know, she left no address—Evershed came last to the house the following Tuesday—I left Mr. Arthur Parke in the house—I did not see anyone else there then—the house was closed after July 1st—I went to live with some friends near Brixton—I do not know where Mr. Arthur Parke went.

ALBERT CLOSSON . I am auction clerk to Messrs. Moss and Jameson, 77, Chancery Lane—Mr. Jackson called at the office about June 27th—some furniture was brought to our rooms in Chancery Lane on a Saturday in July—it might have been the 4th—this is the cheque which was given in payment (for £145, dated July 6th)—it is made payable to "George Westall, Esq."—I also produce the document "G" from Moss and Jameson. (Agreement with Westall, of July 3rd, to sell, and authority to remove, Miss Parke's furniture.) The furniture was afterwards sold by auction—I was not present, but that appears from the books.

Cross-examined by MR. JELF. I believe Jackson was employed by Westall—the furniture was removed by Messrs. Camp's people, regularly employed by Moss and Jameson to remove furniture—neither Evershed nor Parke had anything to do with the removal, so far as I know.

By the JURY. Mr. Jameson saw the furniture at the house, and saw the valuation—we paid the cheque to Westall.

JOSEPH SUTTON . I am a manufacturing jeweller, of 25, President Street, City—I know Evershed—looking at this bill of sale, filed on June 18th, I say I never advanced £400 to Gertrude Parke—I never went to Cleveland House to see the furniture, nor had a valuation made of it.

Cross-examined by MR. JELF. I told my story at the Police-court—a statutory declaration was placed in my hands—I have had business dealings with Evershed—I found him honourable and straightforward in them—he is a solicitor, about twenty-three years of age—I saw him about an advance about two days before the date of the bill of sale—he asked me if I was open to an investment of that kind, and offered as security the bill of sale on the furniture at Cleveland House, and a reversion in some property—he said there was a settlement—I think he showed me the settlement—he said Miss Parke and her two brothers had a reversionary interest in it, and that she and one of her brothers were prepared to make their two shares part of the security for the loan—I held out hopes that I would advance £400—Evershed had every reason to believe that I was going to lend him the money on the security of goods and furniture and (the reversionary interest—I made a stipulation that the bill of sale should be executed and registered before I parted with (the money—I thought more of the other security, but I wanted the two—Evershed seemed extremely anxious to get the money—the rate of interest was agreed at 5 or 6 per cent.—I believe he came on the 18th. but he

was to bring the bill of sale registered, and get the money—he brought it in the evening with a £1 stamp on it, to show that my condition was fulfilled—I read the articles of furniture from the bill of sale, and came to the conclusion that they would not fetch the money, which I declined to lend, as I thought it was not sufficient security—he seemed disappointed—he said he thought he could get another security, and I expressed a readiness to carry out the loan if he succeeded—when he called again he told me that Miss Parke and Mr. Arthur Parke did not think it right to involve the share of the other brother being tied up—in consequence of that extra security not being obtained I declined to make the loan—then Mr. Evershed was in this quandary, that he had the bill of sale filed, but had not got the money—he asked me, and I signed a release—he also asked me to make this statutory declaration of the facts. (This document was tendered, but objected to as being made by the witness, and that it was not material, but the witness was permitted to look at it to refresh his memory.) It is dated July 14th.

Re-examined. I never agreed to lend money on the security of the furniture alone—I understood from Evershed that the reversionary interest of Miss Parke was worth £200—it was worth more, but I believe there was another mortgage on it—the value I should get would be £200—I was not told of that mortgage on the 18th, I heard of it afterwards—I should have taken Mr. Evershed's word with. regard to the reversionary interest at the time, but should have made further inquiries afterwards—it must have been on the 18th I told him. I required further security than Miss Parke's reversionary interest, because it was on the 18th he brought the bill of sale, and I declined to lend the money—it was the second brother's, the invalid's, security I asked for—I wanted the security of the sister and the two brothers; the whole of the reversionary interest—Evershed said he could not get Mr. William Parke's share—I thought it was safer to have the deed registered, before I parted with the money—he said it would have to be registered, and I said, "Better have it registered and complete before I part with the money"'—I did not at first say anything about having the bill, registered; I did not know whether it would be registered or not—I cannot remember the exact conversation; we were talking more about the furniture—it is six months ago that I signed this document of July 1st—Mr. Evershed read a few lines before I signed it (the release)—I have employed Evershed in some little matters.

MARY LOUISE LANGFORD . I am the proprietress of 14 and 15, Upper Bedford Place, Russell Square, a boarding house—Mr. Evershed has resided there nearly two years—he has a business-plate on the door—Mr. George Westall has resided there for the last eighteen months, going away at intervals and returning.

Cross-examined by MR. JELF. Westall was away a great deal—his business address is St. Stephen's Chambers, Telegraph Street, Moorgate Street.

Re-examined. At one time I believe Evershed's offices were with Westall's, at St. Stephen's Chambers.

HENRY LOMAS . I am clerk to Messrs. Wilkinson and Howlett, solicitors—on July 3rd my firm sent this letter to Evershed by post—it is my writing. (Inquiring the position of Miss Parke's affairs.)

Cross-examined by MR. JELF. We received Evershed's letter to our firm, dated July 14th, with an enclosure—I had not seen the enclosure before the letter arrived—I was at the Police-court, but not till the second hearing. (Letter read enclosing Statutory Declaration, and stating; "I attended at your office at 1.30 to day with Statutory Declaration of J. E, Sutton, and was also prepared to give a full explanation. I was requested by your clerk to go with him to meet your Mr. Wilkinson, who has charge of this matter, and on meeting him he said he was on his way to the Police-court, and refused to receive an explanation in the presence of a third party.") That was the first day after these proceedings commenced—Sutton was called the day I was at the Police-court, and when Evershed was committed for trial—I have glanced through the depositions—I have read them—I have discovered no variance in that evidence and the evidence given to-day—I believe the Declaration was read before the Magistrate.

Evidence for Everthed.

GEORGE WESTALL . I am a surveyor and value—I have been in business twenty-eight years, fifteen years in the City—I produce business papers—I have known him about eighteen months—when in London I live at Langford's boarding-house—I have also a place in the country—Evershed also lived at Langford's—I first met him there—on June 25th Evershed asked me if I would make an advance upon some household furniture and a reversionary interest belonging to Miss Parke—I said of course I could not say anything unless I saw the property—he asked me if I would go to Miss Parke's house that night—I got there about seven p.m.—I looked over the furniture in the house—I did not care for it, and I told Miss Parke that there was not sufficient value to suit me, so I must decline to lend—I had been asked to advance about £400 or £450—I was made to understand that money was badly wanted in order to pay the servants their wages—I then said that although the business was rather out of my way, I would buy the furniture if Miss Parke agreed to sell it, so that she might have some money to go on with—the next day Evershed came to me, and said that Miss Parke felt that she must sell the furniture—I said I would buy it; I would send over and have it valued, and act accordingly—I sent Mr. Jackson, a value, who made a detailed valuation, and reported to me on the night of the 26th—this (produced) is the valuation, with my note on the back—it is so carefully made that the people who bought the goods lost money over them—the amount arrived at, article by article, is £152 6s. 6d., valued as they stood—I inquired, and was told selling the goods on the premises was disallowed, or else more money could have been given for them—there was a covenant in the lease against it—Jackson advised me as to what I could safely give for them—the difference would have been considerable if the goods could have been sold on the premises, more than 30 per cent.—I told Miss Parke if I bought the furniture it would be at a price upon which I was going to make a profit—I did what I believe is usual, deducted one-third, and made an offer of £100 for it to Evershed—he asked me £110, and eventually I agreed to give him £105, which I did—all this took place at my private address, and I had not my cheque book, so I drew two cheques, one for £30 and the other for £75, on plain paper (cheque produced), on my bank at Northampton,

where I have a place of business—this cheque for £30 is dated June 29th, and cashed June 30th, 1896—I was about to leave for South Wales in the morning, and left the cheques with Jackson for him to deal with, and with instructions for him to pay Evershed a deposit of £30 the next day and get his receipt—I ran that risk because I could not have possession of the goods so soon—the other cheque he was to pay over as soon as we had possession—when I came back to town on July 2nd or 3rd Evershed changed my plain cheque for an ordinary draft in proper form, which was passed through the bank in the usual way. (Cheque produced for. £75.) It is on the City Bank—I never heard of the sale to Jameson till the finish—the purchase by me was out-and-out—so was the sale to Jameson—not any reservation.

Cross-examined by MR. MATHEWS. The first cheque is dated June 27th—I heard of the bill of sale on the night I bought the furniture—Evershed told me it was taken off the file—that was the reason I gave my cheque to Jackson, because it was made a condition that the bill of sale should be got out of existence if it was not so—these are the receipts for the £30 and the balance, £75. (Two receipts produced.) I was at Henley Regatta on the day Moss and Jameson paid me this cheque for the furniture—on July 6th—I knew Jackson was selling the furniture to Moss and Jameson—I gave him instructions to sell it as he liked, privately if he could, or I intended to sell it by auction, when I should lose by it—I think he told me the price he was getting—I knew he would carry out the sale without bothering me—I daresay I was consulted; probably on the 6th, the day of the sale; there was no mystery about the transaction, only the lies you have told. (This was apologized for.) There was no reason, so far as I know, why Evershed should not have disclosed the transaction—I did not desire him to keep it back; I had nothing to hide—the prosecution sent me a subpoena, but were afraid to call me—I was present at the Police-court on your subpoena—I was requested by the defendants to give evidence at the Police-court—I was not called I was there for the purpose—I made an offer for the furniture on July 3rd—I do not know when Moss and Jameson made their offer; I have no reason to think it was not the 3rd—we took possession—Jackson took it away, and delivered it to Moss and Jameson, and received their receipt—I cannot tell you whether it was Jackson, but he is here—I do not know under whose instructions the goods were removed from Cleveland House.

JOSEPH JACKSON . I am assistant to Mr. Westall—I was instructed by him to go to Cleveland House and make this valuation of the furniture on June 26th (produced)—I worked out the figures and made the schedule I valued it at £151—I received instructions from Mr. Westall to sell the furniture—I went to Moss and Jameson on the Saturday, and asked them what they would offer for it; they offered £135 a few days afterwards, which I refused—they sprang to £145, which I sold at—it was a bond fide deal, without having anything to do with Miss Parke.

Cross-examined. I am not aware that I suggested to Moss and Jameson that they should remove the goods at night—I have no recollection of the conversation—I was in a hurry to go to Northampton—I could not get the money till they were delivered—Mr. Jameson stipulated that I should deliver them before I got the money—I was cognisant of the fact that the

goods were to be removed at once—I closed the bargain with Moss and Jameson about 3.30, and Mr. Jameson sent an order for the vans to go for them at once—I did not know Miss Parke was in difficulties, but I naturally presumed there must be some reason for selling the furniture—the sale to Westall was not completed until Evershed was enabled to give me the goods—I took possession on July 3rd by knowing that I could remove the goods—I gave Evershed the second cheque on July 2nd.

Evidence for Gertrude Parke.

DOCTOR RAYNER , M.D. I am a member of the Royal College of Physicians—I practise in Harley Street—I am a lecturer on mental diseases at St. Thomas's Hospital—I hold two or three other appointments—I have known Miss Parke several years—she had a nursing home at Streatham, and afterwards at Clapham Park—I visited Cleveland House, of which she was the head—I have seen patients there from time to time.

The Defendants mere admitted to have borne a high character.


Before Mr. Recorder.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-47
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

47. JOHN BISHOP (33) PLEADED GUILTY to unlawfully obtaining from Percy Arthur Revell a revolver and other articles by false pretences.— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-48
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

48. JOHN COOPER , to feloniously marrying Sally Levfeare, his wife being then alive. The second wife stated that she was in the family-way wlien the prisoner married her, and that he had behaved kindly to her.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Judgment Respited.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-49
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

49. ANNIE OSBORNE (20) , to forging and uttering a notice of withdrawal of 12s. from a deposit account in the Post Office Savings Bank; also to forging and uttering a receipt for 12s.— [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] Judgment Respited . And

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-50
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

50. HENRY HARVEY (16), WILLIAM HUGHES (16) and THOMAS MARTIN (16) , to burglary in the dwelling-house of Charles Harwood, and stealing a gun. [Pleaded Guilty: See original trial image.] The prisoners were admitted to bail, with an intimation that if the Court should be satisfied by the constable in charge of the case, that their fathers had given them a sound flogging, they would not be sent to prison.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-51
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

51. WILLIAM WYE (20) and EVAN HOWARD (20) , Burglary in the dwelling-house of Arthur Samuel Dark, and stealing a razor and other articles, his property.

MR. PENRYN Prosecuted.

ARTHUR SAMUEL DARK . I am a hairdresser at Chobham Road, Woking—I live on the premises—on Wednesday night, October 21st, I fastened my doors immediately after eleven o'clock, before retiring—about ten or fifteen minutes after, I heard a noise; I entered the shop, and I saw some persons passing the door, but not sufficient for me to recognise them—I was aroused in the morning by a neighbour, and found that my window had been broken; it was forced inwards, and I missed some razors, perfumes, and other articles—I immediately gave I notice to the police—the size of my window was seven feet six by seven—the piece that was broken out was two feet six—I have since seen some of the articles that were taken—Police Constable Lucas had them, and I recognized them as the things stolen from my shop.

WILLIAM ROBERT LUCAS (Surrey Constabulary). On October 22nd I was informed of the prosecutor's shop being broken into in Chobham Road, Woking, and at nine p.m. I met the prisoner Wye in Chertsey

Road, Woking—I said to him, "Where were, you last night?—he replied, "I don't know where I slept"—I said, "What time did you get there?"—he said, "At half-past ten, and I then went to work at labouring, and at a quarter-past six I came to Wheatsheaf Bridge"—I said, "Did you see anyone pass by?"—he said, "Yes, I met Evan Howard at the Red Lion, where we now stand, and we went to Chertsey Road"—I told him there had been a shop broken into in Chobham Road during the night—he said, "I did not do it) and I would not toll of anyone"—I took down the words he. said in my pocket-book, about ten minutes afterwards—I said, "I believe you know all about it"—he then said, "Howard broke the window, opened it with his knife, took out the razor strop, some scent, and bottles of stuff; he got into the window with a bull's-eye lantern; I held a pair of boots for him, and watched whilst he got in the window and took the walkingstick, Which I took from him on his getting out"—I afterwards said, "Come back and show me the shop, and how it was done," which he did, and pointed to the rack, where the walking-stick was taken from—he then said, "It was not done this morning; it was done last night, about half-past eleven"—I then charged him with burglariously entering the shop of Mr. Dark—next day, at twelve p.m., I took Howard—I told him what Wye had said—he said, "It's a lie; I know nothing about it; I have not seen Wye since I last saw him in Wandsworth Prison"—none of the stolen property was found on either prisoner—I produce the things which have been identified by the prosecutor, also three articles identified by Edward Robins, whose shop was also broken into on the night of the 19th—the whole of these things were found at Inkerman Barracks, with other property, for which two soldiers are awaiting their trial at the next Sessions—I was present when the prisoners were charged before the Magistrate—Wye made no reply to the charge; Howard said, "I know nothing about it."

The RECORDER held that there was no evidence against Howard, and directed the JURY to find him



He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of an indecent assault, and other convictions for misdemeanour were proved against him.— Nine Months' Hard Labour.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-52
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

52. JOSEPH HENRY GRIFFITHS, Unlawfully assaulting Kelly Goodall, with intent to ravish her.


16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-53
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

53. MARY WARD, Burglary in the dwelling-house of Alfred Boyes, with intent to steal.

ALFRED BOYES . I am a labourer, of 13, Devonshire Street, Newington Causeway—on the night of October 22nd I locked up my house—I sleep on the ground floor—at 1.30 I heard someone tampering with the front door, and then heard them pass my door and go upstairs—I put my trousers and boots on, and directly I opened my door a man and woman rushed out—I followed the woman about two yards behind into Newington Causeway, and took her in custody—she had got in with a key

—nothing was stolen that time, but the house has been broken into three times in the same way—I went to the station and she was charged.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I am sure' it was you, I was only two yards behind you, and you said, "Don't you put your hands on me,"

By the COURT. There were three lodgers in the house besides me; I occupy the whole of the ground floor—the kitchen is on the ground floor—two old gentlemen, very asthmatical, live on the first floor, and Tull occupies the top floor—there is no young man who might bring a prostitute home—I followed the prisoner out of the house; she did not run, she walked fast—I followed her about twenty-five yards, and did not lose sight of her, but I did not put my hand on her in case she might say something—one of the latch-keys has been lost.

JASHMAN PICKUP (85 M). On the morning of October 23rd the prisoner was given into my custody in Newington Causeway—she was walking, and the last witness was following; he charged her with being in his house—I went back, and examined the door; there were no marks, and nothing was stolen—he first accused her of being in the passage of his house with a man; he suggested that she had been there for immoral purposes—I have known her two or three years as an unfortunate woman, coming home in the small hours of the morning—we arrived at the station at about 1.20, and that was about twenty minutes after I took her in custody, and had a conversation, and examined the premises.

SAMUEL SMITH . I am employed in the Post Office, and lodge at 13, Devonshire Street—Boyes is in the Post Office with me—I heard the door slammed, but did not go downstairs.

Evidence for the Defence.

WILLIAM BROWN (172 M). On October 23rd I passed the prisoner on the pavement in Newington Causeway, about 1.6, 300 or 400 yards from this house—I was on fixed point duty, and was relieved at one o'clock—I saw her again in charge at the station at 1.30 or 1.35—I did not see the prisoner on this night, but Boyes told me the next morning that he had had a tussle with two men, and knocked one down, and the other escaped—he tells untruths, and I would not believe him on his oath.

RICHARD GEORGE BODY . I am a postman—Boyes told me the next morning, at the G. P. O., where he has been a porter for fourteen years, that he took a woman into the house for immoral purposes, and the porter begged and prayed him not to tell anyone for fear he should get into trouble—I would not believe him on his oath, and I can bring witnesses to prove it.

WILLIAM GENTLE (Detective Sergeant M). I only speak to the prisoner's antecedents; she is an unfortunate, but her character is good, and there has never been any charge made against her.


16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-54
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

54. THEODORE JOHN LUDWIG HAFFNER (36) , Feloniously marrying Ada Moir Biggs, his wife being alive.

MR. GRAZEBROOK Prosecuted.

ANNIE HATTO . I am the wife of Charles Hatto, a milk carrier, of North Kensington—on February 14th, 1883, I was present when my sister in-law was married to the prisoner—I visited them after their marriage at Windmill Street, Fitzroy Square; they lived there, and at other places; I cannot remember down to when, because she left him several times; the

last time was four and a-half years ago—she came to me with a black eye last time, and complained of his treatment—she did not remain with me; she took apartments—she has not lived with him for four and a-half years—I met him about three years ago, near my house; he asked me where his wife was; I said that she did not wish him to know, and that she was alive and well; he said that he was very glad she was all right—I do not know who gave him in custody—this is the certificate (produced)—she was present at the Police-court.

ADA MARIA BIGGS . I live at 7, Marshall's Buildings, Webber Street, Blackfriars Road, and am a folder and presser—on August 17th this year I went through the ceremony of marriage with the prisoner—I had known him eighteen months—he said that his wife had been dead six years—this is the certificate of our marriage; he is described on it as a widower—I would not have married him had I known that he had a wife alive—he treated me very badly—I lived with him eight weeks—I left him on September 20th at three a.m.—he drinks on Saturdays, and is drunk on Sundays—I got a warrant for his arrest.

Cross-examined. I did not leave you because you had not enough money—I had not connection with him before I married him.

FREDERICK GRAY (Detective Sergeant L) On November 6th I arrested the prisoner at the King Lud public-house, Ludgate Circus; he said that he did not know his wife was alive.

The Prisoner produced a written defence, stating that he met kit wife at an immoral house, and took her and her child; that she left him, and he really believed the was dead, as he had sent two letters to her parents.

GUILTY .— Six Years' Penal Servitude.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-55
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

55. MARCUS PARRY (18) , forging and uttering a request for the delivery of certain glass, with intent to defraud.

WILLIAM CHARLES HENRY GEORGE STAGEY . I live at 45, Basel Road, Nunhead, and am manager to Mr. Ridley, a picture-frame maker—on October 24th the prisoner gave me this letter: "Dear Sir,—Kindly let bearer have glass to measurement enclosed, for George Ackerman"—I gave him glass, value 13s. 1d., and said I would send the rest in the morning—I have seen the goods since at Romford Road, where the prisoner lodged—I know the Dun Cow, but do not know the landlord's name.

HENRY ROBERT ACKERMAN . I keep the Dun Cow, 279, Old Kent Road—the prisoner's father lives opposite—I did not write this letter—my initials are not F. Ackerman—I do not know who wrote it—I have absolutely nothing to do with it, and did not authorize anybody to write it.

WILLIAM SMITH (Detective M). I saw the prisoner a little time ago, and spoke to him on matters not connected with this charge; he said, "I will make a clean breast of it; I went to Ridley's, and got glass and putty with a forged order."

Prisoner's Defence: I did not do it with the intention of defrauding; I intended to pay.

GUILTY .— Six Months' Hard Labour. There was another indictment against him.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-56
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

56. JAMES ALDERTON, Unlawfully writing and publishing a false, malicious, and scandalous libel of and concerning Timothy Vincent Reardon.

MR. LYNCH Prosecuted, and MR. ORMSBY Defended.

During the progress of the case the Prisoner stated in the hearing of the JURY that he was guilty, and thereupon they found him

GUILTY.— Judgment Respited.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-57
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceCorporal > whipping; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

57. WILLIAM LUCAS (17) , Robbery with violence upon John King, and stealing from his person 14s. 6d., his money.

MR. SELLS Prosecuted.

JOHN KING . I am a navey—I have no fixed place of abode—I lodge wherever I can find work—on Saturday, October 31st, I was seeking lodgings late at night—I inquired of the prisoner, who was near the Crown and Thistle public-house, if he could direct me to some lodgings—I followed him in the direction he indicated—it was about 10.45 p.m.—I was attacked by four men—I can only speak to the prisoner and another man not in custody—they attacked me, knocked me down, ill-used me, and took all the money I had, 14s. 6d.—I was hit from behind; I had two black eyes, and my knees were all skinned—I was kicked with a light boot, or it would have done me more material damage—two of the men ran one way, and two the other—the prisoner doubled back again—I gave information to the police immediately—I afterwards saw the prisoner, and gave him into custody—there is electric light near the Crown and Thistle, and the light from the public-house shows quite plain.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. When I asked you to direct me, it was five or ten minutes to eleven p.m.—I saw you with one other man at the public-house, and you directed me to Hatton's lodging-house, and when we were on a piece of waste ground you and your companions attacked me, knocked me down, and used me brutally.

By the COURT. The prisoner was brought to me about a quarter of an hour after I was robbed, or it might have been a little more; I could not tell to five minutes—I identified him at once.

FRANK GRAY (92 N). On October 31st last I was in Thames Street, Kingston, when the prosecutor came to me and made a complaint of having been robbed by a man he described to me—that was about eleven p.m.—I saw the prisoner about 11.10 or 11.15—I recognized him by the description given to me—he was standing outside a public-house in Thames Street—I told him I should take him into custody on suspicion of being concerned with other men in robbing a man—he said, "I do not know anything about it; I was with three girls, and I can prove it"—I did not see any girls—when the prosecutor came up he said, "That is one of the men"—he was taken to the station and charged—twopence was found on him—both his knees were covered with fresh mud—the prisoner said, "It is not mud, it is rubbed"—his trousers were worn at the knees—I looked again, and have no doubt it was mud.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. When you were committed for trial I said, "It is certainly rubbed a little"—I did not say it was not mud, nor that I knew the four men, and would arrest them directly I saw them.

By the COURT. The knees of the prisoner's trousers were rubbed, and more on the right than the left.

JAMES HERRING . I live at 2, Oaklea Passage, St. James's Road, Kingston—on Saturday night, October 31st, I was in the Crown and Thistle public-house about nine p.m.—I saw the prisoner in the middle of the road, talking with three other men of the same class—as I came by I heard him say, "Do not budge an inch."

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I had come out of the private bar.

Witnesses for the Defence.

ELIZABETH CROUCHER . I am a domestic servant, of 10, Thames Street, Kingston—I was with that young man (the prisoner) from eight p.m. to 11.15 p.m.—I ought to have been in at 10.30 p.m.—I left him at the corner of Thames Street, about two minutes' walk—he said he would wait five minutes and see if I got in all right, so that I should not be molested before I got home—I know the time because my mistress said, "A nice time this to get in, it is a quarter-past eleven"—I first heard the prisoner was in trouble in the morning, when the police came—they asked if I had been with the young man all the evening, and I said, "No," because I had told my mistress I had been with my mother—I told her on the Saturday night—when the police came the next morning, to make the words true to my mistress I said, "No"—this is the truth.

Cross-examined. I did not say at the Police-court that I met the prisoner at seven o'clock—my stepfather's name was Legan—it was the other girl, Elizabeth Croucher, who was with him at seven o'clock—when the gentleman said, "You were with him from seven o'clock, "I said, "No, eight o'clock"—I told the policeman I did not know a man named Lucas at all, because I was supposed to make out I had not been with Lucas—I was walking with Lucas—we were all four together all the evening; this young man with me, and another young woman with another young man—the other couple left me about 10.30—all four had been together since eight o'clock—I left the prisoner near the Crown and Thistle public-house—I was near the Fairfield at 10.45, about half a mile from the Crown and Thistle, bat I could not judge the distance—we were all round the town together—I told the truth in the evening.

AMELIA ELIZA SAVAGE . I live at 9, Union Street, Kingston—I am a laundress—I met the prisoner about seven o'clock, and walked round the town with him; and left him near the Fairfield Tavern before eleven o'clock—I cannot remember how much before eleven—I welt straight home—it was about a quarter of an hour's walk.

By the Prisoner. We went down the lane about ten o'clock—not very far—we stopped, not very long—then came back—then you left us—Grey spoke to my mother; I cannot tell you what mother said, but Grey said something about nine o'clock, but I did not leave you at nine o'clock.

The Prisoner's Defence: I beg your pardon, gentlemen; the prosecutor has made a mistake. I had nothing to do with it. If I knew who it was I should say so. I should have said so at first. He knows he has made a mistake. He says I took 14s. 6d.; I had on me only twopence. How could a little fellow like me knock a big fellow like him down? He is swearing my life away. I know nothing about it.

GUILTY .—He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at

Kingston-on-Thames on October 8th, 1894.— Twelve Strokes with the Cat and Eighteen Months' Hard Labour.



Before Mr. Justice Hawkins.

16th November 1896
Reference Numbert18961116-58
VerdictMiscellaneous > postponed

Related Material

58. MARIA SELINA ELIZABETH SCOTT(LADY SCOTT) , JOHN COCKERTON (38), FREDERICK KAST (24), and WILLIAM AYLOTT, Unlawfully publishing a false and defamatory libel of and concerning John Francis Stanley , Earl Russell.

The Prisoners PLEADED NOT GUILTY, and handed in a plea of justification.

SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD, Q.C., MR. C. W. MATHEWS and MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS Prosecuted; MR. LAWSON WALTON, Q.C., MR. GEOGHEGAH and MR. LOWENTHAL Defended Maria Selina Elizabeth Scott; and MR. MARSHALL HALL, and MR. E. PERCIVAL CLARKE Defended Cockerton Kast and Aylott.

The libel and the plea of justification charged Earl Russell with committing acts of indecency.

At the sitting of the Court on Monday November 30th, the sixth day of the trial, Dr. Scottt the Surgeon to Holloway Prison, deposed that Kast was suffering from inflammation of the lungs, and that it would endanger his life to briny him to Court, and thereupon the trial was postponed in Monday, December 7th. Upon December, 7th the trial was further post poned to January 4th, 1897.

View as XML