Old Bailey Proceedings.
5th March 1906
Reference Number: t19060305

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
5th March 1906
Reference Numberf19060305

Related Material

1906, MARCH.

Vol. CXLIV.] [Part 857.


Sessions Paper.







Shorthand Writer to the Court.





[Published by Annual Subscription.]







On the King's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Monday, March 5th, 1906, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir WILLIAM GRANTHAM , Knight, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir JOSEPH SAVORY , Bart.; Sir GEORGE F. FAUDEL PHILLIPS, Bart., G.C.I.E.; Sir JAMES THOMSON RITCHIE , Bart., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; FREDERICK PRAT ALLISTON , Esq., HOWARD CARLILE MORRIS, Esq., and FRANCIS STANHOPE HANSON , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; FREDERICK ALBERT BOSANQUET , Esq., K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; His Honour Judge LUMLEY SMITH , K.C., Commissioner, and His Honour Judge RENTOUL, K.C., Commissioner, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.











OLD COURT; Monday, 5th March.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

TEACHER, Solomon Charles (48, traveller); found guilty at last Sessions of stealing candlesticks and other property of Elsie Trevor, and feloniously receiving same. Police stated that since last Sessions all the stolen property had been recovered. Sentence, ten months' hard labour.

SPEYER, Christian (55, stick maker), pleaded guilty at last Sessions to feloniously attempting to discharge a loaded pistol at Albert Clarke with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

DR. SCOTT, Medical Officer of Brixton Prison. I have kept prisoner under observation since last Sessions; have not detected any signs of insanity;, he is excitable and impulsive, suffers from bronchitis and asthma, and his hearing is defective; he is under the impression that last Sessions he pleaded guilty only to charge of assault.

Prisoner released on his own recognisances in £250 to come up for judgment if called upon.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-3
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

CLACK, William (55, labourer), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Margaret Sybilla Woodward, his wife being then alive.

MARGARET SYBILLA WOODWARD . I went through the form of marriage with prisoner on June 18th, 1889, at St. Philip's, Kensington; lived with him from that time till three weeks ago. His first wife is now dead.

Prisoner stating that he intended now to marry Woodward, he was released on his own recognisances in £100 to appear next Sessions.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-4
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

GRANVILLE, Henry (27, clerk) : Forging and uttering a request for the delivery of certain boxes of cigars and cigarettes, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Nicholson prosecuted.

DAVID SCHISKA , wholesale tobacconist, 181, Westminster Bridge Road. On February 20 last prisoner brought me a note purporting to come from the South London Institute for the Blind, and to be signed by Mr. Beavan, ordering two boxes 100 each, Havana cigars. I gave prisoner the goods. In the evening he came back and said that the same gentleman (Beavan) would like 100 mixed cigarettes. I gave him these My suspicions were aroused, and I sent my agent, Isaacs, after prisoner. Isaacs brought him back to my shop. Prisoner said he would go to the Blind Institution with us to prove that Beavan was there. Prisoner, Isaacs, and I started for the Institution. Close to a dark turning near the Canterbury Music Hall, prisoner bolted. Isaacs pursued; prisoner ran into the arms of two policemen. The cigars I gave prisoner I value at £3 15s.

JOSEPH ISAACS , employed by last witness. On February 20th, in the evening, prisoner came to our shop and said Mr. Beavan liked so much the cigars he had had that he wanted a sample box of cigarettes as well. While Mr. Schiska was packing the cigarettes prisoner's demeanour aroused my suspicions; and on his leaving I fallowed him. I insisted on his coming back to our shop; he resisted, and kicked me on the leg; there was a tussle; he broke the dial of my watch. Ultimately I got him inside the shop. He said he would accompany Schiska and me to the Institution to tee Beavan. He had with him a parcel which he said belonged to Beavan and was worth three times as much as these cigars. He wished to leave the parcel with Schiska. I insisted that he should bring it with us to Beavan. Schiska, prisoner, and I started for the Institution; I was slightly behind prisoner and Schiska. Just after pasting the Canterbury Music. Hall, prisoner gave Schiska a shove, and bolted. I followed, blowing a police whistle, and prisoner ran into the arms of two constables.

EDWARD BAKER , licensed victualler,"Pitt's Head," Old Bailey. In February prisoner, whom I had not known before, came to me about arranging for a dinner for a club. He left with me a dressing case. I lent him a sovereign. A little later in the day he called and took away the dressing case and left me some cigars; the box produced it the box he left with me.

W. N. BUTTON,"appeal" clerk to the Blind Institution. Mr. Beavan is treasurer of the institution. I know his handwriting. Note produced (handed by prisoner to Schiska) is not in Beavan's handwriting. Prisoner has no connection whatever with the Institution.

HAROLD CHANDLER (P.C., 306, L.). On 20th February, on duty at 10.30 p.m., heard a police whistle, saw prisoner running, and stopped him. He had a parcel under his arm. He said "I'm done." On the way to station he said: "I was outside St. Paul's Station and a man I have seen three or four

times stopped me and told me to take this note to this place in Westminster Bridge Road and leave the parcel, but I do not know what there is in it, and bring the cigarettes back to me against the Eye Hospital, Waterloo Road."

PRISONER (not on oath). About a fortnight before my arrest I was living in a lodging house in the City. There a man, who said he was agent for sixteen firms, told me he would find me work. He said he had smashed his hand in a railway carriage and could not write. He sent me to various places to order different things. One day he said that one of his young governors in Salisbury Square was going to get married, and the clerks and others had subscribed for a present to him; afterwards he said a dinner was to be given, and asked me to suggest a place. I had been to a club dinner in the Old Bailey, and suggested that place. Later, this man said he had to get some cigars for Mr. Beavan, of the Blind Institution; that Mr. Beavan wished the order to go in his own name. At the man's request I signed it in the name of Beavan. I met the man outside St. Paul's Station; he told me to get the cigars and take them to Mr. Beavan, and he would meet me in half an hour. I went for the cigars, and the story of prosecutor and Isaacs as to what happened is correct. The man I refer to is not here. I gave the detective the best information I could to find him, but the detective has not found him. I did not obtain these goods by false pretences. When I said "I'm done," I was referring to being arrested; I have never been in that position before.

Verdict, Guilty. Fifteen months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-5
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WILLIAMS, Alfred (35, tailor), and LEEKE, Ernest (61, tailor) . Both, stealing four tea cloths, property of Alfred Crampton and others, and feloniously receiving game.

Leeke pleaded guilty; Williams pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Bodkin prosecuted.

JAMES BROWN , Detective, City Police. I was in Cheapside with Detective Anderton at 20 minutes to one on 16th February; saw prisoners together. They were in conversation, walking towards the west end of Cheapside. We followed them to the corner of St Paul's Churchyard. They went down Paternoster Row through Canon Alley into St. Paul's Church-yard, walked up St. Martin's-le-Grand together, then turned suddenly back, walked down Paternoster Row through into St. Paul's Churchyard, where they got again into deep conversation. Leeke then walked off, followed shortly behind by Williams. They walked round St. Paul's Churchyard into Godliman Street. Near No. 7, Godliman Street Leeke said something to Williams. Leeke entered No. 7. Godliman Street, Messrs. Doubleday's, silk merchants. Leeke was inside a few minutes; it might have been about seven minutes. We had

followed them eight or nine minutes before Leeke entered that place. When Leeke went in Williams was walking up and down watching the premises and also watching up and down the street. Then Leeke came out, and walked hurriedly up Godliman Street to St. Paul's Churchyard. Williams followed shortly after, very slowly. They got to the corner of St. Paul's Churchyard, when Williams looked down Godliman Street again. They seemed undecided. They were in deep conversation. Then they made their way along St. Paul's Churchyard, through Old Change into Cheapside, and down Cheapside, where Leeke entered the premises Nos. 17 to 21, Williams stood on the corner smoking a cigarette watching earnestly up the yard. It is a kind of yard-way to a number of offices. Also he could see up and down Cheapside. Shortly afterwards Leeke came out and walked down Cheapside. Williams stood on the corner of the court and then walked down Cheapside a bit, came back again to see if he was followed, and walked down and joined Leeke. They both walked together down Cheapside to No. 50, Messrs. Copestake's. Leeke went in leaving Williams outside watching. He was in there some short time, came out hurriedly, and was walking up Cheapside, Williams joining him when they were arrested. They were in conversation then. They were taken to police station and there Anderton took out of Leeke's inside pocket four linen cloths. When charged at station Williams made no reply. I took Leeke to the station and Anderton took Williams. That day was the first I had seen them.

Cross-examined by Williams: Anderton and I approached you and arrested both of you. Anderton took hold of you and I walked with Leeke. I did not hear any conversation between you and Anderton. It is hard to answer whether, if I were waiting for a friend, I should not watch if I did not want to miss him. When I said you turned back to see if you were followed, I meant it appeared so to me. I did not go to you at the station and say I had known Leeke for a good many years.

ALFRED ANDERTON , Detective, City Police. I was in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's Churchyard on the 15th February about ten minutes or a quarter to one. I noticed Williams with Leeke, whom I have known for seven years. They were in deep conversation and walking about the various streets in the vicinity. I did not see them enter any premises, but they went into the doorways and looked down at the plates. I had them under observation about half an hour, when I lost sight of them. On the 16th I was there with Brown. I saw Williams and Leeke in Cheapside. We followed them down Cheapside, and through various streets and courts in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's Churchyard. Eventually I saw Leeke go into Messrs. Copestake's premises. Williams was

standing outside, watching the door. When Leeke came out he walked up Cheapside a little way. Williams stood watching the door and eventually joined him, when we arrested them. When I arrested Williams he said, "What is this for?" and resisted very violently before I could tell him who I was or what my business was. I said, "You will be charged with the other man (whom I know at Luck) with frequenting various streets for the purpose of committing a felony." I noticed that Luck was rather bulky on the left side. When I got to the station I put my hand in hit pocket and pulled out these four cloths, since identified by Messrs. Copestake. When I said to Williams that he would be charged with Luck he said, "I have only walked round with him." I took him to the station. He made no reply to the charge. Williams heard what Leeke said when I was questioning him about the cloths, and he made no remark. I said to Leeke,"Where did you get these from?" and he said, "The last place I was in." I said, "You mean in Cheapside?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Do you mean Messrs. Copestake's?" He said, "Yes, that's it." I said, "How did you get them?" He smiled and said, "I stole them." He has now pleaded guilty. Williams did not say a word when his friend said that.

Cross-examined by Williams: After I told you who I was and what I was going to do you walked quietly and said, "All right." I had another officer there in the meantime, a uniformed officer, to help me. I took you by the shoulder first I would not have struggled as you did though I had been seized as I seized you. I told you what was the reason. You walked quietly when an officer got hold of you on the other side as well as myself. I told you at the cell gate that I had seen you the previous day. I asked if I could make any inquiries about your character and you said no. When you were in the cell I asked you who the third man was. I gave evidence about that at the Police Court. I do not remember saying at the station that I saw you with a parcel. I said nothing about a parcel. You never said anything about my having made a mistake about the day previous.

JOHN CARTER , third salesman in the linen department of Messrs. Copestake and Co., 50, Cheapside. Mr. Alfred Crampton is one of the partners. In the warehouse there are a number of piles of all kinds of things, materials of cloth, linen, cotton, etc. On February 16th we had a pile of tea cloths in our establishment like those produced. I recognise them as being exactly similar to those we had in the shop. I remember Leeke coming in and speaking to me on the 16th February. In consequence of what he said I left him to speak to one of my superiors, and then came back to him. He then left the premises.

Williams's statement before the magistrate."I knew nothing about what this man was going to do. He never told me. I

met him about a fortnight ago. I told him I was out of employment, and would be glad if he could do something. He said he would see a friend and he might be able to get me something to do. I went with him. I went into no place. I had no dealings with the things at all. I knew nothing until we got to the station."

PRISONER (not on oath). I met Luck about a fortnight before I got into this trouble with him. I removed some boxes for him, and after I had done so he asked me if I was in regular employment. I told him No, and I should be very pleased to get some. He said he was a ladies' tailor and costumier, and had been in a large way of business; he knew a good many friends, and would try and get me something to do if I would go for a walk with him. He would see someone and get me something to do. I went with him three different days, not following days. One day I met him, and he said he was going somewhere and he might see a friend who might be able to get me some employment. He told me nothing about that he would do anything wrong, and I perfectly innocently went with him, not thinking he would do anything like that. I had nothing to do with the things. I knew no more that he had the things about him than any stranger in the street until we got to the station. I had no dealings with regard to stealing or receiving with him. The only thing I can do is to call upon him to speak the truth about it and say if I do know anything about it. That is all I can say on the charge brought against me. There has been no evidence to say that I know anything about it. I know myself to be innocent of the charge.

ERNEST LEEKE , examined by Williams. When you removed the boxes for me I asked if you were in regular employment, and said I would see some friends of mine and see if I could get you something to do. You asked me whether I could put you on some trouser-pressing or trouser-making. I said "Yes, I happen to know some people."

By the Court. I met Williams in Percy Street, Tottenham Court Road, in a lodging-house, about four weeks ago. I went into the City and Leman Street and wanted to get him a job to do. I met one or two, but they were not busy at that time of the year, and said I should call again. That was on February 16th. I had been out with him two or three days, I think. I was with him some considerable period on the day before, about three hours, seeking work. I went to the German Bank. I told him I had to go to the City to the German Bank, to get a letter for relief. I went to Copestake's to get some linen patterns for a lady. She owed me 16s. and could not pay me. Williams knew nothing about my helping myself to these things. He knew nothing of my intentions or my acts.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin. At one time I had a place of business in Langham Place. If I get anything to do now I

go to a place I know to do it. This year I have worked at a place in Wigmore Street. I also worked at home, where I was staying, in Upper Charlotte Street. I met Williams in a lodging-house in Percy Street. The boxes he removed belonged to a lady. They were clothes boxes. My hand was broken, and I asked him if he could assist me. I know he is a tailor. He told me so. I cannot mention a single place where I went to ask for work in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's Churchyard on the 15th or 16th February. I did not go into the City to look for work. I met one or two people in the West End and Holborn, cutters I know. Williams was with me. I do not know whom they are cutters to. I believe one is Hoare's, and the other one is higher up in Holborn. I only know him from seeing him. Williams did not go with me to any place to get work. It is not important to show the man who is to be employed to the employer in the slack time of the year. I simply asked whether they wanted anyone. I never showed Williams to them. I told Williams I was going to St. Paul's Churchyard to get some patterns—going on business. The officers' description of our movements is true. I think I was only in the City about an hour, or something like that.

Verdict, Williams Not guilty. Sentence on Leeke (several previous convictions having been proved), Twenty months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-7
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BROOKS, Thomas (37, fitter), pleaded guilty to forging and uttering divers orders for payment of money, with intent to defraud; admitted conviction for felony in January, 1905, in name of Thomas Rowland Brooks. Fifteen months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-8
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BAGE, Arthur (24, labourer) , charged with robbery with violence on Ann Grinlay, and stealing from her a bag and other articles, pleaded guilty to robbery without violence. Six months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-9
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

RICHARDSON, Joseph (29, painter), pleaded guilty to obtaining the sum of 2s. 3d. and a blouse, the property of Millie Rozelaan, by fraud Six months' imprisonment.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-10
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

RICHARDSON, William (48, rubber worker), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Paulette Mary Boyce, his wife being then alive. Case to stand to next Sessions.

NEW COURT; Monday, 5th March.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-11
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

STEVENS, Arthur (20, milkman), pleaded guilty to feloniously possessing five moulds and other tools for making counterfeit coins, etc. Two previous convictions proved. Five years' penal servitude.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-12
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

PARK, Henry (23, labourer) , possessing and uttering counterfeit coin, well knowing same to be counterfeit.

Mr. Partridge prosecuted.

GEORGE BAKER , Inspector, K. Division. I was in Brunswick Street, Poplar, on 10th February and saw prisoner with another man, not in custody. Prisoner took a coin from the purse produced, and handed it to the other man. I can identify the actual purse. The other man entered 67, Brunswick Road, which is a small sweet and tobacco shop, and bought something. I could not see what it was. He left the shop and joined prisoner again. They saw me and both ran in different directions. I followed prisoner, who ran about half a mile through various streets. I caught him in Wilson Street. Just before I caught him he was by the side of a wall which abuts on 14, Dewberry Street. He took this purse from his pocket and threw it over the wall. Then I caught him. A constable came up a few minutes afterwards, on hearing my whistle. I said to prisoner "I suspect you are in possession of counterfeit coin; I am going to search you." Prisoner said, "All right" I searched him and found four sixpences and 1s. 6 1/2 d. in bronze, all good money. I said, "There is a purse gone over this wall." I took him into the yard at the back of the wall, and searched the yard. I did not find the purse, and I left the officer in charge. I told P.C. White in prisoner's presence there were some counterfeit coins somewhere about. Prisoner said nothing. I took him to the station. I then went to the shop at 67, Brunswick Street and examined the till, and saw a counterfeit shilling there. (Produced and handed to the Jury.) Later on I went to Arcadia Street, and found prisoner did not reside there. That was the address he had given me. I came back and told prisoner,"You do not live at Arcadia Street." He said, "No; I live at 17, Clifton Street," I went to 17, Clifton Street, Limehouse, and searched prisoner's room, which was pointed out to me by Elizabeth Brown. Between the mattresses of prisoner's bed I found this shilling (produced), which is also counterfeit, wrapped in tissue paper. The purse was handed to me by P.C. White at the station. I showed the purse and coins to prisoner and told him the purse had been found in the yard at the back of the wall where he was arrested. He said, "All right." I said, "You will be charged with possessing these counterfeit coins and also uttering one at 67, Brunswick Street." I showed him the coin I found and told him I had found it between the mattresses. He made no answer.

ROSE CROFT . I live at 67, Brunswick Street, Poplar. It is a shop where tobacco and sweets are sold. On 10th February a man came in and handed me the shilling produced. It was about 3.30 o'clock. I handed the man either tobacco or cigarettes and about 8 1/2 d. or 10d. change.

ELIZABETH ALLEN , wife of Samuel Allen, of 16, Jubilee Street, Poplar. I saw over the wall of my back yard a policeman I now know is named White looking about. I looked about in my yard and found the purse produced. I did not open it. It was upside down and open. I gave it to the policeman.

FREDERICK WHITE (P.C. 416 K.). I heard a police whistle on Saturday afternoon, February 10th, and in consequence went and saw Detective Baker with the prisoner in custody. Baker pointed out the wall to me and I searched the yard inside the wall. I saw Mrs. Elizabeth Allen in her yard, adjoining the yard in which I was looking. She handed me the purse produced. I opened it and found fourteen counterfeit coins in it. I handed them over to Baker.

ELIZABETH BROWN , wife of Frank Brown, of 17, Clifton Street, Poplar. Prisoner has occupied a room at my house since October. I saw Detective Baker at our place, in February, and pointed out room in which prisoner used to sleep. I saw Baker look under the bed and between the mattresses; he found a bad shilling.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins to the Royal Mint. The sixteen shillings produced are all counterfeit from the same mould. From one plaster of Paris mould as many as fifty coins could be made.

PRISONER (not on oath). I have been worried by certain men to go round with them. On October 10th I knocked off work at two o'clock. I saw one of the men, who asked me to go somewhere with him; I said, "Have you any bad money with you?" He said, "Yes, I have a bad shilling" Then I said, "I will not go with you" He said, "Will you leave it in your house till I come back?" I said "Yet," and I went and stuffed it under the bed.

Evidence for Defence.

ELIZABETH BROWN , re-called. (By prisoner.) I know chaps have been round after you about three times a week; I know you have been trying to get an honest living since you came out and they would not let you alone.

Cross-examined. I cannot say who the men are, but they were mixed up with prisoner when he was looked up before; I cannot describe what men they were, but I know they were no good. They were the men he was locked up with before.

Verdict, Guilty.

Police evidence proved a conviction of the prisoner on the 29th May last for unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin; in April, 1905. prisoner was arrested at Battenea for uttering a counterfeit florin, but, only one coin being* found on him, he was discharged; he is a silversmith and understands the qualities of metal, and is associated with a lot of coiners; he lives in a centre where there are many coiners; his knowledge as a silver refiner assists in helping to make coins.

Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-13
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

PEARCE, Charles (49, musician), WATKINS, John Edward (28, decorator), WATKINS, Ernest Charles (23, barber), and WATKINS, Emily Elizabeth (48, milliner). All feloniously making counterfeit coin; Pearce and female prisoner, feloniously possessing a battery and divers moulds and tools for making counterfeit coin; female prisoner, possessing and uttering. Female prisoner pleaded guilty; other prisoners pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted; Mr. Cairns defended J. E and E. C. Watkins.

WILLIAM BURNHAM , Detective-Sergeant. On January 27th I saw female prisoner leave 173, Strone Road, Forest Gate, about 1/4 to 3; followed her along Shrewsbury Road into Brentford Road; she there got into a car; presently she got off that and on to another car; eventually she got to Bow Railway Station, where she took a second-class ticket to Highbury. On getting out at Highbury Station she waited in the waiting-room until everyone had left the platform; in Calabria Road she entered a milkshop kept by Mr. Pugh, and made a purchase; then she went to Beard and Jenkins, No. 12 and 13, Highbury Place, and uttered counterfeit coins there; all the coins were florins dated 1872. Sergeant Yeo and I were following her; we arrested her at Highbury. In her bag we found thirty-five counterfeit florins, nine dated 1872 and twenty-six dated 1874. They were wrapped (as coiners usually do) in a newspaper with one layer of paper between each coin. She refused her name and address. We went to 171, Strone Road, Forest Gate. Passing through the street we saw Pearce cleaning the front door windows of No., 171. After a time we saw John Watkins enter No. 173. We obtained assistance and surrounded the houses. On entering No. 173 we saw in the kitchen John Watkins and Pearce. We told them that Mrs. Watkins had been arrested for uttering and possessing counterfeit coins, and that we were going to search the house. On searching 173 we failed to find anything in the way of counterfeit coins. Then we went to the back garden and through the fence to No. 171. There was no one in that house. We found the first floor back room locked; John Watkins and Pearce told us they had not the key, so we forced the door. We there saw a complete workshop. Under the window was a row of boxes forming a kind of bench; on these were lying: five complete double moulds for making counterfeit florin pieces. In the fireplace there were the remains of thirty or forty moulds. We also found two good florins of the dates of 1872 and 1874, from which apparently the moulds had been made. We found this florin (produced): it had what is known as a "get" on it; there is a flaw in it; we found six very large iron ladles lying in a big box; also a large hammer find a flat iron; this is used for breaking off the metal; we found also some granulated tin and some antimony; antimony

is used to make the ring in the coin; also some plating racks for hanging the coins in the solution; also some cyanide of potassium, which is used in the plating; some scales and weights; some bottles of plating fluid; some clamps used for keeping the moulds together while the metal is being poured in; three scrubbing brushes used for scouring the coins; two files, a pair of scissors, a knife, a spoon with plaster of Paris on it, a scrubbing board, and a quantity of silver sand. On the wall there were hanging up a jacket, two pairs of trousers and two vests. John Watkins and Pearce were brought into the room and shown these things. John said, "What are all these for; I have never been in this room in my life before, as God is my judge." Pearce said, "More have I; I do not understand these things; this room has always been locked; I have never been in it." I showed John Watkins the papers I found in the vest pocket. namely, two tickets to Yarmouth and a bill from the Garibaldi Hotel. Yarmouth. He said."Yes, that is my vest; I had that suit when my father died; I went to Yarmouth; I have not had that vest on for years, and I do not know now it got here." We went down three stairs into another room over the kitchen; there we found a chair bedstead and some men's clothes and a few bed-clothes hanging on the wall. I asked John Watkins,"Who sleeps here?" He said, "Charlie," meaning Pearce. Pearce said, "This is my room. I have known him and his father for years, but I never knew anything like this was going on; all the while I have been living with them I have been cleaning up for his mother and running errands for all of them." I then told them they would be charged with being concerned with Mrs. Watkins. John said, "You cannot do anything to an innocent man; British justice won't stand it." I told Pearce he would be further charged with possessing the instruments. He said, "All I can say is that I know nothing about it; this is a great surprise to me; I have never seen anything like this before" I know 168, Monega Road, Forest Gate; it is directly behind 173, Strone Road; at the bottom of the garden of 173 there is a larve aviary apparently up against the fence, but there is a gate behind it giving access to the garden of 168, Monega Road. At the last-named house Ernest Watkins lives. At the police-station Ernest Watkins said, "This is a nice mess mother has got us into." John said, "I cannot believe it is true." Pearce said, "I am knocked." Subsequently Mrs. Watkins was brought in. When she saw the three prisoners she said, "My God, my God My boys, see what I have brought you to." John said, "Never mind, mother, don't worry yourself, we do not know anything about it." Ernest said, "Never mind, mother, you will always be good in my eves." Mrs. Watkins, on seeing; Pearce, said, "And poor Charlie, too!" He said, "I'm knocked."On their all being charged, John said, "God will right this wrong." Mrs.

Watkins said, "Never mind, my boys, you know nothing about it."

Cross-examined by Mr. Cairns. On searching John and Ernest Watkins we found on them no keys of the mother's room. There was no concealment about the passage through the gardens of the Strone Road house and the Monega Road house; it was just a few palings taken out. John Watkins told us he had just finished a pantomime engagement; he had been on a month's tour in partnership with Tom McGorman; I believe the two of them were known as "The Two Macs." The clothes we found were old clothes; John said at once when I asked him that the vest was his.

Re-examined. The brothers visited each other's houses; we were puzzled for some time about their movements; they were seen to go in at one house and not seen to come out of it. It was only on making the raid that we found the explanation of the connection through the gardens of the two houses.

ALBERT YEO , Detective-Sergeant On January 27th I went with last witness to Monega Road; and saw Ernest Watkins. I took him with me into the house No. 171, Strone Road; the coining implements had been removed at that time, but the clothes were still there. I showed him the clothing hanging on the wall. He said, pointing to the jacket,"That is mine" and that the two pairs of trousers hanging behind the door were his I drew his attention to the pieces of metal that were on me coat There are still visible on the coat small particles or filings of metal. (Coat produced.) I found in the pocket of the coat a cycling club card, dated 1903, and a visiting card. He said they were his. I also searched a bedroom at 171, Strone Road; there I found a pair of trousers, a white shirt, a coloured linen shirt, an undervest, and a neckerchief; these were in the room occupied by Mrs. Watkins. I showed them to Pearce and he said they were his.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cairns. There were a large number of broken moulds that had been thrown into the fireplace, probably broken in the manufacture of coins; I cannot tell how long a mould would last; these things were in the room that was locked. We did not find on any of the three male prisoners a key of the door. It was only from the prisoners themselves that I learned that the clothes belonged to them. The stuff on the coat appears to be filings from coins; I should not think the coat had been hanging there more than three weeks or a fortnight without being moved. I know that Ernest some years ago followed the occupation of a hairdresser; latterly I believe he has been running for a bookmaker. We have had these houses under observation more or less since since the 29th December last; John Watkins was a decorator some years ago; he was for five years with a Mr. Stagg; the landlady of one of these houses employed him as a decorator.

By the Court: On the night we were going to make the raid after the mother was in custody we discovered that Ernest was living at 168, Monega Road; up to that time we did not know it; we had lost sight of him on several occasions, seeing him go into 173, Strone Road and not seeing him come out John was living in one house with his family, and in the other house there lived Mrs. Watkins and Pearce. Mrs. Watkins's room was the front room on the first floor; the room where the tools were found was between her room and Pearce's. The shirt, undervest, trousers, and waistcoat were found in Mrs. Watkins's bedroom.

ELIZABETH SCOTT , Canhall Road, Leytonstone. The houses 171 and 173, Strone Road, belong to my father. In January, 1904, I let, on behalf of my father, to Mrs. Watkins, No. 171, and to Mr. John Watkins No. 173, at 10s. a week rent each. After Mrs. Watkins had paid one week's rent she asked me to collect the rent of both houses, at 173. Mrs. John Watkins usually paid me the rent. In August, 1905, No. 173 was done up by John Watkins. Between the gardens of No. 171 and No. 173 there is a fence; when the two houses were let that fence was intact; there are now one or two palings knocked down so that persons can pass from one garden to the other; at the back of 173 there is a fence. If any gate has been made to communicate with the garden at the back that has been done since the house was let.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cairns. The gap between 171 and 173 does not suggest anything criminal to me. I never saw the female prisoner at 173; Mrs. John Watkins usually paid me the rent.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins to the Royal Mint. I have seen the double coin moulds that have been used for the manufacture of florins of two dates and about forty counterfeit florins of 1872 and 1874, which have been mad by these moulds. There are two silver pattern pieces, from which these moulds have been made. They have adopted the old effective manner in this case of using a worn pattern coin to make the moulds from; a worn coin, of course, is not suspected so easily. I have seen all the other items spoken of by the officers; it is an unusually large number; it is practically a complete outfit of the stock-in-trade of a coiner.

ANNIE DAVIS . I lived at 169, Strone Road from December 7th, 1905, to January 11th, 1906. During that time I heard tapping noises at night which kept me awake; they seemed to come from the back; I could hear voices of men and footsteps throughout the night; I could not say at what time; the noises disturbed me, and in consequence, I left the house, being nervous, as my husband was away. During the time I was there I saw people go through the garden from one house to the other; I could not identify the people except one, namely,

Pearce; he used to be in and out there; there were others, but I cannot identify them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cairna. I did not see Pearce with a banjo; I do not know that he was teaching John Watkins the banjo. The opening in the fence was used quite openly; there was no concealment about it. As to the noises that kept me awake at night, I cannot say where they came from because I was in bed.

(Evidence for the defence.)

THIRD COURT; Tuesday, March 6th, 1906.

JOHN EDWARD WATKINS . (Prisoner.) (On oath.) I lived at 173, Strone Road, with my wife and five children; I was brought up as a house decorator; from 1895 to 1901 I worked with Mr. Stagg at Maryland Point; afterwards started business for myself. Later I started a dancing and variety entertainment with a Mr. Ponsford, and was engaged at different smoking concerts and clubs; I was one of the Two McGormans; Ponsford and I were fairly successful in that business. Recently I was learning the banjo, prisoner Pearce teaching me. I had a contract with certain music-hall proprietors, and was on tour for them for a month before my arrest. When my father died I moved from Forest Lane to 173, Strone Road, next door to my mother, about eighteen or twenty-one months ago; I did some decorating business from that address. We had lived together in Forest Lane, and our furniture got mixed up; the gap was made in the fence between my house and my mother's because it was more convenient to shift our things through the back way, and, besides, the children wanting to see their grandmother would run in that way; it was used by myself and my wife and my family. I never went into the room where these moulds were seized; I never saw a key of it. When I visited her I saw her generally in the kitchen; she spent most of the time with my wife in our house. The vest referred to by the police was certainly mine; I did not put it in that room and cannot tell how it got there; my mother was in the habit of giving my old clothes away on several occasions. I have not worn that vest since I went out of black for my father in 1902. it was my brother's coat on which the filings were found. I never had a counterfeit coin in my hands to my knowledge. The gate in the fence between my house and my brother's was not concealed in any way; the aviary has been there for twelve months or more; the gate was used mostly by my brother's wife; it was used in the daytime, and quite freely; all the neighbours must have known of its being used.

Cross-examined. It could be used at night as well as in the daytime. My brother made the gate. I have been into my brother's house through that gate. The variety business in

which I have been engaged has been fairly successful. The pawn tickets produced relate to a time when I was out of work, My variety engagement lasted one month before my arrest Pearce was living with me and my brother Ernest was living with mother. I visited mother occasionally; I was not often there; I never stayed long. As to how she got her living, I always thought she had an income; she told me once that my father was the illegitimate son of a rich man—a sea captain. I knew she went out shopping. I never went over the house. There are six rooms and a scullery in the house; I have been in every one of the rooms except this locked room. I swear that I have never been in the locked room; that it the only one that I have not been in. I always understood that mother had a weekly allowance. The vest found in this room I admit was mine; none of the other clothes were mine. I am a decorator by trade and also a music-hall artist.

Re-examined. I have been poor and have pawned things. I never in my life had any counterfeit florins. I understood that when my father died the money I referred to reverted to my mother. I always believed the money came through my father being an illegitimate child; it was not a thing for me to talk to my mother about. I have characters from different people for whom I have worked.

ERNEST CHARLES WATKINS . I was apprenticed to a hairdresser. After ten months with him I left to better myself and went to another hairdresser named Newell, with whom I was for five years. I was living with my mother up to my marriage. On quitting hairdressing I started as a bookmaker's runner. When I got married I left some of my old clothes at my mother's house; those are the clothes found in the locked room; I had never seen them since I got married. The first I knew about these moulds and ladles was when the officers took me into the room. I was always brought up to believe that my mother had an income as my father did before her.

Cross-examined. During 1904 and 1905 I had been a bookmaker's runner. When I lived at my mother's I occupied the off room on the stairs. There were altogether six rooms and a wash-house. I have been in every one of the rooms, but never in this room; so far as I know it was always kept locked. I was out practically all day. and on Sundays I was out cycling. I do not know what my mother did; I knew she went out I never knew her to go into this looked room while I was in the house; I never heard any noises in that room; all the time I was there I never inquired what there was in the room. Pearce was an old friend of my father's. I used to go to bed about half-past eleven; I was never disturbed by noises during the night—no knocking or tapping. The two pairs of trousers and jacket belonging to me found in the locked room I left behind

at my mother's house when I got married. I cannot account for the particles of metal on the jacket. When the officer called my attention to the metal I said, "If the coat has been hanging up all the time you will probably find dust on it." There was, in fast, no dust on the coat. I can give no explanation as to where the metal came from.

Verdict, Guilty against the three male prisoners.

Police Evidence. Pearce, from 1878 to 1885, was licensed as a bus-driver and contractor; since then, apparently, he has been in no regular employment; he has been living with the Watkinses the greater part of the time; he has been about different places busking, playing the banjo and so on; he could not give any reference to what he has been doing since 1885. Ernest Watkins was apprenticed to a barber at Forest Gate; then went to Mr. Newell, barber, Plaistow, and remained there until 1895. Mr. Newell speaks very highly of him. He has been in no regular employment since he left the barber's, but has been on and off running for a bookmaker. The father of the male prisoners, who died in 1902. had been engaged in these practices since the year 1884, and the business has been carried on very extensively ever since. From the quantity of metal these people have purchased they would seem to have been in the habit of making 150 to 200 two shilling pieces a week. The female prisoner has admitted that she used to help her husband in the business; she boated that she used to make the moulds herself.

C. A. Stagg, D. Ponsford, and—Barker, formerly employers of John Watkins, spoke to the character of the prisoner, and said they had never known anything against him. Mr. Newell, a former employer of Ernest Watkins, and a Mr. Martin gave similar evidence.

Verdict (March 7th): Pearce, Fifteen months' hard labour; J. E. Watkins and E. C. Watkins, twelve months' hard labour; Emily Elizabeth Watkins, five years' penal servitude.

OLD COURT; Tuesday, March 6th, 1906.

(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-14
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

LOCKE, Edward Percy , manslaughter of George Thomas Seabrook.

Mr. H. Bohn prosecuted. Mr. Purcell defended.

CLARA SEABROOK , widow of deceased, 33, Russia Lane, Bethnal Green. Seabrook was an oil merchant. He used to go out selling oil on barrows. He was 51 on the 15th October. He had a glass too much occasionally. Sometimes he would be quarrelsome at home. On Saturday, February 17th, he went out on his rounds with a man named Boswell. I heard nothing

till between one and two in the morning. Then Boswell came home with barrow, and I asked him where my husband was My husband was taken to the Metropolitan Hospital, and I saw him there. I was there between 2 and 3, and 5 and 6, and again at 11. He was never conscious and made no statement.

Cross-examined: When my husband went out with barrow he carried two funnels to draw the oil from tank. When he had had a glass he was quarrelsome at times, at other times jocular. Before the Magistrate I said, "When in drink he was rather quarrelsome."

ALBERT BOSWELL , 72, Usk Street, Bethnal Green, hawker. On the 17th February I was with deceased, Seabrook. I saw prisoner and his wife standing on the corner of Lavender Grove, a turning off Queen's Road. Prisoner came up and said to Seabrook,"What's the matter with you?" Seabrook mumbled something. I was between the handles of the barrow, and did nothing. Prisoner said, "I'll punch your bleeding head in." I raised my hands from the barrow and said, "We don't want none of that." Prisoner shot hit fist round and caught Seabrook somewhere about the head, and down he went, falling into the gutter. I did not hear Seabrook say anything to prisoner before. After Seabrook was down I said, "You've done it." Then he helped me to pick him up and put him on the pathway out from the kerb. As Seabrook was lying down he was making a noise. We struck a match and saw blood coming from his ears. Prisoner said, "I will run to the surgery" and away he went. Mobs of people got round, and somebody blew a police whistle. Then the police came up with the ambulance, and that is the way he was taken to the hospital. No funnel was raised.

Cross-examined: I had been with deceased from dinner time. In the afternoon and evening we bad been into five public-houses. I counted them up. Before the Magistrate I said about half-a-dozen. Seabrook was drunk, but I was sober. I had not been taking the same drink as Seabrook. He had been drinking rum. Three-ha'p'orths he was having, raw. I had had two ginger beers, two glasses of ale, and one of stout. We had a couple of funnels with us that afternoon, as usual. I have heard since that it was outside their own door the prisoner and his wife were standing. They were standing on the corner. I did not hear Seabrook say anything to them. Without Seabrook having said anything to him, the prisoner came up to him and said, "What's the matter with you?" I was between the handles of the barrow and Seabrook was on the near side of the barrow. I do not say Seabrook did not say anything. I do not doubt he did; but I never heard him say Anything. After Seabrook was knocked down prisoner seemed very much alarmed and helped to pick him up and said, "I Will go to the surgery." An ambulance came. I did not notice

the prisoner come back myself. I was looking after Seabrook then.

ALFRED LAMBERT , 427, J Division. On the 17th February I answered a police whistle about 11.30 p.m. I went to the corner of Queen's Road and Lavender Grave. I found Seabrook lying on the pavement unconscious. A minute or two after I arrived prisoner came up. An ambulance came. Prisoner volunteered a statement He came up to me and said, "I done it. I was coming home with my wife when he (meaning Seabrook) said) 'Why don't you kiss her?' I went up to him and asked him what it had to do with him, when he said, 'Do you want to fight?' We then had a fight and I knocked him down. Then I went to the hospital and brought the ambulance." I took prisoner to the station where he was charged, to which be replied,"Do not forget to mention that I brought the ambulance." That is all. I was present at the North, London Police Court when he was charged with manslaughter on the 26th February. He made no reply. I saw Boswell in the street. He spoke to me. I should say he was sober. He seemed a little excited.

Cross-examined: I should not imagine from his appearance that he had been in five or six public-houses.

DR. WILLIAM BALL , House-Surgeon, Metropolitan Hospital Seabrook was brought to me at half-past 11 at night on the 17th February. I examined him and thought he had fractured the base of the skull. He was bleeding at both ears and from his mouth. There was a cut on his upper lip. That cut might have been caused by anything hard—by a fist even. We thought he was very drunk. Before the post-mortem we found no injury to the back of his head. The fracture did not show itself. It was across the base of the skull. At the post-mortem we found a small contusion underneath the skis at the back of his head, also a large fracture right across the base of his skull, also laceration of his brain. Death was due to coma in consequence of laceration of the brain. The laceration was caused by the blow on the back of the head. That could be caused by falling. If a man is drunk he drops worse.

Cross-examined: Death was due to the fractured skull, which might have been caused by falling on the kerb, which, again, might have been caused by the blow on the mouth. Being drunk the blow would have dropped him quicker than if he had been sober. When he was brought in he was very much under the influence of drink, shouting and making a noise.

PRISONER (on oath): I live at 120, Queen's Road, Dalston. I am a member of the Coal Porters' Union and in the employment of Hinchcliffe and Co. Before that I was in the employ of Rickett, Smith and Co.; before that I was in the Army. On the Saturday I was standing with my wife at our own gate. There is a front garden about two yards wide. Two men came

by with a barrow with a tank on it. It was an ordinary hired barrow. One of them made a remark. I could not say what it was. There were two or three remarks passed, but the one I caught was,"Why don't you kiss her?"

By the Court: I could not say which of the two man said it.

By Mr. Purcell; Only the width of the pavement separated them from us. I went and spoke to them after that observation. I asked them,"Why don't you mind your own business?" Seabrook asked me "What is the matter with you?" I asked him if he had made a mistake. I said, "That is my wife I am speaking to." He then asked me if I wanted to fight. He asked his friend to took after the barrow while he settled with me. He then left the barrow and rushed at me with the oil funnel in his hand. It was about a foot long. He hit out with it and caught me on the shoulder. The site of the round part is about six inches. I hit him on the chin. He fell and struck his head on the kerb. I helped him out of the gutter and then fetched an ambulance. He was an absolute stranger to me.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bohn: The remark "Why don't you kiss her?" was not made in a jocular vein. I think they made a mistake, thinking I was with some wrong woman. I did not hear Boswell say,"We don't want none of that." He did not come forward and try and stop me going for the deceased. He was a matter of twelve yards from us when this man rushed. It is not true that deceased was by the side of the barrow; he had already left the barrow. As a rule a challenge to fight is with the fists. I do not believe the man was responsible at the time for what he did.

Verdict, Guilty.

Police gave prisoner a very high character as a peaceful, wellbehaved, sober man.

Prisoner bound over in his own recognisances in the sum of £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-15
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

CHAFFIN, Thomas William (43, barber) ; feloniously wounding Henry William Phillips with intent to murder him and to do him some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Ricardo prosecuted. Mr. Terrell defended.

HENRY WILLIAM PHILLIPS , 28, St Mary's Gardens, Edmonton, dealer. On the 5th February I was in the "William the Fourth" public-house in the Hertford Road. The prisoner came in and he was refused to be served. I said, "Tom, why don't you go home?" I have known him for twenty-four years. He said, "What's it to do with you?" He was under the influeence of drink. I said, "You will only get into trouble." Then he struck me on the chest. He said he would unstrip me any time I liked, but I didn't want no trouble with him. He struck me again, and then I struck him back after he struck me the second time. I told him if he wanted any trouble to come-out

of the house. I went outside the house and the prisoner was ejected from the house by the landlord's son. After that I walked back into the house. He stood outside. In about twenty-five minutes he returned and looked into the bar, where I was reading a paper, and he said, "I haven't done with you yet." I said, "Why don't you go home? You will only get into trouble." He then went round to the other bar and asked the landlord's son to see the landlord. The landlord's son told him he didn't want to be troubled with him. I heard the landlord's son tell him to go out of the house, as his father could not be troubled with him. I did not hear anything else between the landlord's son and him. Then prisoner came out of the bar and came to the door to me and said, "I want you." I said, "If you want any trouble you can tell me if there is any aggrievance between me and you." I went out to him to hear what he had to say. I said, "We don't want any trouble in this house." We walked towards Bounces Road. We went about 100 yards, and then I said to him,"What have you to say to met" We were standing on a piece of waste land I said, "What aggrievance is there between me and you?" He drew a razor from his coat pocket and caught hold of my neck-handkerchief and cut my throat. He made another cut at me which cut through my two coats, which I am wearing at the present time. (Witness removed both coats and showed them to the Court.) This was the second cut he made. As I was falling he made that blow at me, but I warded it off with my shoulder and grasped the razor with my hand. I said, "Tom, don't murder me." I struggled with him and wrenched the razor from him and got away from him and ran to Dr. Burton's surgery. When I was at Dr. Burton's a police-officer was sent for, and I gave him the razor that I had wrested from prisoner.

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner twenty-four years and been good friends with him up to that night. I lent him sixpence on the Friday before to get some razors out of pawn. He asked me to do it, as he bad some work to do. He is a hairdresser, and comes to the public-house. The landlord's son gives him a few halfpence to shave him. He has shaved me as well. He would sometimes carry his razors with him; sometimes he has gone home to fetch them. He would very often want his razors there to do business. Before he was turned out of the public-house I advised him to go home,"or," I says,"you'll get into trouble." He was under the influence of drink at the time. He was capable of taking care of himself, but I thought he had had sufficient. I thought he was better at home. He could walk about. I could not say whether he knew what he was about. When I told him to go home he resented it and struck me. Before the magistrates I said he pushed me. He came up to me in a fighting attitude and pushed me. He did not strike me hard; it was only a push.

By the Court. The wounds were inflicted about two or three minutes to seven in the evening.

ALBERT FREDERICK HILLS . My father is the licensee of the "William the Fourth" public-house. I saw prisoner in the house on the 5th February. I told him to leave the premises. He and Phillips had words together. Chaffin struck at Phillips and Phillips struck him back. I went to the other side of the bar and told Chaffin to get off home out of it, and took him to the door, and he went away. About twenty minutes afterwards he came back again. He looked in the Public Bar where Phillips was and walked from there to the Jug Department and came in there. I told him to go away. I said, "Why not go away like a sensible fellow? We don't want no trouble here." He said, "I want to see your father." I said, "My father don't want to be troubled with you. Go away. If not, I shall send for the police." He said, "You saw Phillips, strike at me." I said, "Yes, but why bring that up again? Go home like a sensible man." He said, "No, Phillips struck me in the face. I am not going to have that for nothing. I mean to have my own back." He went from the Jug Department to the Public Bar again and beckoned to Phillips to come outside. Phillips went outside.

Cross-examined. The man was drunk. That was the reason I refused to serve him. I thought he was much better at home and advised him to go home. He had had sufficient to drink, but he could take care of himself. He was not helplessly drunk.

DR. CHARLES GEORGE BURTON , registered medical practitioner, 91, Hertford Road, Edmonton. On February 5th Phillips came to me. He was bleeding profusely from a horizontal wound across hit throat It was about two inches in width and extended in a downward direction about 2 1/2 inches. He was also bleeding; from two wounds on the left hand, one across the ball of the thumb, and one just over the wrist. I attended to his wounds, which have healed very well, and at his request I communicated with the police. A police officer came and Phillips handed a razor to him.

Cross-examined. He had two slight wounds on the right side of the face. They were trivial. The wounds on his hand were not slight. He recovered quickly.

DAVID REEKIE , police-constable, stationed at Edmonton. On February 5th I was called to Dr. Burton's surgery and saw Phillips with a cut in his throat and his hand. He made a communication to me and gave me the razor produced. In consequence of what he told me I went to Bounces Road and saw prisoner and told him I should take him into custody. He replied, "I know what you want me for. Have I hurt him much?" then I took him to the police-station.

By the Court. I apprehended him between 7.15 and 7.30.

Cross-examined. Chaffin had been drinking.

GEORGE MARRIOTT , Inspector Metropolitan Police, stationed at Edmonton. I saw prisoner at the police-station about 7.45. In consequence of what I heard I went to 28A, St. Mary's Gardens and saw prosecutor. I returned! to Edmonton Police Station at 11 p.m. I saw prisoner and cautioned him and told him I should charge him with a serious offence. He said, "It was not in Hertford Road it happened; it was in Bounces Road, which is a street turning out of Hertford Road." Pointing to two razors, he said, "Both these razors are mine, but in the excitement I cannot say which one I done it with." One razor I had taken from him and the other the constable had handed to me. They were on the charge desk. He acknowledged they were both his. He said, "Is he much hurt?" When I read the charge over to him he replied,"Attempted murder, sir?" and I said, "Yes."

Prisoner's statement before the magistrates. I am a hairdresser by trade, and I carry these tools about with me to do a bit of work where I can get any to do. I shaved Harry Phillips, also others, in the "William the Fourth," besides shaving Mr. Hills, the landlord's son. I have known Mr. Phillips for twenty-four years, and never had a quarrel with him in my life before. Also on the Friday previous, Phillips gave me sixpence to get two razors out of pledge. I think that will prove I did not wish to do him any harm. I do not know how it happened, as I cannot remember anything. I did not remember anything the next morning.

Verdict, Guilty on the second indictment (with intent to do some grievous bodily harm). Recommended to mercy. Prisoner admitted conviction for felony at the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Tottenham on June 28th, 1900. Police stated that prisoner was a slave to drink. The previous conviction was for larceny, and the magistrates only fined him £1.

Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-16
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WILSON, Charles (20, porter) ; carnally knowing Lilian Burton, a girl under the age of thirteen years.

Verdict, Guilty of indecent assault. Nine months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-17
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

STRANGE, Henry Richard (27, painter) ; carnally knowing Lilian Burton, a girl under the age of thirteen years.

Verdict, Not guilty.

NEW COURT; Tuesday, March 6th, 1906.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-18
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

FOXLEE, Charles ; unlawfully threatening to publish a libel upon Arthur Robert Waddell, with intent to extort moneyfrom him, and for maliciously publishing a false and defamatory libel of and concerning Arthur Robert Waddell.

Prisoner pleaded guilty to publishing; second indictment withdrawn; prisoner discharged on his own recognisances in £100 and two sureties of £50 each to come up for judgment if called upon.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-19
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

DRUCKER, Solomon (48, thermometer maker), pleaded guilty to feloniously receiving a mink fur tie and four pieces of satin and other articles, the property of Marks Diamondstein, well knowing them to have been stolen. Twelve months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-20
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

SCHERER, Jacques George (41, traveller) ; stealing a brooch and four rings the property of Emil Meyer, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Profumo prosecuted. Mr. Doherty defended.

EMIL MEYER . I am a partner in a shipping firm. In September last year I was staying at the Manchester Hotel, Aldersgate Street. On 22nd September I went to a barber's shop where I was introduced to a man named Klein. I went with him to a public-house at 4 o'clock end he introduced me to a man named Peche. I wanted to sell some jewellery and I showed it to Peche. The articles were a large gold, platinum, and silver brooch set with emeralds and diamonds, one gent's single diamond ring, and three ladies' dress rings worth £170. These were my property. Peche made an appointment at 9 o'clock to meet an Englishman. The prisoner is the man. I am short-sighted. I have been in England about two years. Klein was not there in the evening. Peche and the prisoner and I went to Frascati's. I showed the jewellery to the prisoner. We stopped at Frascati's 3/4 hour. Prisoner spoke English and some words of German. I am French, but I speak German. Prisoner made an appointment next day at St. Paul's Cathedral. He met me and told me his name was Thompson. Peche told me his name was Thompson, but I could not remember exactly when. We went to the Rainbow Hotel in Newgate Street. Prisoner told me the best way to sell the jewellery was to confide it to him and he would go to see different firms. I replied,"I do not know you well enough." Prisoner told me he would go and see a firm and would meet me at 2.30 at the Rainbow Hotel. We met there and he said, "Now, I have found a firm who can buy the jewellery—Baxter and Co., Ltd., of 46, Queen Victoria Street." We had settled the price at the Rainbow. We went together to 46, Queen Victoria Street. Prisoner told me it was better for him to go alone upstairs to see Baxter and Co. I suggested to call in a policeman as an official witness, and I would hand over the jewellery before the policeman. Then he said, "It is impossible

to do business that way; you must have confidence." I then gave him the jewellery. He told me he would be back in five minutes and he went upstairs. I waited about half an hour and he did not come down. I went upstairs to Baxter and Co. and they told me no one had been there with jewellery. The prisoner did not come down. I then went to Cloak Lane Police Station. On 5th February at Cloak Lane Station among twelve men I picked out Peche, but I did not recognise the prisoner. Afterwards I saw him alone. He spoke to me in French. As soon as I heard his voice I had no doubt whatever he was the man. He said, "I never have seen you before" I saw that he was a Frenchman. I had never heard him speak French before. I swear he was the man who robbed me. I could tell by the intonation of the voice—the timbre.

Cross-examined. I have been some seven years in England off and on. I understand English very well if you do not speak too quickly. The man wire robbed me spoke English very well and I had no doubt he was an Englishman. I had been a long time in his company—about an hour at Frascati's and I met him at St. Paul's Cathedral, and at the Rainbow I spent 20 minutes with him. I paid special attention to his appearance. I was asked to identify Thompson amongst twelve other men. I picked Peche out immediately and I failed to identify the prisoner.

JULES PECHE . The prisoner is not the man who was with Mr. Meyer and myself on September 22, and who took the jewellery from Meyer.

Verdict, Not guilty.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-21
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WILSON, John (30, labourer) ; stealing four reams of paper and divers printed books, the property of John Rissen; and TAYLOR Charles (49, waste paper dealer) ; feloniously receiving same.

Wilson pleaded guilty; Taylor pleaded not guilty.

Mr. H. Maxwell Thin prosecuted. Mr. Blackwell defended Taylor.

JOHN DIGBY . Detective Sergeant in the City Police. On 21st February I visited 31, Devonshire Street, where I saw Taylor. I said, "We have a man in custody for stealing paper, and he says you purchased it from him." He then took me to a back room, where I saw 4 bundles similar to these, which he told me he bad given 3s. a cwt. for. He said that two were brought in last week and that he did not give a receipt, and that he paid 3s. a cwt for the best paper and 1s. a cwt. for the unbound novels. I then took him into custody for feloniously receiving.

Cross-examined: None of the packets had been undone. Part were in the shop and part in the back room. Prisoner made no concealment. His answers were made truthfully.

Prisoner has a family, is about 49 years of age, and has borne an excellent character.

JOHN RISSEN , 20, Poole Street, wholesale stationer. On 16th, 19th, and 20th February, paper and loose novels were stolen from my shop; the paper is worth 10 1/2 d. a lb. or 17s. 6d. a ream, mill price. Novels are sometimes sold as waste paper; 3s. per cwt is the usual price.

CHARLES TAYLOR (on oath). I bought the paper and unbound novels from Wilson. I did not know him. He asked me if I bought waste paper. I said, "Yes." He said, "Will you buy this? This is stock thrown out I had it given to me." It weighed 1 qr. 12 lb., and I gave him 1s. 1d., its value at 3s. per cwt. I sell paper by weight to the mills.

Cross-examined: I never sell paper for any other purpose than as waste paper. Wilson told me it was waste. I did not examine it.

Verdict, Taylor, not guilty, Wilson sentenced to 6 months hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-23
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FOWKES, Henry (59, porter) ; breaking and entering the premises of the Great Northern Steam Fishing Company and stealing a knife and 4 coins, the property of Henry Edward Drew and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Lilley prosecuted.

WALTER BAILEY , P.C. On Sunday, 18th February, at 1/2 past 2, I was on duty inside Billingsgate Market I entered 3, Billingsgate Buildings. The outer door was fastened with a padlock, which I unlocked. The office door on the first floor was unfastened. I went in and found prisoner seated on a sofa. On the floor were a lot of housebreaking implements scattered all over the place. I asked prisoner what he was doing. He told me I ought to know. He was eating something. I found on him 1s. 9d. and the knife and 4 coins produced. He had 2 skeleton keys, one of which opened the padlock, a card with the impression of a key on it, a linen waistcoat with a large number of pockets, a file, and a large number of tools which could be used as housebreaking implements. He made no remark at the station.

HENRY EDWARD DREW , manager of the Great Northern Steamship Fishing Company, 1, 2, and 3, Billingsgate Buildings. The office was properly closed on Saturday, 17th February. In, my coat hanging in the private room were the coins produced. The tool produced was found on Monday behind the safe. Prisoner was employed at times by my company as licensed porter.

Verdict, Guilty; 18 months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-24
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HEATH, William Edward (47, labourer) ; feloniously setting fire to certain things in a dwelling under such circumstancesthat if the building had been set fire to he would have been guilty of felony.

Mr. H. R. D. May prosecuted.

FREDK HUMPHREY , P.C. 4. JR. I visited this house immediately after the fire. One room on 1st floor is let to prisoner; one room to another person. I produce a drawing of the state of the prisoner's room after the fire. The fire would have very quickly spread on to the clothing which was in the middle of the room. The prisoner and his wife and two little children lived in the room.

ANDREW SULLIVAN , fitter, of 80, James Street, Bethnal Green. I and my wife, the prisoner, and another person in the back room live in the house. Prisoner has two children. He has been in the house about 18 months, first in the back room, and then he went to the front room. On 29th January I was in the back kitchen. Someone called out "Fire" at 10.25 p.m. Smoke was coming down the staircase. I broke open the prisoner's door. He had a chair jammed against it. I found the chest of drawers broken up; some of the wood was up the chimney, part on the floor, and clothes strewn about. Prisoner was sitting on the bed with his two children. His wife had run away from his violence. He was not drunk, but he had been drinking. A gentleman took the child out and got some water, and we managed to get the fire out. The wood of the mantelpiece was alight.

Cross-examined by Prisoner: I struck you because of your blaspheming language to my wife on the Saturday before the fire.

THOS. DAVIS , Station Officer, Bethnal Green Fire Station: On 29th January I went to 80, James Street. The contents of the 1st floor front room were strewn about the floor; three of the drawers were on the floor burning furiously and setting light to the chimney. The fire had been partly extinguished. The mantel-board was burning. The prisoner told me he did not know what caused the fire.

Cross-examined: The chimney was all alight; the soot had fallen, and was setting light to the clothing on the floor.

JOSH. STEVENS , P.C. On 29th January I went to 80, James Street. I helped to burst the door open. The room was full of smoke. There was a large fire burning round the fireplace. One child was lying on the bed, the other being taken downstairs. The children were two and three years old. Two drawers were taken from the chest of drawers, broken up, and placed on the fire and round about the fireplace. The contents of the drawers were strewn all about on the floor burning. The mantel-board was alight. I asked the prisoner,"Are you aware what you are doing?" He said, "I only set fire to my chimney. Anyone can do as they like in their own place." I

took him to the station. I should think he had been drinking but he was not drunk.

FREDK. JAMES CASSON , fireman, Green street Station, Bethnal Green. There was a fire at James Street on 29th January When I got into the room I saw a lot of clothes on fire and a lot of wood on fire. The chimney was also on fire. If we had not been there the house would have been on fire in 1/4 hour. The prisoner said, "God blimy, when I come back I will burn the b——place out."

Verdict, Guilty; 9 months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-25
VerdictGuilty > insane
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

MARSH, George William (36, driller) ; feloniously wounding Mary Marsh with intent to do her some grievous, bodily harm.

Mr. W. Powell prosecuted. Mr. Blackwell defended.

MARY MARSH . I am prisoner's wife. On 4th February at 4 o'clock in the afternoon I was in my room kneeling down facing the fire. My husband came into the room and approached me from behind and cut my neck with a knife. I streamed and got away from him. I knocked the knife down on the floor out of his hand. I cut my hand a little. He said, "I meant to do for you and for myself as well." I went to the Seamen's Hospital at Greenwich and was treated there.

Cross-examined: I have been married seven years. During the whole of that time prisoner has always been an affectionate husband. He has latterly been a little queer in his head. He has drank at times. He had been out of work five weeks, and that preyed upon his mind. He was curious all day the day before. He had had a little drink. We had bad a few words. His father died at Colney Hatch.

DR. HENRY CATLING , House Surgeon at Seamen's Hospital, Greenwich. On 4th February, Mrs. Marsh was brought in suffering from an incised wound on the right side of the neck 3 in. long by 3/4 in. deep. It is not a serious wound.

ALFRED TYSON , P.C. 282 K.: On 4th February I arrested and charged the prisoner. He said, "Not with intent to murder—on the impulse of the moment" He was not drunk.

Cross-examined: From inquiry I have found that the prisoner's father died in Colney Hatch Asylum. I have beard that for the last few months he has been queer in his head.

Evidence for Defence.

DR. JAMES SCOTT , Prison Doctor at Brixton Gaol. Prisoner has been under my observation since 5th February. I think he is insane. He has mental delusions as regards conspiracy among his working mates, and be also believes that his wife has turned against him, and under the influence of these delusions

he committed the assault. I think he was under an insane delusion at the time.

Cross-examined: I think from his account he was very confused when he committed the act. I think his comprehension of right and wrong would be very limited indeed.

Verdict, Guilty of the act, but irresponsible for his actions at the time. Ordered to be detained during H.M. pleasure.

THIRD COURT; Tuesday, 6th March.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-26
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

SAINSBURY, George (33, saddler) (otherwise HOOD, COOKE , and STRONG ; see evidence) ; stealing four scarf pins and other articles, value £200, property of T. B. Poe, in his dwelling-house; and MOORE, Charles Tippett (28, jeweller) ; feloniously receiving same. Eleven other indictments relating to other thefts. Sainsbury pleaded guilty; Moore pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Warburton and Mr. Mahaffy prosecuted. Mr. Purcell defended Moore.

DETECTIVE-INSPECTOR FULLER, A. Division. On December 30th, at 7.30 p.m., I went to Moore's house, 70, Church Road, Acton, with two constables and with Mr. Poe. I told him I held a search warrant and that a man named Sainsbury or Hood had made a statement concerning him. He said, "I know Hood; I would like, to have five minutes with him now." I read him a description of the property I had come to search for, and he brought to me a brown paper parcel containing 18 moonstones unset; some coins, some old pins, a pair of solitaires, a brass watch, a gold chain, and a gold pin, two brass pins, and other things. Mr. Poe identified the moonstones as his. Moore made the following statement: "Hood came to me about July this year and said he had returned from South Africa. On September 25th I bought one or two pins and one or two old-fashioned rings from him for 45s.; next day another pair and one or two old lockets for 50s.; on the 27th I bought more pins and a gold stud for 45s. I entered the transactions in my book. I pledged one pin at Bowman's, in Clerkenwell Road, for 30s. and another for 25s.; another pin was pledged by my brother at Attenborough's for 25s., about the beginning of October. Mr. Blake, of 106, John Street, bought two of the pins and all the old gold. I showed Detective Lee when he called on me the moonstones and two brass medals and the coins. It was I who gave Hood into custody. I have bought, I believe, five lots of property from him. He first came to do a deal with me in July, and I bought something from him, a chain ring, and a three-stone ring, and a gold albert; I gave him 27s. in cash and a lady's watch, marked up 18s. 6d. Once he brought three brass medals and some pins, and I bought these; I don't remember

what I paid. I have paid him about £11 or £12. One of the rings he took off his wife's finger. I left the five pins I had from Hood with Mr. Blake for four days quite openly; he bought two and returned three. Hood had his South African colours on his breast. He told me his fellow lodger had robbed him, and he was very glad the thief did not take the jewel case which he had brought home from South Africa, The receipt [produced] is the one Hood gave me."

Cross-examined: Mr. Blake, a well-known gold refiner; of Clerkenwell, had bought of Moore a South African medal; this he discovered was stolen property, and Blake informed the police. Detective Lee called on Moore on December 7th; he told Lee that if Hood came again he would send for him; Hood did come, and it was Moore who had him taken into custody on December 11th. Moore gave evidence against him on the charge of larceny in respect to the medal. Moore showed me entries in his books of some transactions with Hood. I believe Moore has carried on business at this shop for seven years. Sainsbury is committed for trial in respect of eleven different larcenies; he has been in custody; Moore has been on bail.

THOMAS BENNETT POE , 29, Ashley Place, Westminster. On returning from the country to London on September 26th, I found that a robbery had been committed at my house on September 23rd; a great deal of jeweller had been stolen. On December 30th I went with last witness to Moore's house. I identify the moonstones produced by their shape and colour and the number corresponds exactly with what had been taken from me.

Cross-examined: The total value of the property stolen from me was about £200; the only portion of this found in Moore's possession was the moonstones, and a pair of solitaires and a few common foreign coins.

SAMUEL KELL , assistant to Bowman, pawnbroker, Goswell Road. I produce a blue moonstone and diamond pin and cat's-eye, pledged on October 4th and 7th in the name of C. Moore, 70, Church Road, Acton, for 25s. and 30s. The articles were not redeemed.

Cross-examined: It is not unusual for small jewellers who make money by dealing to buy things and pawn them.

CHARLES DARLINGTON , assistant to Thomson, pawnbroker, Uxbridge Road. I produced a Scotch pearl pin pledged on September 29 for 25s. in the name of Moore. It was not redeemed.

ALBERT FREDK. FORDMAN , assistant at Attenborough's, pawn-brokers. Chancery Lane. I produce a diamond-opal pin pledged, on October 4th, for 25s., in the name of Moore. It was not redeemed.

ALFRED JAMES BLAKE , wholesale jeweller, 106, St. John Street, Clerkenwell. I produce a square diamond; I bought

it of Moore on September 29th; I also bought of him a diamond cluster pin, on September 27th; also some broken gold and silver and a gold pin. In November I bought of him a soldier's medal.

Cross-examined: The medal Lad on it the name of Kent. I wrote to Ireland, found out the owner, and gave it to him, as I thought it only right that he, a soldier, should have it. I told him I had bought it of Moore. I have known Moore for six or seven years; he had a running account with me; I have always found him to be a thoroughly respectable hard-working jeweller. He was perfectly open and above-board in all these transactions, and showed anxiety to discover the owner of the property when it wan known to be stolen property.

JOHN LEE , Detective, N. Division. On December 7th I went to Church Road and saw Moore about this medal and a lady's keyless watch. He referred to his books, and found that he had bought the two articles. He said, "This is the first time I have got in such trouble as this; I have been now in business tight years; I am most careful of what I buy; I always look well into the pawnbrokers' lifts." I pointed out to him that the medal was in the list of October 30th. I asked him of whom he had bought it. He produced a book with the signature of a man named Hood; I recognised the signature, as the writing of a man who had been swindling some people he lodged with Moore said he knew Hood as a customer and that he would do his best to find him. I gave him my card and told him, if he saw Hood, to give him into custody. On December 11th Hood was given into custody by Moore.

(Wednesday, March 7th.)

GEORGE SAINSBURY (prisoner, on oath). I have pleaded guilty to these charges of robbery. I first made the acquaintance of Moore in the last week of June, 1905, when I went to his shop, 70, Church Road, Acton, and sold him. two gold rings, an 18-carat lady's gold watch, a 9-carat watch guard, and one gold pin. He paid me something under £2. I have been in the back parlour of the shop. The second time I went was the second week in July, when I sold him about six articles of jewellery (stolen from Mr. Cook at Greenwich), which included a lady's silver watch, and 3 silver bracelets, Moore said he was going to break the articles up; it was his rule to break them up, because then they would never be recognised. With regard to future transactions, he said he would always give me as much as he could. Moore said he was an insurance agent, that his sister kept his house, and he had bought the business from his brother. The third time I went was about 3 weeks later. I sold him some more stolen stuff for about 25s. I have never had more than £3 at a time from him. On this occasion he said he had kept his brother (who had put £10 into the business)

And his wife for 6 months, and his brother expected half of what he made. I have been about 9 times to his shop disposing of articles. He never came to me. He gave me his bill-head once and said if I made a big haul he would come to my place at any time and bring weights and scales. I told him I was a saddler by trade. I told him I had stolen the stuff. I think my wife was present on the second occasion. Moore said he would buy anything at any time; it did not matter where or how I got it. I went to him 3 days running with the things I stole from Mr. Poe, beginning on Monday. I stole the things the Saturday previous. I took several pins on the Monday, and the moonstones I left with him to see if he could sell them. Moore gave me a receipt for the moonstones, which I gave him back after he bought them. I left two or three diamond pins for him to take to Mr. Blake to see if he would buy them. At the end of 3 days I went to Moore's place, when he gave me 5s. each for the pins, and he gave me 2s. 6d. for the moonstones. On that day he said he was acting quite straightforward. He had the Police List and showed me a description of one of the pins. I was wearing one of the stolen pint (blue stone in centre with cluster of diamonds), and Moore said he would like to wear it himself. I said I liked it myself, but he could have it. He then gave me 10s. I remember the diamond now produced. It was a pin, claw pattern. This was about the first pin I sold to Moore. It was Mr. Poe's. There were belonging to Mr. Poe about 8 pins altogether, a gold snuff-box, several other articles, and 6 or 7 rings. I sold Moore everything except 2 rings I pledged, and I have given Inspector Fuller the address where I pledged them. In conversation generally he said if I got a big haul I was to drop him a line and he would call; he would bring the scales and break up all the stuff. He said he always broke up the stuff so that no one would know.

Cross-examined. The last time I was at Moore's shop was the 11th or 12th December. He kept me in conversation about 15 minutes. Moore sent his brother to the post and he returned with two constables. I was given into custody, Moore producing Sergeant Lee's card as authority, and saying he had Lee's instructions. It was not very nice alter he had said he would always act straightforward to me It was wicked treachery to lock me up. In addition to giving me into custody, Moore went into the witness-box and gave evidence against me. It was not nice; I do not know that it would spoil the sweetest temper. I was not at all angry. I did not at once write to my wife saying Mr. Moore had looked me up. I wrote the third day, but I did not let her think I was angry with Moore. In effect I told Moore I stole the jewellery, and he told me he always broke it up to prevent recognition. As a rule I am a truthful man There is no exception to the rule in my evidence now. Everyone is liable to exceptions from the rule of truth, but my

liability to that is no greater than other persons'. I recognise Jane Lane in Court. I was introduced to her as having been in the South African war. It was not true. I have not been in South Africa of late. I showed her 2 medals I stole from Mr. Cook which I was wearing. There was an understanding between Jane Lane and myself that we were to be married. I gave her a ring, but not an engagement ring. I represented myself to her as an electrician. I only knew her a few days before we were engaged. The people who introduced me lived at Oak Village, Gosport, where I lodged. I did not rob them At this time I was wearing my own watch and chain and 2 rings. I cannot say that I presented a smart appearance. Jane Lane introduced me to her sister, Susie Lane, whom I recognise in Court. I was introduced to them both under the name of Cook. I knew after I was engaged that Susie Lane was parlour maid to Mr. Poe, of Artillery Mansions. It was through her I got in there. Jane Lane took me there 3 or 4 times. I then robbed Mr. Poe. I did not get engaged in order to rob Mr. Poe. I am not legally married and was going to marry Jane Lane. On June 28th I took a furnished room at 11, Holyhead Road, Oniswick. I cannot remember what I told the landlady I was My "wife" was with me. I stayed there till the 2nd July, when I left, taking all the landlady's jewellery. On the 13th June I took a room at Mrs. Rideout's, 12, Farm Lane, Fulham. I truthfully told her I was going to work at White's Mineral Water place. I had come from 47, Horseferry Road. I may have said I had come from Oxford; my home is there, and I had only just left there. I heard her say from my general appearance and behaviour that she was content to accept me, and that she was accustomed to judging whether she liked people from their appearance. I do not know that I took all her jewellery; I only opened one box. It is true that I took from her jewellery and a cigar case worth £12 10s., and £1 17s. in money On August 2nd I and my "wife" lodged with Ellen Newitt, of College Street, Chelsea, under, I believe, the name of Thornton. I do not remember what I said I was. My "wife" left before me. I cannot say we stopped four days, but I took my landlady's jewellery value about £5. On November 2nd I went to Mrs. Peveril, 145, Warwick Road, Kensington. I am not sure if I gave the name Sainsbury or Hood. I stopped seven days. I opened one box and stole property value £10. Besides the foregoing cases I have pleaded guilty to six others, and "not guilty" to a twelfth. I still say my evidence about Moore is true. I know the officer in Court, Nicholls. I have had the following convictions and punishments:—Reading; '86; stealing money; 6 strokes: Reading; '86; 14 days' hard labour: Reading; '87; stealing eggs; 2 months' hard labour: Reading; '92; stealing money; 4 months' hard labour: S. London Sessions; '94; stealing apron;

18 months' and 2 years' police supervision: Slough; '96; stealing money; 4 months: S. London Sessions; *96; stealing pencil case; 12 months' hard labour: S. London Sessions; 1898; stealing watches; 4 years' penal servitude: Hampshire; 1901; "burglary; 3 years' penal servitude. I came out 3rd January, 1905, having 12 months ticket to do beside the 3 years. What I have said about Moore is true.

Re-examined. Moore gave me about £2 for Mrs. Rideout's £12's worth of property. I took everything I stole since June, 1905, to Moore except the two articles I pledged, and as to which I told Fuller pawnbroker's address. The articles in the cases of my previous convictions I did not take to Moore.

CLARA SAINSBURY . I have lived with George Sainsbury for twelve months, and also previous to his last imprisonment. I know No. 70, Church Road, Acton. I went there once with George Sainsbury in July, '05. I saw Moore and his brother in the shop. I remember Moore saying he would buy anything from Sainsbury, no matter where or how he got it, and he (Moore) would break it up in his presence.

Cross-examined: I have been living with Sainsbury twelve months. We have lodged at different lodgings, going in one day and out two or three days or sometimes a week after. I did not know why we moved so quickly. From one place (Greenwich) I thought he had stolen property. I did not suspect at the time he had stolen from the other places. I know we have gone under different names. Sainsbury is my real name, I have a husband named Sainsbury. The prisoner (Sainsbury) is not named Sainsbury, but hat taken my husband's place and name. We have also gone in the names of Cooke, Hood, and Strong; I do not know why. We lived at Horseferry Road, Westminster, under the name of Strong. I knew Sainsbury had been in penal servitude, but I did not think anything about there being dishonesty in going to different places in different names. Sainsbury wrote me from prison in December Up to then I had not thought of the visit to Moore's shop His letter did not make me remember it. My "husband" told me in the letter Moore had given him away. He did not appear cross in the letter. I did not say, before the Magistrate, that be was a "bit cross." I visited him three times at Brixton. T said before the Magistrate that my "husband" asked me if I remembered visiting Moore's shop, and what was said. I did not know my "husband" had made a statement to the police I am quite certain Moore said to my "husband" that he would buy anything from him no matter where or how he got it, and would break it up in his (my "husband's ") presence. We were Just inside the shop. I was only there once. I destroyed the letter Sainsbury wrote to me by mistake. I said before the Magistrate that I had the letter Sainsbury wrote me at home, but it was not the one. I had unluckily destroyed that one.

He did not put into my mouth and ask me to swear to the words he said Moore used. The letter which would show that has been destroyed. On the visit to the shop Sainsbury did not take rings from my fingers and sell them to Moore, nor did we buy a watch and chain from him, but Moore showed me one saying Sainsbury was going to buy it. I was then sitting on a chair by the counter. I was there about 1/4 hour. I have seen Sainsbury since I gave evidence.

Re-examined: I thought when I gave evidence at the Police Court that I had Sainsbury's letter at home. I looked for it the same day but could not find it. I found the letter I thought was the one.

INSPECTOR FULLER, recalled. When I arrested Moore on December 30th I said, "Since you have made entries in your books, perhaps you can show them to me." He then pointed to the entries of the 25th, 26th, and 27th September. I was then inquiring about Mr. Poe's jewellery in particular. The entries were:—25th,"Old gold, £2 5s."; 6th,"Bought, £2 10s."; 27th,"Old gold, pin, etc., £2 5s." I said."I am not looking for old gold but for beautiful jewellery." He said, "Yes, that is it." He afterwards produced some old rubbish, moonstone, two or three old pins, and I found two or three others which I knew to be stolen from elsewhere. I said, "Show me something else. These are only three entries. The man Sainsbury says he has sold you hundreds of pounds' worth of jewellery." He then pointed to this entry on the 29th July,"Bought old gold, £1 17s. 6d.," saying,"That is another lot I bought from Hood." He also drew my attention to one entry in the "Watch Job Book." I asked him if he had any receipts. He said he had two. They were Exhibit 1, and this entry in the "Watch Job book," "To received £2 3s., one watch, chain, etc., two pins." There is no date to that. It is the only entry of the kind in the book, and there is no other receipt in the book. I cannot say when Moore first assisted the police, not having charge of the case then, but it was December 12th or 19th. A medal was traced to Moore. He gave no information until that and other stolen property was traced to him.

Further cross-examined. The police had been to Moore long before December 11th or 12th, when he gave Sainsbury in custody, to trace stolen property. I understand before that he had pointed cut the signature of Hood in the book. That entry is a stamped receipt and is the only receipt I find in the book or any other book. Moore did not say that that was one of the earliest transactions with Sainsbury and that he had purposely got him to sign his name in the book. While conversing with Moore he did not ask me to take his words down. He did not hand me a bill-head for that purpose. This conversation was in the parlour of Moore's shop. I had my book in which I made

full notes. I took down what I thought was important. We were there for 2 hours. He answered my questions. All I can say about the conversation is in my notes.

To the Court I traced and recovered the two things Sainsbury said he had pawned elsewhere than at Moore's. He told me from the first he had sold everything else to Moore. I corroborated that They were Mr. Poe's.

(Evidence for Defence.)

CHARLES TIPPETT MOORE (prisoner). I was originally employed by Birch and Botcher, pawnbrokers, Kilburn, for 4 1/2 years, and previously I was at Greenland, pawnbrokers, Teddington, from 1890 to 1895. In 1899, after my brother died, I took a shop at 70, Church Road, Acton. I paid £35 a year, renting the whole house, which, besides the shop, contained a bedroom, front room and small ante-room. It was a jeweller's shop when my brother took it; it was a small sale shop and a repairing business, in addition to which I bought jewellery, having a license. I kept a balance book and a sale book. I kept entries of things sold and purchased, expenses, and repairs. At the end of the "Watch Job Book" I got people to sign from whom I bought gold and silver. In this book are Hood's signature, "Mrs. Reed, Received 1s. far watch," etc.,"3s. 6d. for gold locket, which it my own property, E. Franklin, 37, Grosvenor Road," "Received 1s. 6d. for Hunter, William Elliott," "Received 1s. 3d. for watch out of order, which is my own property, Warwick," "Received 9s. for gold watch, which I am selling for Mrs. Warner," and others. In this book appears the seller's signature and address, and in the balance book appears what I pay. Each purchase by me appears in both books. This has been my invariable practice in dealings with prisoner Sainsbury. He did not sign every time. I always got people to sign once. Sainsbury first came in July, but I cannot say the time of day; he bought one or two articles then; I cannot say what, or what he said. He next came on Saturday, 29th, and said, "I have had a bit of bad luck; I have been robbed." I said I was sorry to hear it, and asked him what he had been robbed of He said he had left his wife in the country for a week or two as she had not been very well, and he had had lodgings at, I believe, Stubbt Road, Harlesden, in a double bed along with another fellow, who had robbed him of all hit clothes and money. He said, "I am very pleased to say they never took a little box of jewellery I brought home from South Africa which I picked up at different times." He had the South African colours on his waistcoat, and he was clean-shaved. He asked if I would buy one or two articles from him. He took a 9-carat gold albert off, and I bought that. His "wife," the lady we have seen here to-day, was standing outside, near the door. He

called her in and took two rings off her finger, which I bought from him. I gave him £1 17s. 6d. in cash, and I allowed him a small silver watch for the balance. I have an entry of that transaction in the book, dated July 29th: "Expense house 10s. 3d., bought old rings £1 17s. 6d." I cannot find in this book his signature; I believe he signed on a billhead, which I cannot find. I aid not see his wife more than once. There is not a word of truth in what Sainsbury and his wife have sworn—that I said I would buy anything from him, no matter where or how he got it, and that I would break it up in his presence. The next transaction I had with Sainsbury was on Monday. September 25th, when he brought me some pins and three or four different articles, called in the trade "tripe"—brass articles, temperance medals, and two or three brass pins and two diamond pins. I bought some of the articles; I got him to leave some of it, as it was funny stuff. I have a record on paper of the transaction that I bought old gold for £2 5s. He came in on the Monday morning. I told him to leave it until the afternoon. I gave him 25s. on account. As far as I remember, there were two gold lockets, some old coins, a ring, and a moonstone. He came again in the afternoon; I gave him £1, making £2 5s. that day. The record on my billhead is,"Received 25s. for gold coins, ring, etc., leaving 10s. more to come, and if moonstones are worth buying will allow 5s. more for them." That is signed by Sainsbury. [Exhibit 1.] There is nothing about the pins there because I got him to leave those in the morning. I paid 25s. on account for them and asked him to call again in the afternoon. He came again in the afternoon, when I paid him £1, making £2 5s. in all. It was in the morning he signed Exhibit 1, and that document I afterwards handed Detective Lee on December 7th. When he left the pins I wanted to find out what they were worth. I first asked Sainsbury how much he would take for them. He said, "They cost me about £15." I said, "I cannot reckon them at £15. One has got a flaw in it." He said £8 would satisfy him for the two, and that he had bought them in Oxford Street. I took the pins to Mr. Blake, who bought them the next day for £8 5s. I gave Sainsbury £8, making 5s. commission, and, being a commission transaction, there is no entry in my book. On the same day I paid him £2 10s. for some more stuff, including a very old-fashioned Egyptian kind of ring, which he said he picked up in South Africa. In respect of that I have an entry "Bought, £2 10s." There is no entry in the other book relating to that transaction, because I had his signature on the Monday After the first transaction, his signatures do not appear in the book. All that appear are in the other book. I next saw him on the 27th, when he brought two pins. I believe one was a cat's-eye and one a moonstone. There may have been other

things as well. I gave him £2 3s. He signed for that on the two green halfpenny stamps. I afterwards gave him 2s. for a litle silver fish knife. The two pins referred to were those I Afterwards pawned, for, I believe, £1 5s. and £1 10s., on October 4th and 7th. I got, therefore, £2 15s., and I gave Sainsbury £2 5s. I informed the police where I pawned them, in my own name and address. The next transaction with Sainsbury was when he brought me the medals and two or three brass pins on October 20th. One medal had Kent's name on it Sainsbury said he had bought the medal from a friend who had come from South Africa and who was hard up. He said he had had it in his possession for nine months. I looked in the Police List for that date and it was not there. I bought the medal and the pins for 4s. 7d. The entry is "Bought 4s. 7d." I took the medal and one or two bits of old stuff to Mr. Blake, who gave me 3s. The entry in my sales book is "Silver medal cost me 2s. 6d. sold for 3s." I sold the medal about October 25th. The next I heard about the medal was when Lee came to my place and said he had had information that I had bought a medal, told it to Blake, and that it belonged to Kent, Who had lost other property. I said I had bought it from a man named Hood and showed him the signature. He asked me if Hood came again to look him up. Hood came four days after, when I sent my brother ostensibly to post letters; he came back with a policeman and I gave Hood into custody. Blake asked as a matter of business where I got the medal from. I told him I bought it from a customer who was very straightforward. Blake said, "I happen to know that regiment. If I happen to come across the gentleman I will give it to him." I left the medal with him. I do not remember that I bought more from Sainsbury between the medal transaction and the looking up. He only came in to bring a brass watch with initial for repair, which I did not do up because it was too old. When Lee was making inquiries a Police List was produced. He was inquiring about a gold watch and silver albert and a ring. This was after Hood was in custody. I have the Lists regularly. I observed nothing in Police List with regard to what I had bought till October 30th. From first to last I believed what Sainsbury told me about himself and where he got the property from. He was very smart indeed, a very nicely spoken man. and seemed to have plenty of money. With regard to his saying that I said, "I always break it up—it is always a rule of mine—they will never recognise it," I did say to him,"In certain staff we buy we are obliged to smash it up before we can get at the value of it." With articles made in Germany, or of Brummagem make, as of 9-carat, when you have them assayed they are not more than 4. I never told him I broke stuff up to prevent recognition. I told him I always sold to some people in Clerkenwell. I

would give him as much as any buyer would; gave him my billhead. I never said to him."If you can get a big haul I will come to your place at any time and bring weights and scales with me." He never said he stole the jewellery. I could not find it in the Police Lists until I saw the pins. I did not say,"I will buy anything, no matter how you get it, or where you get it, at any time." Up to this time I have never had the least charge of any kind brought against me. I am twenty-nine years of age.

Cross-examined. I have been a pawnbroker's assistant for nine years, and have had considerable experience in the business and a good deal with jewellery. Pawnbroking puts you on inquiry. I gave up pawnbroking and went in for this jewellery shop after my brother died. A jewellery shop is just as much under police supervision as a pawnbroker's or anyone else. I have been accustomed to book-keeping all my life. I do not consider the opal pin of much value; it is not the right colour. I entered such a pin as an opal set in diamonds as "old gold" when I was in the pawnbroking business. I do not put that when I do not want inquiry made My book says "Old gold and two pins." "Old gold" is supposed to cover these valuable articles. The day I pledged the opal pin I took it to four pawnbrokers, who offered 10s., 15s., £1, and £1. I took the best I could get. I should say the most it would fetch in its present condition is £2 10s. £10 is not a very fair price. The pearl pin has a Scotch pearl with a flaw in it It is not worth £6. The Blake transaction is not entered in the books because it was a commission transaction. No one introduced Sainsbury to me. He was not introduced by a well-known thief. I have not had hundreds of pounds' worth passing through my hands; I never had the money to pay if I had. The stuff said to be worth £200 is not worth £20, and what I bought of that was worth £7. I am referring to Mr. Poe's stuff. The opal came from him, but it is not the right colour. What I bought on the Tuesday I sold to Blake on the Wednesday. I deny that Sainsbury brought me the proceeds of all these thefts valued at somehundreds of pounds. I took him to be, not a saddler, but a man out of the army on a pension. He told me he was receiving a pension of 6d. a day. The day I gave him into custody I "pumped" him. He little thought I was doing it purposely, and he persisted that he had come from Africa in January; he said he was a saddler in the army when he was there. When I saw him first I thought he was a decent fellow out of the Army. He had the South African badge fastened on his coat. When a pawnbroker's assistant, I have taken Letter things from a worse dressed man. He came not nine times but five times. I admit the proceeds of seven larcenies were found at my shop, although he only came five times. I

did not tell him lie need have no fear because I took care to melt down suspicious stuff; I have never had a melting pot in the place; I do not melt stuff myself. Whatever I sell I take up to Blake in a proper manner, and he crushes it up Some I smash up because I must see what the stuff is made of. I did not say if Sainsbury got a good haul I would go with scales to his place and break up there and then; his statement is quite untrue, I told the police when they arrested him that I had done about five deals with him. I had not been receiving wholesale from him during that six months, nor tempted him to commit the crimes, nor was I the "fence" who protected him. I helped the police previously in 1894. I totally deny that I knew the prisoner was thieving, and I have never held myself out as a fence.

Re-examined. The opal pin was taken to three pawnbrokers and finally pawned with Attenborough for £2 5s. The catseye and moonstone pins I pawned with Bowman. I pawned two at one place and one at another. I cannot recollect the names of the pawnbrokers who offered 10s., 15s., and £1 for the opal pin. It is not true that I received the whole of Sainsbury's plunder. I described in my examination-in-chief, as near as I could recollect, all the property I bought from Sainsbury.

To the Court. In this Court I have heard that this man stole jewellery from a number of people. What I bought I gave the police full information about, without any pressing at all. It is impossible to remember every little item.

THOMAS BENNETT POE , recalled. For the pin now produced my late wife paid Reed, of Jermyn Street, 10 guineas in 1890.

INSPECTOR FULLER, recalled. (By the Court.) I have found a great deal of the property stolen by Sainsbury between July and November. I have a complete list of what was stolen and what was recovered. The part proceeds of seven different larcenies by Sainsbury were found on Moore's premises. I have the articles here. They have been identified by their owners. The first lot is in respect of larceny committed by Sainsbury at Farm Lane on June 16th. Two of the articles were found on Sainsbury and one I found in Moore's showcase. The next lot is in respect of larceny by Sainsbury on July 2nd, at Holyhead Road, comprising two brass pins worth 1d., found in Moore's possession. The next is property stolen on August 7th from 19, College Street, Chelsea This pin was one of the articles handed me by Moore. The next lot is in respect of a larceny committed on August 7th at Radcliffe Street from Mrs. Owen. The next one where property was found in Moore's possession is in respect of an offence committed at 23, St. Johns Road, Upper Holloway, on August 24th. I found there these three brass medals. Then comes Mr. Poe's moonstone. Another crime pleaded

guilty to by Sainsbury was committed at 143, Warwick Road, Kensington, on November 8th.

Cross-examined. When I say that I found in Moore's possession the proceeds of seven different larcenies, they are the "rubbish" which I have here, which he handed me and said he had bought from Sainsbury, except the one I found in the show-case That discovery I made on December 30th. I arrested Moore that day. The rubbish represents a minute fraction of the property in the seven cases. I have not been able to trace a single other article of the bulk of the property, except the things Sainsbury pawned. I traced Mr. Poe's property from what Moore told me.

To the Court. Moore told me he first met Sainsbury in July. The only dates after that he gave me were the 25th, 26th, and 27th September. I was able to suggest those dates to him.

JAMES HOOPER , greengrocer, 68 and 71. Church Road, Acton. I have known Moore 7 1/2 years. I know other people who know him. He has a wonderfully good character in Acton.

Verdict (Moore), Not guilty.

Police-evidence as to Sainsbury's career. For previous convictions, see his cross-examination. He was liberated on July 3rd, 1905; then went into Church Army rooms for two or three months; then to large firm of builders; employed till June; was not strong enough for work. For the first six months doing honest work. He was under police observation; worked very hard; worked at night making boots. Tried in the six months to retrieve his position; lost work for lack of strength; then took to continuous course of thieving. He is about 33.

Sentence (Sainsbury), Five years' penal servitude. Order of restitution of property to owners in all cases. Nothing allowed pawnbrokers under Section 30 of Pawnbrokers' Act.

FOURTH COURT; Tuesday, 6th March.

(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)

LEWIS. Robert (57, dealer); found guilty at the January Sessions of obtaining goods by false pretences and unlawfully obtaining credit, was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-28
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

GILL, William (46, tramway ticket inspector) ; stealing a piano, the property of George Horsfall Bailey and others, and feloniously receiving same; obtaining by false pretences from George Horsfall Bailey a piano with intent to defraud.

Mr. Hutton prosecuted.

GEORGE HORSFALL BAILEY . I am a partner with three others in the firm of Morton, Brothers, and Co., piano manufacturers,

of 19, Highbury Place, and elsewhere. On 11th October, 1905, we received the following letter from 49, Brunswick Terrace, Bradford, dated October 12th: "Having seen your advertisement, I will have a piano if you will give me a month's trial, carriage paid, if your advertisement is genuine and the piano is worth anything. Will forward rent-book if required. Corporation official. Yours, W. Gill." We sent a price list of our pianos and received a second letter on official paper of the Bradford Corporation, from which we were led to believe that prisoner was employed in the electrical department at £1 16s. a week. We next sent the usual hiring agreement. The cost of the piano was £31 odd and the instalments were to be £1 6s. 3d. per month. The agreement was received back on October 16th. In the same letter prisoner inquired for a gramophone and some records. The piano was forwarded. Had we not believed that prisoner was employed by the Corporation at 38s. a week in the electrical department we should not have sent it. Prisoner sent a letter acknowledging the receipt of the piano, and asking the firm to sell him the packing case, with which he wanted to make a fowlhouse in his back garden. We also sent him a gramophone of which the value was about four guineas and some records to the value of about £7. On 13 November prisoner wrote,"Received records. Gentleman gone to London. Will decide on phonograph on his return in two weeks."That card was addressed from Bradford, although the post mark was "London, S.E." Another postcard was received addressed from Belfast, although the post mark was Walworth. Another postcard, dated 18th December, from Dublin, and bearing post mark "London, S.E.," was as follows: "I shall be in London second week in January, 1906, on important business, and will call personally to arrange payments," etc. A letter in January also professing to be written in Dublin, but posted in London, stated that prisoner had been dismissed owing to the reduction of the staff of inspectors in Bradford. Prisoner never informed us that he was going to remove the piano from Bradford, though the agreement provided that notice of such removal should be given We have never received a penny of the instalments, of which three were due on 1st of January. Writing subsequently from Brixton Prison prisoner said, "I am very sorry to give you and the police so much trouble. I hope the day is not far distant when you will find the thief of your piano."

By Prisoner: I said at the Police Court that we sent the piano on the strength of inquiries made at Bradford, but on turning to the books I found that we sent the piano before we received the results of the inquiries.

ALBERT REGINALD TOWN , clerk in the employ of the Great Northern Railway Company at King's Cross: I produce a consignment note dated 8th November signed "W. Morton" in the

same handwriting as the letter written by prisoner from Brixton Prison. The consignment note had reference to a piano and a considerable quantity of furniture, land also some luggage. Prisoner himself signed the delivery-book on November 10th, and took the goods away on a four-wheeled van.

CHAELES GAIROD , carman, 23, Coburg Street, Euston Road. I removed the piano and other things from King's Cross to 266, Campbell's Buildings, Westminster.

THOMAS FINCH , carman, 11, Coral Street, Lambeth. Some time, about the middle of November I removed a piano and other things from 266, Campbell's Buildings, Westminster, to my employers' premises in Coral Street. I then saw prisoner, a lady, and two other gentlemen. Prisoner did not appear to superintend the removal, but I cannot say that he protested against the things being removed. The lady appeared to be upset. A dark gentleman who was there said he was a Scotland Yard detective, and it was he who instructed the removal of the goods.

WILLIAM ROBERY , carman, Coral Street, Lambeth. I remember the piano coming to the yard. I afterwards removed it to 96, Sussex Road, Seven Sisters. One of the gentlemen who went with me gave me instructions.

WILLIAM RANDALL , private inquiry agent. I made inquiries with regard to this piano, having received instructions to do so about January 12th. I traced prisoner to 271, Sayers Street, New Kent Road, and went to see him there, telling him that Morton, Bros., and Co. had given me instructions to charge him with stealing a pianoforte. First of all, he said, "You can charge me if you like," but I argued the point with him, and after some demur he said he would be straightforward with me and tell me what had become of the piano. He then stated that a man named Sykes, of Bradford, with another man, who called himself a detective from Scotland Yard, came and took away the piano, some furniture, fire irons, two sewing machines, and a number of other articles, by force. I told him he would have to go with me and show me where the piano was, and he took me to 3, Richmond Road, Caledonian Road, N., which I found was a baker's shop. Prisoner then said he had been misled by Mr. Sykes, of Bradford, and information was given to the police.

By Prisoner. Letters were given me by you with a view to proving that Sykes had had the piano.

By the Court. There is a Sykes, of Bradford, who is a piano dealer in a large way of business and has two shops, one in Bradford and one at Brighouse.

WALTER HEARD BEST , PC., N Division. At 1/4 to 2 on January 31st I saw the prisoner at 19, Highbury Place. I told him I was a police officer and should arrest him for stealing a

piano. He said, "I have not disposed of it. It was taken from my house, 266, Campbell's Buildings, Westminster Bridge Road. The piano and suite of furniture were taken by a man named Sykes, of Bradford. He came to my house with another man, who said he was a detective from Scotland Yard and said he wanted the piano I had never paid for. I told him his piano was not there. He said, "Well, I shall take this one," and he did. His piano is at Bradford now." I said, "If you had one piano you could not want another." He was taken to the station, and when charged said, "I have not got the piano, and I did not exactly steal it. A man named Sykes took it from me." I searched his premises, and found some hundreds of forms belonging to the Bradford Corporation Tramways.

THOMAS STIRK , Traffic Superintendent of the Bradford Tramways. Prisoner has been a ticket inspector and had a fortnight's notice to leave, expiring on October 10th last year. His wages were 34s. He was entitled to use the official paper for official purposes, but not for private purposes.

PRISONER, in defence, read a long statement detailing his relations with Mr. Walter Sykee, the Bradford pianoforte dealer. A man stating that he was a detective came with a man representing himself to be Sykes to Campbell's Buildings, and said that if he (prisoner) did not show his receipts for the goods he would have them all at Scotland Yard. Prisoner told this man that the piano was on trial for a month, believing that he was really a detective and not an impostor. He apologised to Messrs. Morton for not giving them notice of removal, but when Sykes took the piano he was really afraid.

MRS. FREER, called in support of prisoner's statement: On November 14th two men came to Campbell's Buildings, a tall odark man who said be was a detective and a man who said he was Mr. Sykes, the Bradford piano dealer. The dark man said unless prisoner could show receipts of everything in the flat he would remove everything to Scotland Yard that night. I tried to speak to the prisoner, and the dark man said that if I did not mind what I was doing he would lock me up for aiding and abetting him. Of course it frightened me very much not being used to anything of the kind. Then the dark man went out and ordered this van into which were put a suite of furniture, a piano, two sewing machines, fire irons, and lots of things; in fact, he took everything out of the house. Sykes demanded 10s. for the expenses of removal, and told me if I had not the money to take my wedding ring and pawn it.

Verdict, Guilty; previous convictions proved. Six months' imprisonment.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-29
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

WOLLARD, Frederick George (46, engineer) ; attempting to obtain by false pretences from the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society the sum of £1 10s. with intent to defraud; second indictment,feloniously marrying Alice Ada Elisha, his wife being then alive.

Mr. Hutton, for the prosecution, decided to proceed on the charge of bigamy only.

AMELIA MARSH , wife of Walter Marsh. 172, Miall Road, Herne Hill: Up till 1882 I was Amelia Jones. I remember being present on 5th May, 1879, at St. Jude's Church, East Brixton. Prisoner was then married to Louisa Burn, whom I saw at the Police Court. My signature and that of my father were attached to the certificate.

ALICE ADA ELISHA , 43, Hamilton Buildings, Great Eastern Street: In July, 1902, I was in domestic service. I met prisoner, and on March 15th, 1903, I went through the ceremony of marriage with him at Islington Parish Church. He old me he was a bachelor and an engineer by trade, and I believed him to he a bachelor. I have had two children and was attended in my last confinement by Dr. Rogers.

To Prisoner. Our first acquaintance was at the King's Head, Scrutton Street, which was a house you used to go into sometimes at night and on Sunday. They gave you there the name of "the old bachelor." I put up the banns, and naturally tool you to be a bachelor by hearing you so described. You also told me you were. Our married life has been a happy one, and I should not have prosecuted had it not been for the Hearts of Oak. Mr. Franklin, the inspector of the Hearts of Oak, was the first to speak to me about it. When I was in bed with this baby he told me you had a wife living.

MR. HUTTON. The prosecution for fraud was by the Hearts of Oak Society, but they are not prosecuting in this case. When the facts came out the prosecution was undertaken by the police.

WITNESS. I advised prisoner to apply for this lying-in clain, and fully expected to get it. We have always been happy and comfortable. Prisoner provided for me during detention as well as he could.

By the Court. Prisoner has been at work all the time I have been living with him.

SYDNEY ROUX , clerk in the claims department of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society. On October 10th last prisoner called at 17, Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square, the offices of the society, and produced an unofficial certificate from Dr. Rogers. He made a claim for a lying-in allowance. I asked him for his marriage certificate, and told him to call again with reference to the claim.

To Prisoner. When a member makes application for the lying-in benefit he is supposed to send in a written application to the secretary. If he applies personally he must I ring up the proper certificate, signed by the doctor or midwife in attendance, and also produce the marriage certificate. The half-sheet of notepaper brought by you was signed by a vicar, and you

stated that the original certificate had been destroyed by fire. I said I was unable to pay the claim until you brought the proper certificate. There was a note in the books that you were living apart from your wife in 1899.

HERBERT HOWABD FORWOOD , chief clerk in the claims department of the Hearts of Oak Society. I remember seeing prisoner at the society's office on October 11th, He made a claim for the lying-in benefit, 30s. He produced a certificate from Dr. Rogers. I asked him when his wife had returned to him, and he replied that she had returned to him two years previously. The society did not pay the money. Prisoner had been a member for twenty-five years.

To the Court. The lying-in benefit does not extend to illegitimate children.

ALBERT DRAPER (D.S., D Division). On February 13th I charged prisoner with bigamy. He said that he had eight children by his first wife, that he did not live comfortably with her, and that at last he went away from her. The children were well looked after by his family, and all were grown up.

To Prisoner. The following day before going into Court you said you had been told by your uncle three years ago that your wife was dead.

PRISONER (not on oath) stated that he married in the full belief that his wife was dead His wife left him; he did not leave her. She lived for some time in High Street, Poplar, and he used to send her money, but when he inquired for her in 1902 the woman who kept the house slammed the door in his face. In the same year he learned from a Mrs. Jones that she had been dead several months. He had a very unpleasant time with his wife, who was much addicted to drink and got into debt.

Mr. Hutton, in consequence of the defence raised, put in the depositions of Thomas Wright, prisoner's uncle, denying that he had told prisoner that his wife was dead.

HERBERT HOWARD FORWOOD , recalled. Prisoner's subscriptions during twenty-five years represent about £'. He has received £22 10s. in sick pay and £13 10s. in respect of nine confinements.

Verdict, Guilty; two months' imprisonment, second division.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-30
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

VEAL, Daniel (19, fireman), and JORDAN, William (19, hawker) . Robbery with violence on William Allen, and stealing from him divers of his moneys.

Mr. Bohn prosecuted; Mr. Lyons defended Jordan.

WILLIAM ALLEN , engineer, 60, Locksley Street, Limehouse, E. On the night of February 4 I was surrounded by three men. I cannot say that prisoners were two of them. One struck me between the eyes, and two held me from behind. I

felt them rifling my pockets while the one in front struck me in the face. I had 10s. 8d. in my possession.

EDWARD SEARLE (PC. 250 A). February 4th, at about twenty minutes to one, I was on duty in the neighbourhood of Salmon's Lane when I heard cries of "Help." I ran towards Carr Street where I found three men (two of them being prisoners dragging prosecutor along. There was a man on each side and one in front. The man in front was Veal, who had his left hand in prosecutor's right-hand trouser's pocket, and was striking him in the face with his right hand. Jordan held prosecutor by the left arm and was holding his right arm across his throat. I arrested Veal after chasing him through Carr Street and Parnham Street into Canal Road. On the way to the station he said."You don't know anything; you see nothing; the jobwas done when' you turned the corner. I did nothing." When charged at the station he said nothing. Two pennies were found at the spot where the struggle occurred. In a week's time I was again on the look-out for the other two men, and while standing just off Parnham Street I saw Jordan. On seeing me he ran away, and I lost him, but when I went back to Repton Street I saw him in custody. At the station he said, "I can prove where I was at the time. I was in bed at twelve o'clock. This man (meaning me) is telling a lot of lies. At twelve o'clock I was at home and in bed. Mrs. Harris, of Maria Terrace, Beaumont Square, opened the door for Alice Turner and me. She is my young woman, and we live at the same address. On Saturday night I was in public-house till they closed." Prosecutor voluntarily came to the station and gave information.

Cross-examined. To my knowledge I had never seen Jordan previously, It was a beautifully fine night, and where they dragged prosecutor was underneath a lamp. Veal was dressed in a dark coat, trousers and cap. His cap was well over his eyes. Jordan was dressed in a slate-coloured jacket with a darker pair of trousers. I next saw Jordan on the Saturday night or Sunday morning following at about one o'clock as he was coming from Parnham Bridge, or what is known as the wooden bridge.

Re-examined. The struggle taking place under a lamp I was able to see the whole thing. I was not very far away at the time. They threw the prosecutor underneath my feet to try to throw me down and stop my advance. When Jordan ran away he looked round and I saw his face.

WILLIAM CEOTHALL (P.C. 189 H). On the night of February 4th I heard cries and ran to the top of Carr Street and Salmon's Lane, where I saw prosecutor being held by three men, two of whom were the prisoners. Veal was standing in front of prosecutor and had his left hand in his right-hand trouser's pocket, at the same time striking him two or three

times in the face. Jordan on one side was holding prosecutor by the throat. Searle and I ran after the men down Parnham Street. I followed Jordan into Repton Street where I lost sight of him. I recognised Veal when he was in custody. On the following Saturday, or early on Sunday morning, I went out with a view to seizing the other two men. I was in plain clothes in Repton Street. Searle was standing in Parnham Street somewhere near the wooden bridge. I was actings-sergeant at the time. I saw Jordan coming along Repton Street at almost the same point where I saw him on the previous Saturday. I took him into custody. I told him what be would be charged with, and he said, "I can prove I was in a public-house at half past twelve last Saturday." I pointed out to him that the public-houses closed at twelve, so it was impossible. At the station he said, "I see these. two constables pass on the beat to-night. Why did they not seize me then?" The third man who ran away was unknown to the police.

Cross-examined. I recognised Jordan, whom I knew very well. I do not know anybody in the neighbourhood like him in appearance and size. He had on a very light slate-coloured jacket, the same as he had when taken into custody. Jordan has bad many addresses. He has given an address in Ocean street where his friends live and an address in Cadiz street and in Maria Terrace, where he has been about three weeks.

VEAL (not on oath)said that when he got to the bottom of Carr street he saw three men struggling in the road. Seeing Constable 250 coming under the arch, he halload out,"Here's a copper," and so as not to get into trouble ran down Carr street out of the way, but Constable 250 followed him along Parham street, over the bridge and into Canal Road, where he was arrested.

(Evidence for Jordan.)

WILLIAM JORDAN (prisoner on oath). I live at 1, Maria Terrace, Beaumont Place, Stepney. On Saturday, February 3rd, I left the house at 9 o'clock in the evening. I live with Alice Turner. I went to the beerhouse at the corner of the street, and stayed there till 12 o'clock when the house closed. It is called the Victory, but we call it the "Burned House" because it has been burned down so many times. When I turned to go home I met Alice Turner with whom I walked home arm in arm. Mrs. Harris, the landlady, opened the door for us. It takes about eight or ten minutes to walk from the "Burned House" to Maria Terrace. In the evening, about 5 o'clock, it was "hailstony," snowy, and rainy. I was out working at the time, and this light cast which I now have on was wet through, and I had to take it off and put on a black one. The light coat I put before the fire to dry. When I was arrested I was told I was to be charged with a "job" that had been done about two hours previously, and when I told the Constable I could prove where

I was, he turned round and said: If we cannot bring this home to you we will charge you with the job on Saturday week" I was about a mile away from the place where this struggle took place. Veal is a perfect stanger to me.

ALICE TURNER , Maria Terrace, Beaumont Square, Stepney. I have been living with Jordan. On Saturday, February 3rd, I him at above 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Later I met him at about five minutes past twelve at the corner of Candiz Street, and we walked home to Maria Terrace where we were admitted by Mrs. Harris, the landlady. The scars on my face were caused by sweetheart of a young man named Bolton, who ought to be in Jordan's place. She got five months' for the assault at the Thames Police Court. Bolton and Jordan are very much alike and might be taken for brothers, but my "boys" is a little stouter in the face. Jordan was not wearing the light coat he now has on on Saturday, February 3rd. It had been very wet, and when he came in he took the coat off and put on a black coat, and had that black coat on when he came in at 12 o'clock.

REBECCA HARRIS , a Russian by birth, and landlady of 1, Maria Terrace. I let a room to prisoner Jordan and Alice Turner. I do not give them latchkeys. I myself open the door as I want to see who comes in. I remember Saturday, February 3rd, and prisoner Jordan and Alice Turner coming in at about a quarter past twelve. I do not know whether they again went out.

Verdict, Veal, Guilty; Jordan, Not Guilty. Several previous convictions proved against Veal. Two years' hard labour.

OLD COURT; Wednesday, 7th March.

(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-31
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

CRIGHTON, John (37) ; carnally knowing Caroline Maud Hardy, a girl under the age of 13 years.

Mr. Arthur Hutton and Mr. Wilfrid Fordham prosecuted.

Verdict, Guilty. The police gave prisoner an excellent character, and he had a good discharge from the Army. Three years' penal servitude.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-32
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

MEABY, Michael Charles (66, engineer), pleaded guilty to wilful and corrupt perjury.

Mr. R. D. Muir and Mr. Bodkin prosecuted. Mr. C. W Mathewv appeared for prisoner.

Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, second division.

NEW COURT; Wednesday, 7th March.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-33
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BOITEL. Benoit (60. dealer), pleaded guilty to having in his possession for sale certain bottles of brandy to which certainforged trade marks were falsely applied; applying false trade descriptions and forged trade marks to certain botles of liqueur; having in his possession for the purpose of trade and manufacture certain goods to which certain false trade marks and false trade, descriptions were falsely applied; having in his possession certain dies and instruments for the purpose of forging certain trade marks, to wit, the trade marks of the Liquidators of the Chartreuse Monastery, France, the trade marks of Messrs. Hennessey and Company and the trade marks of Messrs. Martell and Company.

Mr. Bodkin prosecuted. Mr. Basil Watson appeared for prisoner.

CHARLES BELCHER , Inspector R Division, Scotland Yard. I executed the warrant and seited two van loads of articles. I have had reports about the prisoner from the French and Belgian police. He was in 1882 and 1883 in the employ of Messrs. Cusinier, who are distillers of repute in France, and he was subsequently in business as a distiller at St. Etienne, in France, and rose to the position of Deputy-Mayor and Comptroller of the Police Force there. In January, 1890, after leaving Messrs. Cusinier, he was prosecuted and fined 1, 000 francs for imitating their trade marks."As long ago as 1876, at Montpellier, he was sentenced in his absence to 3 years and expul sion from Belgium for, a fraud connected with alcohol. Between 1884 and 1902 there have been 40 proceedings by the Excise authorities against him, principally at St. Etienne. In September, 1903, he was convicted of manufacturing spurious Chartreuse in France. In August, 1905, he was found in connection with a man named Fodor at an illicit distillery in Brussels. The name of Fodor appears many times in the documents seised. The documents snowed prisoner to have been connected with two men named' Bader and Meyer, who are now being prosecuted for similar frauds in Holland. The goods seized have been sent by the Baiavia line to this country.

Cross-examined. Prisoner became Deputy-Mayor of St. Etienne 5 years after his expulsion from Belgium. I do not know that he intended with the woman De Jong to start a pastrycook's shop. De Jong has, not been arrested.

Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour; at the end of that time, the prisoner to be deported, under the Aliens Act.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-34
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

DENHAM, Bert (17, newsvendor) . Having been entrusted with a certain bicycle in order that he might deliver the same to another person, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Giles prosecuted.

DAVID SHEPHERD , 672, Commercial Road. I am a dealer in newspapers. I have known prisoner about five years and have worked with him. He lives at 672, Commercial Road. I use

a bicycle in my business. On the afternoon of February 15th I asked prisoner to take my bicycle to a bicycle shop called Emplage's in the Commercial Road. He took it away. I never saw the bicycle again. I asked prisoner what had become of it. He said he gave it to a strange man to ride upon.

WM. BOWN , Sergeant, K Division. I arrested prisoner on 15th February, at 7.30. He said, "I give the bicycle to a strange man to ride up the Commercial Road."I said, "Do you know him? What is his description?" He said, "A dark man with a clay pipe." He did not say why he gave it him. I have not been able to find the bicycle.

At the Police Court the prisoner made no defence.

Verdict, Not guilty.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-35
VerdictGuilty > pleaded part guilty

Related Material

WALES, Albert (21, soldier, 1st Suffolk Regiment) . Feloniously wounding Maud May O'Brien.

Mr. Close Smith prosecuted. Mr. Fitz Gerald defended.

The case having been opened, at the suggestion of the learned Judge, prisoner pleaded guilty to unlawfully wounding. Three days' imprisonment.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-36
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

GLOVER, John (31, cotter), TUFNELL, William (34, labourer), and COOK, Maud (25, laundress) . Feloniously wounding George Finney with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Tufnell pleaded Guilty; Glover and Cook pleaded Not guilty.

Mr. Leonard Kershaw prosecuted. Mr. Thome defended Glover.

GEORGE FINNEY , P.C. 429 Y. On January 23rd I was on duty in Grove Street, Hornsey, at 1.40 a.m. The Bee Hive public-house is at the corner of Grove Street and Barnard Place. I went down Grove Street towards Cornwall Cottages, which is a turning out of Eden Grove. I saw Tufnell at the entrance to Eden Grove with the prisoner Cook. She wore a white apron and a blue straw hat Cook came against me and I stepped into the road. Tufnell then struck me a heavy blow on the mouth. I attempted to arrest him. Two other men then rushed out. Glover was one of them; the other man is not here. I received a heavy blow by a man's fist on the right ear and a kick on the right leg. I at once drew my truncheon to defend myself. The female prisoner seized me round the body from the left side preventing my using my truncheon. Tufnell wrenched the truncheon away and struck me a blow on the forehead over the right eye. I seized him be the coat collar and then he struck me again and again. Cook was still holding me. One of them then said, "Let us get off" I do not know whether Glover struck me at all. They then went towards the Holloway Road. I became unconscious. I am still on the sick list.

Cross-examined. I had never seen Glover before. He hit me a blow on the mouth which caused me to stagger. The two men rushed out on me. They were behind me, but I just caught sight of Glover as I turned round. I saw Glover again at the Police Court, and identified him among fifteen men on February 7th.

ARTHUR CURZON , 61, Eden Grove, Holloway, leather embosser. On January 23rd about one o'clock I was coming home I saw the prisoner Cook in Eden Grove with a man, the prisoner Tufnell. About twenty minutes after I got home I came out to my gate and saw prisoner trying the doors at the Bee Hive public-house. A few minutes afterwards I heard a whistle, came out, and saw prosecutor defending himself with his truncheon against a woman and a man. The woman was the prisoner Cook. I could not recognise the man. I saw the man take the truncheon from the constable and give htm several blows on the head with it. I closed in and tried to get the truncheon from Tufnell, and he tried to give me a blow. Prosecutor fell to the ground. All this time the only persons present were one man and one woman. I went away whistling for assistance, the constable lying insensible on the ground. 1 picked Cook out at the station the next day.

MARY LOUISE RUCKER . I live at 29, Eden Grove, nearly opposite the passage to Cornwall Gardens. Between one and two in the morning of 23rd January I heard noise and whistling. I went to my window and taw three men and one woman. They all fell together on the pavement. I did not see that one was a policeman at the time. They got up and went into the middle of the road. I heard a blow and then a murmur, a kind of groan. The woman had a white apron and a coloured blouse on. The woman and two of the men then went away, leaving one man lying in the street. I saw all this from my window. The man who was lying down came towards my window and put his hands up as if he was in pain; then I recognised that he was a constable. I dressed and went out and blew the policeman's whistle. He was all over blood. He became unconscious, and fell down, and then I blew his whistle.

GEORGE OSBORN , P.C. Y Division. On 23rd January I went with P.C. Powell to the George public-house in Eden Grove at quarter to 10 p.m. I saw prisoner Glover. I said nothing to him. He said, "All right, sir, I know what you want. I was going to give myself up." He then walked out of the bar with me and Powell. I then said to him,"I have not told you what you are going to be charged with yet." He said, "I know; it is for bashing that copper about last night; I did not hit him; I can prove that I am innocent" I took him to the station and told him he would be detained on suspicion of being concerned with a man and woman in causing grievous bodily harm to a police-constable named Finney. That was the first time I had

told him the charge. He made no reply. The following morning at 9.30 I saw him at the station. He called me to him and said, "lam not going to put up with it all. My old woman is trying to put me away." I said, "Who is your wife?" He said, "I mean Maud Cook. William Tufnell is living with her now. It is all through them. They had a fight with me some time ago." Prisoners were then placed together, and admitted knowing one another. Glover accused Tufnell of living with Maud Cook, and Tufnell admitted that he knew her. At about half past eight on the 24th I was in the King's Arms public-house in Hornsey Road. I saw Maud Cook there. I said, "I am a police officer, and I am going to arrest you for being concerned with John Glover and William Tufnell, who are in custody, for violently assaulting George Finney, a police-constable, by striking him on the head with a truncheon early on Tuesday morning." She said, "All right, I will come with yon and will tell you all about It. I left the Queen's Arms public-house, Hornsey Road, at 12.30 a.m. From the fact that I sprained my ankle, a young man, whom I did not know, asked me if he should see me home, I said 'Yes.' He walked with me to Eden Grove, and then on to the corner of Cornwall Cottages, where I live. I was speaking to him outside, when a constable came up and asked us what we were doing. The young man said it was all right, and a second afterwards I saw him and the constable fighting in the road with a truncheon. I did not see the constable struck. I rushed into my house and saw no more of it. I do not know the young man who saw me home. Neither Glover nor Tufnell were there. I had not seen either of them that night."

Cross-examined. Glover works as a costermonger. He has not been convicted, but he has been mixing with a very low class of people.

WM. CATOR , P.C. 235 Y. On 23rd January at half-past 12 a.m. I saw Tufnell and Cook near the Queen's Arms public-house going towards Eden Grove.

THOS. POWELL , Detective, Y Division. I arrested Tufnell on 24th January. I know Glover and Cook. I saw them on 22nd January at half-past eight together in Holloway Road, nearly at the comer of Eden Grove. They were having a sort of argument, some high words.

DR. BERTRAM GODDARD , Divisional Surgeon of Police, Caledonian Road. On the morning of 23rd January I examined Constable Finney. He was in a serious condition of nervous shock. He had a wound over the left side an inch long; a wound over the cardial bone 3 in. long, dividing the arteries; had lost a quantity of blood. He also had a wound over the right side of the head. He has been in a delirious condition, and it was one of the worst cases I have known. He has been to Brighton for three weeks, and I shall send him away again.

(Evidence for Defence.)

JOHN GLOVER (prisoner, on oath). I live at a lodging-house, 2, Eden Grove, Hornsey I have known the woman Cook, and about a year ago was living with her. On 22nd January I went indoors at 1/2 past 11. I never came out again till 10 o'clock next morning. I did see Cook at 1/2 past 8 that evening but did no; speak to her. As I went into the lodging-house, the Deputy, Thos. Williams, was at the door and came upstairs with me. I usually pay 6d. a night, but I only paid 2d., and asked him to let the other 4d. go till I came home from work next day. When I was arrested at the public-house I had been told that two detectives were looking for me to charge me with hitting a constable, and I was going up to the station to tell the Inspector that it was nothing to do with me. The detectives wanted me as soon as I got into the public-house. Sergeant Osborn's story is substantially correct. I did not say to the constable on January 24th,"I am not going to put up with all of it; my old woman is trying to put me away. I had never seen Finney, and I was not in any way concerned in the assault. I was in bed at the time.

Cross-examined: In the George public-house the constables told me they wanted me. They did not say what for. I knew what for, and I told them I was going to tell the Inspector it was nothing to do with me.

THOS. WILLIAMS : On the night of 22nd January I was Deputy at 2, Eden Grove. I remember prisoner Glover coming in at about 1/4 to 1 or 1 o'clock on Tuesday morning. He had been a customer of the lodging-house for a considerable time. He usually pays 6d. a night, but that night he gave me 2d., and asked me to trust him the 4d., and I trusted him. He then went upstairs, and did not come out again that night I should have known it if he had. I come on duty at 12 and remain till 12 the next day.

Cross-examined: I spoke to Glover in the kitchen of the 6d. lodgings. There are two prices, 5d. and 6d. In the 6d. department there are 28 beds. People come in at all times from 7 p.m., but I do not get many after 12. They are working people and go to bed early. I did not particularly notice the time Glover came in, but it was about the time I close the outer door, which is between 1/4 to 1 and 1 o'clock. I am certain I closed it before 1/4 to 2. I never knew anything about the assault till I heard the alarm from the outside, a police whistle. That was some time after Glover had come in and gone to bed. I heard afterwards that a policeman had been assaulted. I went to the door when I heard the whistle and had a look to see what was the matter P.C. Powell came and made inquiries, and asked me if I had anybody in after 2. No reference was made to Glover. There is no other way out of the lodging-house.

You cannot get from the 6d. part to the 5d. part without coming downstairs and through the kitchen where I was.

Verdict, Glover, Not Guilty; Cook and Tufnell, Guilty. Cook, six months' hard labour; Tufnell, twelve months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-38
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

MILLER. Mary Elizabeth (26, housekeeper) . By a certain secret disposition of the dead body of the female child of Gertrue Ada Angus did endeavour to conceal the birth thereof.

Mr. Fenwick prosecuted. Mr. Basil Watson appeared for prisoner.

ALBERT DEETS , Divisional Inspector R Division. On 10th February I saw prisoner with Mrs. Travers at Westbourne Park Police Station. I cautioned her. She made a statement which I took down in writing at the time, and which I now produce: "I am a married woman, living apart from my husband——"

At this point the prisoner pleaded guilty. Three days' imprisonment.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-39
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

STAINES. George Frederick (64, gasfitter), pleaded guilty to, being employed as servant to Frederick Jenks and others, trustees and members of the Imperial Burial Club, wilfully and with intent to defraud did falsify a certain book belonging to his said employers.

Sentence. six months' imprisonment, second division.

FOURTH COURT; Wednesday, 7th March.

(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-40
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ROBERTS, Charles Barber (46, joiner) . Being adjudged bankrupt, not discovering to his trustee how and to whom and for what consideration and when he disposed of part of his property, such part not having been disposed of in the ordinary way of trade or laid out in the ordinary expenses of his family; and not delivering up to the trustee certain property relating to his affairs; within four months next before the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him, being a trader, did dispose of otherwise than in the ordinary way of trade, certain property obtained on credit and not paid for; making a transfer of certain of his property with intent to defraud his creditors; concealing and removing part of his property to the value of £10 and upwards.

Mr. A. E. Gill, Mr. Graham Campbell and Air. Arnold Ward prosecuted; Mr. Angus Campbell defended.

FREDERICK CHARLES MACKRELL , usher and office keeper of Wandsworth County Court. I produce the file in bankruptcy of prisoner, described in the petition as Charles Barber Roberts and Co., of Totterdown Fields Estate. Tooting. The petition

was presented on 26th February, 1904; the receiving order made on 17th. March; the adjudication on 22nd April.

WILLIAM GEORGE STAPLETON , shorthand, writer, I was present at the Wandsworth County Court when prisoner's public examination was taken and took shorthand notes. I dictated a transcript of the shorthand notes, examined the transcript, and initialled each page. The transcript is on the file and is correct.

EDWARD EBENEZER ALEXANDER , clerk to Hubbard, Son, and Eve, solicitors to the London and South Western Bank I produce the writ, dated 6th October, 1903, in an action by the L. and S.W. Bank against prisoner. The claim is on four promissory notes of £1,500 each, dated February 3rd, 1903, payable on demand. I alto produce the judgment, dated 22nd January, 1904, the amount being £6,000 and £4 14s. costs, prisoner not having delivered any defence.' That judgment remains unsatisfied.

Cross-examined. An execution was put in and withdrawn by arrangement.

Re-examined. After it had been withdrawn it was put in again.

JOSEPH GEO. BARR , in the employ of Messrs. Murray and Co., Rolls Chambers, Chancery Lane, Bailiffs to the Sheriff of Surrey. I went into possession of "Moira," Queen's Road, Wellington, on January 23rd, 1904, to levy execution in respect of a judgment obtained by the L. and S.W. Bank against prisoner. I produce the authority under the seal of the Sheriff of Surrey. I remained in until the 25th, when I was withdrawn by wire. I never saw prisoner there. I remember looking into an outhouse or stable and seeing some brass and iron ware in boxes, locks, and various things that would be used by builders in fitting up houses.

PERCY BRABY , of Messrs. Braby and Maodonald, solicitors. I acted at solicitor to Mr. Bowner, trustee of prisoner's bankruptcy. I produce an office copy of a bill of sale given on 10th February, 1904, and purporting to be ait absolute bill of sale by prisoner to Ada Coley of the household goods, furniture, fittings, horses, carriages, and effects at Moira, Wallington, for £250, the payment of which is acknowledged. The execution purported to be attested by Harold A. Whitfield, solicitor. I produce the office copy of the affidavit of the solicitor filed with the bill of sale. On behalf of Mr. Bourner I took steps to contest the bill of sale. I wrote to Ada Coley making that claim in April, 1904. An order was eventually made for the examination of Ada Coley in the Bankruptcy Court. On February 13th, 1905, the Judge declared the bill of sale void, and ordered what was referred to in the bill of sale To be given up to the trustee at once. I was present in Court, as were also the prisoner and Ada Coley. On the same day I took steps to recover the furniture, and gave instruction

to Mr. H. W. Smith, an auctioneer. I subsequently received a communication from Mr. Smith, and wrote to prisoner on February 17th. Acting upon my instructions Mr. Smith took possession of the furniture at "The Mount" Kitchener Road, Thornton Heath, and the proceeds of the sale have been paid over to the trustee. After the seizure a Mrs. Healey laid claim to the whole of the goods, which we opposed. We started an independent motion against her, and she opposed our proceedings. Mrs. Healey produced no documentary evidence in support of her claim. Statements were put in saying that certain things belonged to her under certain titles, but they were all in her handwriting or the bankrupt's. In April an order was made clearing the title of the trustee to the property. I also acted on behalf of the trustee in some interpleader proceedings with regard to the proceed of carts and horses sold at the Elephant and Castle repository. An action was commenced in the High Court by Ada Coley against the proprietor of the repository, and ultimately we made a claim in the same action, and an interpleader issue was directed as between Ada Coley and the trustee. Judgment was ultimately given for the trustee, no evidence being adduced in support of the claim. Prisoner was called upon to deliver an account of moneys received and dealt with after January 8th. The account produced purports to be a cash account from 18th August to 17th March, and purports to show a receipt of £75 from Ada Coley for horses and carts, £250 from the bill of sale, and £167 12s. 10d. from the London County Council clerk of works; total, £492 12s. 10d. The other side of the account purports to show how that was disposed of: personal expenses, £125; wages on contracts, £180; legal and accountants' costs in respect of Bankruptcy proceedings, £75; counsel, solicitor, and witnesses' expenses in an action brought by U. Gurney, High Street, Tottenham, approximately £11; total, £490. We pressed prisoner for vouchers of these receipts and payments, but he never gave any information which would enable us to trace the £75 and the £250 alleged to have been received by him.

Cross-examined. I have not considered the point whether if prisoner had not been bankrupt he could have claimed this property from Miss Coley on the ground that the bill of sale was void. The bill of sale has only been declared void as against the trustee. The matter of consideration was not gone into; the bill being declared void on the ground that it was conditional though the form was absolute; it was unnecessary to go any farther. The suggestion that this was a fraudulent transaction was not an afterthought. The trustee got the proceeds of the sale at the Elephant and Castle Repository. I am aware that Miss Coley and the prisoner have both said throughout that these horses and carts were sold to Miss. Coley before

the bankruptcy, and if that were so, prisoner would have nothing to do with these horses and carts at the time they were sent to the repository. I know nothing of prisoner having, been financed by the bank. As to the denial that the furniture at The Mount was the furniture claimed in the bill of sale, it was, I believe, suggested that there were also other things at The Mount. Mrs. Healey claimed a great part of the furniture as having been sold to her by Miss Coley. It was not finally decided that the furniture at The Mount was the property of the trustee until 3rd April. I consider the furniture was the property of prisoner, seeing that we have succeeded in establishing a title to it. When application was made for further accounts, the Registrar expressed the opinion that the bankrupt had done his best.

ARTHUR HENRY Moon, clerk to H. W. Smith, auctioneer, Great James Street: On 15th February, 1905, by Mr. Smith's, instructions I went to The Mount, Thornton Heath, accompanied by William Bellhouse and Joseph John Knight for the purpose of taking possession of certain furniture there on behalf of the trustee, Mr. Bourner. The door was opened by Miss Jane Lawson, the prisoner's niece. Mrs. Healy afterwards appeared on the scene. I had considerable difficulty in getting into the house. The women resisted my efforts to get in. The-door was open and I had my foot on the mat, and they tried to push me out. Through the glass panel I noticed what appeared to be the arm of a man outstretched against the door. When we. got into the hall I saw prisoner. I asked him his name. He made no reply, but said he was there representing the ladies. I told him I had come on behalf the trustee to take possession of certain furniture which had been removed from "Moira," and asked if he would show me round the house and point out that furniture to me. He refused. I left Knight and Bell-house in possession, and next day returned with another possession man named Prince. I could not obtain admission to the rooms on that occasion and went again on 23rd February. The men had been in possession in the meantime. I served notices upon two of the ladies, Mist Coley land Mrs. Healey on behalf of the trustee. Prisoner was present, and remarked that if the women allowed the furniture to be removed they would lose their home. The ladies refused to serve me with particulars of their claims, and next day I took steps to remove the furniture On my way to the house I was handed a claim of Mrs. Healey, stating that the furniture was her absolute property, but not a detailed claim such as had been asked for, setting out the circumstances under which she claimed. The furniture was removed in vans to Mr. Smith's auction rooms. I made a list of the goods removed.

Cross-examined: I had a letter of authority from Messrs. Braby and Macdonald, portions of which I read to prisoner.

My instructions were to remove the whole of the goods. Prisoner did not say it was his house. He said he was there to protect the ladies.

Re-examined: The part of the letter I read was the solicitor's advice to take possession, and put two men in.

JOSEPH JOHN KNIGHT , 66 New Crawford Street, Soho. On 5th February, 1905, I accompanied Moon to take possession of some furniture at "The Mount" After Moon went Bell-house and I had to stop in the passage because we were not allowed to go into any of the rooms. Prisoner advised the two women to turn us out, and said he would get us out somehow or another if he had to wash us out. I had some dirty water thrown over me from the upstairs landing. When I made an attempt to get into the rooms to take an inventory a glass was thrown at me by one of the women. Prisoner did not do anything beyond advising. He once took off his coat and said he could fight me if the two women could get rid of the other man. I had my hat broken by the woman I knew as Miss Coley. One night when prisoner came home he held a lighted lamp in front of me and said if he could not wash me out he would burn me out. We had a very uncomfortable time. I was there nine days. All day long we spent in the hall and two nights. On the first day we were not allowed to have a chair. The first night I spent on the door mat and the other nights in the drawing-room.

Cross-examined. In my experience of these cases the ladies give more trouble than the men, but both they and the prisoner caused a lot of annoyance. Application was made to the Judge to commit prisoner, but he refused to do so.

SAMUEL FORD , furniture packer, 62 White Hone Lane, Norwood, employed by Mr. Eve, furniture remover. On 24th December, 1904, I went by instructions to "Moira." Queen's Road, Wallington, and took a load of furniture from the house to "The Mount," Thornton Heath.

RICHARD KEMPSON , assistant bailiff. In the beginning of 1904 I was in the employ of Messrs. Murray and Co., and on 10th February I went into possession of "Moira." I showed prisoner the warrant and he said he thought the matter would be settled. I remained in possession down to 26th March, nearly six weeks. I used to go home to sleep. One morning I noticed a lot of straw and stuff about as if something had been removed from the stables or the loft. I found at the police station that something had been removed the night before about 10 o'clock.

Cross-examined. No one was left in charge when I went away to sleep. I had no difficulty in getting in again. After the things were removed I had some one in, and we stayed day and night.

GEORGE STEWART , manager of the London Horse Repository

at the Elephant and Castle. On 11th February, 1904, I sold five horses and four carts, and on 15th February two horses, a van, three carts, and some harness, in the name of Mr. Mearles, Childebert Road, Balham. The name on the carts was C. B. Roberts. After the sale of the first lot I received a notice from the L. and S.W. Bank, and in consequence I did not pay Mearles, as in the ordinary case I should, three days after the sale. Eventually, under an order of the Court, the money was handed over to Mr. Bourner, the trustee. The amount realised was about £150. Mearles said that sale was under a bill of sale, which he produced.

GEOGE ENDICOTT , wheelwright, Upper Tooting. I am a creditor in prisoner's bankruptcy. My claim includes £18 for a new tip cart, which I sold to him on credit on 30th October, 1903.

Cross-examined. Mr. Roberts ordered the cart. I stated at the police court that prisoner had complained of Mr. Gurney ordering these two carts without his authority. Prisoner was not in the least anxious to take the cart, as he already had one. The cart was ordered some five months before it was delivered.

Re-examined. Before I delivered the cart I spoke to prisoner about it, and he told me to finish it, but I need not hurry.

RICHARD FIRMAN . I am a carman in the defendant's employment in 1904. I remember receiving an order from Mr. Mearles with reference to some ironmongery, but I cannot fix the date. In consequence of that order I took my van to the store-house just outside Totterdown Fields. I loaded the van with ironmongery and parcels. Two other carts were similiarly employed at the same time. Mr. Mearles was there when I loaded up, and I saw prisoner go into the office. I was ordered to go to Redhill, but at Parley I was overtaken by the office boy on a bicycle, who told me to turn back and take the things to King Street, Croydon. Mearles was prisoner's manager. Mr. Mearles told me on the telephone to stop there that night and ring him up the next morning. That night I went home and the next day I went back to Croydon and spoke to Mr. Mearles on the telephone, and in consequence of what he said we took the van and cart on to Queen's Road, Wallingion. There I saw Mrs. Roberts. I again rang Mr. Mearles of on the telephone, and in Consequence of what he said I took the stuff back to Croydon Again. The van and the carts remained there that night. Next day I again spoke to Mr. Mearles on the telephone, and in consequence of his orders I took it back to Wallington again, where I unloaded it and put the stuff in the loft of the defendant's stables. I remember getting an order two or three weeks afterwards to take some horses and vans to the Elephant and Castle Repository; there were three horses, one van, and two carts.

Cross-examined. Prisoner had a place of business at Redhill, a house, a big yard, saw-mills, and stores.

To the Court. There were a van and two carts full of this ironmongery.

Re-examined. No explanation was given to me by Mr. Mearles for the orders under which three men were three days moving this ironmongery from Totterdown Fields to "Moira," Queen's Road, Wallington.

JAMES HENRY TARRY , 27, Moreing Road, Tooting. I was formerly employed as storekeeper by prisoner at Totterdown Fields. I left his service about February 8th, 1904. At that time there was no ironmongery in store, except a few oddments—nothing to speak of. There had been some, but it was taken away by Firmin. Prisoner was about the place when it was taken away.

Cross-examined. It never occurred to me to ask prisoner if it was all right about moving this stuff. It was my duty to do as I was told by Mr. Mearles, the manager. I do not know that anything was said about a new place being made for it. I cannot say whether prisoner knew anything about it. Some of these goods were damaged goods that the County Council had refused to accept for their work on the Totterdown estate. When I left that job was still unfinished.

Re-examined. There was nothing to prevent prisoner seeing the removal of these goods upon that day. I am not able to tell what proportion of these goods had been damaged.

JOHN PATTENDEN (P.C. 302 W). I remember the night of February 29th, 1904. I was on duty in Manor Road, Wallington. I saw a van turn out of Queen's Road into Manor Road about ten at night I stopped the van and took the name and address of the driver and owner of the van. The name on the van was Albert Forwood, 501, York Road, Wandsworth. I got on the wheel and saw that the van contained three large cases, which appeared to be heavy judging from the way the horses were drawing. I asked the driver where he had got the stuff from, and he said from round the corner. I asked him if he would go with me as far as the corner of Queen's Road and Manor Road. At the corner I saw prisoner, who asked the carman what was the matter. The carman replied that the policeman was not satisfied as to where he got this stuff. Prisoner then said, "That's all right; you have got it from my place." Prisoner then went back to "Moira," and entered the house.

Cross-examined. The man I stopped and spoke to appeared to me to be heavier than the defendant. (Daniel Roberts, defendant's son, was called into court.) That is not the man who spoke to me. I had seen prisoner before, but not to notice him particularly. I made a report of the goods being removed.

GEORGE WHITFIELD FOSTER , of Mr. A. Forwood's. About the

end of February, 1904, we received an order for sending out a van. I saw the van next day with some ironmongery in it, and that ironmongery is still in our possession. We were subsequently rung up on the telephone by a firm of solicitors, who made a communication respecting it. Mr. Yerbury afterwards called and saw it. When the ironmongery was stored at the yard I had no name given with it.

THOMAS WILLIAM HATTON , carman to Mr. Forwood. I remember early in 1904 being sent out, by Mr. Foster with another carman named Hilton with a van. We filled up at Tooting Broadway and proceeded to Wellington according to orders. I could not swear whether I saw the defendant there. (Daniel Roberts was again brought into court.) That is not the man I saw; it was a much older man. At that house we loaded up some ironmongery, think, which was in the, coach-house or the stables, and after that we drove away to our warehouse. I remember being stopped by P.C. Paitenden, and I remained in charge of the van while Hilton and the constable went back. Hilton came beck and said, "It is all right, drive on.' The person we met at Tooting Broadway gave us instructions.

Cross-examined. I will not be certain that I saw prisoner at any time that night. The man I saw I took to be the occupier. I naturally thought it wise a moonlight flitting.

EDWARD HILTON , carman to Mr. Forwood. I remember being sent out with Hatton one night in February, 1904. We went to Tooting; Broadway and then to a house at Wellington, where I saw a gentleman and two or three women. I assisted in loading up the van with the goods. They were brass house fittings as near as I could see. We then drove away, and I remember being stopped by the constable. I went back to the house and there saw the man that helped me load up. He spoke to the constable and then he drove away. I do not remember that the man gave him any instructions whatever.

JOHN EDWIN YERBURY , surveyor, 3, Queen Street, Cheapside. I remember going to York Road, Wandsworth, and making an inventory, which I dated December, 1905. Mr. Foster there showed me some ironmongery in 3 cases, and 2 of the men helped me to set it out so that I could count it and make the inventory. (Produced.) The total value was £56 15s. 6d. I should say that the ironmongery I saw could easily be carted in one van. The value of the ironmongery required to load, 2 carts and a van would in my opinion be about, £168 and would weigh about 3 tons. I was concerned with prisoner's affairs long before the bankruptcy. I assisted Mr. Bourner either in advising or keeping a check on prisoner for the benefit of the L. and S.W. Bank, and I inspected his works and his stock at various times. I cannot tell what the deficiency in prisoner's bankruptcy was, but the stock would no doubt have been very

much more valuable to use in building than sold under a bankruptcy. I cannot say that, if the bank had displayed a little more patience prisoner might not perfectly well have carried out his contract and paid the bank off. I think the bank was very patient, and I do not think this is a fair question for me to answer. I cannot say I think the bank lost far more by stopping the prisoner than they would have done by allowing him to go on. The stock claimed by the London County Council was handed over to the trustee and sold by him. An arrangement was made by which the contract should be completed, and the County Council handed the goods over to the trustee and it was sold. Some, portion of the ironmongery and certain of the goods had been condemned by the County Council.

Re-examined. I wrote to prisoner expressing surprise that he had started the Fountain Hospital contract on September 14th. The bank had not agreed to finance him in regard to that contract. The bank had asked me to make a preliminary report to them, and I think had come to the conclusion that they would help him with, that contract as well as with the Totter down contract, provided my report was a favourable one, but when I got to the job I found that the work was started and I went away rather annoyed, as prisoner had started the work before the bank had come to a definite decision. In the end the bank did consent to finance it.

WILLIAM CHALWIN , assistant to Messrs. Randall and Co., estate agents, Ilford. In May, 1905, I had the letting of No. 55, Wanstead Park Road. I recognise prisoner, who called upon me to point out that the water was not connected. That was after the house had been let. The name of the tenant was Charles Roberts. The letting agreement was prepared in our office. I think I interviewed prisoner five or six times, and once when I went to the house he let me in. That is the only Mr. Roberts I ever saw. He said he was brother to the tenant.

Cross-examined. I should hardly let a house to a lady in her own name. The lady might really have been the tenant of the house, but we wanted a man's name in the lease.

STANLEY DAVIS , inspecting engineer, 53, Wanstead Park Road. My house is next door to No. 55. I have seen prisoner entering and leaving that house. I cannot remember the dates when I first saw him; it is too long back, but I think it was in the summer of 1905. I have seen him in the garden once or twice in the early morning, walking about in his slippers.

BENJAMIN ROBINSON (D.S, K Division, West Ham). I remember the 12th October last year. On that day I went to 55, Wanstead Park Road and when into all the rooms. I found a number of burnt articles, and in the front room downstairs I saw a quantity of books and papers relating to

business affairs. I removed two letter books and a diary, and took them to the police station at Ilford. There were a number of assessors in the house from the various assurance companies, there having been an alleged fire.

Cross-examined. I brought away those three books because I thought they would be material to this case. I did not examine the others with any care.

JOHN WILLIAM GREIG , Clerk to the Trustee in Bankruptcy. I went to Stratford on the 17th October, and from there to 55, Wanstead Park Road. I there took possession, of 23 books, a list of which is produced. All of them; I think, are connected with prisoner's business. In addition to the books I found a letter dated January 25th, 1904, from Mr. Woodham to the Architect of the London County Council. I also found a list of ironmongery at Wallington amounting to £266 9s. 3d.

Cross-examined. I do not know of my own knowledge that any or all of these books have not been examined on behalf of the Official Receiver. I know they were not marked by him. He has nothing in his list of books to show that these books were ever in his possession. The Official Receiver is supposed to take possession of all books and papers. I have been 15 years in an Official Receiver's office, and that has always been our rule.

HAROLD EDWIN FOSTER . I produce a statement signed by prisoner with regard to the books and papers in his possession, dated March 17th, 1904, the date of the receiving order. These books were handed over by him to the Official Receiver. When the trustee was appointed in April, 1904, the books and papers in the possession of the Official Receiver were handed over to him.

ARTHUR CHARLES BOURNER , chartered accountant. I was appointed trustee of prisoner's estate on April 18th, 1904. I had previously been advising the L and S-W. Bank in connection with advances to prisoner. He carried on business as a builder and contractor at Totterdown Fields and Monson Road, Redhill, but he really had no work at Redhill after he got the work from the County Council. He had what was really a permanent office at Totterdown Fields which, of course, was a big contract. He never delivered up the furniture snd effects at "Moira," nor handed over any money paid to him in respect of that furniture under the Bill of Sale. The proceeds of the sale of the horses, and carts was paid to me as the result of an interpleader action. I periodically went over the assets with him. Amongst them was a quantity of iron-mongery at Wallington amounting to £266 9s. 3d., which was the figure he gave me in January, 1904. I think that was iron-mongery condemned by the London County Council, and it had figured in the list of assets for about 5 months. Prisoner has

never explained what became of that, and it was never handed over. He has never accounted for any ironmongery or the proceeds of ironmongery removed from Totterdown Fields in January, 1904. The contract at Totterdown Fields was for the erection of 300 cottages for the County Council, and the amount was £66, 000. The ironmongery found at Mr. Forwood's ware-house came to my knowledge some time in May, 1904. Only one of the books found at 55. Wandsworth Park Road had been in the possession of the Official Receiver and had gone back. The books found there were, material to the examination of the defendant's affairs.

(Thursday, 8th March.)

ARTHUR CHARLES BOURNER , further examined. The admitted proofs were. £16,024 6s. 5d., and the assets realised £3,576 10s. 8d., leaving a deficiency of £12, 447 15s. 9d. According to the statement of affairs, the L. and S.W. Bank are returned as creditors for £14, 864 6s. 3d., with security valued at £14, 110, leaving a deficiency of £754. The bankers have proved for approximately £15.000, and the security has realised under £10, 000, leaving a deficiency approximately of £5,000. I remember being cross-examined at the Police Court with reference to the alleged, payment of £75 by Miss Coley for the horses and carts, and I remember this question being put: "Would you be surprised to learn that Miss Coley at that time had a considerable balance at the bank?" There was a balance at the time at the London and Provincial Bank of £140 10s. 10d. in favour of Mrs. Roberts, and prisoner told me that the Mrs. Roberts then referred to was the same as Ada Coley. I was brought in to advise the L. and S.W. Bank in their relations with prisoner about February, 1903, and from time to time I saw prisoner in connection with advances the bank were making for the purpose of carrying out the contract with the London County Council at Totterdown, known as Section A. He spoke on the subject of being allowed to enter into other contracts and the bank financing other contracts, and I think I told him to consult the bank. On September 11th, 1903, I wrote to him calling his attention to the fact that his indebtedness to the bank was no less than £12,016. It first came to my knowledge that he was doing a contract for the Metropolitan Asylums Board in October of that year, and upon the 9th of October I wrote to him: "I learn that you have been engaged upon the Fountain Hospital for nearly a month" and that material had been sent on to the site to the amount of nearly £800. The bank had not authorized prisoner to use any money advanced by them on this contract down to the first week in October. The wages book produced from the 28th of August, 1903, was disclosed, and, turning to September 11th. there is nothing in the entries

of the wages showing that money had been spent on the Fountain Hospital. The total wages for that week are £301 6s. 6 1/2 d., said to have been expended on Section A and the intermediate section. The intermediate section was a branch of the first contract, Section A, which the bank was financing. The wages book that was not disclosed purporting to cover the same period showed the same total of wages, but that a portion of that was applied in building the Fountain Hospital The figures are the same in both books, but one apparently attributes the payment of wages to the work of the County Council, while the other shows that a portion of the money was expended in connection with the Fountain Hospital. The bank acquiesced in the decision, to finance him over the Fountain Hospital after it was discovered in October that he was doing the work. In December he entered into a third contract, Section B. In November I wrote to him informing him that the bankers had been informed that he had signed the contract with, the London County Council for the erection of 400 cottages at Tooting, and on the 27th November he wrote saying "here is no truth in the report that I've signed a contract for a further 400 houses with the L.C.C. or signed any contract at all since the Fountain Hospital contract. I shall most-certainly keep my promise to you and the bank re any further contracts." Notwithstanding that, prisoner signed a contract with the L.C.C. for Section B on December 9. That fact came to my knowledge some time in January, 1904, and upon that the bank declined to advance any further money to him and the action for the recovery of £6,000 on the promissory notes was proceeded with.

Cross-examined. I heard of the bill of sale almost as soon as it was registered. I have never suggested there was any concealment about it. The bill of sale was impugned as not being a genuine transaction. The list of the ironmongery was amongst the papers found at 55, Wanstead Park Road. I knew of the ironmongery at Wellington in 1903. Prisoner furnished me with the information, and put the total value of the ironmongery at £266 9s. 3d. I should not think much of it had been used in connection with various works, as it had been condemned by the London County Council. My solicitor advised me that the bill of sale on the furniture at "Moira" did not cover the ironmongery, though no doubt it may have been intended to by prisoner, who might honestly have believed that it did. The date of the act of bankruptcy was February 11th, and the bill of sale was given the day before. The act of bankruptcy was that the Sheriff had been in possession for twenty-one days. There was no other act of bankruptcy. The bank had to make one in order to get him into the Bankruptcy Court. Assuming the bill of sale was valid, that consideration passed, and that everything was properly carried out, the furniture did not belong to

prisoner on February 11th, but I am afraid I cannot reconcile myself to the assumption. I do not believe in the transaction. The Sheriff was in possession for twenty-one days with the deliberate object of getting an act of bankruptcy. I think the bill of sale was a sham bill of sale. The question of its shamness does not affect me. I was acting as trustee for all the creditors, and it was in the interest of all the creditors that the bank should put this man in the Bankruptcy Court. My first connection with the bank was in February, 1903. Prisoner then owed the bank some £3,000. He wanted to be financed for the Section A contract, and the bank consulted me on the subject, and, after taking advice myself, I advised the bank that it was better to carry out the contract. On the information furnished me I was of opinion prisoner was solvent. I did not think it was good business for the bank to finance him, but I thought that it would minimise the loss they would otherwise make. By closing the account in January, 1904, they made a very much larger loss. That was not the result of the bank following my advice, but owing to prisoner having entered into Section B contract and the Metropolitan Asylums contract without authority. The Fountain Hospital contract was completed by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, who would not even allow the bank to complete it. The bank refused to finance Section B contract. They did not refuse to finance the Fountain Hospital contract; they were not asked. They were not prepared to enter into any further contracts. They thought at first prisoner was a "straight" man; so did I; but it was not "straight" conduct to take the money of the bank and go on with the Metropolitan Asylums Board contract, nor was it "straight" conduct to enter into Section B contract after the bank had refused. The bank, having refused, had, of course, no right to complain of his going elsewhere for assistance. I think they had a right to complain if he sold his horses for £75 and his furniture for £250 and used the money for Section B contract as the bank had gone out of possession at "Moira" owing to his pleading. If they had not gone out of possession the furniture could not possibly have gone to Miss Ada Goley. When I was called in about £20, 000 of work had been done on Section A contract; therefore, there was roughly £50, 000 of work to be done, and the bank found such money as was necessary. As the County Council paid on the certificates of the architect, the money went to the credit of the bank. I complained at the police court that prisoner had over-estimated his stock. I do not agree that the chief cause of this large deficiency was the suddenness with which the bank came down and sold him up. The ironmongery at Forwood's I kept as tangible evidence. It is valued at £56, but I do not suppose it would realise a tithe of that, as it is special goods made for the County Council work. I believe there is £1,000 worth of ironmongery that I cannot

trace anywhere. I do not remember that it was suggested that I should get possession of prisoner's books through the London County Council, who were in the possession of the Totterdown Fields office. I do not know that it was in May, 1905, that the County Council locked him out of that office. I was under the impression that he sold off all the stock in May, 1904, about a month after I was appointed. One of the wages books was found at 55, Wanstead Park Road, which appears to have been practically prisoner's own house. There was no necessity for two wages books. The books were kept by prisoner's clerks. It is not usual for book-keepers to take the books home with them; it is not often done in my experience, and I consider it a dangerous thins to do. I should think a lady book-keeper would be less likely than anyone else to take them home because, as a rule, when she leaves the office the lady book-keeper had had quite as much as she wants for the day. She is not sufficiently interested in the business to work at home. The writing in the book found at 55, Wanstead Park Road does not look like a lady's. The indebtedness to the bank at the time I came in to advise was £3,000, and, if prisoner had been made bankrupt at the time, the security of the bank would have all gone. In the case of a contract for £50, 000 the certificates would have been of no value whatever, and the retention money would have been forfeited. I cannot say it would have been imprudent for the bank to put a stop to the contract at that time; it was considered desirable at the time to let the prisoner go on. Section A and the Fountain Hospital contract were supposed to be finished on December 31, 1903, and I made a note in my book at the time on the information supplied by prisoner of what was required to complete them. These contracts were not finished because prisoner deceived us. He told me early in January, 1904, that it was a matter of about £400 to complete both contracts. Neither the London County Council nor the Metropolitan Asylums Board would allow us to finish the contract, but they handed over the balance that was due, the contract being completed at substantially the same price. That the bank made a greater lose through continuing to finance prisoner was not due to any advice of mine. I think it is a very bad business contracting for the County Council. I have a very poor opinion of the London County Council, and when I advised the bank to support the man who was doing it, it was a question of doing what was best under difficult circumstances. The methods of doing business of the London County Council are very objectionable. They do not do business on business lines. So far from the result of the Council not doing business on business lines being that the contractors get more profit, I think they often come to the Bankruptcy Court through the County Council officials. I have my own views—

strong views—as to the officials of the London County Council and the bankrupt in this case. I do not ascribe the bankruptcy to prisoner not having been dealt with on business lines, but to his acting in defiance of what the bank said, and to there being no probability of his completing the contract entered into for £126, 000 (Section B). Section B contract contributed to the bankruptcy because, immediately it was signed, prisoner handed over to the County Council all the free property and stock, which was a considerable sum. It is true we got that back eventually after I had taken up a pretty strong position, but there was some hundreds of pounds worth of material put on to the site that we did not get back, and that the new contractors had the benefit of. Work was done by prisoner in excavating, for which we did not get payment. To give an instance of the business methods of the County Council, when a man enters into a contract, he expects, as a business man, to be paid on the architect's certificate at the end of the month, but the County Council keep him waiting another month; that means two months. That means that a man must have double the capital he would otherwise need to carry out a contract. I call that unbusiness like conduct on the part of the Council. It may be said that was prisoner's misfortune and the bank's misfortune, but in the case of the first contract he did not know what he was entering into. He signed for the Section B contract on December 9th, 1903, but the bank did not proceed against him until the middle of January, 1904, because they did not know, nor did I know, that he had been using the bank's money on this Section B contract I do not agree that the only money he had been using upon it was money he obtained from Ada Coley and from other sources. The clerk who examined the wages sheet struck out every, week between October and December, 1903, a number of items which had reference to Section B, and that is how we came to find out about the contract. We then, of course, came to the conclusion that prisoner was a thoroughly wrong man, and we acted accordingly. Prior to that we did not examine the wages and time sheets. Our firm was simply acting as auditors to prisoner, and it was no part of our duty as auditors to examine his wages sheets. Up to that time, on the best information we could get (which I am putting now as false) we had satisfied ourselves that Roberts was solvent and in a position to carry out this contract and to pay the bank what he owed. Of the deficiency of £10, 000, I do not think all went in Section B. I suppose some of it has gone to Miss Ada Coley. £4,000 of the loss may, I think, be attributed to Section B. I have endeavoured to be fair and just all the way through. As to the suggestion that if Roberts had been given a chance he would never have been insolvent, he was given more than a chance. He was given every chance up to October, 1903,

and he was only treated as a suspicious man between October, 1903, and December, 1903. I then formed the conclusion that he was a rogue, and from that time he has been treated as a rogue.

Re-examined. Mr. Yerbury reported in October, 1903, that the Asylums contract was a, good and profitable one, and could be completed at the same time as the other contract (Section A), and Mr. Yerbury advised the bank that it was a case where they might overlook what prisoner had done and give him another chance. The bank showed him every consideration, and he made no complaint against the bank in any of his letters. When in January, 1904, the bank discovered that he had entered into Section B contract, they had no alternative except to finance him or make him bankrupt. The bank, of course, need not themselves have made him bankrupt, but they did it under my advice. Prisoner never said that other people would advance him the money to undertake Section B. He tried and I tried for him to get other people to do it, without success. He had no prospect of carrying out Section B contract unless the L. and S.W. Bank acquiesced in what had taken place in September. A book found at Wanstead dealing with variations in the contracts with the London County Council was of importance in settling with the London County Council. Another book found there showed the measurements upon which prisoner periodically got certificates. The ironmongery at Wallington, valued at £266 9s. 3d., was included by prisoner as part of his assets when he was negotiating these advances and also in January, 1904. None of that ironmongery was used in the Fountain Hospital contract, which was a totally different thing.

Further cross-examined. I did not ask prisoner for these books specifically, as I did not know of them. We asked him for all his books. He was asked in the Public Examination if he had handed over all his books, and he said he had I went personally to Totterdown Fields to inspect the books immediately the County Council gave me possession.

JAMES ROWLANDS , ledger clerk, London and Provincial Bank, Wallington. I produce a certified copy of the account of Mrs. Ada Roberts,"Moira," Queen's Road, Wallington. The account was entered on January 18th, 1904, and the copy produced goes down to March 31st. No such sums as £250 and £75 have been withdrawn at any time. The balance on February 11th was £140 10s., and on March 31st, £8 9s. 4d. The account was opened with a cheque for £137 12s. 10d., dated January 13th, 1904, drawn in favour of Roberts by the County Council, and £30 cash. Two of the payments out were in the name of Roberts and two in the name of Emanuel.

JOHN EDWIN YERBURY , recalled. I have examined the list of ironmongery at Wallington and checked the figures, which

appear to be correct, with the exception of the last two items. The japanned buttons are taken at 1s. 6d. each; but they would not be anything like that price.

Cross-examined. I think Mr. Roberts told me that the ironmongery at Wallington, had been taken from the yard at Totterdown. With the exception of the japanned buttons the items in the Wallington list correspond with the items that were at Totterdown.

MR. ANGUS CAMPBELL submitted, on the authority of Regina v. Thomas Creese (L.R., 2, Crown Cases Reserved, p. 105) that, so far as goods comprised in the bill of sale were concerned, there was no case to go to the jury. If the entering into this bill of sale was a criminal act, it could only have become criminal by virtue of the subsequent bankruptcy. There was no evidence to show that it was criminal at the time. As between Ada Coley and prisoner the furniture, etc., comprised in the bill of sale was Ada Coley's property from the moment the bill of sale was signed and registered—in fact, before registration.

JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH held that the question must go to the jury, the view of the prosecution being that this was not a real sale but a gift praotically by prisoner to himself.

DANIEL KOBERTS . (Prisoner on oath.) My name is Daniel Roberts, trading as Charles Barber Roberts. I set up in business as builder in 1901 with a capital of about £2,000. I borrowed £1,500 of Ada Coley; I had £500 or £600 of my own, and £100 I borrowed of a man named Luther Smith, a joiner. I gave Miss Coley an I.O.U., which I believe is in the hands of the trustees solicitors. I asked for it at the police court. When Ada Coley was making her claim she had to send the original I.O.U. I began to do business with the London County Council in the latter part of 1901 or the commencement of 1902. That was a contract to build houses for £66, 000 in four groups, A, B, C, and D, at Totterdown Fields, Tooting. Previously I had been doing work at Red Hill, Merstham, and various places in a small way of business. I asked permission of the County Council to build shops and offices at Totterdown, and they granted it to me free of charge, as I thought it better to be on the spot than to have to remove materials from Red Hill. When I obtained the contract I was living at Red Hill, but removed then to "Moira," Queen's Road, Wallington. Some part of the furniture was brought from Red Hill. Other furniture Mrs. Roberts bought to suit the requirements of the house, which was larger than the one at Red Hill. Mrs. Roberts is the same person as has been spoken of as Ada Coley. I managed the business myself for a few months; afterwards my manager was Urban Gurney, whom I got rid of in consequence of complaints by the Connty Council that he was not competent. Mr. Mearles, who had been my surveyor, was then made manager, and remained with me up to the end. A man named Petty was chief clerk and kept the books. There would be two or three other clerks in the office, but Mearles and Petty were the only persons I spoke to or acknowledged in respect of the books. My niece, Miss Roberts, who

was in the private office, kept the books before Mearles came on the scene as manager. I had not sufficient capital to finance a £66, 000 contract, as the specification said the contract was to be done in groups and that, on each group the certificate should be monthly, I ran away with the idea that if I could work all four groups together I could get my certificate weekly, but the London County Council architect disagreed, and let me into a little bit of a hole over finance. Instead of getting money once a week I only got it once a month, and then I had to wait three weeks for the cheque. As I had to make some arrangements with regard to capital, I asked my solicitor, Mr. Grant, who was then acting for me, if he would go with me to see the London and Southwestern bank; and we went by appointment to see Mr. Woodhams, the manager, who at once advanced £500 on a certificate worth £800, and other advances were made. Mr. Bourner came on the scene in February, 1903. At that time £3,000 was owing to the bank. Mr. Bourner kept a check on my advances from the bank. They audited the books. A fresh system of book-keeping was introduced, and my niece kept the books according to that system. As the retention money increased, so my liability to the bank increased. Towards the end of September there was a question of further contracts. Some time in September I entered into the Fountain Hospital contract, which was also financed by the bank. I saw the manager of the bank respecting that with Mr. Yerbury, and he fixed the matter up at once. I explained that the contract was for £13, 000, to be done in so many weeks, and I thought this would be a means of raising capital, because my credit was so good that I could do this £13, 000 job and without having to pay any of the creditors that supplied the goods a farthing until I drew the money. Mr. Woodhams agreed, and offered to pay ready money for the goods if that would suit me better. Besides these two contracts there was an intermediate contract of £6,000, approximately part of Section A, but on the site of Section B. The intermediate section was financed by the bank as part of Section A, When the roofs were finished in Section A I was asked by the County Council whether I would give a price for Section B and I gave a price for it, 1 1/2 per cent, leas than the original contract for Section A. The reason I did so was that I was fixed on the site with materials and machinery, and the men knew the manager of the London County Council. I was charged with rent for the workshops and I paid no taxes, so that there was a saving of first coat. When I spoke to Mr. Bourner about the contract he seemed to think it would be a good one if I could finance it, and I also spoke to Mr. Yerbury about it. Mr. Yerbury thought it would be a splendid contract, and said he would report to Mr. Bourner about it, which he did in December. I thought it would mean £9,000 or £10, 000 to

me if I could get it through. The bank, however, would not agree to finance it, and said they would not go any further with the County Council contracts, having already gone further than they ought to have done. I signed that contract after I had completed or nearly completed the contracts I had, because I had made a promise to Mr. Bourner that I would not sign any more contracts until those in hand were nearly completed. Having signed the contract, it became a question of carrying it on. In January, 1904, I had a cheque for about £140 for building a clerk of works' office at Norbury. That was something outside the contract, and was never reported to the London and South-Western Bank, but was a little perquisite for myself if you like to put it so. At first I thought of paying the cheque into the London and South-Wastern Bank and asking them to give me cash for it, but I changed my mind, as I did not think they would give me the cash, and I wanted to proceed with Section B. I mentioned the matter to Ada Coley, and she said she had the cash in the house and would give it to me if I would give her the cheque. That money I put into Section B and paid other expenses as well, and that, of course, did not last long. The next thing was that I was at Brighton with the family, and the hotel bill came along and I could not meet it Miss Coley got into a temper about it and said she would see her solicitor about the other money she had lent me—the £1,500. I got to know she had some more money, but she would not lend any more unless she had security. Mr. Grant was called in, and, the Sheriff being in at "Moira," he advised a bill of sale on the furniture and effects for £250. He mentioned the word "absolute," the technical meaning of which I did not know. Miss Coley advised to realise some of the goods and stock at Totterdown. I said I had the horses, which were practically no use as Section B was a level site without gradients. She offered me £75 for them, and I took the money and a receipt produced was drawn up by one of the clerks. The money was paid in gold, and the greatest part of it went in wages on Section B. The money I had on the bill of sale was paid in gold and notes. A cheque was produced on that occasion, but it was of no use as she had not paid the money into the bank, so I took the money and tore the cheque up. The date of that transaction was, I think, February 10th. My financial position at that time, according to my trustee, on whom I leaned for every information respecting finance, was correct and right; I was solvent I never knew I was insolvent until the receiving order was made, and then I did not think I was. I believe I was only made insolvent through the bankruptcy. I was solvent while I was kept alive. It was my belief that I should survive these bankruptcy proceedings and pay all the creditors in full. If I could have raised another £5,000 I could have drawn £4,000 from the County Council and

the Council's architect would have allowed me £2,000 for the goods on the site. That, would have staved off the bankruptcy. I attribute the bankruptcy to the persistency with which the London and South-Western Bank claimed their receiving order. The amended cash account (produced) is a correct account of receipts and disbursements. You will find an item of £167 12s. 10d. London County Council, Clerk of Works Office. I did not receive that money, but £30 less. As to the list of ironmongery at Wallington, I do not think it was made out by one of my clerks. It was certainly not made out by anyone with any knowledge of the building trade, because he would have known that japanned buttons for plates only cost about 3/4 d. each, and here they are charged at £32 8s. The white lead may have been at Wallington. I know personally about that because I saw it go over to the Fountain Hospital contract, so it would not be true to say that that was at Wallington after Christmas, 1903. This quantity certainly could not have been there. I heard Mr. Bourner say that this figure of £266 exactly corresponded with the figures I gave him of the stock at Wallington, but I never gave him any figures at all. These things were all drawn up by my clerks, and if Mr. Bourner can produce the figures actually sent in to him by my clerk I shall be able to verify if it is their handwriting or not. I never made such a statement to Mr. Bourner, nor anybody else. My stocktaking was done by my manager and clerks. I made a report monthly to Mr. Bourner in the ordinary way, but I do not accept responsibility for the accuracy of the figures. I believe the ironmongery condemned by the London County Council was sent back to Mr. Fitzgerald, the agent, who exchanged it We had peremptory orders from the County Council to carry it off the site lest it should be used there, and it was accordingly taken to Wallington. Some of it may have been left there until Fitzgerald could sell it to another customer, as he had no accommodation for it. I remember some ironmongery being removed from Totterdown to Wallington. If it was on 18th February I might have been there, but if it was on the 25th I should be at Dieppe. It was put to me in my public examination that I had assisted to load up these carts, but I should not give myself away to the men in that way. I should simply give the orders and exercise my position as governor of the establishment. I gave special orders that the ironmongery which had been condemned should go away, and I heard afterwards that it had gone. I directed that it should be taken to Redhill. I was not much at Wallington at that time, as I was endeavouring to arrange the financing of Section B and was away from home a great deal. I am not quite sure when I discovered these things were at Wallington. I was not present at "Moira" on the evening when the van came to remove part of the goods and I did not assist to load

up these vans and carts. I did not go to the door and meet one of the men coming back with a policeman. I am sure Patten den is mistaken in saying I am the man he saw that. night. As to taking the goods to Forwood's, I can understand how that came to be done. We had some difficulty with the London County Council about taking goods on to the site after the clerk of works had left. That was in Mr. Urban Gurney's time. We could not get on fast enough with the joinery. I got a permit from the County Council to order more joinery from one firm, and Mr. Gurney ordered from another firm a duplicate set of goods and we had got to have them, I did not want to cart them to Redhill and I tried to get them on to the Fields. We were met by Alderman Dew, of the London County Council, and the walking delegate of the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, who followed them on to the site and came to the office and threatened to annul the contract. Consequently I gave orders that no goods were to come on to the site after the clerk of works had left. It was a thing the Council had a very stringent regulation against, as they wanted the clerk of works to see all the goods that came on. On that occasion, it being ten or eleven o'clock, the clerk of works would have left the site, and it looked very bad against me. The goods that were taken to Redhill ought to have been taken to Wallington. I ordered their immediate removal back to Totterdown. The clerk of the works left at 6 o'clock, and the goods had to go in before 6. As to Mr. Bourner's suggestion that there is £1,000 worth of ironmongery unaccounted for, it is very easy to make a suggestion, inference, or charge. There is no truth in it. I was asked about this ironmongery many times in my public examination, and the account there given is the truth. As to the tip cart, I remember Mr. Endicott meeting me one day and telling me Mr. Gurney had ordered another. I told him Mr. Gurney had no business to do so as we had one and I wanted to keep the stock down. He asked me to take it, as things were not bright—the usual way of doing business. I told him I did not want the cart, but he could send it on, and it was delivered at Totterdown and put with the rest. When I disposed of all these carts and horses in January, 1904, to Ada Coley I cannot say if that particular cart was included. If there were two new carts and they had been newly painted I could not tell t'other from which. For all I knew it might have been across at Endicott's yard at the time. With regard to the books after the receiving order, the Official Receivers representative came to Totterdown to see me and told me that he had come to take possession. He instructed us to send up some books, and they were sent up. I do not know the particulars of them. Some books were left behind With regard to the books found at Ilford. I do not know how they came there,

and I never saw them there. This book, No. 8, which relates to the Norbury estate, was certainly found at my office in Totterdown Fields. This book of variations I do not understand. It was kept by Mr. Mearles, and surveyors have a way of their own. I am under the impression it was at my office. The particulars are so brief and terse that it wants the man who wrote them down to understand them. This book (No. 15) has reference to the Fountain Hospital. We started the contract before we had signed for it. We did not enter actually into the work of the contract, but we did some extra work. We had no clerk, and the wages sheets were marked by the men themselves. The better educated of the men made their wages sheets out in proper form, the less educated put down that they had been at Totterdown, and some would not put down where they had been at work at all. There is not a single entry of mine there, nor erasure; nor pencilling. I am under the impression that this book was also found at Totterdown Fields, althought it is said to have come from 55, Wanstead Park Road. There was no check of the books taken, and they may have got mixed up. It is not true that I entered into the bill of sale with Ada Coley with the intention of deceiving my creditors. I only wanted to carry on Section B. The sale of the horses and carts was for the same purpose. With regard to the ironmongery, there was no place at "Moira" where I could conceal any quantity, and I never attempted to do so. I first became aware that I was insolvent at the date of the receiving order. I did not think then I was insolvent and could not meet my liabilities. I draw a distinction between the two. It may be that a man cannot meet his liabilities because he cannot obtain money owing to him. In my statement of affairs, which was drawn up by my cashier, a deficiency of £1,000 was shown. If he had put in the goodwill of the Section B contract, which was taken at 3 per cent less, or a difference of £4,200, the balance would have been on my side. My view when I entered into these sale transactions was that I was perfectly solvent and that the property was mine to do what I liked with, and not my creditors'.

Cross-examined. My only complaint against the bank is that if they had held off a little bit longer I should have overtided my difficulties, the creditors would have been paid in full, the business would have been kept alive, the bank would have got their money, and I should not have been in the Bankruptcy Court I could have done the Section B contract with far less assistance than the Section A contract As to whether I behaved badly to the bank, that is a matter of opinion. I did not know in July, 1903. that the bank did not intend financing me over Section B. I never thought the bank was go bad as to want to prevent me getting my living. I was compelled to do other work or sink. I remember the letter of

July 19th to Mr. Bourner, in which I wrote: "I am not entering into any new contracts "; and the letter of September 5th, where I say: "I am very sorry to hear that your directors will not consent to the accommodation required for the large contract. I am extremely grateful to you for the handsome manner in which you have assisted me in the past, especially as the business is entirely against your practice. I am more than anxious to sign for the other contract, Section B." I was then asking them to reconsider their decision. I recollect the letter of September 11th from Mr. Bourner, in which he spoke of the largo amount of the balance due from me to the bank. As to whether I carried on this contract without the knowledge and consent of the bank between September 11th and November 7th, I may have done a lot of things without the consent of the bank. They had never said they would be unwilling to finance me if I entered into fresh contracts. I was tendering for new jobs all along the line. Wages were, no doubt, paid on the Fountain Hospital contract before it was assigned to the bank, though they had not consented to finance it, and we had no other source from which to draw money to pay wages except the bank. I am not suggesting that Mr. Bourner was not telling the truth when he wrote on December 22nd that he had only just ascertained that I had been engaged on the Fountain Hospital contract. As to whether I was using the bank's money without their authority, I had made use of their money under similar conditions before, and they did not object to my going on with the work in the ordinary way. Very often I did not know whether there was a debit or a credit balance. Sometimes after we had just received a cheque from the London County Council with the retention money, which was theirs, there would be a credit balance; at other times a debit There was no agreement that the money was only to be expended on the County Council job. If the bank had refused to continue the advances the London and County Bank would have taken the matter up instantly. I had approached them as to whether if I became bankrupt the bank would not lose the retention money; no doubt the holders of the retention money would have looked after themselves. I do not consider that I tried to force the hands of the bank at all. All I did was to assist them as well as myself. On November 26th Mr. Bourner wrote to me; "I, of course, rely upon the assurance you have given to me and also to the bank that you will not enter into any contracts without first consulting me and the bank thereon." On November 27th I wrote: "There is no truth in the report that I have signed any contract at all since the Fountain Hospital contract. I shall most certainly keep my promise with you and the bank re any further contracts." I there said what I meant. I had taken the contract, but had not signed it. I signed it on December 8th, the day after the bank stated that they adhered to their decision

not to finance me over this big contract. I was advised that it could be financed elsewhere. I had approached the London and County Bank, and I was told that if the worst came to the worst I could assign that contract or take in a partner, and as it looked as if the London and South-Western Bank was going to smash me up I had better sign the contract and see if I could not get it assigned or take in a partner. I am not finding fault with the bank's attitude at all. What I understand by insolvency is that a man cannot pay his debts after realising his estate. On January 8th, 1904, I did not know but what I could meet my liabilities. I did not know who would have come to my assistance if the bank had dropped out, but I should have tried other people. I still thought I was solvent on February 11th, when the act of bankruptcy occurred as regards the value of the assets and liabilities. As I say, I was approaching several financial firms and I was contemplating taking in a partner with some capital, and if I had done so I should have staved off certain of the creditors and the situation would have been saved; but it is a well-known fact that it is a difficult matter to borrow money when there is a receiving order against you or there are writs out against you. I never thought I should have to go through the Bankruptcy Court until the date of the receiving order, and I struggled hard to evade it I got it adjourned or postponed, but another came along, and I caved in and knuckled under. When the bill of sale was given on February 10th Mr. Whitfield, of the firm of Grant and Whitfield, was present. When the money was handed over I think Mr. Whitfield had gone out of the office. A cheque was produced and handed over to me by Ada Coley in the presence of Mr. Whit-field, but as he had gone out of the office he did not see any money pass. It is entirely wrong to say that the cheque was for the benefit of Mr. Whitfield. It was a crossed cheque, and, of course, would not have been met if there had not been sufficient assets. The money was to have been paid into the bank at Carshalton, but if Miss Coley had stayed to pay it in she would have missed her train, so she brought it on to me at Totterdown, and I had the money instead of having the cheque which I destroyed.

(Friday, March 9th.)

Daniel Roberts, further cross-examined. It was mentioned in the statement of affairs that I owed £1,500 to Ada Coley, but I do not remember that I volunteered the statement to Mr. Bourner. A claim was made in the bankruptcy by Ada Coley, and I gave evidence in support of it Down to the present time no banking account has been disclosed out of which £1,500 could have come, and that proof was rejected. That claim of £1,500 was one of the matters in respect of which a prosecution was

ordered, but the prosecution was not proceeded with. Ada Coley might have had a small account in the Post Office besides the one respecting which evidence has been given. I think she was against banking accounts, as she had no knowledge of banking. The furniture in the bill of sale was left in Ada Colev's possession. I do not know where it is now. I heard evidence that she sold some £40 worth to her daughter as she wanted food for her children. Some of it was removed to "The Mount" on December 24th. I cannot tell where I was living on January 26th, 1905. Sometimes I was in London. Once I was in a common lodging-house in London. In the week from February 10th to February 15th I was in Manchester. I do not know that I can remember where I was sleeping on the night of February 14th, the night before Moon And Knight. came to take the furniture from "The Mount," but I am under the impression that I slept at the Three Nuns Hotel. Mrs. Healey and Miss Lawson asked me to sleep at "The Mount" when the men were in possession, as a safeguard, I suppose. I slept on a chair bed. I am afraid I had no settled abode. I was knocking about from one place to another and living in lodgings. Amongst other things I worked on the new offices of the Central News Agency. I did not conceal from my son where I was living, but I did not want him to know of my downfall. I wanted to keep it to myself. I worked with him at the Central News Agency. I did not keep anything from him. I did not volunteer so as to expose myself unnecessarily to him. I was sorry for myself. Mrs. Healey has never been under my influence. She is twenty-five, and I have known her since she was nine. She is the daughter of Ada Coley. She has had a separate establishment independent of Ada Coley for years. I was present when the judge made the order for the furniture in the bill of sale to be given up. On February 15th there was at "The Mount" certain furniture that had been removed from "Moina," but I had no power to give that furniture up to Mr. Smith, and Kate Healey would not. I had no influence with her, but I advised her when the men came into possession; "There is some mistake here. I am certain the trustee will not do anything wrong. You had better go and see him." She went, and as the result the things were taken away. It was my desire that the judge's order should be carried out, and I did my best to advise the lady to get the matter settled. It is not true that I threatened Moon with a lighted lamp. The only thing I did which could be called a threat I will explain. I got there one night after I had been out at work, and I heard that there had been some bother during the day. I saw Prince drunk myself, and I was told he had called Ada Coley a "——cow." I did not hear the man say it, or there would have beer a row probably. I remember asking Mr. Bourner if he would be surprised to hear that at the time of the purchase of the horses and carts in January, 1904, Ada Roberts

had a large balance at the bank. I did not go with her when the account was opened on January 18th. I do not know what she paid in. I advised her to pay in the London County Council, cheque and open an account, but I do not know that I knew the exact amount paid in until a few days or weeks ago. I could not say whether or not she told me the amount. The County Council cheque was for £137 12s. 10d., and I cannot say whether the three Bank of England notes, making up the £167 12s. 10d. notes, were ever in my possession. I used to allow the lady £10 a week. It is true, as stated in my cash account, that I spent the proceeds of the money received from the London County Council in personal expenses, and amongst other things legal costs. I employed two firms of solicitors. One was Messrs. Grant and Whitfield, of Coleman Street, E.C., and the other Messrs. Emanuel, Round and Nathan, 2, Walbrook. There appear from the banking account to have been two cheques paid to Mr. Emanuel. He was my solicitor then, and also Ada Coley's in respect of the horses. I had my cheques of Ada Coley. I had no banking account then. I would give her money and she would give me a cheque. I used that banking account for the purpose of making payments if it suited me. With regard to the £266 9s. 3d. for ironmongery, I do not think there was ironmongery at Wallington corresponding to that amount. There had been some sent away to Mr. FitzGerald to my knowledge. I cannot pledge myself to any date as the papers furnishing the dates have been given to the trustee. That figure was. never put forward by me to Mr. Bourner as part of my assets. If I had said such a thing it would have been a misrepresentation, but I have never said anything that was wrong. I do not accept the suggestion that the account I have given of the ironmongery yesterday and to-day is quite new and inconsistent with what I said at my public examination. As to the suggestion that I said in my public examination that this was ironmongery which had been condemned by the London County Council somewhere about May, 1903, and remained at Wallington down to the end of the bankruptcy I do not say the whole of it did, a portion of it. I am quite certain a portion of it was at Wallington when the Sheriff went into possession. When Mr. Kempson went in there was some ironmongery and white lead, because I removed the white lead myself. The ironmongery was removed from Totterdown Fields in January to Wallington by my instructions. I ordered them to take it to Redhill, and afterwards back to Totterdown. I am not sure whether I knew the ironmongery was being removed on the morning spoken of by Tarry and Firmin, but I might have been on the site at the time. The fact that it took three days to remove the ironmongery from Totterdown Fields to Wallington I explain in this way: it was being removed to Redhill

and I am under the impression that Mr. Mearles found out that the Sheriff was in at Redhill so did not know what to do with it and brought it back again to go to Wallington, and on the way altered it to Croydon, waited there for a couple of nights, then took it on to Wallington and deposited it there. If the reason for this delay was that it was feared the Sheriff would seize it, I should have done the same, and I excuse Mr. Mearles for doing it, whether he acted under my instructions or not. I certainly should not have taken that ironmongery and deposited it straight into the jaws of the Sheriff; I should have given the other creditors a chance. I say I did not know that these three carts and three men were away those three days. Mr. Mearles did not report that to me, and I sometimes did not go into the stables for a month at a time. As to what became of the ironmongery, some of it was sent back if I remember right to Totterdown and used up, and some is in the hads of the trustee. Some was taken back to Totterdown from Wallington after January, 1905. As to the suggestion that £700 of ironmongery was removed from Totterdown Fields, I do not think I had that amount. The trustee will probably have documentary evidence of what was there. I take the responsibility for what Mr. Mearles did as my manager, but who gave the order to Forwood I have not discovered up to the present time; that is still involved in mystery, and I have not been at any pans over the thing. I cannot give any explanation why the order for the van of February 29th, 1904, should have been given without anybody's name being mentioned, and I am surprised at their taking such an order. I cannot tell who it was met the two carmen in Tooting Broadway. I cannot tell why that cart and van should have been brought to "Moira" at 10 o'clock at night There is no earthly reason why it should not have been done in daytime. If it is suggested that the reason for ordering it at night was that the man in possession went home to sleep at 8 o'clock, suggesting a reason and proving it are two distinct things. If I had had any choice in the matter. I should certainly have ordered it there in the ordinary way, but the Sheriff would certainly have stopped it. As to whether it was an improper thing to do. it was certainly very indiscreet. The thing had no right to have been done; it was open to suspicion. I did not care about the Sheriff; if he sold me up, he sold me up. Pattenden is certainly wrong in identifying me as the person he saw, but I cannot say if the carman is wrong in saying that it was a man much older than my son.

Re-examined. I do not know of my own knowledge what orders were given to Forwood. Whoever gave them, it was not me. I heard the carman who went with Forwood's van say they were assisted by someone in the house, but that was not I. With regard to the removal of ironmongery from Totterdown,

I do not remember giving any special orders for its removal to Redhill. The instructions would be that any condemned ironmongery was to be removed to Redhill. I did not want any more at "Moira," but this was a very long time since, and I cannot be certain about the exact order. I left it to Mr. Mearles to remove it from time to time to Redhill. I did not then know the Sheriff was in at Redhill, but I have heard since so. The bank only took the Sheriff out at Wallington and left him at Redhill. I did not personally make a representation to the trustee as to there being £266 worth of ironmongery at Wellington, and I do not know whether the trustee made that representation, to the bank or not. At to the legal charges in the cash account, I had to defend an action about that time. It was an action brought by Urban Gurney, who had been my manager and was discharged. He thought he had a grievance and issued a writ for the sum of £1,000. He came to me several times, and as he was a relative of Miss Coley I was inclined to pay him. Miss Coley, or Ada Roberts, and Mrs. Gurney are sisters. My niece, Miss Roberts, found out that instead of my owing him money he owed me money. I entered an action, which was tried before Official Receiver Vesey, who gave judgment in my favour, and Gurney had to pay the costs, but I am not aware that they have ever been asked for. That accounts for the £110 to Emanuel. It was a two days' trial and two counsel were employed The furniture that was ordered to be delivered up was that at "Moira." The order was made upon Ada Coley, not upon me. There was other furniture at "The Mount"—a house full. In the end the trustee took the whole of it, whether it was in the bill of sale or not. There was some furniture belonging to Ada Coley quite apart from the bill of sale, and also furniture belonging to other people which had been in their possession for fifteen or sixteen years. They sold a lady's hat and a lady's fur cape which could not have been mine. Up till Christmas, 1903, there had been no disagreement between me and the bank; they were honouring my drafts and financing me in the way they had undertaken to do. I was under the impression that the B contract was one of the best contracts in South-West London, and am now. I am still of opinion that if I had been, allowed to keep control of that contract I should have made a profit out of it, and that instead of being where I am I should have been worth £10, 000. I ascribe my present position to the withdrawal of the bank's support I had some suspicion that there was some undercurrent at work. My sole object in these transactions with Ada Coley was to try to keep the business alive until I could turn the corner. I tried to raise money in every possible way I could. I would have pawned the shirt off my back to have done Section B.

To Mr. Gill. A quantity of the furniture at "The Mount"

had not come from "Moira" at all. I did not give evidence in support of Mrs. Healey's claim in the County Court. Mrs. Healey had to prosecute her own case as she had no money. She had no money to file the affidavit. I asked her to call me and she forgot.

To the Court. Her claim was gone into in a certain way, but here was a woman with no knowledge of the law, and she could not make out a case at all. I was not by her side; she did not call me. I understand that a bankrupt has no standing at all; he is civilly dead. I could not speak at all for her. No doubt she was right and the other side was wrong. Urban Gurney got up and said the things had been at "Moira." I think if we had been able to examine him we should have been able to prove something against him; anyhow the lady lost her case.

DANIEL ROBERTS, JUN ., private 4th Lancashire Fusiliers. I am a son of prisoner, and was in his employ in January, 1904. I was at Totterdown in that month when some ironmongery was loaded up on carts. I do not know under whose direction that was done. It might have been by Mr. Mearles, who was there with two of the labourers and the carman. Prisoner was not there, and I remember a van coming to "Moira" one evening. I was in the yard. Prisoner was not there. They loaded up some ironmongery. We all took part in the loading. Having loaded up the carman drove off, but returned, and told me it had been stopped by the police. Most of the furniture at "The Mount" came from 43. Tantallon Road, Balham, where Mrs. Healey lived and only a small part from "Moira."

Cross-examined. I was not the person who satisfied the suspicions of the police.

JANE RAWSON . I am a niece of prisoner, and was at one time-in his employment as clerk, and used to keep the books. I recognise some of the books found at Wanstead Park Read. They were in a trunk of my own which I brought from Tantallon Road, but, of course, not all that quantity. I never received instructions about taking the books anywhere. I remember negotiations between Mr. Roberts and Ada Coley about some horses and carts, the result of which was that Mr. Roberts sold the horses to her for £75. I do not remember any other financial transactions of a similar kind.

Cross-examined. The money for the horses was paid in gold at Totterdown. The books went to Wanstead Park Road in a trunk of my own when I moved there. I may have taken them to the house in Tantallon Road myself or got one of the boys to carry "hem. Two wages books and a diary are all I can identify. Sometimes Mr. Roberts would ask me to go through the wages books after the other clerks and then I would take them home.

Re-examined. I was Mr. Roberta's private book-keeper, and kept the books in his private office at Totterdown Fields, The receipt produced for the £75 for the sale of the horses is in the handwriting of one of the clerks.

ADA COLEY . I have known prisoner for sixteen yean. I recognise the bill of sale (produced). I simply botfght the things of Mr. Roberts and paid for them, £200 in notes and £50 in gold as nearly as I can remember. I paid him in hit private office at Totterdown Fields. Mr. Roberts, Miss Jane Rawson and Mr. Whitfield were present. As to the circumstances which led up to the bill of sale, Mr. Roberts said he was short of money and asked me to lend him some. I said I would not lend him any more unless he pave me security, so the bill of sale was drawn up and signed. It comprised everything on the ground at Wallington. I think this was the first time he had sold me anything, but I am not sure. I had lent him money before that. On January 16th he sold me the horses, and I authorised Mr. Mearles to sell them for me. The receipt produced is the one given me. The money was paid in cash. I did not, of course, receive the money which the horses and carts realised, as the bank attached it. I was tenant of "Moira," which I left last Christmas, and went to reside with my daughter at "The Mount," Thornton Heath. I remember tome property being brought to Wallington in January, 1904, and stored in the stable. I was in the house at the time, and I suppose also the servants and the coachman. Mr. Roberts was not there. I remember going before Mr. Willoughby. I was very queer at the time, but I know that in the finish they upset the bill of sale. At that time the furniture in the bill of sale had been sold. I did not sell it all together, but to ever so many people where I lived at Wallington, owing to being short of money. I remember Mr. Moon coming to the house at Thornton Heath about the time the bill of sale was upset. I know the furniture in that house was my daughter's.

Cross-examined. I heard the Judge make the order for delivery of the furniture to the trustee. I knew in the course of the year 1904 that the trustee was trying to claim this furniture. I was compelled to part with it because I had no money. The things, I considered, were mine. I think the money I gave Roberts was always gold and notes. I always had a stock of gold and notes available. I know I tried to prove for the £1,500. but I do not know whether I proved it because I was very queer in my head at the time, and I do not know what was said to me nor what I said really. I cannot remember exactly where I did get the money to pay for the horses, but it is true that I paid the £75 on January 16th to Robert. I do not seem to remember drawing it out of the bank. I never had so much money at Carshalton as £250. I always had money in the house.

Re-examined. I had nothing to deliver up at the time the

order for the delivery up of the furniture was made. I remember opening an account with a cheque I got from Mr. Roberts. Ho wanted money, so I gave him money for the cheque and opened the account with it. That was also money I had in the house.

EDMUND PERCY BETTY . I was in the employ of the prisoner. The receipt produced for £75 of January 16th, 1904. is in my writing. I am afraid I do not remember writing it at all, but certainly that is my writing. I remember making an inventory of certain property at Totterdown as soon as work was stopped, but I could not tell whether that was after the bankruptcy or not. I was acquainted with the details of the business. I assisted Mr. Mearles in taking an inventory of everything on the site, and we made up a balance-sheet. The value of the stock according to my valuation was £7.800; machinery, £1,400; fittings, utensils, etc., £1,176; office furniture, £50; due on account of Section B, £300; total, £10.726. I had no knowledge of what would be realised if it was disposed of. I had left before anything was done with it. When we made out that statement we found that the defendant was solvent, and that the estate could pay over 20s. in the pound.

Cross-examined. At the time we made the thing up we reckoned Mr. Roberts was solvent. I believe the machinery was on the hire-purchase system. We put the liabilities at £12, 836, but the admitted proofs are upwards of £16.000. I do not suggest that anybody has improperly proved in the bank ruptcy. I cannot say if Miss Coley's alleged claim of £1,500 is included in the liabilities.

EDWIN MEARLES . I was defendant's manager at Totterdown. I remember the incident with regard to the removal of some ironmongery from Totterdown. I cannot give the date, it is so long ago. What I remember is that we could not use it for Section B or for any other work we had on the site. I cannot remember whether I gave orders to the carman to remove it to Redhill or to Wallington. Mr. Roberts told me that I was wrong, and must have it back again as I had sent it to the wrong place, and I believe I sent a boy on a bicycle to get them—to bring it back again. On their return journey I believe they were stopped, but by whom I cannot say, and the carman returned the ironmongery to Mr. Forwood's yard, and that I think is about the end of it. With last witness I assisted to make up a statement of affairs.

Cross-examined. At the end of December, 1903, Section A contract was nearly completed and £8,000 or £9,000 of material had been accumulated for Section B. I could not say the value of the stock on the site without seeing the papers. Mr. Roberts gave orders for the removal of the ironmongery, but was not on the works at the time it was sent away. I am not sure whether he told me to send it to Wallington or Redhill.

I said at the private examination that £700 or £800 worth of (ironmongery had been removed which had all been condemned by the London County Council. All that has been traced is the quantity at Forwood's. It is possible that I myself gave the order to Forwood's, but I cannot remember, but if I said so in my former evidence it is correct.

Re-examined. £700 or £800 worth of goods were condemned altogether, but whether it was all moved away from Totterdown on that particular day I cannot remember. I do not know whether FitzGerald refused to take the condemned goods back.

Verdict, Guilty.

Police evidence. On October 17th, 1905, prisoner was sentenced, at the Stratford Petty Sessions, to six months' imprisonment for obtaining £20 from an insurance company by fraud. There were seven similar charges against him, but by arrangement between the prosecuting and defending solicitors prisoner pleaded guilty to a specific charge, and the others were not proceeded with. The eight claims made against the various fire insurance companies were in various names, at various addresses, and the same articles of damaged clothing and furniture were repeatedly put forward.

Sentence, seven months' hard labour.

OLD COURT; Thursday, 8th March.

(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-41
VerdictMiscellaneous > no agreement

Related Material

SOSKIN, Louis ; rape, on Millie Gravier.

Mr. Hutton prosecuted; Mr. R. Wallace, K.C., and Mr. L. Green defended.

Jury disagreed. Prisoner on bail till next Sessions.

NEW COURT; Thursday, 8th March.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-42
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

WARDE, Ernest Vivian (51, secretary), pleaded guilty to being a public officer of a certain public company, called the Twentieth Century Club, Limited, did take and apply to his own use and benefit a large number of cheques, the property of the club, and with having falsified the books.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted. Mr. George Elliott appeared for the prisoner.

Police evidence. Prisoner is a very dangerous criminal, and has been for many years. On November 6th, 1896, he was sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour for forgery. Under the name of Francis Tillett he was convicted on 20th September, 1875, when twenty years of age, for felony of stealing notes and

money at this Court and received five years' penal servitude. He was bankrupt in 1889 for £52.000. On his release in 1879' from five years' penal servitude he entered the employment of a corn merchant at Andover. He remained there for some time, giving every satisfaction, and eventually married his employer's sister. His employer then set him up in business as a wine merchant in Piccadilly, and advanced him altogether £13, 000, which he was unable to obtain back, and eventually had to go bankrupt himself. He again lent prisoner £4,250 on the strength of two promissory notes, with which the prisoner waa charged with forging, and that ruined his brother-in-law altogether. He failed in the wine business for £52, 000. Since April last he has been obtaining a quantity of goods in connection with the London County Club by leading various tradesmen to believe that Mr. George Herring was connected with that club, the name of Mr. Herring, who is interested in philanthropic enterprises, being quite sufficient to obtain unlimited credit. Police did not know whether he paid 12s. dividend in the bankruptcy. The London County Club is a genuine institution, with a number of ladies boarding there, and is a going concern at the present time, but prisoner is bankrupt now in connection with that club. The club is still going on. It is true that prisoner's, wife is paralysed and is seriously ill. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-43
VerdictMiscellaneous > postponed

Related Material

ROSS. Stuart Dixon Stubbs (38. merchant), and ROSS, George Bertram (35, merchant), both conspiring and agreeing together by false pretences to defraud of their moneys and valuable securities such liege subjects of His Majesty the King as should be induced to become shareholders and to buy shares in a certain company called the Anglo-Egyptian Automatic Trading Company. Limited, and obtaining by false pretences made to John George Prentice a banker's cheque for payment of £525 17s. 6d., with intent to defraud; S. D. S. Ross obtaining by false pretences from John Edward Champney a banker's cheque for payment of £648 7s. 6d., with intent to defraud; G. B. Ross unlawfully and wilfully making a statement in a return made to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies relating to an allotment of shares in the said company, false in a material particular.

Mr. Muir, Mr. A. E. Gill, and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted. Mr. C. P. Mathews, Mr. H. C. Biron, and Mr. Kenneth Chalmers defended.

JOHN GEORGE PRENTICE , marine insurance agent, Chapel Street, Liverpool. I was a shareholder in the Automatic General Stores Company, Limited. I received letter of March 14, 1903. signed by George Ross, and replied to it on 17th March. I knew George Ross first in 1902. After further correspondence I received a transfer of 300 shares at 35s. per share.

I don't remember in whose name it was. I received letter from George Ross of March 31st enclosing certificate for 500 shares, and I sent cheque for £525 17s. 6d. on 1st April, 1903, in payment for the shares which I had acquired in the Anglo-Egyptian Company; the cheque was made payable to George Ross or order, and is endorsed by George Ross, who on 2nd April acknowledged receipt of same, stating that the certificate for the 300 shares would be sent to-morrow. I received that certificate. I received letter of 11th June, 1903, from George Ross.

Mr. Mathews submitted that the letter of June 11th, 1903, was not evidence because the indictment was as to specific dates, the last of which was March 17th, 1903. There was no charge of attempting to obtain money by false pretenses or of conspiring to obtain money by fraud or false pretences.

The Recorder. It must be evidence under Count 1 or Count 2.

Mr. Mathews. Counts 1 and 2 must necessarily refer to fraud in the Anglo-Egyptian Company. With regard to fraud upon the public generally, there being no person named as the object of the fraud, this was not evidence. Count 3 was a specific count with regard to a particular person. The transaction in June ought to have been set out, as those in March were. The prosecution ought to be bound by the dates, and the transaction in the indictment, in so far as they relate to the witness, could not be admitted under an omnibus count. Such evidence ought not to be admitted if the effect be to enable the prosecution on the evidence of this witness to add something, either to false pretences, or attempting to get money by false pretences, or conspiring to obtain money by false pretences. The two first counts are vastly different from Counts 3 and 4. On them conspiracy is charged with regard to the whole of the King's subjects, that they might be induced to become share holders in a public company.

The Recorder. Is this a matter of any importance?

Mr. Muir. There is a specific statement in this letter which was made by the defendant.

Mr. Mathews. The more specific the statement surely the more substantial ought to have been the charge preferred upon it. No charge has been preferred upon this specific statement at all, and the fact that they could find none makes that statement fortify me, at all events, in asking your lordship to rule that, if the evidence is relied upon, there ought to have been something in the nature of an accusation pointing to this. We have nothing in the nature of an accusation pointing to this particular date or to this particular letter, and the letter is not evidence under these general counts which have relation to the Anglo-Egyptian Automatic Company solely. In regard to the Anglo-Egyptian Company, no prospectus was ever issued or invitation ever went to the public at all from its beginning to its close. There has been no invitation to the public from a company to subscribe to its shares and no prospectus united by the company to the public. These general counts in indictments are not applicable to such a case, and you must for the purpose of supporting such counts, have invitation from the company to the public at large to come in and subscribe. When the time comes I should submit that there was no evidence to support count" in relation to such company. Since ray learned friend says that there is a specific statement in the letter upon which he proposes to rely, in framing the indictment he ought to have added a count founded upon this letter, so that the defendants would have had some notice of the intention to use it. I submit the general objection, that where there has been no invitation to subcribe to a company, Counts 1 and 2 are not applicable to a company which at no time invites the public to assist it. To make it quite clear, I submit if there be a specific charge to be preferred something in relation

to that charge should be in the indictment for the purpose of giving the defendants means and opportunity to meet it.

Mr. Muir. There is authority for saying that this evidence in admissible, not only under the lst and 2nd Counts, on which I submit it clearly is admissible but under the 3rd Count. In cases of false pretences it is always admissible to show that similar false pretences were made other than to the particular persona, for the purpose of showing that the person making the false pretence knew that it was false and intended to defraud.

The Recorder. I think that is quite clear law. I cannot exclude the evidence.

Examination continued. I received letter dated June 11th. I think it is signed by S. Ross. I believed the statements contained in those letters sent to me by the prisoners.

Cross-examined. I am an insurance agent in Liverpool, and have been for some considerable time in business. I have known Stuart Rosa from the year 1902. I have, prior to March, 1903, been in correspondence with him—as far back as September. 1902. He forwarded to me at Liverpool a prospectus of a company called the British and Colonial Automatic Supply Company. I think that was in my possession as early as November, 1902. I gave my attention to the prospectus, and I appreciated that what was proposed to be done was by the sale of three small companies to create a larger company. Amongst the vendor companies was the Automatic General Stores. That was a company in which I held 500 shares. I cannot say without seeing the prospectus whether the purchase price of the Automatic General Stores Company was to be a sum of £45, 000, of which £16, 000 was to be paid in cash. Looking at prospectus of June. 1903, handed to me, I think that was substantially the prospectus which as early as 1902 I had in my possession. According to that prospectus,' the price to be paid for the Automatic General Stores Company was a sum of £45, 000. of which £3.000 was to be paid in cash and the rest in shares of the British and Colonial Automatic Trading Company. Limited. I did not go to London on the 20th for the purpose of seeing its premises at 4a, Upper Thames Street. I went to the company's offices, 159, Queen Victoria Street. I do not know the date. I cannot be absolutely positive, but I do not think it was before the 14th March, 1903. I have been to the office of the Automatic General Stores Company, but not at Upper Thames Street. My impression is T was not at 159, Queen Victoria Street, between November, 1902, and March. 1903. I am quite clear that I never visited the premises at 4a, Upper Thames Street. The only premises T have been at are the offices at 159, Queen Victoria Street. I saw some machines there—two or three. I think I was there two or three times or three or four times—very few. I do not think there were a number of machines being used. I do not know whether they were used or not. I did not see any persons employed there doing up packets for the purpose of putting them in the machines. I saw the usual

office books. I made no examination of them. They might have been open to my examination; I do not know. When I had the prospectus in November, 1902, I was anxious to learn from Mr. Stuart Ross when the new company, the British and Colonial, would be launched. I was aware of an arrangement Mr. Ross had made with the Mazawa Uee Tea Company about using these machines for the purpose of advertising. Mr. Ross informed me of the existence of that contract, and he said it was a very valuable one. I cannot recollect particularly seeing favourable notices in the Press about. the new British and Colonial Company. I thought it was good enough. I saw one or two notices. I cannot say whether they were favourable. I saw some notice of it. I am not sure, but I think I saw one in "The Times." My impression is my first visit to the company's offices was in May, 1903;, I think I can say I am certain. I do not think I was there on 14th March, 1903. Referring to the letter of 14th March, I do not think I saw the prospectus. I did not know how it worked out You may deal with me as a Serious man of business. I think I had had the prospectus before me for something like four months. I made no independent examination of any kind. With regard to the 400 shares in the General Stores Company, they were to be made profitable according to the statements of the letter by the successful launching of the new company. I understood that was what was to happen in the case of the Anglo-Egyptian Automatic Company. In the main I was induced to invest my money in view of the profit which, I expected to receive front the successful launching of the British and Colonial Company—in the hope of a large profit With regard to the statement that the company owned some valuable contracts beyond the Mazawattee contract Mr. Ross may sometimes have referred to other contracts which the Anglo-Egyptian owned. That was an influencing factor in my mind. I do not know whether in March, 1903, the Automatic General Stores Company was working at a profit I do not think I knew who were the directors of that company. The letter of 14th March states that the shares are the property of one of the directors of the company. I thought it was an extraordinary thing that one of the directors should part with them. Apparently that did not make any difference to me; I did not make any difficulty. I thought it an extraordinary thing that a director should part with the shares when he knew they would be worth £20 in a very short time. I should have taken them. I saw from the litter of 14th March that there was an Advisory Board in scotland for the British and Colonial, but I did not know it was a strong one. There was a prospectus enclosed describing it as a strong Advisory Board. My mind was to a great extent upon the British and Colonial Company and its successful launching. It was a speculation, but I thought it was an excellent investment.

I suppose I was embarking in a speculation with the object that if this new company were successfully floated I should reap a very handsome profit. I should expect to take vendors' shares. The profit was the thing, whether they were vendors' shares or not. In sending the telegram of 28th March," Greatly obliged. Accept up to 300 shares if you can spare them." my mind was made up with regard to the purchase. The only influencing documents were the two letters of the 14th and 17th March. I could only judge from what they told me. My mind was still running upon the new company. The Moore family are relatives of mine. In the letter of 18th March I was told of a powerful director who had been secured for the board of the British and Colonial Company, a Mr. England, who was a man of great influence and strength, and it states that everything is going on very satisfactorily in respect of the new company. Substantially this correspondence has reference to the successful launching of that new company as the most important topic. In April or May, 1904, F think I paid a visit to Queen Victoria Street. I did not see the share register, nor the register of members. I saw no books. I never saw the share register.

Re-examined. I was perfectly willing to treat this as an investment It just depended. If I could get a good profit I should sell out. I had some relatives who had some shares, and I was asked whether it would be well to keep them as an investment. I thought it was a good investment. In applying to prisoner for advice I did not know that I was applying to the owner of the shares that I was buying. I should not have bought these shares if I had known that he was selling his own shares. I believed the statement in the first letter that the promoters of the Anglo-Egyptian Automatic Company referred to in the prospectus owned some very valuable contracts, and had also a large number of machines working. I believed the statement that this business was started with great success. I think the Automatic General Stores Company has been wound up. I have had no profit. The British and Colonial Company I have got no profit from; it is absolutely extinct. I got no profit from my shares, so far as they are shares, in the Automatic General. They sent me 1, 000 shares in the British and Colonial Company in exchange for my cheque for £500. I have got them still. The British and Colonial Company was never floated; nothing ever came of it. There is a prospectus, but nothing else—that is all I know about it. I saw the Press comments referred to at the time they were bringing the company out, just prior to the 23rd June 1903. I think—after I had parted with my £500. I cannot remember whether they were favourable or not. The defendant never sent me any paper which contained unfavourable comments.

JOHN EDWARD CHAMPNEY , 27, Hans Place. Chelsea, shipowner. I received a letter dated 10th June, 1903, signed Stuart D. Boss, and I called upon Mr. Ross next day at his offices in Queen Victoria Street. He spoke about the Anglo-Egyptian Company, both as to the scheme for amalgamating with other companies and forming new ones. He said the Anglo-Egyptian Company had worked successfully. He took me across to show me various automatic machines in the warehouse close by in Upper Thames Street. He also assured me as to the profit I should have by underwriting shares in the new company, and after that had been talked about he mentioned the Anglo-Egyptian Company as being the promoting company, and the profits they would make. He explained as to the amount he had received in cash and the amount in shares. He said there were 6, 000 shares of the Anglo-Egyptian and there would be £12, 000, so that we should have a return of 30s. a share in cash. Then he eventually said he thought he could procure some shares for me from Captain C. A. Osborn. I said if he could procure some at the right price I would have somes and he said he had paid as high as £2 15s. for them himself. I then left, and I afterwards received the letter dated 11th June signed by Stuart Ross stating,"I can secure you about 300 shares at 50s." 25th June I received a letter enclosing a transfer in Ross's name. I then saw him at his office and drew his attention to it and asked for an explanation. He said Captain Osborn did not want his name to appear and so had transferred the shares to him, Stuart Ross, so that Stuart Ross might transfer to me. I saw him about this on June 16th. I accepted the explanation Stuart Ross gave to me and was satisfied. It was not an unreasonable thing, and it removed my objection. As long as it was bona-fide I had no objection.

[Adjourned to to-morrow.]

THIRD COURT; Thursday, 8th March.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-44
VerdictMiscellaneous > postponed

Related Material

MEDAWAR, Riski (22, dealer), and KERR, John Raymond (21, clerk). Conspiring and agreeing together to defraud of their moneys divers liege subjects, etc., obtaining by false pretences from Alexander Kinnell £15, and from Lewis Hatches £4 4s.; other charges in respect of other moneys so obtained.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. FitzGerald prosecuted; Mr. Marshall Hall, K.C., Mr. C. Mathews, and Mr. Symmoms defended Medawar; Mr. Ernest Wild defended Kerr.

WM. ALLIN SIMSON , a registered medical practitioner. I am attending upon Edwin Darke; he is ill, and will not be able to leave his bed for three weeks.

RICHARD DAVIS . Last July I was in the employment of Colonel Bowles, at Forty Hall, Enfield, as a man-servant. I wanted to learn motor-driving in order to drive a motor for Colonel Bowles. Seeing an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph," I wrote to 47, Victoria Street, and had back from prisoners a letter and prospectus and an application form. On August 14th I called and saw Kerr, told him I wanted to learn motoring, and discussed terms. I paid a deposit of 5s., and next day paid the balance of £3 19s. Then I went to the garage in Coach and Horses Yard, Old Burlington Street. It was. like an old stable and coach house, not very well lighted, and not very clean. It contained four cars, two working benches, a table, a vice, and a forge, this last was never used. I was given instruction of a motor-cycle engine; Howe, the instructor, explained what caused the engine to work—the explosion. There were a few other pupils there. On subsequent days we were taught about the accumulator. We also had seat lessons, and were shown how to work the levers; this was on a stationary car. After a fortnight I and about fifteen other pupils were taken on to the Embankment, and given driving lessons by Medawar. The man in the seat beside him was allowed to hold the steering wheel. I had been out on two days when Medawar told me to come up to be examined. I complained to Medawar that the garage was far from "the best equipped in London," as the prospectus described it; that there was no chassis; and that we had not been taught magneto ignition. He said the place was the best in London, and that "if anyone upset him he would show them something so terrible as had never been seen in England before." The examination took place. Medawar said that if I made three mistakes I would never be allowed in the place again. I made three mistakes, and did not pass; he told me to go out, and never let him see my face again. I said, "Only at the police-court." Medawar was a foreigner, and I could not follow everything he said. I went there next day with a man named Nicholls; while we were standing in a passage Medawar came out and said, "If you don't go out in two minutes I will smash your head in." I subsequently went to the Automobile Club, and I gave evidence in this case. At the time I passed the "examination" I was not able to drive a motor-car or to do any repairs; all the time I was at the garage I never saw any repairs done; no faults were created so that pupils might be instructed in remedying them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I am nineteen years old; I was under-foot man to Colonel Bowles; I have been with him nearly five years; I started with him as a boot-boy. He had a Beaufort car, which he drove himself; he did not pay for my "instruction" at this place; I myself paid. I went Lack to Colonel Bowles in my old position, except that I had

to clean the car; I have gone four miles on that ear; I now drive the car. It was Carpenter who suggested that I should go to the Automobile Club. While I was at this place there were ten or twelve pupils. I do not know it to be the fact that about a thousand pupils have passed through this garage. I do not know that the garage was held at a rental of £120 a year; it does not look worth it. There was an inspection pit there; the cars there were a big 15-20 Darracq, an 8-12 Darracq, an M.M.C., and a Gobron-Brillie; the first-named oar would cost retail about £500, the second £250 or £300. I was taught on a motor cycle engine; the principle of the explosion of the gas mixture which drives the piston of the cylinder is the same in that as it is in the most complicated 8 cylinder car. I deny that I was annoyed because I was not given a certificate. Medawar is an excitable man; he talked broken English, and I did not understand all he said during the exraination. I have paid no part of the costs of this prosecution; I expect to get my expenses as a witness. I do not know who are the real prosecutors; I do not know whether it is the Motor Union or the Automobile Club. I do not know that some of the pupils of the Motor Drivers Union got certificates from the Automobile Club.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wild. It is not the fact that alter I had failed in the examination I went to Kerr and tried to get a certificate, or that I went and made a disturbance. I went with a number of others and complained, but quietly; I was not turned out of the office.

JORH FBEDK. KNIGHT , 8, Golfrey Road, Harrow Road, driver mechanic, lately of the Royal Marine Light Infantry. In June last I wanted to learn motor driving, I had been for a month to another school, and had learned driving and running repairs. In September, seeing advertisements in the "Daily Telegraph," I went to 47, Victoria Street and saw Kerr; I told him I wanted to get a situation as a motor driver; he said if I belonged to the Union I should stand a very decent chance of getting a good situation; he showed me the prospectus, and said they had a very fine garage, and that I should have every opportunity of improving myself. I paid the four guinea fee. The instruction I had was on an old cycle engine; I had three lessons. I felt very dissatisfied with the place in general, and went to Kerr and asked for my fees back; he told me I should hear from their solicitor. I had a letter from the solicitor threatening me with police-court proceedings for creating a disturbance, but no proceedings were taken. While I was at this place I saw no instruction being given in repairs; I saw no tools there; there was no chaasis, only an old Gobron Brillie car, I received no assistance at all in getting a situation.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I was led by the elaborate advertisement to think this a genuine thing. I did

not go there to be instructed on a cycle engine. There is no difference between the action of that and the action of a motor cylinder. It was not through Davis that I went and asked for my money back. I did not commence a County Court action to recover the money, because I did not want to trouble any more about it.

Re-examined. I went to this place because I wanted more instruction, and to get a situation; I got neither.

HERBERT CHARSLEY , 3, Wood Street, Chelsea, coachman. In September, seeing advertisement, I called at 47, Victoria Street and saw Kerr and told him I wanted to learn motor driving and the motor-car in general. He said that my being a coachman would be in my favour—my experience of London traffic, and having been in private service. I said I could not pay all the money down, and would call again. He said it would be advisable for me to put my name on the books at once, as there was an exhibition coming on; I then paid 10s. deposit, and afterwards £3 19s. I was put into a class of eleven or twelve, under Carpenter. We were shown the action of the piston and the crank shaft, how the accumulator is charged, and so on; this went on for a fortnight. I did not have any driving lessons; I did not get as far as that I had heard so much about them, and was so thoroughly dissatisfied with the whole thing, that I gave it up. While I was there nothing was shown us in the way of repairs; I never saw a class being taught with a chassis taken to pieces; I never saw a tyre taken off or put on. I have never driven a motor-car.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I stayed for the best part of three weeks, and had a lesson every day. The photographs produced represent the garage as I saw it. There is room, I should say, for seven or eight cars. I think there were four motors there in my time.

ERNEST SCRIVENER , 17, Netley Street, Hampstead Road, brass plate engraver. In September last, having read in advertisement, I saw Kerr at Victoria Street; I asked to see the garage before I paid my money! He said I could not do so, because I should interrupt the classes. He said they would give me instruction and make me thoroughly proficient. The fee was £4 4s. which I paid. I was at the garage about five weeks, and had the same instruction as the other pupils; I had one driving lesson on the Chelsea Embankment. I was "examined" by Medawar, and passed, and obtained a certificate; I had then had only the one driving lessen of ten minutes. The instruction consisted in lectures by Medawar, and we made notes in memorandum books. I never saw any repairs done, never saw a tyre taken off or put on. never saw a chassis taken to pieces. When I went there Kerr said that as soon as I paid my fees my name would be put on the employment register; I never

got employment through them; I have gone back to my old trade.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. When I got the certificate I did not think I could drive a motorcar, but I should have used the certificate if I could have got a situation by it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wild. I did not go to Kerr a few days after I got the certificate and ask him to give me a reference saying that I had been employed there for nine months. I swear that I never went to the office after I got the certificate.

( Adjourned till to-morrow.)

OLD COURT; Friday, 9th March.

(Before Mr. Justice, Grantham.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-45
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

BENSON, James (53, confectioner) . On indictment for the wilful murder of James Henry Benson, and on. Coroner's Inquest for manslaughter of James Henry Benson.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Murphy prosecuted; Mr. Burnie defended.

JANE LOUISA BENSON . I now live with my parents at 22, Templer Road, Homerton; I am just over twenty years of age. I lived at home up to April last, when, owing to family troubles, I left and went to live with a girl friend at Peckham. Prisoner is my brother; he was in the army twelve years; on leaving the army he lived at home, working as a machinist at a confectioner's. On Easter Bank Holiday last year we went out together; he had connections with me. On finding myself pregnant I told him, and he said the best thing we could do was to live together. In June we took rooms at 10, Usher Road, Bow, where we lived together as Mr. and Mrs. Benson. Our parents were not aware of this. On December 5th a child was born which was registered as James Henry Benson: it was a healthy child. In January my sister called on me, and saw the baby; she told my father. On Sunday, January 14th, my father came and saw me and prisoner. He said, "You had better come home; if you are not home by Wednesday night, by yourself, Jim will be in prison." When father had gone, prisoner said, "My bread is done; what am I to do with you and the baby?" On the Tuesday we agreed to make away with ourselves, to save all disgrace; I suggested laudanum; prisoner said we had better find a big bridge. I got 2d. worth of laudanum from a chemist; prisoner also bought two bottles of laudanum. The stuff was kept on the sideboard in the room. Prisoner remarked,"If they find us dead, somebody will have to look after the child." Prisoner was drinking heavily since the Sunday. On the Wednesday evening my father came again; he said I must go with him, and I must not bring the

baby. I went away with him, leaving the child on the bed. The child would not take the breast, and was fed on barley water and milk. Prisoner was handy with the child, and able to feed it. When I left there was a quartern of whisky in the room. The three bottles of laudanum had not been touched up to the time I left. I next saw the baby at the mortuary, and my brother at the police station. The three letters produced are in prisoner's writing; I had not seen either letter before I left, but he had said on the Wednesday that if he poisoned himself he should leave a letter hoping that someone would look after the child, and that he would be forgiven for what he had done. Nothing had been said about taking the life of the child; prisoner was very fond of it.

Cross-examined. When we spoke about laudanum there was no intention of giving any to the child; prisoner said, "If they find us dead someone will have to take the baby; I cannot kill the child." When I left prisoner he was very drunk. I know that he had sunstroke several times in India. The letter produced commencing,"My darling child has been drugged" (B) is in a very shaky writing. When I left the house the bottles of laudanum were on the sideboard; the feeding bottle was on the table.

JAMES BENSON , 22, Templer Road, Homerton, bootmaker. I am father of the last witness and of the prisoner. He left the army in 1902. I discovered in January last that he was living with his sister and that a child had been born. I went to 10, Usher Road, on Sunday, January 14th, and saw prisoner. As I was leaving he came after me and asked what I was going to do; I said if Jenny did not come away by Wednesday night he would be in prison. On the Wednesday I went again and took the girl away; I refused to allow her to bring the child.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was twelve years in the army; ten and a half years in India, where he had sunstroke.

Re-examined. I believe prisoner was invalided home through sunstroke and enteric fever; I only know this from him; I have not seen his discharge.

HESTER ELLEN MILLEN , 10, Usher Road, Bow. In June last I let two rooms to prisoner and his sister, whom I then knew only as Mrs. Benson. She was confined on the 5th December. On January 17th she went away with her father. I said to prisoner,"Mrs. Benson has gone out and left the baby "; he replied,"That's all right, she will be back "; he seemed to have been drinking; he was stupid, very heavy. The baby was lying on the bed wrapped up in a shawl. At 11.30 that night I went up to their room. Prisoner was asleep on the bed; so was the baby; I took it from the bed and put it into the cradle. Next morning at 7.30 I went up again and asked prisoner how the child was; he replied."All right, I have given him some food." At 11 o'clock I went again and offered to wash the

child; prisoner said, "No, I can do all that myself." At 5 o'clock I asked him if baby was all right; he laid,"Yet; I have sent for my sister, and she will be here tonight." At 8.30 he asked me to fetch him a pint of beer, which I did; he appeared then quite sober. He said about the baby,"I have warmed him and have laid him on the bed." Next morning about half past nine I heard prisoner moving about in the room; I heard no cry from the child. At 11.30 I went to his room and suggested that I should wash the child and look after it. He said, "It will want no more washing, Mrs. Millen, I have killed it; I have drugged it" He asked me to fetch a policeman; I said I could not; then he said he would go to the station himself, and he went out. He gave me a letter in an envelope; I did not read the letter, but I got 12s. from the police; that was the rent due to me, and a week in advance. (Letter read (A.): "Rent due to Mrs. Millen, 12s., herewith enclosed. I am deeply grieved over the trouble and sadness I am causing you. Try to forget us as soon as possible. J. Benson.") In the evening prisoner came back, followed by a constable, who arrested him.

Cross-examined. When I went up on the Wednesday evening prisoner was lying on the bed asleep; I had to shake him to wake him; the child was on the bed by his side. On the evening that Mrs. Benson went away I saw the feeding bottle lying on the table; I did not see it afterwards until the police came.

ARTHUR CLIFFORD DORNFORD , M.R.C.S., Divisional Surgeon of Police. On January 19th I saw the child about 11.45 a.m.; it had a night-dress on; the body was warm; I should judge it had died within an hour. There was a parched and dry appearance of the lips and mouth; the face was livid, the hands clenched, and the feet turned inwards. The letter produced was lying on the table. (Letter read (B): "My darling child has been drugged to death with laudanum administered by me out of love for him and to save him the insults which be would have to put up with through life, all through my blind, mad love for the best girl that ever breathed. Odd be kind to her, and the baby as well; the innocent should not suffer. James Benson.") On the table were the bottles produced, and the feeding bottle. I made a post-mortem examination; the body was that of a healthy child; there was some congestion of the brain. At a subsequent examination I removed the stomach and kidneys and bladder and some other parts, and gave them, sealed, to Inspector Godley. The cause of the child's death was convulsions; that is a not infrequent accompaniment of opium poisoning in young children. Had I not seen the letter just read I should have taken it as an ordinary case of convulsions or asphyxia, probably. I now put the cause of death as convulsions caused by opium poisoning.

Cross-examined. The bottles were lying on the table, empty; one of them contained about a drachm, which I took away; some of the bottles had corks in them, some had not. The feeding bottle was on the table then. It is possible that the teat of the bottle might absorb any laudanum that happened to be on the table. There were no marks of laudanum on the child's clothing. It would be possible, in fact, easy, for anyone to open a child's mouth and pour laudanum down with a spoon As to whether that would be easily done by a man himself under the influence of laudanum, that depends which stage he was in.

Re-examined. There is no difficulty in getting a baby to swallow liquid. I sew no spoons lying about. It would be quite possible to put the mouth of one of these bottles into the child's mouth. The table on which the feeding bottle was lying had no appearance of any liquid having been poured about on it. I examined the feeding bottle at the time, and there was no smell whatever of laudanum.

Further cross-examined. In order to fill a feeding bottle the teat is taken off; it is not an uncommon thing to leave the teat on the table while the bottle is being filled.

Further re-examined. If that happened, only a very small' quantity would get on to the teat.

SIR THOMAS STEVENSON , M.D., official analyst to the Home Office. I received the bottles from Inspector Godley. On analysis I found no trace of opium about the feeding-bottle. In one of the small bottles there was a small quantity of opium; several of the others had contained opium. I also analysed the organs of the child, the bladder contents, the stomach, the liver, spleen, kidneys, and intestines; there was opium in all of them; I found seven-tenths of a grain of opium, with a considerable margin above and below; it might have been five-tenths, or oven one grain. This would be equivalent to seven to ten drops of the standard laudanum of the pharmacopoeia; that, or even less, would be a fatal dose for a child of this age. It might have been anything from three or four to twelve hours before the dose would be fatal. In cases of infantile poisoning by opium, convulsions are occasionally met with. The organs were healthy; there was nothing in them except the opium that would account for death. I examined the child's night-dress; there was staining, but not of opium.

JOHN HOWE , sub-divisional inspector, K division. On January 19th at 11.15 I went to 10, Usher Road, where I saw the dead body of the child. On the table were the five bottles produced, and another was handed to me by Dr. Doveford later. On the table also was the letters (B); Mrs. Millen handed me the letter (A), containing 12s., which money I gave to her. There was also a letter (C) giving a list of some

articles of furniture bought on the hire system, and showing how much had been paid on them. There were a number of articles on the table, but no liquid; there was some water in a jug, which I smelt. On the table was a medal bearing prisoner's name; also his Army discharge. There was a long investigation before the Coroner, and the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter.

JOHN HOARE (P.C., 481, K). On January 19th, I was in plain clothes, outside 10, Usher-road; prisoner came up and said, "Is this No. 10?"; I said "Yes, what is your name?"; he said "Benson; I am glad I came back at I did; I know what it is for." I told him I should arrest him for the murder of his child; he said "I will go with you; I will give you no trouble."

GEORGE GODLEY , inspector, K division. On January 19th, I was at Bow Police Station when prisoner was brought in. When I told him he was charged with the wilful murder of his child, he said, "That is quite right, sir; I intended to come back."

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I could not plead guilty, sir, because I don't know whether I did it or not; I have no witnesses."

(Evidence for Defence.)

JAMES BINSON (prisoner, on oath). I gave evidence on oath before the coroner. When my sister left me on Wednesday, January 17th, I was drunk. I had no drink during the day on the 18th. Besides the quartern of whisky in the house, I had a quartern in my pocket. During the Thursday, I fed the baby several times. That day, besides a pint of beer, I drank nearly half-a-pint of whisky. I remember that I took some of the laudanum in the middle of the night, about one a.m. on the Friday; I had taken some on the Wednesday night; I was falling about with it. I took it in a tumbler or glass, I was sitting in an armchair, and was sick. The next thing I remember is that on the next morning I woke and I was lying across the bed, at the foot; the baby was in the bed, dead. I remember Mrs. Millen coming in just afterwards. I don't know how the child came to be dead. At that time my state was such that I could hardly stand. After I saw the child was dead I wrote the letter (B); I did not know what I was doing; I was frantic. The letters (A) and (C) I wrote on the Wednesday afternoon; I then contemplated suicide.

Cross-examined. I was in regular employment at a confectioner's, wages 25s. a week. I did not go to work after the Sunday my father called; he had said that this was no secret, and I thought I was in disgrace; I was ashamed to go to work. I had plenty of money, two or three pounds. I think it was on the Tuesday that Jane and I discussed suicide. I did not

tell her that I had written the two letters; I do not think she was in the room while I wrote them; I put them on the side-board in a tin. I do not remember when I took them out of the tin. The first thing I did when I found the child was dead was, I picked it up; then I simply wrote that letter; I do not remember doing anything else. As to the phrase in the letter,"My darling child has been drugged to death with laudanum, administered by me out of love for him," I can only explain it by the state I was in. As to "drugged to death by laudanum," I naturally thought that was what it would die of; there was nothing else in the place. Why I should think of poison at all was, because I knew the circumstances in which I was placed—the way I had been going on myself with the laudanum."Out of love for him."—Yes, I was fond of the child. I cannot say that before I wrote the letter. I was thinking of the disgrace that his origin would attach to him in after life. There is some difference between the writing of that letter and my ordinary writing; I could write better than that Mrs. Millen could not have heard me moving about very long before she came in. When I first got up I was hardly able to stand; all this bottom part of me felt dead. I was not in my right state of mind, certainly not. When I left the house I sat in Victoria Park for about three hours; then I wandered about; I got some hot brandy; that made me sick, and I felt a bit better; then went back to the house when it was dark. When Mrs. Millen came in that morning I told her the child was dead; I do not remember saying anything else; if she says that I told her "I have killed it, I have drugged it,' I do not dispute her; I do not know whether I did or not. The last time I had taken laudanum before the Friday morning was on the Wednesday night, after my sister had left; no; I took some on the Thursday night, or about one in the morning. I took 4d. worth on the Friday morning. I drunk it out of a tumbler; I emptied the bottles into a tumbler, as I was standing up against the table, drank the stuff off and put the glass down on the table; this was about one in the morning. I do not remember touching the child after that. The child was in bed, away from the table. I do not suggest that it could have got off the bed and got the bottle from the table by itself.

DR. DORNFORD, recalled by the Court. The quantity of laudanum in the bottles would be about 8 drachms, about half an ounce; I do not know how much a chemist would charge for that.

CORNELIUS GARMAN , 278, Roman Road, Bow, chemist. The bottle produced is similar to those I stock. I should sell for 2d. about 3 drachms of laudanum; this bottle would hold practically 4d. worth; 6d. an ounce is the ordinary charge. If laudanum is asked for as a liniment we put it in a poison bottle; if it is asked for as a medicine, a few drops to be taken,

I should not in the ordinary way put it in a poison bottle; 4d. worth would make this bottle about three-parts full. As to whether that would be a fatal dose for an adult, he might take it if he were used to it, but in the ordinary way it would be a poisonous dose; in all probability a fatal dose.

Cross-examined by Mr. Burnie. If the person taking it were immediately afterwards sick, that would modify the action of the poison very much; it would depend how much was vomited. If he were sick after such a dose, he would still be under the influence of the drink.

Verdict, Guilty; Jury recommended prisoner to mercy, taking into consideration the condition in which he was living and the fact that his father did not allow his daughter to take the child away.—Prisoner,"I am not guilty."—Sentence, Death.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-46
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment

Related Material

KRONEVITCH, Lewis (21, cigarette maker), and BARNETT, Lizzie (19, no occupation) . Kronevitch, carnally knowing Kate Brown, a girl over thirteen and under sixteen years of age; aiding and abetting one Wm. Finkel to have unlawful carnal knowledge of Kate Brown; both for inducing Kate Brown to resort to premises for the purpose of being carnally known by men.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Kronevitch, eighteen months' hard labour; Barnett, nine months' imprisonment (second division).

NEW COURT; Friday, 9th March.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-47
VerdictMiscellaneous > postponed

Related Material

ROSS, Stuart Dixon Stubbs, and ROSS, George Bertram. [Continued from page 95.]

JOHN EDWARD CHAMPENY , recalled. Further examined by Mr. Graham Campbell. I accepted Stuart Ross's statement that Captain Osborne did not wish his name to be on the transfer; also the statement in the letter and telegram. In that belief I handed Stuart Ross a cheque for £648 7s. 6d., dated June 16th, 1903 [Ex. No. 26], for which I received receipt signed by Stuart Ross. I afterwards received certificate for shares Nos. 6,729 to 7,028. I should not have given my cheque if I had not believed those statements.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. I am a shipowner and am director of more than one company. I first heard of the British and Colonial through Mr. Tanquery, who is a gentleman of position in the City. He subsequently became a director of that company. He spoke in favourable terms of it, and I had every reason to place reliance on what he said. I studied the prospectus to some extent. The two companies were to sell them

selves to the Anglo-Egyptian and the latter to the British and Colonial, I believe. I will accept your statement that £15, 000 was for the Automatic Telegram and Delivery Company and £40,000 for the Automatic General Stores, leaving £30, 000 as he acquisition price of the Anglo-Egyptian Automatic. It was on what Mr. Tanquery said and the prospectus that I paid ray first visit to Mr. Ross on June 11, 1903. On that day I went to Queen Victoria street and to 4A, Upper Thames Street, where I saw the working of the business and their doing up the packets for the machines. I also examined the books. I had A conversation with Stuart Ross and returned to Queen Victoria Street. He may have told me Captain Osborne had been a shareholder in, or a director of, the Automatic General Stores. He said he was a shareholder in the Anglo-Egyptian Company—I am only speaking from recollection—and he wanted to realise some of his shares, as he had lost on the Exchange. He explained that Captain Osborne did not wish it known that he was realising some of his shares, so it had been arranged between them that the shares were to be first transferred to Ross and then Ross was to transfer to me, so that Captain Osborne's name might not appear. I thought it was a very plausible reason that he would not like me, as a buying shareholder, to know that he was selling his shares. I knew it from Ross, but that may have been a breach of confidence on his part Ross assured me they were Osborne's shares. Mr. Tanquery informed me he was going on the board of the company before he informed me about the British and Colonial Company. I do not remember any difficulty arising owing to the London brokers suddenly requiring that the public subscription before going to allotment should be increased by £10, 000. It was Coates who raised it. I had nothing to do with bringing out the company. I remember seeing something in the "Pall Mall Gazette" about an application for an injunction at the instance of the Automatic Restaurant Company which created some difficulty at the time the subscription lists were open. Later I was called to a meeting of the British and Colonial to consult with Mr. Evans and Mr. Rawlins as to the prospects of the company doing a favourable business. Mr. Evans conducts a large business in London, and Mr. Rawlins is one of the directors of the British and Colonial. The investigation was never completed. We issued a joint report or observations, rather, on May 31st. 1904. The information was chiefly supplied by Mr. Ross. I will produce the report if you wish, written by Ross. The expressions in this report (produced) are stronger than I should use. I never heard of its being circulated. We read certain figures to the meeting. I believe I have the document at home. The substance of it was if there were sufficient working capital the British and Colonial Company could be, in our joint opinion,

successfully conducted, or would give it a chance. I think it was £10, 000 about. It was to be raised by the shareholders of each company. That was followed by a suggestion that I should join the board. I think it was to be a new board, and that Mr. Tanquery, Mr. Herbert, and others should be left out. I am pretty clear about that, and I remember the terms on which Mr. Evans, Mr. Rawlins, and myself proposed to act—that we were to have no fees during the year in which we were to try if it could be made a success, and no shares were to be parted with by anybody. Of course, we were afraid that if we took it in hand there might be shares sold on the strength of our names, Mr. Evans stipulated we should have 12, 000 shares out of the 25, 000, and that working capital to the extent of £10, 000 should be subscribed to work it in a small way. The. other thing was to be a very much larger concern, which was the amalgamation of the three companies into one. On June 11th, 1904, I absolutely refused to have anything more to do with it. I can give you my reasons. I saw a prospectus dated January 27th, 1904, in which amended conditions were set oat under which the British and Colonial was to buy the Anglo-Egyptian Company for a sum of. £12, 000. There were 8, 000 shares to be issued and a cash payment of 30s. a share.

Re-examined by Mr. Muir. When the negotiations fell through as to the British and Colonial, I asked for a list of shareholders of the Anglo-Egyptian, and after some difficulty I got a list sent me on July 22nd, 1903, by George Ross. I was assured by Stuart Ross that he had paid up as high as £2 15s. a share himself. Stuart Ross went with me on June 11th to 4A, Upper Thames Street. The impression I formed was that the machines and the contracts and books belonged to the Anglo-Egyptian and that the materials put into the machines belonged to the Automatic General Stores. The 30s. a share cash was to come from the British and Colonial. The Anglo-Egyptian Company on May 14, 1903, contracted to pay £16, 000 cash and that in paragraph 5 the British and Colonial, on June 22nd, 1903, contracted to pay to the Anglo-Egyptian £16, 000 in cash, so that if the Anglo-Egyptian had applied that £16, 000, which was all it had in cash, to the payment of the Automatic General Stores, they would have required more cash from the British and Colonial. It was provided that the preliminary expenses should be paid by the Anglo-Egyptian, estimated to amount to £7,500, so that the Anglo-Egyptian would have £7,500 to payout of nothing unless they had capital of their own, and instead of having £12, 000 cash to pay to the shareholders they would be £7.500 out of pocket. The minimum, subscription upon which the company could go to allotment was £40, 000, £16, 000 was to go to the Anglo-Egyptian, and there was a provision that £20, 000, at least, of the proceeds of that issue would be applicable

to working capital, leaving them with £4,000. I never signed the document that has been referred to as my report. The facts were furnished by Stuart Ross, and the figures by Mr. Angers, an accountant. The investigation was never completed, because I found that more than 8, 000 shares of the Anglo-Egyptian had been issued, and I had been swindled, and I said I would have nothing more to do with the British and Colonial. I wrote Stuart Ross to that effect.

Further cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. I cannot identify that book as one I saw. I do not remember seeing the prospectus of the British and Colonial early in 1904. I do not think I was in England at the time. I generally return about May 1.

JAMES T. TANQUERY , examined by Mr. Muir. I am a merchant of 29, New Bond Street. I knew Mr. Champney in 1903, and introduced the matter of underwriting the shares of the British and Colonial Company to him. I had a conversation with Stuart Ross as to what the shareholders in the Anglo-Egyptian Company would get for their shares, and as far as I recollect he said they were to get £1 to £1 5s. in cash, and £3 in the British and Colonial. The figure varied. At one time he said 8, 000 shares had been issued by the Anglo-Egyptian and at another I think 8, 007. There were seven signatories. He told me Mr. Champney had bought some shares in the company. I think about £600 worth.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. I do not think he told me Captain Osborne had been a shareholder, but had ceased to be as he had purchased Osborne's shares. I became a director in the British and Colonial, and attended many of its meetings. I think at first it was intended that the public subscription to launch it should be £30, 000 more than the original figure, but there were so many stages. I remember a difficulty arising with Messrs. Coates, the London brokers, as to a further £10, 000—that was after the prospectus was in the hands of the printers. I remember an application for an injunction on the part of the Automatic Restaurant Company against the British and Colonial when the lists were open for subscription. It was certainly unfavourable to the company. We thought we had, ipso facto, ceased to be directors when the money was returned, and we were advised. After that a tremendous amount of negotiation went on for a long time. I recollect Messrs. Evans, Champney, and Rawlins volunteering to investigate the affairs of the company, and they reported at our meeting a fortnight or three weeks after. I do not think they made a written report I remember, when I saw them again, they decided to have nothing to do with it. I think Mr. Champney made a speech from the chair at a meeting of May 31st at 159, Queen Victoria Street. We had one meeting in Cannon Street. They reported that given sufficient working capital the company could be successfully

carried on, and later they were invited to join the board to carry out their proposals.

Re-examined by Mr. Muir. I am almost sure it was at the Cannon Street meeting that Messrs. Evans, Champney, and Rawlins said they would have nothing more to do with the company. We had so many meetings. I think Stuart Ross was present, and that Mr. Champney asked him some questions and did not get satisfactory answers. Geo. Ross was not there; he seldom attended.

Further cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. I do not recollect Rose offering to assist the British and Colonial with 15, 000, shares or making any offer.

JOHN BAIRD , examined by Mr. Graham-Campbell. I am a solicitor practising in Edinburgh. I made the acquaintance of Stuart Ross in February, 1903, in London. I saw him again, in London, when he mentioned the Anglo-Egyptian Co., end said I ought to take an interest in it as it was a good thing. I came to town again at the end of February or the beginning of March, when he again mentioned the company, and I intimated that I might. I cannot fix my memory as to what he said exactly, as it was dinner, and many things were talked of. I think in April he told me the share capital was £8,000—that was at the Hotel Russell, and that the shares were £2. I got details from a Mr. Herbert, of Glasgow. He said they were going to form a new company (the British and Colonial) to take over the Anglo-Egyptian and some other companies. We were to pay £2 a share, and on the flotation of the new company we would get probably 30s. to £2 cash and about the same amount in shares. I ultimately bought 600 shares in the Anglo-Egyptian at £2—100 from Mr. Irons and the other 500 front Smart Ross. He told me at the Hotel Russell that the automatic machines cost £26, 000, and that they belonged to the Anglo-Egyptian Company. I went several times to the office in Queen Victoria Street, and saw Stuart Ross. I also went to 4a, Upper Thames Street and saw many business books, shown to rac, I think, by Mr. Collinson and Mr. Angers. Stuart Ross was always present. I thought the books belonged to the Anglo-Egyptian, but found after they did not. I was shown one very costly-looking book showing the amounts earned by the machines—the "drawing book." Ross was introduced to me by Mr. Carney, of Glasgow. Mr. Carney, I understood, was introduced to Ross by Mr. Irons. The reason for offering me Mr. Irone's 100 shares was that he was hard-up. The share certificate is signed by Ross, and by Duke as secretary. I did not see any name on the transfer. I understood from Ross that the 500 shares were his. I saw Ross at my office in Edinburgh, and put in writing the terms on which I was to buy the 500 shares. I wrote the letter to Ross, dated July 31, 1903. I have been repaid a part by Ross after pressure—the bills are overdue.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. They are not Ross's bills. They were handed to me endorsed by Ross, but they were other people's acceptances. I received the worth of 500 shares back. I understood they were Stuart Ross's bills. It might have been the beginning of March when the 8, 000 shares were mentioned. T had a communication from Mr. Robertson, a stockbroker of Edinburgh, early in 1903, and from Mr. Carney, of Glasgow. I was introduced to Mr. Carney by Ross. He was concerned in the British and Colonial Company. The £2 shares were £1 and £1 premium—so somebody got £16, 000. It is possible that £8,000 could purchase £26, 000 worth of machinery. I always understood it belonged to the Anglo-Egyptian Company. I did not investigate the value of the contracts, but I was instrumental in getting some valuable ones for the Anglo-Egyptian. I often discussed with Ross the value of the contracts he had obtained, and which he intended to hand over to the British and Colonial. There was one with the Mazawattee Tea Company and with Reiley; and theatre companies for placing machines. The machinery and contracts were to be disposed of by the Anglo-Egyptian to the British and Colonial. One would be of no use without the other. There was business going on at 4a, Upper Thames Street when I went there, which was three or four times. The business had great potentialities if it had sufficient working capital. I thought Mr. Ross was over-worked which might account for the failure of the company. I understood there were legal accidents. I heard of the public subscription for allotment being raised from £30, 000 to £40, 000, and of the injunction. The Automatic Sweetmeat Company was then, and is still in existence. I understood it was a flourishing concern. I got a list of shareholders from Mr. Herbert after I saw Ross. I understood it to be supplied by Ross.

Re-examined by Mr. Muir. Herbert is a biscuit manufacturer in Glasgow and a shareholder—a wealthy man. He supplied biscuits for the machines. Serves on the Advisory Committee for Scotland. The list showed 8, 007 shares issued. I also got information from Truebuer and Mitchell, of Glasgow. I thought the book I inspected was that of the Anglo-Egyptian. It was quite a different thing to deal with the business in London. They were mere unprofessional visits that I paid in London. The Automatic Sweetmeat Company has nothing to do with these companies that I know of. I never saw the contracts that Ross got with the railways and theatres, but I understood they were for the supply of biscuits, dates, sweets, and cigarettes on their premises by the machines, for which a rent would be paid. I understood the contract with the Mazawattee Tea Company for advertising their tea was a valuable one. and they wanted to advertise their chocolate.

JOHN HENRY ROBERTSON . Examined by Mr. Muir. I am a

stockbroker, of Edinburgh, and a member of the Stock Exchange there. I was introduced to Stuart Rosa by Mr. Baird and by Mr. Carney, of Glasgow. I agreed with Ross to buy some Anglo-Egyptian Company's shares. I had two interviews, I think, previously. He told me it was a good company, which started with a small beginning, and it developed and made large profits and was a lucrative business; that the profits had been put into the business to. increase the assets, and that the issued share capital was 8, 000 odd shares or 8, 007; and that they were very difficult to get; that it was a private company and was not very much known, and the shareholders were not anxious to part with their shares and they were going as high as £2 10s. They were £1 shares. He said the Anglo-Egyptian automatic machines were working at many railway stations round about London. I at first agreed to take 500 shares at £2. That was cancelled, and it was to be 200. They were for clients. When the shares arrived I saw the transferor was Stuart Ross. I understood the British and Colonial Company was to absorb the Anglo-Egyptian and that it would work out at about £3 15s. per share, partly in cash and partly in shares in the new company—about £2 10s. in cash. There was a provisional contract between the Anglo-Egyptian Company and the British and Colonial, or its nominee. Ross said, when I agreed to take 500 shares he would see when he got to London whether they were available. I received this telegram on 13th March, 1903: "Have secured 320 shares syndicate for you. Am trying to arrange balance this afternoon." I did not concern myself as to whose shares they were, but I supposed they were somebody elses. I received this letter signed Stuart Ross, dated 13th March: "I have not been able to secure any more of the Syndicate shares beyond those I secured for you last week, and which I advised you of. In fact, I have had applications for over 5, 000 shares during the last few days from various people, but I shall do my best to get you up to 500 shares before any other person." I sent Ross a letter dated March 18th: "We note you have not yet been able to complete 500 Syndicate shares at £2, and so far you have only got us 320 shares." (Letter read.) I got this reply on the 19th March: "In reply to your letter of yesterday's date, I am pleased to say I have secured the balance of syndicate shares for you—180, making in all 500." (Letter read.) I understood they were somebody else's shares."But as I am desirous of meeting your convenience I am willing to leave payment over to 5th April as arranged." I replied on the 23rd March. I had an interview with Ross in London shortly after having no answer to the letter. I discussed the letter with him. It was evidently between the 23rd and 28th March. He said no dividend had been paid as the profits had been put into the business. I do not know that I pressed him as to the

figure. He said there was a large sum of revenue. I got this letter from Stuart Ross dated 28th March. (Letter read.) On the 3rd April I sent a cheque for £400 in payment of the £200 shares I bought for my client. I wrote Ross on the 7th April enclosing copy of a letter I sent to Mr. Denham, in which there is this passage: "As to the Syndicate having no revenue, as I take it there has been revenue, but it has gone into the expansion of the business." I meant by "Syndicate" the Anglo-Egyptian and "the company to be formed "referred to the British and Colonial. On the 8th April I got a reply: "Thank you for your letter of yesterday's date enclosing copy of Mr. Denhams reply to yours of the 6th." On the 12th May I got a letter signed George Ross, enclosing two certificates for my client—one in my own name for 100 shares, and the other in the name of Sir John Maurice Clarke, 100 shares, both signed by Ross and Mr. Duke as secretary. On the 15th July I wrote to the secretary of the Anglo-Egyptian Automatic Trading Company, Limited. (Letter read.) I never got any copy of the Anglo-Egyptian balance-sheet. In reply to that letter I got one on the 22nd July, 1903: "In reply to your letter of the 15th, in the first place there are 8, 000, odd. shares issued in the Anglo-Egyptian Automatic Trading Company, Limited" (Letter read.) I also received this letter on the 12th August, 1903. (Letter read.) I tried to enforce the contract against Stuart Ross to make him pay £2 10s. to my clients for their shares. I put it in the hands of a London solicitor, but I got nothing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. We were to be the Edinburgh brokers of the British and Colonial, and our name appeared on the prospectus issued on June 23. 1903. Mr. Baird first introduced me to Ross the end of February or the beginning of March, and I was also introduced to him by Carney. Ross showed me the prospectus, and there was some discussion as to brokers' fees. He agreed to give me a call on 5, 000 shares in the new company for myself and clients. The Anglo-Egyptian shares were then mentioned. I did not take 500 of them—that was cancelled; 200 were eventually retained for my clients. I took 100 shares for broker's fees. The company referred to by me in the letter of March 23 was the new company. I think Captain Osborne, in a letter to me, stated he was a director of the Automatic General Stores Company. I wrote to him on March 26 for information, and he replied on the 27th in a re-assuring manner. He told me the Automatic General Stores and other companies were to be transferred to the British and Colonial about to be formed. I met him in London, when he expressed himself favourably as to Ross. I accepted his statements. I made certain suggestions for the prospectus, some of which were adopted. I think I made a suggestion that the actual value of the assets should be separated

from the goodwill, which was done. I heard from Ross that the company was not floated, and could not understand it, for I had gone on with the prospectus on the faith of the underwriting. It was underwritten to the extent of £30, 000 according to the prospectus. I understood that the London brokers at the last moment insisted there should be a further £10, 000 subscribed before they went to allotment. I was told that Messrs. Champney, Evans, and Rawlins were appointed to investigate the company's affairs.

[Adjourned till to-morrow.]

THIRD COURT; Friday, 9th March.

(Before the Common Serjeant)

(Continued from page 99.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-48
VerdictMiscellaneous > postponed

Related Material

MEDAWAR, Riski, and KERR, John Raymond .

HENRY FORD , stoker and engine driver, 63, Peokney Road, Hammersmith. I was twelve years leading stoker in the Navy, leaving in 1900. Since then I have been 2 1/2 years at Hammersmith Distillery, and three years at Fulham Workhouse, which I have now left and gone back to the distillery as stoker and engine driver. In October last I wanted to learn to drive a motor-car. I saw advertisement produced in "Daily Chronicle" of October 12th, and, in consequence, called at 47, Victoria Street; and saw prisoner Kerr. I asked him if it was a genuine place, and if they had practical engineers there for training. He told me "Yes," and gave me prospectus like that produced. I read it in the waiting-room, which was an ordinary office with motor journals on the table. Kerr then asked me if I was satisfied. I told him "Yes, as far as the papers went." I paid a deposit of a guinea, without seeing the garage, which Kerr assured me was within a few minutes' walk. I went on 16th and paid the balance of £3 3s. Kerr then gave me note to take to the garage, which was in Carteret Street, where I gave the note to Hatcher. Hatcher and Urbani were the instructors. I then had instruction from Mr. Woods on the cycle engine. He dictated to me to learn by heart the instructions. There was a chassis, a body of an old car not complete, with a box for a seat. Only parts of the machinery were there. I never saw it put together. It was used for seat lessons. They showed me the different parts of it, the way the clutch worked, and the brakes, though the brake was disconnected. I had no lessons in taking it to pieces and putting it together. As to driving lessons, I went out twice for tea minutes in a car, when I handled the steering wheel. I was never allowed to touch the machinery. The driving lessons were round the quiet squares of Pimlico. Six of us went out between 11 and 1, and

then again at 3 in the afternoon. After I had had my two driving lessons I was examined by Mr. Hatcher. He sat in a car and asked us some questions on what we had been learning, six or seven of us being round the car. There was no examination to see whether we could drive or do repairs. I had not been taught any repairs, and had seen no repairs done while I was there. During the driving lessons no faults were created in the machinery that I could be made to repair. When I had passed through my examination Hatcher, the manager, gave me a note addressed to the secretary, which I gave to Kerr on November 23rd after I had been there five or six weeks. Kerr then gave me certificate (produced) for which I paid Kerr 5s. I told Kerr when I opened it that I had had no instruction in running repairs. He said he had a note to say I was proficient, and had made out the certificate accordingly. I never touched the machinery. I tried to once or twice, but I was told by Woods not to touch anything. I saw no classes like the class described in the picture with the chassis being taken to pieces. When I first saw Kerr he told me there was a labour bureau for putting men's names down, and I had better go in for it at once, as the Motor Exhibition was coming on, and I would stand a very good chance of getting a job. This was before I paid the deposit. I was then wanting employment. I never heard of or got any situation from the Union, and have gone back to my stoking. Except for the two lessons I have referred to, I have never driven a motor-car in my life.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. At a stoker in the Navy I had to know something about machinery, and was in a position to judge as to the value of machinery instruction. There are no motor driven engines in ships yet, but they have one or two motor-boats for experiment. In my time all the motive power was steam. The important part for me to learn was the explosion, ignition, and the action of the driving power. They first taught me on a cycle engine, such as the one produced. I did not understand it thoroughly because it was not all put together properly. I expected to have a thorough course in the mechanism of motor-cars, and to have driving lessons according to the prospectus. When I got my certificate I was certain I was not competent. I have applied for a situation as motor-car driver, and have produced my certificate, and have not been successful. I am taking this up on the part of working men. People are assisting me to take it up. I went to the Automobile Club. I made up my mind the lessons were of no good in the middle of my course. I complained to Woods but not to Kerr or Medawar. Woods said he was doing his best to teach us, and that was true as far as I know. We were told of the four actions of the explosion, and told that was the principle of the Otto cycle. I had twenty-two mechanic lessons and two driving lessons in five weeks' instruction. When

I accepted the certificate I was not asked if I was competent. I do not know properly what a motorcar is. The chassis was not complete. It was not taken to pieces or put together before me. When I got the certificate I said I was not satisfied—I had had no running repairs. I told Medawar the night I came back from the second driving lesson that I was not satisfied with the driving lessons. He told me if I had a dozen he could not learn me more. The actual running is easy, but you want to know how to change speeds and go round corners. I learnt about changing speeds on the chassis, but it was not on the move. I expected to get a long course of driving on the road from the prospectus. I went to the Automobile Club on January 3rd. I took no steps before then because I had no money to take the case up. I was trying to get a situation. I did not then know Mason was a discharged servant from the Union. I have no complaint to make against the garage. I saw the notices produced. I did not ask to be put back for a further four weeks. I did try to use the certificate. I never consulted a solicitor about trying to get my four guineas back.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wild Kerr was simply acting as secretary, as far as I know. The Motor Exhibition was, in fact, on in November at Olympia. I did complain to Kerr about running repairs.

Re-examined by Mr. Leycester. When I went to the Automobile Club they sent me on to the police. I saw Detective Cock, made my statement to him, which was taken down in writing, and I had notice to come up as a witness at the Police Court.

CHARLES WILLIAM HUNTER , coachman, 23, Torridge Road, Brixton Hill. I am not in employment now. I was in employment in October last. I wanted to learn to drive a motorcar. Seeing advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" on November 10th, I went to 47, Victoria Street and saw Kerr. He gave me prospectus and print of article produced from the "Motor Journal" I asked Kerr if £4 4s. included motor-driving, practical mechanism, and obtaining a situation. He said certainly, it included all. On November 11th I called again and paid Kerr £4 4s. Kerr asked me what I had been doing. I told him I had been in private service, and he said that was all to my advantage in getting a situation. I had not then been to the garage. On Monday, the 13th, I went to the garage with a note addressed to Mr. Hatcher, the manager, which I gave to Woods, the instructor. I had instruction on the motor cycle engine, the accumulators, and seat lessons and defective working—things going wrong to the engine, or the electricity. I went five times a week until about the middle of December. On Saturday, December 15th, I had a driving lesson of about ten minutes. We went round the inner circle of Battersea Park

twice. I held the steering wheel. I did nothing to the machinery at all. On the following Wednesday I went to the garage and saw Medawar talking to Hatcher about the men wanting to go out driving. Medawar took two men out. but not me. After that I did not go back any more—I thought I was wasting time. During the whole time I was there I saw no repairs done at all I did not see a tyre taken off or put on. When I was out on the motor-car no faults whatever were created on the machinery or the pupils made to repair them. On January 3rd I went to the Automobile Club, who sent me on to the police; I saw Detective Cock, made a statement, and received notice to come up to Westminster Police Court.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I know Mason. He did not tell me to go to the Automobile Club. I went there by myself, entirely on my own. Kerr told me the £4 4s. included instruction in driving, practical mechanism, and the obtaining a situation after I had learnt there. I mean they guaranteed to obtain me a situation—to get me employment. That is what Kerr told me. I do not say it is easy to get a situation as motorcar driver unless you have somebody to recommend you. I may have signed for twenty mechanical lessons and one driving lesson. I was there about four weeks. I know Hatcher. He told me Medawar was a mad swine. That was what he said when he told us about the driving. That was on the Wednesday when I did not go out. All those four days were foggy, and the third day Hatcher said, "If you like you can go out with Medawar, but he is a mad swine. I would advise you to wait until there is a proper driver." I do not know if Medawar is a good driver because I have never been out with him. When I went round the inner circle of Battersea Park I was steering the car—I had control over it. I suppose I learnt the action of the levers, change of gear, and the brake levers on the chassis in the garage. I have not given up the idea of going as motor driver.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wild. I saw Kerr on the 11th. I put it to him,"Does the £4 4s. include driving, practical mechanism, and the obtaining a situation," and he said "Yes." He did not say,"We will do our best to get you a situation." I saw him once after that and asked him if I could stop at the garage all day, and I got a permit from him as secretary to be there as long as I liked. That is all I saw of him—simply as secretary.

Re-examined by Mr. Leycester. I believe Mason was there as a driver the first week I was there, but I am not certain. I know they changed drivers at the time. He went out to give pupils driving lessons. I never went out with him. I had nothing to do with him. I have not seen him since I left. He had nothing at all to do with my going to the Automobile Club.

JOHN HENRY GARRETT , 3, Winstall Road, Fulham. I am doing nothing at present. I was formerly the matter of a wherry in Norfolk. In November last I was looking for work and wanted to learn to drive a motor-car. I saw advertisement (produced) in the "Daily Telegraph" of November 18th. I went on November 20th to 47, Victoria Street, and saw prisoner Kerr. I asked him what he would charge me to learn the motor-car driving. He showed me a prospectus and the article produced with the photographs. I read both of them. I believed them. I asked him if he acted up to what was on the prospectus. He said "Yes." I told him I had not enough money in my pocket to pay the £4 4s., and I paid him £2 2s. At that time I had not seen the garage or met any of the other pupils. The next day I came again and paid him the balance of £4 4s. He then tent me to the garage with a note for Mr. Hatcher, the manager. I started instruction the same morning. I had lectures on the electrical engine, the accumulator, and brake driving. We wrote the different parts of the lecture down and learnt it off afterwards. I had three driving lessons. Two lasted about quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, and one between five and ten minutes. They were given in Battertea Park. I do not know who gave me the driving lessons; it was not Hatcher or Medawar. I did not learn anything in the way of driving. I did not steer. I was not allowed to see the machinery at all. I stayed there about a month. I then had an examination and passed. I went up to the office and told them I was not satisfied. I saw Mr. Kerr. He wanted to know in what way. I told him I was not satisfied either in the driving or in the other lessons. Then Mr. Medawar came into the room. He wanted to know what was the matter. Mr. Kerr told him I was not satisfied, and he told me to get out of the office. I walked out At the beginning of this year I went to the Automobile Club. They sent me on to the police. I saw a little repair done at one time. I was not shown what it was. It was not done for the purpose of teaching me. There were no lessons on repairs. I saw one tyre taken off. Woods and Hatcher showed me that. I never saw the chassis taken to pieces and put together again. While on the driving lessons no faults were created to that I could be made to put them right again. I think I saw at the office the picture produced showing a fault being remedied by the pupils. Nothing at all of that kind went on while I was having driving lessons.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I have ridden a bicycle several years ago. I do not know how to take a tyre off a bicycle. I rode a solid tyre—a "bone shaker." I can steer a wherry. There is some difference between steering a wherry and a motor-car. I had not been to London before. I did not come up for money reasons but because of my wife's health—it was too damp in Norfolk for her. I had three

driving lessons and eighteen mechanic lessons. I went to the Automobile Club for advice as much as anything. I heard others had gone. Mason did not tell me to go. I never saw the "Notice to Pupils" produced. They told me I had finished, they could not do any more for me. Mr. Hatcher said so. That was the reason I complained at the office. I never asked them to teach me any more. They never told me I could go back. I learnt all about the action of the petrol explosion, working of the gear, and all that sort of thing from the cycle engine—I learnt part of it. I had had to do with a steam-engine on a launch, and I did know a little bit about mechanism. I could not pull a steam-launch engine to pieces and put it together again. I had had very little knowledge of mechanism.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wild: I saw Kerr when I went and when I came away. When I came away I had had my certificate offered me, and Hatcher told me I was passed. I did not want my money back. I told them I was not satisfied. I spoke to Kerr, the secretary. He wanted to know in what way. I told him I was not satisfied in the driving lessons nor yet in the other ones. Then the secretary referred me to his matter Medawar, and Medawar told me to go.

THOMAS COCK , Detective A Division. I was present at the Police Court when the witness, Edwin Dark, gave his evidence. His deposition was read over to and signed by him. Counsel for the defence had an opportunity of cross-examining him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. Mr. Mathews appeared on the first occasion, not on the second. Mr. Wild was there on the second occasion and expressed his wish to reserve the defence. There was no cross-examination of any witness at the Police Court except that one witness was asked one question.

CHARLES COOPER , journalist, of "The Coach Builders, Wheelwrights, and Motor-Car Manufacturers' Art Journal." I am the author of the article produced. In May I had a communication from Mr. Bradbury, one of our staff. I went down to 47, Victoria Street. I saw Kerr and Medawar. I said I was prepared to write an article. They showed me some letters and correspondence they had received from various people and explained to me the objects of the Association—of the Union. They said it was formed for the benefit of the motor-car class and for chauffeurs and for the purpose of teaching them and of getting them situations. I made notes of the conversation. I went down afterwards and saw Kerr, who took me round to the garage in Coach and Horses Yard, Old Burlington Street. There were a few men about, but no classes going on. I went a second time to the garage by appointment. Two classes were going on. The place was full; about twenty or thirty people were there. An examination was going on just as I describe it

in my article. I was there quite an hour. I had reports from Mr. Bradbury. I then wrote the article. The photographs were taken by our photographer. £3 was paid for the expenses The blocks were also paid for, and 1, 000 copies were ordered reprinted on a sheet. The whole expense would come to about £5.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I think it was a little less than £5. There was nothing unusual in our publishing an article in this form. These are what we call notices. If we put photos in we ask people to pay for the cost of the blocks, which is somewhere about 6s. or 7s. each. When I went to Burlington Street, not by appointment, I saw a chassis and a car that had been smashed up. It seemed a very nice car, which had been damaged by collision. I was told that that had been done by one of the pupils driving. It was obviously a collision accident, and the injury was quite fresh. I saw a separate chassis which was taken to pieces and the parts were lying about. I have driven a motor. You could learn the construction of a motor from the chassis when taken to pieces.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wild. I paid three visits to Victoria Street. The second one to Victoria Street and the first to the garage was on the same occasion. I should think I telephoned to know if they were in. I took the notes down from Medawar.

By the Common Serjeant. The passage,"A good point with regard to the Union is that no person is allowed to leave the garage without being competent and efficient in both mechanism and driving—competent himself to drive any make of car, taking entire charge of the same," was one of the things I was told by Medawar. I took it from my notes of the interview. I saw several letters from private people and business firms. I saw a letter from a large firm in the Thames Valley. I saw two complete cars and a chassis at the garage. With regard to the passage,"Was taken to pieces to enable the people to have a master knowledge of the mechanism of the automobile in all its branches," of course, I was taking notes all this time when I was there. That would be explained to me, but I saw the chassis in pieces. I was told that "The driving lessons are given in the busiest London traffic, during which some faults are created on tae road, which have to be remedied by the pupils." I was told that "Other cars are fitted on the same principle as the present motor bus, so that the pupils intended for public service might be familiar with that class of vehicle." I saw two classes going on, one on the subject of ignition and ignition faults, and the other on mechanism. They were being held while I was there. I heard the lady examined. She was brought up to the car and the bonnet was taken off the engine, and all the various things were indicated. She was asked to explain their use and what would happen if they went wrong

and all that sort of thing. The rest is my own composition. I had a very good independent opinion from a member of our staff who had passed through the course, and he said it was very satisfactory.

LEWIS HATCHER , 29, Maitland Park Villas, Haverstock Hill. I have no present occupation. I was formerly a non-commissioned officer in the Royal Marines. I took my discharge about April, 1905. In August of last year, in consequence of an advertisement I saw in the "Daily Telegraph," I went to the Motor Drivers' Union and became a pupil. I had previously received prospectus and copy of article from the Union and a letter. On August 9th I saw Kerr and paid him a deposit of £1. I afterwards paid the balance of £3 4s. and became a pupil. I began on September 1st and attended for about a month. My instructor was Mr. Carpenter. The first thing we were instructed on was part of the engine. The biggest part of it was dictation. Parts of the engine were illustrated by an old French cycle engine. That went on for about a week. Then we were shown the lever, the speed lever, the spark lever, and so on. I had three driving lessons of five minutes each, making a total of fifteen minutes altogether. Medawar gave them to me. I simply had my foot on the clutch, on the foot brake. I could steer, with the help of Medawar, as he held the steering handle. I had no control to make it go quicker, or alter the speed. At the end of September I was supposed to be ready for examination. I was examined, and was given a paper to the effect that I had passed, and obtained certificate produced dated September 29th. When I obtained my certificate I had never seen a chassis taken to pieces. I had seen no repairs done whatever. On September 30th we moved to Carteret Street. The cars were taken round by Medawar one at a time. One of the cars was disabled and could not go round, so we hired a van and towed it round. They did not entrust any of the cars to me to drive. On the Saturday on which we shifted I was engeged by Medawar to act as instructor or assistant at 20s. per week to start. I think the first thing I did was to embellish the place, make it look a little tidier and more respectable by way of painting, cleaning, and washing the floors and so on. I painted up the words "Show Rooms." Nothing was there during the day; the cars were stored there at night—two of them. I painted up "Repair Department." A very ancient worn-out car was kept there. I was told by Medawar that he had travelled thousands of miles in it in India. It never went in my time. The band brake between the wheel and the sprockett was broken—absolutely torn. An old forge which I have never seen used and a very old cycle frame were also put in there. There were no tools for doing repairs in the Repair Department. The cycle frame was a mere diamond without anything attached to it."Clothing Department" was painted

up facing the entrance way. There was nothing in there except an electric bell push. I was practically assistant manager, with Medawar and Kerr over me. I was practically next in authority. I was giving instructions here and there (practically from the day I was engaged. I also acted as examiner. I had had no education in matters connected with motor-cars beyond that which I learnt there, except what I learned myself by books at home. I had never driven a motor-car, and have never driven one to this day. I have removed the pump from one of the motors, I think M.M.C. I had seen it done a few days before, and I thought I could do it That is the only repair I have ever done. I should not describe myself as a practical engineer or an engineer at all. The Employment Bureau was mentioned to me when I was going to the Motor Driven Union for information, when I first went there. I never heard anything more about it. None of the pupils were sent into situations through the Employment Bureau to my knowledge. I examined the pupils for the theory of mechanism. Medawar used to report to me whether a pupil was capable of driving. There was no examination in practical repairs. There was no instruction while I was instructor in taking the chassis to pieces and putting it together again. In the driving lessons that I was out in there were no faults created en route. There were no breakdowns or accidents en route. Generally the engine started from the garage and never stopped until she returned. The only repairs needed to the cars were the cleaning of terminals on accumulator and that sort of thing. There was one motor smash in my time, but that was not repaired while I was there. That was at the end of December, 1905. There was previously an accident to a small Darracq car which I was was a witness to. That was sent to be repaired either to the Darracq Works or the Motor Industries, and returned repaired. I never saw oar 2, 847 at the garage. I left the Motor Drivers Union on January 4. I gave no notice, and left of my own accord. Detective Cock took a statement from me.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Ball. I have not the slightest idea who sent Detective Cock to my residence. I was not astonished to see him. I left of my own accord. I was not dismissed. I was not summarily dismissed for being hopelessly drunk. I was not three days running drunk at the 81 James's public-house. I was under the influence of drink, but I was not dismissed for that. I did not call Mr. Medawar a mad swine. I told the class, when Medawar was driving himself he was terrible. Speaking of him to the pupils I have called him a mad swine. I did tell Charles William Hunter that I would not advise him to go out with Medawar, he was such a mad swine. Medawar told me to try and frighten the pupils

off—that he did not wish to take them. I was not taking port in the fraud. I was merely employed and used as a shuttle-cock—simply to take messages to and fro to the pupils. I was paid 20s. to start with, and was raised to 35s. a week. I had two commissions of 4s. each. I was promised a commission on pupils; eventually it dribbled down to pupils who came to the garage after going to the office before paying their fees. I did not tell pupils before paying their money that the Union gave the best instruction in London—nothing to that effect. I never advised people to pay their money and become pupils. I remember one of the pupils telling me that he had got a situation to drive a four-cylinder Panhard, whom I had examined according to my skill. He told me he felt a little anxious about driving the car. I did not tell him he would be quite competent at all. I do not remember the man's name. I do not suggest that man had not been properly taught. I did not tell him he would be competent; I told him to go on. The man told me he felt confident, and confidence is a great deal in motor driving. I have conversed with a great many drivers, and they have told me confidence is everything in motor driving. I speak French fluently. Medawar did not speak good English. I have spoken to him in French and in English. I think I told Medawar I was a well-educated man, and hope I thoroughly satisfied him of my capabilities. Medawar engaged me before any question arose as to my capabilities to instruct pupils. He ought to know as he was the man who examined me. I could teach them what I had been instructed. I had been a gunnery instructor at sea, and had a most excellent discharge from the Marines. I told Media war so. I think he trusted me implicitly. I do not know anything about the No. 2, 847 car. There are some tools at Carteret Street—spanners, files, and hammers. Some repairs could be managed there. Medawar found me under the influence of drink in the office and took me into his office and sent for some coffee for me. He was most kind. He did not tell me if it occurred again he would have to discharge me. I was not seen drunk after that. At times Medawar complained that the pupils made a noise and did not pay any attention to the classes. I worked twelve hours a day from nine till nine and taught about seventytwo pupils a day. I do not know that some of them got situations or that they passed the Automobile Club examinations and got certificates. I left my situation of my own accord. I have got no situation since. Mr. Dart came to me and told me he had paid 15 guineas for instruction. He asked me,"What do you think of it?" I said, "Sorry that you have paid 15 guineas." I told him my candid opinion. I told him it was a swindle I do not believe Medawar would have taught him to drive a motor-car as well as any man in London. He could. He is a very good driver. Carpenter knows something about the

mechanism. Woods knows merely what he has learnt there at a pupil. I was employed at the same time as Mason. He was discharged. I have not seen him since he left the Drivers Union. I have not been to the Automobile Club. They did not send for me. There hat never been any suggestion about prosecuting me.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wild. It was Medawar engaged me as an assistant.

Re-examined by Mr. Leycester. Mason has never spoken a word to me about coming to give evidence. The detective came to me and then gave me the notice to attend. Medawar's brother had nothing to do with the Union to my knowledge, or with the instruction. He took no part whatever in the riding lessons. The tools were filet, hammers, and spanners—that is about all—the tools supplied with and appertaining to the engine. When I went there I knew nothing of motor-cars at all. The commission I was to receive I did not understand myself for some time; eventually it was on pupils that came to the office to pay their fees, and did not pay their fees, but came to the garage and eventually became pupils. I was to receive 4s. on those, and there were two. I got 8s. in about three weeks. Medawar said he did not want to take pupils out driving. I was to tell the pupils if they went out with Medawar they would be sorry, or something like that. I was only drunk once—on the Wednesday before I left. I was never accused of being drunk at any other time.

ALEXANDER KINNELL , instructor at the Mansions Motor Garage Company, 28, Victoria Street. In October, 1904, I was in want of employment, and wanted to learn to drive a motor-car. I had had education at a mechanical engineer and in using electrical tools. I joined an institution called the Motor Drivers' Institute, 199, Piccadilly, of which Medawar was the proprietor. The garage was at 14, Coach and Horse Yard, which was afterwards the garage of the Motor Drivers' Union. I went through a course of private instruction there, for which I paid £15, under Mr. Furlong. He treated me all right and I got a cer tificate. I had five or six driving lessons, going from the garage to Richmond and back. I was allowed to drive the car myself. I became instructor at the Motor Drivers' Union in June, 1905, and continued to the beginning of August. I was secretary at the Motor Drivers' Union and Kerr what secretary at the Institute. I succeeded Kerr at the Union. I instructed for both. I had about 30s. a week. There what a body of a MM.C. car smashed, and we showed the pupils what was in the chassis. That was sent out to be repaired. There was also the body of the Gobron-Brillie car, and we instructed on that. Medawar told me not to let the pupils touch the machinery and not to take the bonnets off. There were no repairs done for the sake of teaching pupils.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. Body repairs are engineers' work, which would not be done in a motor yard. Pupils do not know much about the mechanism, and they could easily dislocate the insulator blocks. Furlong was a competent teacher. I did not make any complaint. Whilst I was there one car was taken to pieces and left in pieces, and another car had the top off, so that the gears could be seen, the first, second, and third speeds, the way the lever drops into the open part of the cog wheel as it revolves, and the whole principle upon which the gear levers work. There were breakdowns on the road owing to the accumulators running out, and we had to send them to be charged. It is not an accident. The three most ordinary cases of stoppage are: vibrators getting disconnected, causing non-explosion of the gas and stopping the motor; the petrol running out; a small particle of dust in the petrol plugging the feeding valve; something wrong with the tremblers of the induction coil. Those are all running repairs. Then there is the magneto-ignition. That is automatic. It is run by a small dynamo driven by the engine, which creates its own form of ignition. Then the water in the radiator tank has to be seen to. Then lubrication, which you see from the indicators in front. Beyond that, repairs have to be done in a workshop. Kerr's position to Medawar was that of servant to master while I was there. He was paid wages by Medawar.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wild. I had to obey Mr. Medawar just the same as Kerr did.

Re-examined by Mr. Leycester. Furlong had left before the end of 1904 before I was employed. In teaching pupils running repairs we take the car right to pieces and show them exactly the running repairs when the car is right down on the ground.

Mr. Marshall Hall submitted that, this not being a civil action but a criminal case, evidence an to the quality of the instruction was not admissible, or as to whether the instruction given waa the most perfect possible.

The Common Serjeant ruled that the evidence Was admissible to enable the jury to consider whether this was substantially a fraud or whether merely inferior instruction was given which would not amount to fraud.

Examination resumed. There is no other way to teach running repairs than for pupils to see the repairs done. When I was instructor I showed pupils everything I could. We took the smaller parts to pieces, but we could not take the cylinder down or anything like that. That is not running repairs, as you do not take the cylinder down on the road. The chassis of the Gobron-Brillie was used for that.

THOMAS COCK , Detective A Division. This case was put in my hands on September 18th, 1905. and I have been in charge of the inquiries. Information was sworn and warrant issued on January 26th, 1906. I arrested Kerr in St. Martin's Lane. On being charged at Rochester Row Station, he made no reply. I arrested Medawar at 47, Victoria Street. He said: "Will all

those men be there? They will have to prove it is a fraud." I found upon Kerr the three letters Exhibits 41, 42, and 43 and four letters from pupils wanting situations. At 47, Victoria Street I found book produced containing names and addresses and against each name a sum of money. It runs to the date of arrest. I found also a great number of application forms filled up—in the book, on the desk, and on the floor. I have brought about fifty.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. Assuming it is an honest business, the books appear in good order. I have not compared all the entries.


Mr. Marshall Hall objected to this witness's evidence (proof of which had been furnished to the defence) on the ground that it went merely to the question of good or bad teacning, and was not properly relevant.

Mr. Leycester submitted that the evidencee was relevant at to what it was necessary for a man to know before be could act as a teacher.

The Common Serjeant said the question for the jury was not whether the teaching was the best or inferior, but whether inducements were held out fraudulently. Mere exaggeration or puffing would not be enough. The question was whether it was shown that the business was generally of a fraudulent character, and whether there was an agreement by the two prisoners to try really to defraud; in other words, whether this was a sham. The evidence was admissible.

Examined by Mr. Leycester. I am a consulting engineer, largely occupied in connection with construction and working of motor bicycles. I act at consulting engineer to the Automobile Club and in connection with the club's examinations for drivers. Before a man can earn his living as a driver it is necessary that he should know the construction of a car, so that he may attend to anything that may become disarranged during the running. He will not be able to do that unless he has had considerable experience in the use of a car, knowledge of the construction of the parte that cannot be seen by exterior examination, and things that he would not know simply from being taught to drive. He must know how to do running repairs. The tools carried in every car would not enable you to do properly running repairs. It is no use his having the tools if he does not know how to use them. To give a man proper instruction, or the minimum amount of instruction necessary to make him a chauffeur, there would require to be in the garage a modern car in good condition upon which he could be taught to drive; another car, or parts of a car, not necessarily modern, by which he could be instructed in the care of the different parts of the car, so that when anything happened he might know within a little what probably had happened and what he must do in order to get over the difficulty. That car must be available for taking to pieces to any extent that may be necessary. Besides that, there should be two or three types of carburettors which are used on different cars and which vary very greatly in construction. A man who is taught driving

must be able to drive not simply one car but several, and as he is therefore liable to be called upon to drive a car with totally different carburettors, he ought to be made familiar with their construction. Then there should be a proper series of diagrams, by the aid of which the relation between the parts is shown as they exist in the car. They should also have sufficient tyre appliances for teaching to put on and take off tyres readily and be able to repair the tyres upon the road.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. The instruction I suggest could be given in five weeks. The interest on the cost of such appliances would not be more than £40 a year. There must be competent teachers and individual instruction in driving. An instructor could give parts of the teaching to a dozen men at once, other parts to two men. I examine from certificates at the Automobile Club. The fee for what I have described ought to be at least eight guineas. If you have two or three motors a man might be very useful in a garage without so much knowledge. There are men no amount of teaching would make good drivers of.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wild. The Automobile Club charge 25s., I think, for a driving and mechanical certificate; 35s. it when they are examined for mechanical proficiency. That is when I come in.

Mr. Marshall Hall submitted there was no case to go to the jury on the charge of fraud. For Medawar he accepted the whole responsibility of Kerr's action as a servant acting under the instructions of Medawar. On the evidence of Kinnell there was an opportunity of learning, and a school at which pupils were taught.

The Common Serjeant held that there was evidence to go to the jury that prisoners were professing to give, and taking money for giving what they knew a pupil would not get.

[Adjourned till to-morrow.]

FOURTH COURT; Friday, 9th March.

(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-49
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

MORGAN, Bernard. Charles (28, clerk) ; forging and uttering an order for the payment of £8, with intent to defraud.

Mr. H. D. Cornish prosecuted.

CONSTANCE SALTER . I am the wife of Edward James Salter, baker, 253, Gipsy Road, West Norwood. I have known prisoner for some time. He came to the shop at half-past four on January 27th and asked me to cash a cheque for £5 drawn on a half-sheet of notepaper and signed Harry James Booker. I did not like the look of the cheque and asked him if he had not a proper one. He said no, he had been travelling and had arrived home late and his governor (Mr. Booker) was right out of cheques and the bank being closed he could not get a

cheque-book, so he wrote a cheque for him on a piece of paper. I gave him £5 in gold.

EDWARD JAMES SALTER . I remember my wife showing me the cheque. I took it round to Mr. Booker, and, in consequence of something he said, I did not pay it into my account.

HARRY JAMES BOOKER , electrical engineer. Prisoner was a traveller in my employ. The signature to the cheque is not in my handwriting, but in that of the prisoner. I did not give him authority to draw the cheque.

SIDNEY RAND , Detective, P Division. On the afternoon of February 3rd I arrested prisoner at Grosvenor Terrace, Camberwell. I asked him his name. He replied,"Frank Lucas." I said, "Where do you live?" He replied,"119, Grosvenor Terrace, Camber well." I told him that I was not satisfied that he was Lucas, and he would have to accompany me to the address. At the door he said, "My name is Bernard Morgan." I told him I had a warrant for his arrest and read it over to him. He made no reply. On the way to the station he said, "I must have been mad when I done it."

PRISONER. I had no intention of swindling Booker out of the money. I was fearfully hard up at the time. It was threatened that the brokers would be put in for rent, and I did not know what to do. I wrote out that cheque and went to Salter to cash it for me until Monday morning. On Monday morning, by nine o'clock, before the banks were open, I was going to bring the £5 to Salter to redeem the cheque. Salter would not have lent me £5 if I had asked him. I had no idea it was such a serious thing for me to do.

HARRY JAMES BOOKER , recalled. There would have been no money due to prisoner on the Monday morning. I had previously given him a cheque for £5, but I had post-dated it because I was a bit suspicious of the way he was using money. I had my suspicions verified, and therefore I stopped payment.

PRISONER. In the earlier part of the week I had the money in court to pay the cheque back, but my father is not here to-day.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence respited till next Sessions, with the intimation that if, in the meantime, prisoner returned the money, that might affect the sentence.

(Before Judge Rentoul.)

WILSON, George (25, clerk), who pleaded guilty last Sessions to attempting to obtain goods from H. H. Blankensee and conspiracy to defraud, was brought up for sentence.

HERBERT HINES , Detective. William Frederick Jones, who was tried with Wilson, has not complied with the order to leave the country within three weeks. He remained with his mother ten days and then disappeared. I have been to Mr. Jackson, of

John Street, Clerkenwell, who informs me that the Wilson family are respectable people and that prisoner worked for him two or three days a week washing down motor-cars and so on.

JOSEPH GILLIARD . Detective. I have known prisoner during the last six months as the associate of habitual criminals, men who have been convicted of bank robbery and forgery, and who, at the time he associated with them, were on licence in respect of former sentences. I had him under observation almost continuously for two months, and during the whole of that time he was associated with these men, some of whom are at present working out long sentences.

JAMES WILLIAM BATH . I am a representative of Mr. Jackson, pressure gauge manufacturer and engineer, John Street, Clerkenwell. Prisoner has been employed by him for about twelve months. Mr. Jackson is prepared to give him regular employment now, having gone into another line of business in connection with motor-wheels and trap-wheels and, consequently, increasing his establishment.

Prisoner was released on his own recognisances, with intimation that if again before the court the heaviest possible sentence would be inflicted.

OLD COURT; Saturday, March 10th.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

(Continued from page 113.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-51
VerdictMiscellaneous > postponed

Related Material

ROSS, Stuart Dixon Stubbs, and ROSS, George Bertram .

JOHN HENRY ROBERTSON , recalled. Re-examined. I paid many visits to London and went to the offices in Queen Victoria Street and 4A, Upper Thames Street. I saw books showing receipts of machines for the Anglo-Egyptian Company in Queen Victoria Street. I do not remember the name of the book. I had a considerable look at it. It was similar to the one produced. I cannot testify as to this being the identical book. I understood it was the book of the Anglo-Egyptian Company. On the outside of this book it says: "Great Eastern Railway Agencies Collection Book. Biscuits, Fruits, etc. Automatic General Stores, Limited." The book I saw was open. I never looked at the back. It never occurred to me to do so. I understood that at 4A, Upper Thames Street the business of the Automatic General Stores was carried on. The book I was shown I understood was the book of the Anglo-Egyptian. I was shown that on the premises in Victoria Street, to the best of my recollection. I relied upon the statement as to underwriting contained is the prospectus: "The minimum subscription on which the company may proceed to allotment is £40, 000,

and the vendors have for an agreed commission of 10 per cent, payable 5 per cent, in cash and 5 per cent in shares, undertaken to procure subscriptions for £30, 000 thereof, and they have entered into sub-underwriting contracts on the like conv mission accordingly." I understood at the time the company went to the public that those sub-underwriting contracts were valid and subsisting. I never would have gone on with the company otherwise.

JOHN EDWARD CHAMPNEY , recalled. I said yesterday I thought I had the document which was called a report at home, and that I thought it was in Mr. Stuart Rose's handwriting. I found the document yesterday, together with a letter from Mr. S. Ross enclosing it. I never assented to or signed that document as a report.

By the Court. I did not sign it at all. It was prepared entirely by Mr. Ross. It is all in his handwriting. At that time I had perfect confidence in him and accepted what he said without question.

By Mr. Muir. The letter which accompanied that document is as follows: "Enclosed please find a copy of the report which I promised to get out for you and the other gentlemen who are acting as the Committee. Mr. Angers has not yet completed the statement of liabilities due to date, also the current liabilities on railway and other contracts, wages, rent of warehouse, staff, etc. Had I these particulars before me I could make you a fuller report. Mr. Angers has promised to have these particulars ready by Monday, and if you can make it convenient to call at the office on Monday afternoon at 4.30 Mr. Evans will be here to meet you, and we could then discuss the matter more fully with the report in front of us. Yours truly, Stuart D. Ross." That is dated 25th May, 1904. With regard to the handwriting of the document, Mr. George Ross's and Mr. Stuart Ross's handwritings are very much alike, but at any rate the letter sending it says that Mr. Stuart Rosa prepared it.

JAMS EDWARD WARD , chartered accountant, 122, Cannon Street. I became liquidator of the Automatic Supply Company, Limited, on November 10th, 1901, and commenced my duties on the 12th. That company had a store or factory at Wells Mews, Oxford Street I found there as part of their property a number of automatic machines, penny-in-the-slot machines. They were in process of manufacture. The company had been attempting to make automatic machines. I could not estimate the quantity I saw. Some were complete and others in pieces. Many were merely castings and had not been put together. I was anxious to ascertain if they would work well enough to be put out on the railways. After inspection and taking expert advice on them, I was told it was impossible to make them into thoroughly good working machines. They were a wrong pattern. I did

not think them saleable as machines and, in fact, I had them dismantled and sold them as scrap to a Mr. Crook on the 22nd November, 1901, together with some tools which were there, for £181. Speaking from memory, I had £100 on account on date of completion. I sold the brass and the iron separately at different prices. I got scrap prices for the whole. In connection with that matter, I had no negotiations at all with the Anglo-Egyptian or with Mr. Ross, or either of them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. The date of the sale to Mr. Crook was the 22nd November, 1901. I met him by appointment at the works and sold it to him on the spot, and he gave me £100 on account of the purchase money on that date. The transaction up to the payment of the £100 all occurred on one day. There might have been correspondence making appointment to meet at the works. There was no inspection till that date, and the prices were not discussed till then. I had only had the machines in my hands ten days. They were taken by weight, but Mr. Crook did not pay for them on that date. He only paid £100 on account to bind the bargain. Subsequently he paid the balance, after having them weighed. There had been no weighing before. My workmen knew the approximate weight. Mr. Crook knew it so far as he could judge from the inspection and hearing the report of the workmen. I think there were no facilities for weighing upon the premises in Wells Mews. I have no recollection of a big weighing machine there. Many of them could be taken by average. If one machine was weighed, all those of the same pattern would be the same weight or approximately so. I believe the whole thing was worked on average. A single machine could be weighed at Wells Mews. I believe that is the way the weight was taken, but I am not a practical man. The process of weighing would have taken a considerable time, having regard to the single small machine at Wells Mews, except, as I say, they could be taken on average. There were many of exactly similar pattern. Undoubtedly they were taken on average, but there was some weighing. It was a very considerable time before we were able to settle it all up and clear the stuff away. On the 24th January Crook paid me something on account. There were two months there in which the machines were being prepared to be cleared away. There was no weighing on my instructions prior to the 22nd of November. I did not know Mr. Crook before that date. He was recommended to me by the men down at the Automatic Supply Company's works. That was the first transaction I had had with him. I was the liquidator of the Automatic Supply Company. I had seen the published balance-sheet up to 30th September. 1900, prior to liquidation. I had made an Independent investigation of the company's affairs prior to my duties as liquidator and reported to the directors direct thereon. I cannot

locate the date exactly from memory. It was some months prior to the company's going into liquidation. They went into liquidation on my advice. The investigation probably commenced in the spring of the same year, 1901. I had before me, as part of my investigation, the published balance-sheet up to the 30th September, 1900. It appeared from that that the automatic machines had cost £7,453 13s. 8d. to purchase and fit up, but that balance-sheet was the subject of a special report on my part to the directors. I had to report against every item of it, practically, or many of the items. The cost price of the machines was down at £5,938 2s. 9d. There were, approximately, 400 machines on the railways which had been bought as complete—nothing to do with the works. They wore included in that sum, I believe. I do not know whether they were all delivered at that date. I do not know where else they were—I cannot find them anywhere else on the balance-sheet. I remember that those 400 formed the subject of a separate contract between me and Mr. Lethbridge, but some of them must have been in. There was £493 of takings, so some of the machines must have been out on the railways. I should say those 400 completed machines were not purchase subsequently to that date. A few may have been delivered subsequently, but not the whole of the 400. I do not think it possible. There is only £3,100 in available money here to buy them with. I sold the machines out on the railway, approximately 400, to Mr. Lethbridge for £2,000, inducting contracts. The negotiations for that sale commenced either very late in 1902 or early in 1903. It was completed on the 11th June, 1903. The negotistions dragged along for many months I know.

Re-examined by Mr. Muir. The auditors of the company prepared this balance-sheet. I was called in to investigate the position and prospects of the business, including the whole of the figures. Among others I investigated the figure of £7,463 13s. 8d. £1,515 were wages. I found there was a great deal of experimental work and material included in that item, which for present purposes when I was investigating the business was quite valueless. There was a great quantity of parts of machines specially made for the delivery of oranges. After they had been made it was found that in consequence of the varying shapes of oranges they would not work, so they were useless. They bad to be thrown out. At that time I was unable to value the asset put down at £7,453. I left it to the manager, and, unfortunately, I left him to report on the value of the stock. It was re-valued, and I referred the directors to him for the revaluation, so that I cannot give you the figure at the moment; I have not it before me. I have a special reference to it in my report. It is in my letter book. The section of my report is as follows: "The automatic delivery machines, together with parts and materials of the same, have been entirely

re-valued by your manager, and on my instructions he has valued the useable machines and parts at prices at which you are buying or could buy the same to-day. The many machines and parts purchased during the period of office of your late managing director, and which are now considered to be useless, have been valued at a price at which it is estimated they could be sold for scrap." I have not the figure of the valuation. The £2,000 which was paid by Mr. Lethbridge for machines was entirely for machines which were out at work on the railways. I think there were also three weighing machines. Those machines had been out at work on the railways since before the 12th November, when I began my duties, and remained out at work down to the 11th June, 1903. They were never the property of the Anglo-Egyptian Company during that period. They were in my possession until Mr. Crook completed his purchase.

By the Court. I have since become liquidator of the Anglo-Egyptian, and although I could not find the connecting link between Mr. Lethbridge and the Anglo-Egyptian, I found the same machines being worked by the Anglo-Egyptian at the time, or rather by the British and Colonial. They somehow passed from Mr. Lethbridge to the Anglo-Egyptian alter the 11th June, 1803. I do not say I checked each machine, but for practical purposes I should say all the 400 came into the possession of the Anglo-Egyptian. The £2,000 paid by Mr. Lethbridge included other things besides machines and contracts for machines. At the time when he bought he negotiated through his solicitors. There was an action which I had commenced against the brothers Ross, and he stipulated that all rights of action should be included. It was an action for the return of certain moneys which I disputed the lawful payment of, and other such matters as that. Stuart Ross was the managing director of the Automatic Supply Company. The action was for return of moneys which had been paid to the Automatic Supply Company, and which I alleged they were not entitled to Ross ceased to be a director there just prior to my coming in to investigate. £200 of the £2,000 was earmarked in settlement of my costs up to date in respect of that action. £1,800 was the real price for the machines and contracts relating to the machines. Mr. Lethbridge evidently wished that action stopped, and now, of course, I know the reason. He paid £200 for my costs, and took over all my rights of action, and the action was withdrawn. Nothing further was done. The shareholders got no dividend in the win ding-up of the Automatic Supply Company. The creditors have received 5s. in the £.

Further cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. I have no recollection of any counter-claim in the action against Mr. Stuart Ross. There was a defence. I cannot recollect what it was for. It is rather strange I should not have any recollection of it if it

was put in. The first machines of the Automatic Supply Company were put together on the premises, and the cost was a very doubtful amount. I do not know whether it was £15 or £20 or £30. It may have been £30, or it may have been less than £15. I should not care to estimate what they cost, because my report indicates that the place has been awfully badly managed, and it was slipshod. The castings were bought separately, so much a ton, so that I cannot tell you exactly what a machine cost.

By the Court. Stuart Ross was managing director of the company from its registration, and he was a director at the time of this balance-sheet, which is the 30th September, 1900. I believe he was one of the original directors, or at any rate joined immediately after allotment, 15th June, 1899. He was still a director on the 18th December, 1900.

THOMAS CROOK , metal, coal and coke merchant, Maiden Lane Depot, York Road, King's Cross. I buy scrap metal. On November 22nd, 1901, I bought from Mr. Ward at Wells Mews a quantity of metal in the shape of penny-in-the-slot machines, put together and not put together, and paid him £181 for it. About the latter end of December. I got into communication with Mr. Stuart Ross with regard to his purchasing a part of that, and he purchased a part for £145. I sent in my invoice on the 2nd January, 1902. In this case I should say we sent it in almost at once after the bargain was made, so that its date would be about the date of the sale. My invoice book (Exhibit 8) shows the details of the invoice, and that the whole of the things, whether made up or not, were sold as scrap metal at a price per cwt. The total weight was 48 tons 7 1/2 cwt., plus 3 cwt., and the price was £145.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. This was my first transaction with Mr. S. Ross. I have no recollection of having seen him before. I made a mistake if I said at the Mansion House that I first saw him in January, 1902. It was the end of December, 1901. The castings remained on the premises some little time after they were purchased. They were entirely in Mr. Ross's hands, and he cleared them at his own convenience I think there was no question between us as to his paying rent for leaving them on the premises. I have no recollection of it. They were under cover in Wells Mews. Mr. Ross agreed to carl them away, which he did in the course of a week or ten days. The document shown to me was written by or for me It does not revive my memory as to there being an arrangement for payment of rent by Mr. S. Ross, but, according to this, some thing must have been said at the time. The date of 17th December is mentioned in the document. Of course, I am speaking from, memory with regard to the whole thing. It was a cash transaction, and I did not pay particular notice. I did not

buy the goods till the 22nd November, and it could not possibly have been before that that negotiations took place between Mr. S. Ross and myself. I do not think they commenced in November. This was an isolated transaction. I cannot allocate the date, 17th December, to any other transaction. There is no date to this document, and I do not know when it was written. I do not know what to say to the date, 17th December, being mentioned in the body of the document. It is possible my manager may have been in communication with Ross. This document is from my manager. I have no knowledge of it. Mr. Harris is my manager. I had an engineer of the name of Francis in my employment in October or November, 1901. I may have spoken to him with regard to these machines, but I have no recollection of it. If he puts it as October, 1901, I did not know of the machines being in the market then. Assuming he puts it as the beginning of November that I made a communication to him as to having purchased from Ward and sold to Ross, I have not the slightest recollection of it. I do not see why I should speak to Francis. He was such an ordinary workman. I should say it is not a fact that negotiations took place prior to the 22nd November. On that date I paid £100 to bind the bargain. The goods were subsequently weighed and the price came up to £181. I had no communication with Ross before the 22nd November. I saw the goods probably a few days before paying the deposit on the 22nd November. It does not take long for a practical man like myself to form an estimate of the weight so as to pay a cheque on account. There was no weighing of the goods prior to the payment on account. As to whether I am sure, of course you are pinning me down. It is such a long time ago, and I never thought I should be called to give evidence upon it. The weighing machine at Wells Mews took a machine about 3 cwt. The weighing would not take a considerable time. It is a very simple matter when you know how. All the machines are alike. We weigh one and then average the whole thing, through. It must have taken a little time of course—probably half-an-hour. I should be surprised to know I told Francis I had seen the goods or intended to purchase them, but I cannot say I did not I may have told him some particulars. I may have told him I had purchased them, and sold them to Ross, but I have no recollection of it I should say I did not communicate that fact to him before, the 15th November.

JOHN FORRESTER PARK , clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Somerset House. I produce a file of the Anglo-Egyptian Automatic Trading Company, which was registered on the 13th November, 1901, with a nominal capital of £15.000 in £1 shares. The first return of directors gave Stuart Ross, J. Tweedy Scott, and George Ross. The two Rosses remained directors throughout the existence of the company.

The objects of the company were to manufacture, buy, and sell automatic machines for the sale of goods. Article 3 of the Memorandum of Association provides that the company shall forthwith enter into an agreement with Stuart Ross in the terms of a draft, the basis of which was that the company should acquire a property comprised in the agreement on the terms therein set forth. The 20th December, 1901, was the first allotment in respect to date: 7, 500 ordinary shares; 6, 500 to S. Boss, 500 to J. T. Scott, and 500 to G. Ross. That return was not registered till the 6th February, 1904. It should have been filed with the Registrar within one month after the allotment was made. It purports to show the number of shares allotted payable in cash, 7, 500 ordinary, the amount payable on each share 20s., number of shares allotted for consideration other than cash, nil. Another allotment of the 10th March, 1902, was 645 ordinary shares to Ross and Scott, joint holding. That return was not registered till February 6th, 1904. Amount payable in cash, £845. Number of shares allotted for consideration other than cash, nil. There was a third allotment on the 10th March, 1903, not registered till the 5th February, 1904, the day before the others, of 4, 000 shares, all to 8. Ross. Amount payable in cash £4,000, £1 on each share. Number of shares allotted for consideration other than cash, nil. All these were presented for filing By G. Ross, and were signed by him as managing director. I find no return of an allotment of 500. shares to Colonel Bridgeman, but he is mentioned in the annual return of shareholders. All the shareholders must be shown in the annual return. It appears there,"Francis Bridgeman, 500." Those might have been acquired by transfer, for all that is shown. The others show the original allottees This is the first return, and all transfers must be shown in these returns, and I take it if a transfer is not shown in the return that they were allotted to him. I arrive argumentatively at the fact that he must have had them allotted to him. If he had had them transferred we should expect to find the transfer The first return shows his name. There is no return of them being allotted. I have here a summary of capital and shares made up to the 31st December, 1902, not registered till the 18th June, 1903, also presented for filing by George Ross. It should have been registered on the 7th January, 1903. That shows the number of shares issued for payment wholly in cash, 8, 007; number issued as paid up otherwise than for cash, nil; total amount of calls, including payments on application and allotment, 8.007. Then there if a summary of capital and shares made up to the 31st December, 1903, presented for filing by G. Ross and filed on the 6th February, 1904. Total number of shares taken, 12, 852; number issued for payment wholly in cash, 12, 852; called up on each share £1; total amount

of calls received, including payments on application for allotment. £12.852. I also produce a file of the British and Colonial Automatic Trading Company, which was registered on the 19th June, 1903, with a nominal capital of £150, 000 in £1 shares. There are two prospectuses on this file, showing the objects of the company. I also produce a file of Automatics, Limited, which was registered on the 19th November, 1897, with a nominal capital of £20, 000 in £1 shares. The directors were J. T. scott, S. Ross, and G. Ross. The company was wound up by special resolution of January 29th, 1902, confirmed February 28th, 1902. It is in liquidation now. I also produce the file of the Automatic Supply Company, Limited, registered on the 15th June, 1899, with a nominal capital of £200, 000 in £1 shares. S. Ross was one of the directors. The others were Gillespie, Pemberton, Curzon, and MacGavin. Resolutions were passed in October and November, 1901, and the company went into voluntary liquidation. I also produce files of the Automatic General Stores, Limited, registered 1st May, 1901; nominal capital £12, 000 in £1 shares, afterwards increased to £25, 000, I think. S. Ross, G. Ross, and scott were three of the directors. The company was wound up by special resolution in December, 1904. scott and G. Ross were not mentioned in the last return as directors, only S. Ross.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. The second list of directors adds Bridgeman and Lord Athlumney. On the return made out 13th January, 1903, the directors were Bloomline, Colonel Bridgeman, Captain Osborne, J. S. Bederman, and S. Ross. The second prospectus of the British and Colonial appears on the file with the date February 23rd, 1904, and it was on the 16th March, 1904, that the Registrar gave his permission to the company to commence its business.

Re-examined by Mr. Muir. The company commenced its business with £10 as the minimum subscription. They made a declaration showing that had been subscribed. They only offered £100.

By the Court. They are to show that the minimum, subscription mentioned has been subscribed and the shares allotted, it does not matter how small the amount is so long as it is the amount mentioned in the prospectus. Under the Act of 1900 the prospectus has to state the minimum subscription upon which the company will go to allotment. The £10 mentioned having been subscribed, under the Act the Registrar must issue his certificate, and it is entirely in the discretion of the directors what the amount of the minimum subscription stated in the prospectus shall be.

JAMES EDWARD DUKE , 17, Gloucester Street, Lambeth, at preout of employment. About three and a half to four years

ago I was employed as painter and decorator to paint some offices at 159, Queen Victoria Street. When I finished that job I was engaged by a Mr. Allan Lethbridge to serve Messrs, Ross and scott and the Anglo-Egyptian Company an porter and messenger to keep the offices. I was paid weekly by Rots. The two certificates for shares in the Anglo-Egyptian Company from Mr. Baird (Exhibits 36 and 37) bear my signature,"James Edward Duke, Secretary." I was not the secretary. I was taken into the board room by one of the Mr. Rosses and asked to put my signature to the certificate. As office-cleaner, porter and messenger I commenced at £1 a week, and went up to 27s. 6d. It averaged about 25s. right through. I signed the two certificates as secretary, as requested. I never saw anything like those documents before. I never had any dealings with shares before. I signed several certificates on different days; I could not say how many. I signed the others at the request of one of the Mr. Rosses, always as secretary. There was writing on them, but with regard to names and addresses I know nothing. The directors' names were always on them. The eighteen certificates for shares handed to me all bear my signature as secretary. They were all signed in the same way at the request of one of the Mr. Rosses. There were always two directors present in the board room. Mr. Angus was secretary of the British and Colonial Automatic Trading Company, and as far as I can understand, the Automatic General Stores. He was at 4A, Upper Thames Street. The four certificates handed to me are signed by Mr. Angus as secretary of the Anglo-Egyptian. I know Mr. Angus's writing. 'This is on Anglo-Egyptian paper, and he signed as secretary. Mr. scott, a director of the Anglo-Egyptian, gave me this suit of clothes I am wearing.

Mr. Mathewe: I object to this. The witness was not called before the magistrate. We had a notice with regard to what his evidence would be, and the notice contained no reference to such evidence as my friend propones to give now.

The Recorder. It is not necessary to give you any notice whatever. It is merely a matter of observation and of very proper and reasonable practice, but the mere fact that the notice does not oontatn all that the witneess is asked is no pound for eichiding the evidence. It is a matter of observation, nothing more.

Witness. I met Mr. Ross in Court last Thursday morning with his brother, at 10 o'clock. He told me to see Mr. scott, as he had a suit of clothes he promised me some time ago. I went and saw Mr. scott at his office in Wardrobe Chambers, Doctors' Commons. He gave me a suit of clothes, a shirt, and a hat, and later in the day a shilling. Mr. scott has often given me a little assistance when I have met him in the street. I was very much in need of it at the time. I had been out of employment for some time and was very shabby. As I came here to give evidence in my own clothes I looked very shabby. My trade is that of a painter and decorator.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. Mr. scott has often assisted me months back. I remember going, at Mr. S. Ross's request, to the British and Colonial office at 157, Bermondsey Street, for the purpose of getting the books and papers of the Anglo Egyptian Automatic Trading Company. I went, and saw Mr. Collison, who said I must fetch a letter from Mr. S. Ross. I went on the following day with a letter, and he refused to let me have them that day, telling me to call the following day. I went again on the following day, and Mr. Collison was out. I went on several other occasions for Mr. Ross for those books and papers, and they were refused.

Re-examined by Mr. Muir. The document handed to me, Mr. Prentice's certificate, was signed by me as secretary. It is for 300 shares.

ARTHUR RUSSELL , senior examiner in the Department of the Official Receiver in Companies' Winding-up. I have had charge of the affairs of the Anglo-Egyptian Company in its winding-up since the 17th May, 1904, the date of the order, under the supervision of the Official Receiver. It was the duty of the directors under the statutes to lodge a statement of affairs within fourteen days of the 17th May, 1904. Default was made by the directors, who were the two Ross's and scott. Proceedings were taken Against them under the statute at Bow Street Police Court, and on the 18th August they were each fined 20s. and five guineas costs for their default. The date of the depositions, which gives the 18th October, is wrong. On the 9th September the statement of affairs was filed by 6. Ross. The summary shows liabilities £7,462, assets £30,500 and a surplus of £22, 737. That is with regard to creditors. The assets consist of 25, 500 £1 shares in the British and Colonial Company, the company which started trading with £10. That is put down at its face value, £25, 500, as an asset, and a book debt of £12, 000 due from the same company is said to be "doubtful," and valued at £5,000. The so-called assets of the company have not realised anything at all in the hands of the Receiver. In the hands of Mr. Ward, the liquidator, they realised £137 10s. I had very great difficulty in securing the attendance of the directors at the departr ment. It was their duty to attend before me to give information. Between May 18th and June 11th, 1904, the inspector from the department went to their offices ten times to try to get hold of them to attend. They made appointments and did not keep them. They did not attend at the department for examination during 1904. I think I saw Mr. S. Ross once towards the end of 1904, when he promised to send the remaining books in and attend the next week for examination. He did not do so. S. Ross came on the 13th April, 1905, and G. Ross on the 14th. I had great difficulty in getting books from them. The inspector called for them between the 18th May and 11th June.

An order to deliver the books was obtained on the 18th August, 1904, and we got first on September 14th, the ledger, journal, cash-book, pass-book, and the memorandum and articles of association. On the 3rd October I got the Register of Members lodged. I identify the book handed to me as the Register of Members. It contains the numbers of the shares which have been allotted and transferred to shareholders. Some other books were received on the 14th September. On the 24th November there was a second order made to deliver further books. That was not complied with at all before the 3rd March, on which date we gave notice of motion for attaching the directors for non-compliance with that order. On the 21st March a Certificate Book and Register of Directors were lodged, and on the 30th March I and Mr. Kay, of the Department of the Solicitor to the Board of Trade, filed affidavits in support of the order for attachment. On the 3rd April the minute-book and a letter-book of Mr. S. Rots were lodged, containing letters relating to the business of the Anglo-Egyptian Company during 1903 only. With regard to the notice of motion for attachment, as a result of a consultation in Court, I think they promised that they would bring in the remaining books and attend before the Official Receiver, and the proceedings were dropped. No order was made. I never got the transfer of shares. I did not see any applications for allotments. I was informed by G. Ross that there were none. I never saw any letters of allotment. Both as to the allotment and transfer of shares no documents were produced to me at all.

[Adjourned till Monday.]

NEW COURT; Saturday, 10th March.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-52
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FROGLEY, John (18, labourer), and SURREY, Charles . Committing an act of gross indecency. Frogley pleaded guilty; Surrey pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Fitzgerald prosecuted; Mr. Ward defended surrey.

At the close of the case for the prosecution the Jury intimated that they required no further evidence, and found Surrey not guilty. Sentence against Frogley (previous convictions proved), three months' hard labour.

NEW COURT; Monday, March 12th.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

(Continued from above.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-53
VerdictMiscellaneous > postponed

Related Material

ROSS, S. D. S., and ROSS, G. B.

ARTHUR RUSSELL , recalled, examination continued. I find in the journal of the Anglo-Egyptian Co. a series of entries

under date November 13th, 1901. One is,"To share account, £15, 000," and "By capital account, £15, 000." The next is,"To plant account, £12, 500," and "By S. D. Ross, vendor, plant, machinery, etc., as agreed, £12, 500." I find no agreement with reference to plant at all. According to the memorandum and articles the company should have entered into a draft agreement initialled by Messrs. Cox and Lafone. I did not find that agreement or any draft of it. S. Ross told me that, instead of entering into the agreement, he had gold the good's by invoice, and they passed by delivery. I did not find any invoice or inventory, nor any stock book showing what plant and machinery the company had. I did not find anywhere any particulars of the plant and machinery for which the company paid £12, 500 in shares. In the vendor's account in the ledger I found that between the 20th December and the 10th March 12, 345 shares were debited to the vendor, 8. Ross, as part of the shares he was entitled to out of the £12, 500. The first time I saw the minute book was on April 3rd, 1905, after the notice for attachment. I found a minute purporting to be of a meeting on 15th November, 1901, held at 4a, Upper Thames Street; present: S. Ross, in the chair, J. scott, and G. Ross. I am familiar with the handwriting of defendants. That minute is in the handwriting of G. Ross, and is signed by S. Ross."It was reported that the company had been duly registered. An instruction in writing under Clause 95 of the articles was produced appointing the following present directors: S. Ross, scott, and G. Ross. It was proposed and resolved that Mr. S. D. Ross be appointed chairman; Mr. G. Ross undertook to act as secretary pro. tern., until such time as the business should warrant the appointment of a permanent-secretary. Cox and Lafone appointed solicitors. London City and Midland Bank appointed bankers. Resolved that the registered office should be 4a, Upper Thames Street, E.C." The agreement referred to in paragraph 3 of the article was discussed: "And it was resolved that the goods referred to in such agreement and which are now warehoused at 4a, Upper Thames Street, and with Mr. George Hale, be purchased in the ordinary way at £12, 500 instead of entering into a formal agreement. Resolved to give S. D. Ross or his nominees the option of applying for the whole or any part of the capital of the company at par price." On December 28th. 1901, 8, 007 shares were allotted; 7, 500 to S. Ross and his nominees, 500 to Colonel Bridgeman, and seven to the signatories. On March 10th, 1902, another 845 were allotted in the names of Ross and scott, but they were for 8. Ross. That made 8, 852. On March 10th. 1903, further 4, 000 were allotted to S. Ross, making 12, 852. According to the returns actually made to Somerset House, which could be inspected in the first six months of 1903. only 8, 007 were shown to be allotted. If proper

returns had been made by April, 1903, the public would have seen that 12, 852 had been allotted. Returns were filed on the 5th February of the 4, 000 to Roes, making 12, 007, and on the 6th February the original 7, 500 and 845. The 7, 500 comes in again, because it shows the consideration for which they were allotted. The first time was under the Act of 1862, and the second under the Act of 1900. On the 6th a return was filed showing the total of 12, 852. That is the first time the total ever appeared. The total allotted to S. Ross or his nominees was 12, 345. At the liquidation, 17th May, 1904, there remained 2, 006 in their names, so that 10, 339 shares had been disposed of by them. The numbers on Mr. Prentice's certificate of sharee are 5, 629 to 5, 928—200 shares. Those numbers, according to the register of members, were among those originally allotted to S. Ross as vendor on December 20th, 1901. These shares were transferred to Prentice. According to the register of members they remained in the name of S. Ross down to March 18th, 1903. On that date they were transferred to J. H. Martin, of Blackheath, and on the same day transferred to Mr. Prentice by Martin, so that if the transfer were duly filled in the name of the transferor would be Martin. When the shares on Mr. Champney's share certificate were transferred on 13th June they stood in the name of S. Ross. They were part of his vendor's shares, and had never stood in any other name. They never belonged to Captain Osborne, who was at one time a shareholder, holding 200 shares. He acquired them on March 18th, 1903, and transferred them on May 12th, 1903, to Mr. R. Maule, of Edinburgh. The two certificates of Mr. Baird's shares do not bear the numbers in the share register. The numbers are 4, 889 to 4, 988, and 5, 429 to 5, 628, showing no number as high as 8, 000. The true numbers according to the share register of sharee transferred to Baird were 11, 236 to 11, 535, and 10, 936 to 11, 235. The numbers on the second one are 6,029 to 6,228, still under the 8, 000. Either the numbers on the certificate or those on the share register must be false. The certificate to Mr. Perry includes the same numbers as Mr. Baird's, viz., 5, 429 to 5, 478. According to the share register Mr. Perry has different numbers, and those numbers were never transferred to him. The numbers on the certificate of Mr. W. E. George are under 8, 000. In the share register the numbers are 9, 716 to 10, 215—over 8, 000. The numbers on the certificate for 100 shares to Sir John Clarke agree with the register. Those shares were transferred direct from G. Ross, who acquired them from S. Ross on March 18th, 1903. They were transferred to him then, and he transferred them to Sir John Clarke on March 28th. The numbers of Mr. Robertson's 100 shares agree with the register. They came from G. Ross, who acquired them from S. Ross on March 18th. 1903, and transferred them to Robertson on March 28th. I

have before me the prospectus and the agreement referred to on page 8 of the prospectus. Under that agreement the AngloEgyptian Company got £30, 000 for their business, divisible among their shareholders. They got £85, 000 in all, including £16, 000 in cash. The £30, 000 was net for themselves; the remainder they had to pay away for other companies, including the £16, 000 in cash. That left them with 30,000 shares only, as I read it. Under the prospectus they had to pay the preliminary expenses, estimated at £7,500. The agreement provided that the directors of the British and Colonial Company could pay in cash or shares at their option. It is possible they might have got cash. But under the agreement they were not entitled to any cash with which they could pay that £75, 000, and unless the British Colonial chose to give them cash instead of shares they would have no cash with which to pay that £7,500, and as the result of the agreement they would be £7,500 out of pocket. I have examined the books of the Anglo-Egyptian Company. They had not any cash with which to pay the £7,500. They never had any cash except the £500 from Colonel Bridgeman for his 500 shares. They had an account with the London City and Midland Bank at Cambridge Circus. It seems to have been opened on November 11th, 1901, and the last payment into it was on February 20th, 1902. The last payment out was on the 3rd March, 1902, and the balance then left was 13s. 11d. The minimum subscription of the British and Colonial was £40, 000. Assuming they got that, they had to pay £16, 000 cash to the Anglo-Egyptian. Then they had to reserve at least £20, 000 for working capital. That exhausted £36, 000 of the £40, 000, so that on the minimum subscription they would not have £7,500 in cash to pay to the Anglo-Egyptian if they wanted to; they would only have £4,000 remaining. So far as the books of the Anglo-Egyptian Company disclose they never did any trade at all, nor had they any machines producing takings. There is no trace of money coming in from such a source. They never had any machines at work according to the books. Both the defendants were publicly examined in the winding-up, and on the file is the transcript of the examination. S. Ross had an opportunity of going through that, and in fact made alterations and signed it as correct as altered.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mathews. I have spoken of delay in delivering up the books, but in the end they came to me, and I have given the result of my investigations of them. I still want some more papers. It is specially stated in the prospectus that, whilst the preliminary expenses were estimated at £7,500, those are to be borne by the Anglo-Egyptian Company, which was the promoting company of the British and Colonial. Whilst £85, 000 was to be the aggregate price paid by the British and Colonial to the Anglo-Egyptian, £16, 000 was to be

in cash and the balance partly in oath and partly in shares, at the option of the British and Colonial. That agreement was subsequent to the two other agreements under which the two other companies sold themselves to the Anglo-Egyptian. I remember Mr. S. Roes, in the course of his examination, saying (Q. 71) that he discussed with Cox and Lafone how the goods were to pass the company; that he saw Mr. Parkes and asked if they could pass by delivery, and so save a considerable sum in stamp duty, and that Mr. Parket said he could do that. The Official Receiver subsequently communicated with Cox and Lafone, after the examination, and was informed that that statement substantially agreed with their recollection of what took place.

JAMS MURPHY , detective-inspector, City Police. On December 14 I went to Brewer-street and saw S. Ross. I told him I was a police officer and held two warrants for hit arrest, respecting two cheques he had received from Mr. Prentice and Mr. Champney, and asked him to accompany me to the police office. He said that if his brother George was wanted he would surrender. At the office I read the warrants to him and he said, "I am quite innocent of fraud of any description, or any misrepresentation. No two brothers had worked harder or more honourably than we did in the interests of the shareholders. We ourselves have lost a lot of money." That was 11.40 a.m. G. Ross surrendered about one o'clock. I read the warrant to him. He made no reply. They were formally charged, and made no reply.

JAMES EDWARD WARD , recalled. Further cross-examined by Mr. Matthews. As liquidator I issued a report, in connection with the Automatic Supply Company, under date October 8, 1892, to the shareholders. I was appointed liquidator 10th November, 1901. It was the report to the directors I spoke of on Saturday. The report to the shareholders shows a gross trading profit from 11th November, 1901 to 31st July, 1902 of £591 17s. 2d. That is the difference between raw material and selling price. The net trading profit after paying salaries, rent, etc., is £135 1s. The 400 machines which were ultimately sold to Mr. Lethbridge earned that profit. Their takings between those dates amounted to £1,490 12s. 2d. Lethbridge eventually bought the machines, as the nominee of S. Ross. Further re-examined by Mr. Muir. Lethbridge bought them in June, 1903. The capital of the company which earned £135 in nine months was approximately £100, 000. Speaking from memory that was the amount issued. £200, 000 was the nominal capital. I do not regard that as a handsome renumeration, but this report was issued at the time when I had recommended the shareholders to carry through a certain scheme of reconstruction. I always argued, and I still argue, that under honest and economical management automatic

machines could be made to pay. This report was issued to show that even with so few machines as that it could be made to pay. I had already advised them that they should have five times as many.

By Mr. Mathews. I gave the matter of valuing the scrap metal and the machines to the manager of the Automatic Supply Company, who was Mr. Johnson, I believe. When I was called in to advise the directors before I was appointed liquidator I wished to ascertain the value both of the machines which were in working order and also those which were to be made, as scrap metal, and I left that to Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bramsden, the chief manager and sub-manager of the Automatic Supply Company. They did so and reported to the directors thereon. I only gave instructions as to the lines.

Statement of prisoners before the committing Alderman.

S. Ross."I had no intention to defraud anybody. My brother acted entirely as my clerk in the correspondence and had no interests whatever in the proceeds of the shares that were sold to the respective parties referred to in the depositions."

G. Ross."I plead Not guilty."

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Mathews submitted that counts 1 and 2 of the indictment, which charged conspiracy to defraud the public at large, and by false pretences to defraud the public at large, were not supported by the evidence. The Anglo-Egyptian Company was registered, but no prospectus was, in fact, ever issued in relation to it, and no appeal of any kind was made to the public. It was registered on November 13th. 1901. The earliest record of dealings in any shares of the company was by private arrangement between 8. Ross and one or two of the witnesses in March, 1905, some 15 or 16 months after the registration. His submission was that, where a company, although registered, made no appeal to the public, there could not exist in those who controlled it any conspiring minds for the purpose of defrauding the public at large.

The Recorder. If you charge persons with conspiring together for the purpose of defrauding such or His Majesty's liege subjects as me induced to become shareholders in the Anglo-Egyptian Company, and if you go on to say that two specific persons were in fact defrauded by false pretences, there must have been, antecedent to the actual obtaining of the money, an agreement between the persons for the purpose of carrying it out.

Mr. Mathews. Thai is a different conspiracy to that which is charged in either of these counts. That is a conspiracy to defraud individuals; it is not a conspiracy to defraud the public. It is a different class of conspiracy altogether. The evidence in this case supports the former not the general conspiracy. (Cites Reg. v. King. 7 Q. B. Reports, page 782.) There is no committal for general conspiracy.

Mr. Muir. It will be open to us, under the Vexatious Indictments Amendment Act, to add the counts.

The Recorder. If there is evidence upon it; yes.

Mr. Muir read from the record, showing that the accused were committed for general conspiracy; and secondly, that they did "unlawfully by means of certain false pretences obtain of and from George Prentice a certain valuable security, to wit. a banker's cheque and order for payment of the value of £525 17s. 6d." That was a specific false

pretence under the statute. It was clew that what they were committed for included the general conspiracy.

The Recorder. Yes; I think so. Even if it had Dot been so, certainly the Alderman never refused to commit upon it. There remains the further point, that there is no evidence whatever in support of those counts.

Mr. Mathewe. And, further, that, where the evidence consists of efforts to defraud only individuals, it is not open to the prosecution to found a count of conspiracy to defraud the public or any body of the public. (Cites Archbold, pages 55 and 56.)

The Recorder said that Reg. v. King, though not overruled in any way, was reconsidered in Reg. v. Aspinall (1, Q. B. D., 730; 2, Q. B. D., 48).

Mr. Mathews. In that case there was tome appeal which could have been said to be a public appeal, which was a matter of evidence there, and is not in evidence here. I submit that, where the only evidence is that individuals known by name have been defrauded, as it is said, that cannot be proved under a count of the indictment charging a fraud upon the public at large. It cannot be sound criminal pleading, embarrassing as it is to the last degree to the person accused.

The Recorder. You seem now to be arguing that the count is bad, and ought to be quashed.

Mr. Mathews, I was going to ask your Lordship to quash it.

The Recorder. You ought to have done that before pleading. Now. your only remedy is to move in arrest of judgment, if that point should ever be reached. But I can deal with the question whether there is any evidence to support the count.

Mr. Mathews. I rather thought I could move to quash at any stage of the proceedings.

Mr. Muir. The proper time is before plea (R. v. Fuidge, Leigh and Cave, 390); but I think it can be done any time before verdict.

Mr. Mathews formally moved to quash the counts, on the ground that they were bad, because indefinite, and indefinite for no reason, unless, indeed, for the all-powerful reasons that it ought not to have been indefinite at all. On the question of evidence, as the case for the prosecution stood, there was no appeal to the public, no prospectus issued to the public, and March, 1903, was the first date given of any proceeding by either of the defendants for the purpose of disposing of a share. Upon the fourth count, Champney's case, affecting Stuart Ross only, the learned Counsel urged that it had been insufficiently stated, and must fail. It read:. "did pretend to John Edward Champney that 8, 000 shares in the Anglo-Egyptian Automatic Trading Company, Limited, had then been issued. The word "only," no doubt, by inadvertence, had been omitted.

The Recorder said that the word "only" appeared in his copy.

Mr. Muir said it was not an error of the draughtsman, Mr. Gill, but of the copyist in omitting the word.

Mr. Mathews submitted it was not in his Lordship's power to convert what was not a false pretence into a false pretence by allowing the word "only" to be added.

The Recorder pointed out that the word appeared in Mr. Gill's original draft, and, under the statute he (the Recorder) had very wide powers of amendment in regard to clerical errors. It was clearly a mistake of the copyist, and further on it was apparent that the word "only" originally appeared. He had to consider whether the accused was likely to be taken by surprise.

Mr. Mathews admitted that the matter was technical in the extreme, and he did not challenge his Lordship's power to amend merely clerical errors; but, in the present case, without the word "only" it was not a false pretence, and such an addition was not permitted by the statute.

The Recorder. I shall direct the indictment to be amended by the

officer of the Court. If hereafter you think it desirable to take the case elsewhere, you shall have every facility. It is popularly supposed that it is very difficult to get a case taken from here; but that is a delusion. There in no difficulty if Counsel wish it.

Mr. Mathews had a further submission upon the fifth count. This stated that a fake return had been made by George Rose in regard to shares because they were alleged in that return to have been sold for cash, whereas no cash actually passed. If that which was recorded in the minutes, of the Anglo-Egyptian Company with regard to the transaction of November 15th, 1901, was correctly recorded in the sense that it recorded an actual and existing transaction, the return was not false because the equivalent of cash was given in the machines. In Spargo's Case (L. R., 8 Ch. App., 407), Lord Justice James and Lord Justice Mellish stated that cash meant money or money's worth. The question might have to go to the Jury as to whether it was a genuine transaction but that was another matter. But if, in fact, Stuart Ross had bought the machinery and sold it to the company for £12, 500, and if for the payment of that £12, 500 he was to have the whole share capital of the company at his call, that being equivalent to cash would be treated as cash, and the return of that as a cash transaction would not uphold any such charge.

Mr. Muir. I agree that if this was a genuine sale by Stuart Ross to the company, in respect of which cash was due to him, and that their he agreed to purchase shares to the amount of that cash, that would be the same as if he had paid cash.

The Recorder. The question surely must be, on this count, whether this was or was not an intentionally false and misleading entry for the purpose of evading the statute. If there really was a sale by him of all these machines, for which the company agreed to pay £12, 500, and he said, "I will take it in shares, I think, as Mr. Muir says, that would be sufficient; but there remains the question which the Jury must decide, an to whether it was a bona-fide transaction. That is how I propose to leave it to the Jury—that the essence of this count in the indictment is that what was done was never bona-fide, that these things were only worth £100 odd, and that the whole thing from beginning to end was a fraud.

Mr. Biron quoted from Archbold to the effect that, while it was convenient that an application to quash an indictment should be made before plea pleaded, it was not essential, and where it was clear that an indictment had a substantial defect, the Court would quash it on motion after plea pleaded, and even after the case for the prosecution. was closed. In support of the objection to the general count of conspiracy to defraud, the learned Counsel submitted that the offence of defrauding two separate individuals was quite distinct from that of defrauding the whole world. The essence of the charge of conspiracy was an agreement to do a particular thing. The prosecution was not entitled to frame a count in that way, because it did not describe the actual offence committed with the certainty which the law required. Reg. v. Aspinall did not deal with that point at all. The Recorder. The count may be perfectly good as a count, although there may not be evidence to support it.

Mr. Biron. No; because here they are describing an offence which has not been committed. Supposing upon the indictment as it stands the defendants were convicted, if they were subsequently charged with conspiring to defraud Prentice and Champney. they could not plead n conviction under the indictment now before the Court as an answer to that charge.

The Recorder. If the count is not good upon the face of it, you could have moved to quash it before plea pleaded, for there was no evidence of any kind before me. It does not make any difference now that you are moving it at a later stage. Before Reg. v. Aspinall this

might have been a bad count, but it appears to me the count is good, upon that case. Whether there is anything in the evidence to support it or not I am not sure.

Mr. Biron said the point he was anxious to impress upon his Loraship was that with regard to autrefois convict. He agreed that that went to the evidence. Practically the prosecution had brought evidence to prove one case, and were endeavouring to convict upon another.

Mr. Muir, in replying, said that, owing to representations from certain quarters, there was a great desire on the part of Counsel for the Public Prosecutor to shorten indictments. If either of the defendants was convicted upon the first count only, and afterwards an indictment was presented against them for conspiring to defraud Prentice or Champney, they would be allowed to show that the substance of the proofs in respect of the indictment upon which they were convicted was the same as the substance of proofs upon the new indictment, and they would be entitled to plead previous conviction (Archbold, page 173). It was only where the indictment itself alleged that the conspiracy was aimed at defenite and known individuals that they had to be named. Here the first count charged conspiracy to defraud such persons as should afterwards be induced to become shareholders, and the second count was with legard to buying shares—persons who should become original shareholders by allotment, or buy shares by way of transfer—so that the general conspiracy was aimed at both those classes of individuals.

Besides the evidence of Prentice and Champney. there was that of Robertson, who was called to show that early in 1903 preparations were being made to launch the British and Colonial Company to take over the whole concern of the Anglo-Egyptian upon terms which would give to the shareholders of the latter company £1 to £2 in cash and £1 to £2 in shares. That at once put Stuart Ross, who was the only holder of shares in that company, in the position to sell them to any person who believed in that state of things. it was plain from Robertson's evidence, and the admissions of S. Ross in his public examination, that many more people than Prentice and Champney were defrauded. Mr. Baird, for example, lost £500. If it were the fact that no conspiracy to defraud the public at large could be alleged unless there was an appeal to the public by means of prospectuses, in effect, so far as skilled company promoters were concerned, no such conspiracy count could ever be good, because the effect of recent Acts of Parliament with regard to the personal responsibility of directors for the statements made in prospectuses, and their filing at Somerset House, was that in a certain class of companies no appeal was ever made to the public by means of prospectuses at all. They were headed "Draft prospectus. Subject to revision," and given to members of the public with whom they came in contract. There were two stages in most conspiracies. The first was that a conspiracy of that class was formed to sell shares fraudulently to such persons at they could induce to take them. The conspiracy was the crime, and not the carrying it out. The second stage resolved itself into a definite conspiracy to obtain from an individual.

The Recorder. I think this is a case to go to the Jury. There is no doubt that the count is perfectly good as a count. As to the question of there being evidence in support of it, my attention it now drawn to the evidence of Robertson and to the answers made by the accused, S. Ross, himself, before the Official Receiver. It seems to me there is evidence to go to the Jury on the charge set out in the first and second counts of the indictment.

Mr. Mattvews. And your Lordship orders an amendment of the fourth count?

The Recorder. Yes.

Mr. Muir. I submit that even as it stands it it perfectly good.

The Recorder. I do not understand Mr. Mathews seriously to dispute the power I have to amend it.

Mr. Mathews. I am afraid I do.

The Recorder. In that case I must hear Mr. Muir.

Mr. Muir. If your Lordship states a case, I should desire it should be stated on the argument that the indictment is good as it stands. I submit that it is.

The Recorder. If that is so, let it stand, and then we shall not have to reserve anything. Then there is no amendment.

(Evidence for the defence.)

STUART DIXON STUBBS ROSS (prisoner, on oath). I live at Thicket Road, Anerley. I am a general merchant and have experience in engineering. I thoroughly understand the mechanism of the automatic machines, and am an inventor of some of them. The Automatic Supply Company was successfully started. The most important thing is to have sites on which to place the machines. Then you have your machines, then your stock, and the capital to supply stock for the machines. The site is the most important—frequented placed like railway stations where people have to wait about. The obtaining of the site is a matter of contract. Of the assets of the company, contracts formed the most material ingredient. The Automatic Supply Company was a limited company managed by a board of directors. I was not a director in the first instance, but was for a short time a member of the board. At that time they had only a lot of castings; very few had been made up into machines. After I ceased to be a director they acquired a number of machines, and some were made up.

Those made up did not work properly, and they had them manufactured outside instead of doing) it themselves. I think between 300 and 400. That is the company of which Mr. Ward became liquidator and with regard to which he issued the report in October, 1902, which has been read. The manager of the Automatic General Stores informed me a. the latter end of October, 1901, that a Mr. Crook had called to see me with respect to some machine castings which he wished to buy. I made an appointment with Mr. Crook at 4A, Upper Thames Street. He called on me and asked me if I would buy a certain number of castings of machines which he had had offered to him by the Automatic Supply Company. Some were made up; they were not quite complete machines, but money had been expended on them. The company at the time I left it had spent about £7,000 or £8,000 on those castings and the work done on them. I told Crook I was very busy, that we had ordered a lot of machines for the Automatic General Stores, that I would look at them!, but was not prepared to pay a big price for them. I went to Wells Mews, and made an offer which he would not accept, but subsequently we arranged a price. It worked out at scrap iron price, but I have found out since

that the price of scrap iron was only 25s. a ton, and I paid him at the rate of £2 10s. I paid £145 odd. I did eventually weigh the stuff before taking delivery, but I wish to point out that in my examination before the Official Receiver I said I had bought about 100 tons, because I reckoned the break-up price of iron would be 25s. But it was really 50 tons at £2 10s. The purchase was completed about the 9th or 10th November, 1901. He said, "If you will buy them, it will enable me to buy what I want." I bought them, but I did not pay for them for some time afterwards. I did not have communication about them from Mr. Francis prior to the 10th November. I have seen Francis because he came to me afterwards. He was in Crook's service. I bought on the 9th or 10th November, and paid for them on the 2nd January, 1902. I purchased before the registration of the Anglo-Egyptian, which was registered on November 13th, 1901. Directly I arranged the purchase with Mr. Crook I approached a firm of solicitors for the purpose of forming a company to acquire them, with other machines I had I made up a lot myself, some at Cleveland Row and some at 4A, Upper Thames Street I had acquired altogether from 1, 300 to 1, 500 machines, in working order. I purchased them from the Picture Postcard Company in one' lot at the beginning of 1900 for £850 odd, and they cost me a further £500 or £600. Originally I had agreed to purchase those machines for £2,000. When I came to take delivery there was a difficulty in giving me a title, and the matter went to the Appeal Court from Mr. Justice Buckley. It was disclosed then that in the agreement which I had to purchase it was not explicitly set out what I was entitled to. Judgment went against me. Then the parties agreed with me that they would take a certain sum of money. I paid £850, and subsequently £500, making £1,350 altogether. The wages in connection with making up the machines must have Been £400 or £500 during 1900 and 1901, and also making experiments with regard to inventions. I did not transfer the whole of those 1, 500 machines to the Anglo-Egyptian, but only about 400. That was part of the goods I transferred to the Anglo-Egyptian. I altered some of the Picture Postcard machines, which were originally made to deliver postcards, so that they would deliver chocolates, and parted with them to the Anglo-Egyptian. I also parted with the whole of the machines in pieces, which I bought from Crook, to the Anglo-Egyptian, and also those upon which I had spent the money in wages. The original cost of machines and parts of machines and castings I handed over to the Anglo-Egyptian was about £12, 000, or more, with the money expended on labour. I had intended making those things the subject matter of an agreement between myself and the Anglo-Egyptian Company, and that agreement is referred to in Article 3 of the Articles of Association. Messrs. Cox and Lafone were solicitors

to that company. I called and saw Mr. Cox, the senior partner, who informed me it was not essential to have a formal agreement, and that the goods might pass by delivery, that saved the stamp duty, about £100. The minute of the Anglo-Egyptian Company of November 15th, 1901, is genuine, and records are absolutely genuine transactions. At that same meeting it was resolved to give me the option to apply for and have allotted to me or my nominees the whole or any part of the capital of the company at par price. That was a further consideration. The company had a warehouse and place of business at 4A, Upper Thames Street. The name of the company was written up in letters six feet long. It was a going concern in every sense. I started the Automatic General Stores with £2,000 or £3,000, and increased the capital to £12, 000. Then we found we had further business, and the directors decided, in my absence, to make it up to £25, 000, issuing 4, 000 preference shares out of 13, 000, which there was authority to issue. That company had a board of its own. I was a director from 1902 until the sale in 1903. It was registered in 1901. I was an original director, and remained so until it was taken over by the British and Colonial in 1903. The Automatic General Stores had a board of its own. Captain Osborne was one of the directors. That company had machines in use on the principal railways in England, and on the piers at the various seaside resorts. The receipts were very good. The expenses in connection with any automatic company are heavy, and it is only when you can increase your number of machines that the receipts increase. It takes as many men to look alter 20 machines as after 1, 000 or 5, 000; as you increase the number of machines, so the receipts increase. It did not pay any dividend. There was a profit made, but it was put to capital account. The reason for the choice of name of the "Anglo-Egyptian" was this. In October I received a letter from a Mr. Ashton Shepherd, manager of one of the minor departments of the Egyptian State Railway, who said he had seen some of the machines on railways in England, and thought there was a fine business to be done in Egypt, and he might be able to assist me to obtain a contract on the State Railway in Egypt. I went to Egypt in the early part of 1902, taking a manager, Mr. Bennett, with me. I saw Mr. Shepherd and had an interview with Mr. Johnson, the chairman of the State Railway, who said the matter would take some time to put before the board, as it was composed of different nationalities. I waited in Egypt 17 weeks, when Mr. Johnson informed me he regretted he could not give me the contract. I went in January and returned about May. I was, however, promised support from other people in Egypt. The contracts of the Automatic General Stores with the railway and pier companies remained from 1901 until 1903, and after they, went over to the British and Colonial. The Automatic

Supply Company also had contracts with railway companies for the placing of machines, and with Spiers and Pond. I was back in England in 1902. I had a conversation with the directors of the Automatic General Stores, and they said it would not be right for me to work in London for contracts on behalf of the Anglo-Egyptian Company, but they had no objection to my obtaining further contracts for that company outside London, and I did. That was only a promoting company, and obtaining contracts for them with the object of selling to another company. I secured contracts for sites outside the metropolis—railways, piers, golf clubs, chemists, and a lot of places where there were amusements. Spiers and Pond only had a sub-contract on certain railways. I had contracts in nearly every theatre in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales—all the provincial, most of the London—and all the Hippodromes, and also the Edinburgh Tramway Company. I had an important contract with Mr. Barrasford for 13 or 14 large Hippodromes, having the right to place about 40, 000 machines there, small machines near the seats to deliver chocolate or opera glasses or matches. There were from 3, 000 to 4, 000 seats in each theatre. I was the inventor of the small machine for the opera-glass, and also for delivering chocolates. I set great store on the contract with the Mazawattee Tea Company, one of whose projects was to sell chocolate. I had the right to acquire chocolate in small pieces at the cost price of chocolate. The Maiawattee Company commenced manufacturing chocolate, and they thought it would be a good way to introduce it in theatres. Under this contract handed to me the Mazawattee Company agreed to pay a minimum of 5s. the first year for each machine having their name in front of the box. The second and third years they would pay 2s. 6d. per annum. So that we had 10s. for each machine, which only cost 5s. or 6s. to make. Then we had the profit on the chocolate sold. They agreed to pay a further £1,000 a year for a thousand larger machines on the piers for their name appearing on the face of the glass. There was a further sum of 7s. 6d. a year, with the right to continue. The contract showed a profit of £22, 500 for advertisements alone for the first three years, apart from the profit derived from the sale of chocolate. The chocolate cost us 5d. a dozen and we get 1s. a dozen. I had three valuable contracts, and the inventions which I had patented—four or five patents—which enabled me to obtain those contracts, and which were subsequently valued at £25, 000. The shares in the Anglo-Egyptian remained at my call at par as from the 15th November, 1901. I did not sell any of them till 1903. I first determined to sell any in this way: I was approached by a Mr. Irons, who had connections in Scotland, and he said, "If you will come to Scotland with me and allow my friends to be interested in the company, they will assist you in regard to

contracts." I expected to issue the prospectus of the British and Colonial in January, 1903. Up to that time I had parted with none of my Anglo-Egyptian shares.

[Adjourned till to-morrow.]

THIRD COURT; Monday, 12th March.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

(Continued from page 126.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-54
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

MEDAWAR, Riski, and KERR, John Raymond .

WILLIAM CECIL AYLMER JOLLONDS , examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I came into possession of money under my father's will, and was anxious to invest it in a business. I saw an advertisement concerning the Motor Drivers Union, which I answered, and came into communication with Mr. Curtis, solicitor. In the result I was given an opportunity of inspecting the business and seeing how it was carried on. It was arranged that I could then either join the business or throw it up. I stayed about a fortnight before I decided to join the business, and put £2,000 into it, the date of the agreement being December 11th, 1905. When I first went I paid £100 as a guarantee, which would have been repaid if I had decided not to come in. Under the advice of my solicitor, I made it a condition that the business should be converted into a limited liability company, but two companies were formed instead, the St. James's Motor Company and the Motor Drivers' Union. £1,000 was put into each, half of the money going to Medawar and the other half remaining as working capital. The business is still being carried on. I know the circumstances under which Mr. Hatcher was dismissed.

Cross-examined. I had had experience of the motor-car trade. I had been to a school before. I had learned something about the machinery but had not got as far as driving. It was contemplated from the first that I should invest money in the business. I attended regularly at the office from December 12th, until January 30th. I took part in the office work, which consisted in interviewing pupils anxious to go in for a course of instruction and taking their fees. I had nothing to do with the employment bureau, but I took the qualifications of applicants and their names were entered by the secretary. I had nothing to do with obtaining situations for them. I went to the garage, I think, eight or ten times, and was there on an average half an hour. I gave a driving lesson on one occasion. I do not think anyone was there in January except Darke. Of course the question which interested me was whether the business was of a sufficiently profitable character to justify me

in putting my money into it. It did not strike me that there was any fraud on other people. I was not told that complaints had been made by the pupils. Kerr was in a separate office. I had an inner office to myself, so that if people came to complain to Kerr I should not hear anything of it.

Re-examined. I should certainly not have put money into this business, however remunerative it was, if I had thought it fraudulent. I saw nothing to lead me to suppose it was a criminally fraudulent business.

EMANUEL VICTOR , architect, 161, New Bond Street. I have a lease of the premises, Coach and Horses Yard, with about 35 years still to run. I am also interested in several other properties in the West End. I bought the lease of the Coach and Horses-yard as an investment. The premises had been a motor garage sometime before I obtained them. They were first of all used for the purpose by a firm called Emil, Limited, who afterwards built a place for themselves in Tottenham-court-road. The garage was a converted coach-house and stable. As a matter of fact, many garages in London are, as in that part of London, at all events, you can only get a motor garage by converting an existing building or rebuilding. A proper motor-inspection pit was excavated. The place would comfortably accommodate eight or nine cars. You might probably pack in a dozen, but it would be rather difficult to get them out. I afterwards let it to the Germain Motor Company, who paid £130 per ann. Besides motor cars they had lorries, and they moved from there to larger premises in Westminster. At Michaelmas, 1904, I let the premises to Medawar, one of whose references was Litsika Marx, the well-known tobacconist, and the other, Mr. Butler, solicitor. I asked £130, but eventually agreed to £120, with the understanding that I could have a car out if I wanted. At the end of the first year Medawar gave notice as he wanted larger premises. I acquired the place because I thought it was a fine situation, as it abuts on Bond Street and is quite close to Regent Street, the most valuable portion of the West End. There was a tank for storing petrol in the yard adjoining. There was a separate electric light meter, which Medawar had to pay for, two benches and a forge where ordinary small repairs could be effected and I have seen it in use. It had bellows underneath and the remains of the vent pipe are I believe still outside. The Germain people had a forge, but they took it away with them. I saw the classes from time to time but took no interest in them. There, was a chassis there distinct from the cars. I remember some of the makes of the cars that were there. There was a Gobron-Brillie, a Darracq or two, and one or two others. One of the Darracqs appeared to be a 15-20 h.p. and if not quite new in very good condition. Of course, very little use will take the absolutely new gloss off a motor-car. The second

Darracq was also a serviceable car, a two-cylinder car, I should say, of 812 h.p. The Gobron-Brillie was also in good condition. There was also an M.M.C. (Motor Manufacturing Company) and an Aster engine. The police were always on duty in this yard, or thereabouts. I never heard of any complaints made by the pupils. My own car was a small De Dion. I gave permission to Medawar to give instruction upon it, as it was the only one of that make, but not to drive it. Medawar lit the place. I think, by an electric accumulator charge for electric carriages. I am myself a practical motorist, and have motored something like 50, 000 miles. Learning motoring, like any other business, depends upon intelligence. One man will learn quickly and another man will fail. I cannot say whether this was a place where a man with the necessary intelligence and power of application and intention to get on could have learned, as I never learned at all, though I drive myself, I would undertake with the appliances there were there to teach anybody who had any sense. Many a time I have lain on the road underneath the car to find out what was wrong. That has not to be done now, as all the works are above. I volunteered to give evidence.

Cross-examined. I learned by driving my own car. I started driving in 1897 or 1898. A friend and I bought a car. We neither of us knew anything about it, and we had to find out if anything was wrong. Not only we survived, but the car survived, too. I was at the yard most days, I think, to take ray car out, and if it wanted anything doing to it I would go down and do it. I only went there in connection with my own car, and had no other connection with the business. I consider the place was reasonably equipped. By that I mean that there was everything necessary for running it as a garage. Besides the things I have mentioned, there Were tools. I never looked to see what tools they were, but there were always a lot of things on the benches, and upon occasions when I wanted something that I had not in the boot of my car I used to borrow. I also taught myself repairing, not by dint of breaking down on the high road, but by dint of perseverance. I knew nothing of the pupils personally.

Re-examined. Running repairs are very different from shop repairs. For instance, if you smash or twist an axle you cannot repair it on the spot and have to tow your car home. If there is anything wrong inside the gear box that also you cannot do, or if the differential goes wrong, or if there is anything wrong with the sparking and the wiring, or the differentiator. Nor, of curse, could you repair the battery if there was anything wrong, as it would explode.

ARTHUR J. LANGTON , photographer, 35, Buckingham Palace Road. In consequence of instructions received I took five negatives,

of which these are prints, of the Coach and Horses Yard. They are genuine photographs. The four photographs produced are the present garage at Carteret Street. The photographs of the yard show carboys of sulphuric acid. I took the photographs on Thursday or Friday, 8th or 9th inst. I was there on two occasions.

Cross-examined. I had never seen either place before.

RISKI MEDAWAR (prisoner, on oath). My present address is Hotel Windsor, Victoria Street, S.W. My age is 22. I am a Turkish subject, and left Armenia in April, 1904, bringing with me £500. My brother, who has been here twelve years, is connected with the motor industry, and had a school before I came to England. He is an expert motorist. When I came here I did not speak English at all, but I had learned English in the schools. I spoke French fluently, having been in France a good deal, where I had driven different makes of motor-cars—Darracqs, Renault, and Panhard. I first opened an office at 199, Piccadilly. That was called the Motor Drivers' Institute. I paid £120 per annum and 9s. a week, £25 8s. and £7 for electric light—in all, £150. At that time I advertised in the papers. Kerr was not with me then. My fee at the Institute originally was five guineas, and pupils were sent to 140, Lupus Street, Pimlico, to the garage known as the Belgrave garage, which wan carried on by a gentleman named Davis, who shared half the fees. I had no garage at that time. When I took the garage in Coach and Horses Yard it brought my rent with the Institute up to £270 a year. I bought for the Burlington Street garage a Gobron-Brillie, which cost £140. I paid £80 down, and eventually paid the balance of £60 on being sued. I next bought a new 15-20 h.p. Darracq, the price of which to the general public would be £447, but which, subject to the trade discount, actually cost me £340. Another Darracq, 8-h.p. tonneau body 1-cylinder car, cost me £156. I also bought two M.M.C. cars, one for £146 and one for £156. Those five cars were for teaching. For a short time there was a working agreement between my brother and me under which I took some of his pupils. I paid to Davis in September, 1904, £43 2s. 9d. for his share of the fees. A 2-cylinder Aster Engine Car that my brother bought about that time afterwards came into my possession, and was available for teaching. On 29th September, 1904, I took offices at 47, Victoria Street, at £80 per annum, and 6s. a week, or close upon £100 a year. I gave up the Burlington garage in October, 1905, but up to that time I had been paying £370 a year for rent. For the first four or five months after I started in Burlington Gardens I was losing a good deal of money, there being great competition in these motor schools, and I had to reduce my price for the general class tuition to four guineas, and the fee was reduced at the Institute also. I never guaranteed to find situations for

pupils. Kerr came to me in September, 1904. He was first in the office, and I paid him small weekly wages. Finding him a good book-keeper and a good man of business I gave him increased wages. At the time of the taking over of the business by the limited company he was receiving £3 10s. a week, wages and commission, and he became secretary of the two companies, the Institute and the Union. He then had £1 per week and 5 per cent, commission on the pupils. The first mention of the chassis appears in 1905. My brother then bought a Peugeot second-hand, which was converted into a chassis and sent to the garage as a chassis. I myself never took part in the mechanical instruction. I had many teachers, Furlong, Matthews, Carpenter, Urbani, Wood, Irish, Kennell, Hatcher and Howe. The teaching was carried on in classes. In May or June, 1904. a representative of the "Motor-Car Journal" called upon me, and an article was sent for my approval, and the 1, 000 copies ordered were used in sending out with the prospectus. I do not wish to shirk responsibility, but as a matter of fact the advertisements were seen to by Kerr. I do not set myself up as a judge of English. £4 was paid in respect of that. When my brother severed his connection with me on 14th June. 1905, he took away the Aster Engine, the M.M.C., and the Peugeot chassis, leaving me with another M.M.C. and the Gobron-Brillie, and I then bought the two Darracqs. About the end of June I turned the Gobron-Brillie info a chassis. Finding the accommodation insufficient. I looked about for another garage, and finally found the premises at 7A, Carteret-street, Westminster. As a motor garage they were first-class premises, and when I got them they were painted and renovated. They were formerly used by the Petrol Motor Power Company. Before I left the Burlington Garage I put the Gobron-Brillie chassis together and found it would go. The Gobron-Brillie was always used for driving lessons, but when it was converted into a chaasis some of the people did not know the brakes, and I could not start the car without brakes. Some of the pupils had misfortunes with the cars when out driving; there was nearly always some smash up, and it was an expensive job sending the pupils out to drive. When I removed from the Burlington Garage I bad about 50 pupils, and when I ceased in January, 1906, about 100. There are still from 40 to 50 pupils at the garage. If you have learned something of the mechanism it is not a difficult matter to drive. The chief difficulty is the steering. Changing speed also requires knack and skill. The best way to learn changing the gear is when the car is stationary. Many schools damage the cars by changing speed when the car is in motion. After they have learned the construction of a motorcar engine and the explosion, which can all be learned from a cycle engine, to change the gearing and the use of the

speed lever, the application of the brakes, and the movement of the foot pedals, they have to learn lubrication and wiring. All cars are driven by the electric spark, and they would have to learn the wiring in connection with the accumulator and magneto-ignition. When they had learned all that I would give them driving lessons. It is not true that I reached across to the levers when I was in the driving seat. I could not do that, because if I moved from my seat or took my hand from the driving wheel there must be an accident. It is impossible for the man in the driving seat to change the speed or do anything at all. The length of the driving lessons was about half an hour, and I could not give them longer, as there were others wsiting. Besides myself, Mr. Furlong, Mr. Matthews, and Mr. Peters taught driving. By altering the screw of the trembler or cap of the accumulator, or turning oil the petrol valve you can create a fault very easily. I did that intentionally many times, and the pupils had to find out what was wrong. I never started the car again without the pupils themselves finding out the fault. Hundreds of pupils passed through my hands. I had trouble with prosecutors Davis, Knight, and Charsley. Scrivener, I think, had trouble with the secretary. I also remember the names of Darke, Ford, and Hunter in this connection, but these were very few in comparison with the very large number of pupils. I gave orders for the insertion of advertisements for situations for these men, though I do not recognise any liability to do so on the prospectus. Some of the pupils obtained good situations, and some actually passed the Automobile Club examinations and obtained certificates. The London Road Car Company applied to us for drivers. As to Hatcher, I gave him lessons once at ten o'clock at night and on Sunday, because there was someone he wanted to go away with. Hatcher had been a gunnery instructor at sea, and talked French fluently, and we used to talk French together. I afterwards took him on at 25s. a week as instructor, and he was eventually advanced to 30s. a week and 5 per cent, commission on the pupils he obtained. In addition, I gave him his meals free. Notices were put up for the pupils and for the instructors. That for the pupils intimated that if they wanted to come back for further instruction they could do so free. The other was the rules and regulations to be observed by the manager and staff. By that the manager was not allowed under any circumstances to give references to pupils or staff, but references must bear the signature of the principals. No references were to be given for services under six months, and the managers signature must be on every pupil's form. The manager and staff were responsible for the maintenance of order. Towards the end of 1905 I had reason to be dissatisfied with Hatcher and I cautioned him. On one occasion he was helplessly drunk and could neither move nor speak. I took him into the office

and took care of him and gave him my coat because he was cold. Next day I told him that if it occurred again I would discharge him. It did occur again and I discharged him. It is not true that he left of his own accord. Sometimes there was a great deal of noise at the garage. I remember turning Davis out on one occasion. He wanted to pass his examination and could not answer the questions. I told him he would have to have some more lessons; he refused and caused a disturbance and I put him outside. Darke was a gentleman who came for private lessons and Hatcher told him the concern was a fraud but I have no doubt that if Darke had completed the three months' course I could have made him a perfectly competent and efficient driver. The fee for private tuition was fifteen guineas. Darke did not like my dismissing Hatcher. Darke did not come at the proper time for his lessons, but came at lunch time, so I told him to leave the garage and come at a proper time. On one occasion I had to conduct Darke outside. I pulled his moustache because he was insolent and called me a dirty foreigner, and I told him I was not frightened of his large moustache. I did not say that I would show them the most terrible thing ever seen in London. I could not then speak such English. There is no truth in the statement that I threatened to cut him. I told Darke he would hear from my solicitor, and I instructed Mr. Curtis to write to him. Knight grumbled because he had instructions on the motor cycle engine, but I told him that was the very best way to teach a motor driver. There was some dispute with witness Scrivener about a reference. Ford was the only other witness called to whom I had given a certificate. The wording of advertisements I left to Mr. Kerr, but I do not attempt to evade responsibility on that account. In December, 1904, I was asked by the Automobile Club to give up the name of the Motor Drivers' Union, and an article appeared about it in the "Auto-Car." The club even offered to buy the name, but I declined the offer. Shortly afterwards a union was started called the Motor Union. At the garage and offices there was always a legitimate business carried on.

Cross-examined. Furlong left at the end of 1904. I cannot tell when Matthews left. It was before last summer, before Davis came as pupil. Peters is now in my service; he came before the beginning of this year. Mason came in the beginning of November. Last summer I was taking all the driving lessons myself. I had been in England three months when I started this business. All the motor-cars in the photographs were my property and have gone over with the business to the two companies. I cannot say it has been a very profitable business, though starting with £500 and having sold it for £2,000, of which I am entitled to £1,000. I still have a share in it. At the beginning I was losing every month. Kerr drafted the

prospectus, which I say is all true. It commences: "The course of instruction is divided into two sections. First section Mechanism, etc.—First the pupils are thoroughly taught mechanism, which is given in different chassis of well-known makes of cars varying from 10 to 16 horse-power. These chassis are taken to pieces to enable the pupils to obtain a thorough and practical knowledge of the mechanism in general, viz.: Carburation, automatic and mechanical valves, gearing and transmission of power through clutch, battery, and magneto ignition, wiring up, water cooling, cylinders, etc." I taught the pupils all that "2nd section: Driving, etc.—The second part deals entirely with the driving and managing of can in traffic, country, etc. Faults are created 'en route' which have to be remedied by the pupils, as this is the only effective way of teaching learners how to attend to running repairs, which knowledge is foremost in the career of a chauffeur. The driving lessons are given on various well-known makes of cars, including 1905 models, etc." That part of the prospectus it also perfectly true. A chauffeur must, of course, be able to do running repairs, and the only way to teach him was by letting him see the repairs done or explaining them to him. Running repairs consist in two parts, electricity and petrol. If there is no petrol in the tank the car breaks down. In the ease of electricity, if the wire is disconnected you must know how to connect it. Without petrol or electricity you cannot drive a car. In each driving class there were three men. If each of the men who have been called here swear there were no running repairs that is quite untrue, at they would see if they looked at the pocket-books they had at the garage, in which they took down everything that was explained to them. I do not agree that that is not the same thing as actually doing the running repairs themselves; when running repairs were done they saw them done. We explained to the pupils the nature of the repairs and they took it down in their books. The following also is true: "During the course the pupils are put through examinations by our qualified engineers, and should they not be found proficient, the lessons (being unlimited) are prolonged until they have a master knowledge of the automobile in all its branches, and are pronounced qualified for taking the Union certificate by our instructors." Hatcher was the examiner, and he was a qualified engineer so far at the motorcar was concerned. As to the following passage: "The majority of the Union pupils are thoroughly proficient and capable of qualifying for the Union certificate after about three weeks' tuition. The Union guarantees proficiency: this it is able to do on account of its owning the best-equipped garage and latest types of cars in London." That is true, and I consider the description a fair description of the Coach and Horses Yard. As to the statement: "An Employment

Bureau has been organised by the Union for the express benefit of its pupils, no charge being made to them for the registration of their names, etc., on the register.". We did advertise for the people to put them in situations, to help them, several times. I cannot tell you when that was started. Several situations were obtained by our people, but I cannot give the names. Any books that were kept were kept by Kerr, and I do not know anything about the books. As to this passage: "The Union obtains the L.C.C. licence for its pupils, and those entering public service are transferred to the recognised authorities after having passed the Union examination and holding its certificate." Every driver has to have a licence, for which 5s. is paid, and we sent them to Scotland Yard to pass their examination. Many people who want to enter the public service do not know where to go. By "recognised authorities" I meant Scotland Yard, which is the only recognised authority. I do not know who wrote the prospectus, but I saw it before it was printed. As to it being possible to learn to drive a car in a quarter of an hour, it is possible that an engineer might do so, but it would be impossible for a man like Davis who had been a footman. By travelling in a car for five minutes he could not learn to drive a car. I teach them properly—that is what it against me. If I gave Davis a certificate he was a great friend; if not, he wanted to fight me about it. I wanted Davis to have some more lessons, but if I had given him a certificate he would not have quarrelled; he would have been quite content. Others who were in the same class were satisfied and succeeded as drivers. Knight made a complaint that he did not want to learn the motor cycle engine, and it is possible he was only there three or four days. I was ready to teach him, and out of hundreds of men we had only those few complaints. With regard to the letter that was written to Knight by my solicitor, it was, of course, by my instructions. Those that created great trouble I asked my solicitor to write to and, if necessary, bring action against. I cannot tell how many letters my solicitor wrote. I cannot tell if Chantey left about the end of October, and I do not recollect that there was a row at the time Charsley left. I remember Scrivener, who was a copperplate engraver. If he complains that he had only one driving lesson, I never did give anyone only one driving lesson, even if he was a competent driver, if he was a man driving a 60 h.p. engine and came to the school; I should give him at least three or four, however good he was. If he says he was given a certificate after one driving lesson of ten minutes' duration it is not true. There was teaching how to take a tyre off and put it on, but some said, "we have our bicycles and know how to take tyres off and put them on." It is, of course, more difficult to take a tyre off a motor-car than off a bicycle. The pupils had an opportunity of learning. If they did not learn it was

because they did not want to. On the occasion when the disturbance with Darke occurred I did not put my hand in my breast pocket and say,"I will cut you." One of Darke's companions asked if I was the one who was to be settled with, and I said to Darke I was not afraid of his large moustache, and I did pull his moustache. I know Kinnell. I do not suggest he left because he was a drunkard. He left because he wanted more wages for his long hours. He was at one time secretary before Kerr. We had agreements to supply drivers to the London Road Car Company and Turner's, the 'bus proprietors. It was stated in the advertisement that we were under agreement with several public companies for the supply of drivers. The matter was arranged by Mr. Kerr. I never saw the Road Car Company's man. Kinnell left in August. The instructors I had after that were Carpenter and Howe, who had been taught at our Union, and afterwards Woods, who was also taught by us. There was also Mason, who came from somewhere else, Furlong, and Peters.

Re-examined. Mason was a discharged servant. Kerr knew nothing about the garage, which was my charge.

At this point the Jury, in reply to the Common Serjeant, said that they considered the evidence of conspiracy insufficient, and a verdict of not guilty was accordingly entered.

OLD COURT; Monday, 12th March.

(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-55
VerdictGuilty > insane
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

MACQUIRE, Edward (40, wood machinist) . Murder of John Skinner (on Indictment, and on Coroner's Inquisition).

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Murphy prosecuted; Mr. Merlin defended.

HENRY JOHN WESSON , Relieving Officer for No. 1 Ward, St. Pancras parish. I knew the deceased, Skinner, for twenty years; he was superintendent of the mental ward from 1902 till his death. I also knew prisoner; on May 27th, 1902, under an order made under the Lunacy Act, 1890, he was sent for detention in the mental ward; he remained there until June 3rd, when he was transferred to Colney Hatch.

Cross-examined. The people under Skinner's charge would be residents of St. Pancras borough; patient* would be there, as a rule, about seven days; there would be thirty to seventy there at a time; so that a large number would come under Skinner's care in the year, and in the twenty-three years he was there a very great number; many of these would be violent. Strait-jackets are seldom used; there are two padded rooms, which would be used more frequently. I have myself been threatened several times; I do not say that I have taken no notice; I've kept my eyes open. It is very probable

that Skinner had been threatened by other patients. Many of the patients, on being discharged, would re-settle in St. Pancras.

GEORGE BARNES . I have been attendant in the male mental ward, St. Pancras, for 81/2 years. Skinner was superintendent. It is the duty of the superintendent and the attendants to study the patients and note their symptoms. I remember prisoner entering on May 27th, 1902. While he was there I had many conversations with him; ho had ideas that he was being watched by detectives, and that his wife was unfaithful to him; he thought he was there wrongfully, and used to ask Skinner for his discharge; Skinner told him he had nothing to do with discharges, that the justices had to do with that. Prisoner and I used to talk daily; he spoke about his wife, and about men she had been with: I have heard him accuse Skinner of being one of the men who were intimate with his wife. He was eventually certified, and a removal order made. I had to take him to Colney Hatch; he was very violent in the cab; he sprang through the window and got on the top of the cab; he was taken back to the workhouse and put into a strait-jacket, and then taken to Colney Hatch; the strait-jacket was removed when we got him there.

Cross-examined. We have fourteen strait-jackets in the ward; occasionally several are in use at one time. I frequently get threatened. Most of the patients when discharged re-settle in St. Pancras; roughly, about 95 per cent, live in that parish. I remember at the time prisoner was in the ward there were two men there named Rice and Lovelock. I never heard prisoner call Skinner Barnes, or call me Skinner; nor did the wife call me Skinner. I have seen her on one occasion. I do not think I ever saw Skinner speak to her. I do not remember a man named Shaw employed at the work. I do remember a drunken stoker being thrown out one night without his clothes; he was charged at the Police Court and fined 5s.: I do not remember that at the Court he accused people of stealing some of his money out of his pockets while the clothes were in the workhouse. I cannot say whether he made very violent threats against Skinner in connection with that incident.

Re-examined. Skinner had nothing to do with the stokers. There is no connection of any kind between Skinner and Shaw. I only saw Mrs. MacQuire once; that was at the Police Court. I have never been threatened by anyone discharged as cured.

WALTER DUNLOP , M.B., lately medical superintendent of St Pancras infirmary. I remember prisoner being in the mental ward; he was suffering from delusional mania, with hallucinations; he imagined that detectives were following him; he became possessed of the idea that Skinner was the sole means of detaining him there; I tried to dispossess him of the idea, but he said he firmly believed it because the voices told him that, and that they further told him that he must do for him.

Cross-examined. Prisoner made these threats in 1902, and had not carried them out so far. I believe he was discharged from Colney Hatch.

ERNEST BAYLEY , clerk at Colney Hatch Asylum. Prisoner was admitted on June 3rd, 1902; on August 1st, 1902, he was let out on trial for four weeks, and was finally discharged on August 29th.

ALFRED GROSE , detective, Y Division, proved a plan of the streets in the neighourhood where the deceased met his death.

Cross-examined. Between the baker's shop in Tufnell Park Road and the opening into Corinne Road there is a lamp, where all the streets converge; at the corner by Lady Margaret Road is another lamp; the next lamp is fifty-two yards up Corinne Road on the other side; between those two lamps there is a blank Wall; that part would be dark. From Corinne Road, near the opening, to prisoner's house in Stanmore Place would be a good half-hour's walk; by tram it would be a quarter of an hour each way. These streets are pretty crowded. Although it has been reported in the local papers that prisoner said he was at home on the evening of the murder, I am not prepared to say that anyone has come forward to the police to say they saw him out.

Re-examined. I have tested the time it takes to go from the nearest tram or 'bus to Stanmore Place. It takes just under fifteen minutes by horse 'bus, about ten minutes by motor-bus.

WALTER MOSEDALE , chief stoker at St. Pancras Workhouse. From June to August, 1901, prisoner was employed under me as a stoker at the workhouse. I remember his being admitted in the next year to the mental ward and being sent to Coiner Hatch. After he came out I saw him several times,; the first time was in Pancras Road, about a fortnight after he left the asylum. He stopped me and spoke to me; it was just outside the infirmary. He produced from his pocket what looked like a probation paper and said, "A nice thing they've done for me." I said, "I don't know what they've done." He said, "Well, I mean to have my own back," or some words to that effect."If ever I meet that Skinner out, or that other long b——, Rylands, I bet I'll do one of them in." He did not seem quite right; he spoke in a sort of angry way, as if he would really do what he said. I informed Skinner. On about a dozen other occasions prisoner has stopped me in the street; it was about 300 yards from the workhouse on the last occasion; generally speaking, it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of the workhouse; the conversation was always much about the same. The last time he spoke to me was in May or June last. He pulled out of his pocket a letter or a postcard and said, "This is a letter I have received from the master to the letter I sent him asking for a temporary holiday duty; he says he will not give me any; I think there's somebody

over there doing me an injury." I said, "Well, it isn't me." He said, "No, it's Skinner or those others in the mental ward." He mentioned Rylands' name, and I said, "Rylands has left the service now." He said, "Never mind, the other b——, Skinner, ain't. Sometimes I have seen prisoner in a bowler hat, sometimes with a P. and 0. cap, with a cloth peak and buckle, something like a motor-cap, but small in the crown.

Cross-examined. When prisoner was acting as stoker another stoker. Marchant, fell ill and prisoner did his work. Marchant was in the hospital. I know Mrs. Marchant. It is not the fact that prisoner protested against my taking her about to public-houses when Marchant was in the hospital, nor that there was a row about it, nor that prisoner and I have been enemies ever since. Tandy, the chief engineer, has not reprimanded me for misconduct, never; I never misconducted myself with a bar of iron. I was present when prisoner was arrested; he did say something about a bar of iron, but that did not relate to my assault on Tandy. For the last four years off and on prisoner has used threats against Skinner. When I reported them Skinner was a bit alarmed at the latter part. Prisoner never threatened to shoot Skinner. I did not think he would shoot him. I remember a stoker named Shaw; he and prisoner were frequently together; Shaw also wore the same kind of cap; I have not mistaken the two men.

Re-examined. I have been employed at the workhouse fourteen years, continuously. I never threatened Tandy with a bar of iron in my life.

BERNARD LONG , 85, Queen's Crescent, Camden Town. In October, 1905, I was employed at the Midland Railway Company, in Camden Town; prisoner was employed there with me about the last three months of last year. On several occasions he spoke to me about the St. Pancras Workhouse; he said they were rather brutal there in their treatment of men under their charge; he said he had been there himself, and was treated badly; he told me he had a great animosity against an official in the mental ward; he did not mention a name; he gave me to understand that he was going to have his own back with someone there. He always wore a cap while at work, one similar to the cap produced; outside the shop he usually wore a bowler hat. When he left, his cap hung up in the shop till his wife came and took it away.

Cross-examined. Prisoner told me there was a young fellow in the mental ward that they had dosed down, and that he would be about done for; he also said that they treated him something shocking, although they were not so bad to him, as he had worked there. He never mentioned Skinner's name.

FRANK THOMAS SUNDERLAND , 63, Maitland Park Road, Haverstock Hill, machinist at the Midland Railway Company's Works.

I knew prisoner 6 or 7 years ago. He and I belonged to the same volunteer corps. I lost sight of him for some time, and in October last I met him again, and then met him almost daily at the Midland Works. About a week before Skinner's death I had a conversation with prisoner in the workshop. I said, "Well, Mac, how are you getting on?" He said, "Oh, all right; I'm going shooting." I said, "What, class-firing?" He said, "No; bigger game than that." Prisoner used to wear a cap in the works, similar to the cap produced; outside the works he wore a bowler.

Cross-examined. I remember seeing him in a bowler; I cannot swear that he wore a cap outside. I am not aware that he had "crossed guns" as a token of marksmanship. I did say at the Police Court "getting crossed guns does not mean much "; that was an observation by me to the Magistrate, not what I said to prisoner. (Q.) Did not he make you understand that he meant to go in for a sergeantship when he spoke about bigger game? (A.) I have given you all the conversation; he said nothing about a sergeantship. I never saw prisoner with a revolver; he has never spoken to me about revolver shooting.

THOMAS CHARLES WESTERN , 205, Stanhope Road, Hampstead Road. I am employed at the Midland Railway shops, and have known prisoner since he went there in October. We used to leave work about the same time, and I have met him on the road home. At an ordinary pace, it would take roughly 20 minutes to get from the works to prisoner's house. On December 21st I met prisoner in Camden Road; he invited me to have a drink, and we went into a public-house. (Q.) Did you notice anything about him that evening?

Mr. Merlin objected. This was additional evidence, of which the defence had had no notice. It was not in the depositions before the Magistrate. It was in the depositions before the Coroner; but these were not evidence here.

Mr. Justice Grantham. The question is admissible. You are entitled to ask him,"How is it you did not say this before the Magistrate?"

WITNESS. I thought he seemed strange that night; he wandered from one subject to another; he told me he had had a job at a railway, and all he had to do there was to walk up and down the platform and give instructions to the men to pick up nuggets of gold and carry them into sheds, each nugget weighing over a hundred-weight. He asked me if I remembered the silver ingots being stolen from a van somewhere at King's Cross; he said he knew where they went. When we left the public-house, Inspector Neil came up and took prisoner away. When prisoner first came to the shop he wore a dull peak cap, of black or blue cloth; they call it a midshipman's cap, or a yachting cap. I cannot swear that the cap produced is the one prisoner wore; it was the same kind of cap as this. He mostly wore after work a dark muffler round his neck.

Cross-examined. I did not hear what prisoner said when he

was arrested; he had a purse which he asked me to take home to his wife; the inspector, after looking to see what was in the purse, gave it to me and I took it to the wife. I cannot remember whether I walked home with prisoner on December 20th or December 19th. On the 21st we began to talk about our slate club. He did not tell me that he was going to buy his Christmas goose that night with his boy. On December 21st he came to work just as usual.

PRICE WALLINGTON , 212, Tufnell Park Road, baker. My shop is just opposite the end of Corinne Road. On the evening of December 20th I was in the shop parlour; I heard four shots; with the third shot I heard a breaking of glass; I thought it was one of my windows; I was going into the shop when I heard a fourth shot. This was between 8.35 and 8.55. On getting into the shop I found a bullet had struck a chocolate case on the counter; the shop-door was open; the glass shop front was not damaged at all; the bullet had passed through the open door. I found the bullet on the marble-table beneath the chocolate-case, and handed it to the police. (Bullet produced)

Cross-examined. I heard the shots fired, but saw nothing; I saw a crowd outside the shop. I went out before Mrs. Ford; she says she saw a man running; I did not see him; I saw no one run after a man. I did not see Skinner at all. There was a slight pause between the second and third shots. I have never seen anyone loitering about near this place.

Tuesday. 13th March, 1906.

VERONICA FORD , wife of Henry Lawrence Ford. 108, Lady Margaret Road, Tufnell Park. My house is at the corner of Corinne Road and has a side entrance in that road. I frequently go over to see Mrs. Wallington. For some time before December 20th I noticed a man loitering about. He had a dark overcoat of medium length, sometimes a bowler hat, but latterly a cap with a peak, and on most occasions a white muffler. He was a thick-set man of about 5ft. 6in. with a light moustache. I noticed him at the end of November and through December, espcially for the last ten nights before the shots, when he was there almost every evening. I noticed him very closely because I thought he had a design on my house. He nodded his head at me as a sort of recognition. On December 20th I went over to nurse Mrs. Wellington's sick child shortly after seven, when I saw him standing at the corner of Corinne Road. He had a cap on. About 25 minutes to 9 I heard two loud shots. Coming down into the street I heard two more shots, louder and nearer, saw a flash and heard a splintering noise. I then saw a man running down Corinne Road. On December 29th I saw prisoner

amongst a number of men. I refused to identify him as I was not positive. Some six weeks afterwards I saw prisoner at the inquest, when he made the same nodding motion, and I immediately recognised him. I am quite positive the man I saw loitering about was the prisoner.

Cross-examined. It was too dark to see the man behind the flash. I particularly noticed the man almost every night, and went across one night to have a look at him. I saw him distinctly under the lamp. On December 26th I made a statement to Inspector Neil, and on December 29th went to the Police Station to identify the loiterer. I hesitated between two men, but did not pick any man out. The flash of the fourth shot was about twenty yards from me. I could not see anything except a shadow; it was all very dark and sudden. In the station-yard I did not pick out a man bagger and stouter than the prisoner. I pointed out a man very similar to him in every way. He had a cap on. I did not touch any man. I was asked to do so, but I refused absolutely. Since December 20th I have seen no one loitering about.

ALFRED GROSE , recalled. I measured the prisoner. He is 5ft. 4in. with boots on. On February 25th I went to 6, Stanmore Place and received from prisoner's wife cap produced. Cross-examined. I asked for the cap prisoner had worn at work, and it was given me. Prisoner at the police-cell admitted it was his. I measured prisoner and took his birth-marks and finger-marks directly after he was charged on the night of the arrest. He has a scar from a burn inside right forearm, one dot in blue ink on the left forearm, and a slight cast in right eye. I found no bruise on his face or head.

CHARLES ALFRED BROCKBANK , 46, Burnbrook Road, Tufnell Park. On December 20th I was in the Fortess Road at the corner of Tufnell Park. I saw Mr. Skinner leaning against a shop, greatly distressed, and took him in a cab to 51, Corinne Road.

WILLIAM SKINNER . 51, Corinne Road. I am the eldest son of Mr. John Skinner, who died on February 17th. He was superintendent of the mental ward at the St. Pancras Workhouse and had been there some twenty years. He used to come home in the evenings, but his duties made him sleep at the workhouse. He had been a total abstainer for many years. When my father was brought home he had the stick produced. My father usually got home between eight and nine. There would be about fifty patients in my father's ward. My father wore glasses for reading and writing, very seldom in the streets. He would not walk along the streets with them.

DR. ARTHUR WILLIAM WILSON , 202, Tufnell Park Road. On December 20th I saw deceased at 51, Corinne Road about nine o'clock. He Was perfectly conscious. I found some blood on his shirt and vest, a wound 3/8 in. long on the second left rib, 1/4 in.

from the middle line, which was somewhat blackened, from, I think, the dirt on the bullet; a grazed wound over the left lower rib, and a bruise on the back beneath the shoulder-blade. The graze might be due to the impact of a bullet. I do not know what caused the bruise, I attended him up to February 17th. During the early part of the time I hoped he would recover. On the 17th I was called in. I thought he was dying, and communicated at once with the Police. Mr. Fordham took his deposition. Prisoner was present. Deceased was quite conscious. Mr. Hobbs, the clerk, swore him in my presence, and his deposition was taken. Prisoner cross-examined, and the deceased made his mark. On February 20th I made a post-mortem examination in conjunction with Dr. Thackeray. The cause of death was heart failure, brought about by blood in the pleural cavities pressing on the lung. The left lung was collapsed; there was local inflammation caused by a foreign body passing through the lung. I found the bullet lying behind the left shoulder-blade embedded in muscle. In my opinion, the bullet wound caused the death.

Cross-examined. On the 17th his temperature was normal. He had never been delirious. He was much too weak to sign his name. I was holding his pulse all the time he was making his statement Prisoner had no solicitor or counsel. Mr. Fordham advised prisoner to be as brief as he could be, but I do not think he implied that he ought not to ask deceased those questions that he wished to.

Re-examined. Deceased's intellect was perfectly clear. He was able to answer clearly and definitely any question, and quite able to appreciate. I did not hear him say "I think" when he was asked how he recognised prisoner. I was standing next to deceased.

DR. THACKERAY, Medical Superintendent at St. Pancras Infirmary. I knew the deceased. I visited him several times during his illness, 'and subsequently made a post-mortem examination, in conjunction with Dr. Wilson. I agree with Dr. Wilson's evidence, and say that death was caused by the bullet wound. There were no signs of external suppuration to the wound and no signs of septic pneumonia.

Cross-examined. There were not so many as 50 patients on an average in Mr. Skinner's ward; an average of 18 would be about the number. A certain number of the patients are only passing through, and stay only seven days; others are certified as suitable for detention, and may stay there for years. There are about 300 admissions a year. Skinner was there 20 years. A certain number were violent. I believe there are 14 strait-jackets; but several weeks often elapse without one being used. Patients do not very often threaten the officers. I have been threatened on on occasion. I believed deceased had been threatened. There was an attempt to get prisoner into the

ward again, which was frustrated by failure of evidence. I was not there at the time. Patients who have had homicidal mania are most dangerous, as the delusions may recur.

ARTHUR NEIL , Detective Inspector, Y Division. On December 20th, William Skinner made a communication to me at about 10 p.m., and, with other officers I went in search of prisoner. I saw him the next day at 1/2 past 6 p.m. in High Street Camden Town, and arrested him for shooting John Skinner. He said, "You are mad." I said, "Your name is MacQuire, is not it?" He said, "No; James." PC. Dring then came up and said, "His name is MaoQuire." Prisoner then said, "Well, I know nothing about any shooting. I was home just after 6 o'clock last night." I said, "You know Mr. Skinnert" He said, "Yes; I knew him at the Workhouse." I said, "That is the man who was shot at." Prisoner said, "He has made a mistake." Assuming, therefore, that Mr. Skinner had said he was the man, I said, "He says it was you; that he knows you well. He says that you have threatened him before, that when you shot at him he recognised you instantly by your personal appearance and voice." Prisoner said, "I can prove I was at borne all the evening, and went to bed about 9 o'clock. My wife and landlady can prove that. Skinner is mad. I am not going to the station without my wife. You are a bloody fool, and do not know what you are doing." I found nothing on him. Prisoner handed his purse to the witness Western, and said, "Take this home to my wife." I and Western then went to the prisoner's house, saw the wife, and put some questions to her. I returned to prisoner. Mosedale was there. Prisoner said to Mosedale,"Are you in this? You had better not. I have something that will do for you—not bars of iron." I then took prisoner to the station. Later on I saw the deceased, took a statement from him, and returned to prisoner. He demanded to know what the deceased had said about him. I then read Mr. Skinner's statement.

Mr. Merlin objected to the statement being read as prisoner demanded to hear it in ignorance.

Mr. Justice Grantham ruled that as a statement made to prisoner it was admissible.

The statement was then read.

That was signed by John Skinner in my presence. I took it down as he spoke it, and I read it over to him. Prisoner said, "That is all wrong, it was only eight days he had me under hit rare, and that was in 1902, so he is wrong there. He is mad, I told you before. He does not know much of me. He is shortsighted." Prisoner was then charged with attempting, to murder John Skinner by shooting. He made no reply—he laughed. On January 17th, 1906. he was charged with the wilful murder of John Skinner. Prisoner said "All right" when the charge was read over to him by the Inspector. At the Court prisoner said, "There is no answer to it. I am innocent of the case. On

December 26th I took a statement from Mrs. Ford. On December 29th prisoner was placed with about twelve other men. Mrs. Ford walked along the line, passed the prisoner, and pointing to another man, not the prisoner, said, "The man I saw was Similar to this." She refused to pick him out. The man she indicated was very similar to prisoner.

Cross-examined. Prisoner has twenty years of good references as a working man. I did not arrest him because I could nnt find where "He was until 6.30 p.m. the day after I received information from William Skinner. I have had no one else suggested to me. I have not got the man here that Mrs. Ford indicated. He was not detained, and we do not know who he was. Prisoner was not physically violent when arrested. He was violent in his manner, and pushed me. He protested against being detained. He threatened Mosedale. He said he was at home all the evening and that Skinner had made a mistake. I saw no marks caused by a stick being broken upon him. I found no revolver, ammunition, or white muffler on him or at his house, or anything suspicious. There was a good light where Mrs. Ford examined the men. She did not point to prisoner at all. Strickland and Roberts were taken to identify the prisoner. They both made statements; they could throw no light on the matter.

Mr. Bodkin objected to the statements being read.

Henry Strickland's statement was permitted to be read and put in by Mr. Merlin.

THOMAS CHARLES WESTERN , recalled. Men commence work at the Midland Railway at 6 a.m., and breakfast at 8.15 to 9 a.m. Pay-day is Thursday. Prisoner and I bad been paid on the night of the arrest.

WILLIAM GEORGE HOBBS , clerk at North London Police Court. On February 17th I went with Mr. Fordham, the magistrate, to the house of John Skinner and took down his deposition. Prisoner was present. Mr. Fordham explained to prisoner that be was to hear Mr. Skinner's statement taken and to put any question he wished. Prisoner put questions, and I took down the answers thereto. Prisoner was then asked if he had any further questions to put, and he put further questions. The deposition was then read over to John Skinner, and he put his mark thereto. [Deceased's deposition was then read.]

Cross-examined. Prisoner was not represented by solicitor or counsel. At the Police Court on February 24th prisoner cross-examined me and asked me if I heard Mr. Skinner in a low voice say when the magistrate asked if he recognised him."I think so." I said I did not hear that.

HORACE BAKER . 41 N, jailor at North London Police Court. I took prisoner to 51, Corinne Road on the afternoon of February 17th. and was in charge of him by the bed of Mr. Skinner.

I did not hear Mr. Skinner say "I think so" when asked if he identified prisoner.

The deposition by deceased was as follows: "I know Edward MacQuire. On the 20th December, at about 8.50 p.m., I saw him at the end of Corinne Road. I was walking home. There was suddenly a flash and a few words, 'Now you b——. I've got you; I will kill you. MacQuire said that I recognised his voice and saw him by the flash. He fired four shots, I think. I struck out with my stick, and unfortunately broke it in half. It struck some object. I fell to the ground. I got up and walked up Tufnell Park Road and asked for the police. I was brought home in a cab. I have known MacQuire since 1902, I think. He has threatened me two or three times before. He came to our place in the ordinary way, and went to Colney Hatch. He has said, 'I have got something in my pocket that will Tetch you down, you old b——'—Cross-examined by MacQuire. One night yon followed me up Kings Road in 1902 or 1903. You did not ask if my name was Skinner. I tried to lead you to where I knew a policeman was. I spoke to him, and by that time you were gone. I never knew you as a stoker. I have heard you were doing temporary duty as a stoker at the workhouse. I never told Mosedale I would do you in. You followed me several times. Once from the work house to the college. You did not come under my jurisdiction as a stoker. I told Mosedale I had been threatened by you, but never said I would do you in. I cannot say when it was that I spoke to Mosedale."

(Evidence for Defence.)

EDWARD MACQUIRE (prisoner, on oath). On Wednesday, December 20, I left off work at 5.30 p.m. I came straight home and got there at a minute or two after six. My wife was in the washhouse washing. My children saw me—my eldest son Albert, Edith aged 9, Sidney aged 8, and George aged 2 1/2. George was very ill. I had my tea about 6.30. The eggs were bad and a bloater was sent for, so that I finished tea at a little alter seven. I sat with my youngest son on my Up. Albert had been at work the night before and went to bed at about half past seven. Edith was at the Mission Hall, and was sent for to get some fried fish, which she did at 8.40. We had supper at 9 o'clock, and I went to bed at 20 or 25 minutes past 9. I left the house next morning at 5.30, starting work at 6 at the Road Vehicle Department of the Midland Railway, Kentish Town, and left work at 5.30 p.m. At the corner of my street I was stopped by a constable and Inspector Neil. Neil said, "Is your name MacQuire?" I said, "Yes." He said, "James?" I said, "No—Edward." He said, "I shall arrest you for shooting at a man named Skinner." I said, "The man is mad to say such a thing."Neil said, "He says it is you and I shall

have to arrest you." The witness Western stood by. I said, "I have something in my pocket for you; take this to my wife,"handing him my purse of money. Neil went with Western to my house. Mosedale came up and said, "That is the bloke that worked there as a stoker; that is MacQuire." I said, "What, you in this? You won't want any iron bars this time, the same as you did for Mr. Tandy." Tandy is the chief engineer at St. Pancras. They fetched my wife and I was taken to the Kentish Town police station. I asked to know where I could get a solicitor. Inspector Neil said, "Damn a solicitor," and out he went. That was at 7 o'clock. My clothes were taken off me by about seven detectives; my scarf was stolen. That was a dark-blue scarf like the one I am wearing. Neil returned at 10 o'clock, when he brought two written statements, one from deceased, and one from my landlady, Mrs. Knatt. When I was arrested I wore a bowler bat and dark-blue scarf. I never had a white muffler. I have never worn a cap like the one produced in the streets, only at work, and I have never worn a peaked cap of any description except that 9 years ago I worked for W. and A. Gilbey and wore a cap with a bright peak. I have never possessed a revolver in my life. I have never been loitering about the Corinne Road' in December last. I never shot Mr. Skinner.

Cross-examined. I had not seen deceased since I was in the St. Pancras Workhouse in May, 1902. I saw him, but not to speak to, about two years ago outside the College Arms, opposite the workhouse. I was waiting for some friends, shopmates. One was George Turner, who works for Dallas, the builder. We generally go there to have a drink on Sunday in the middle of the day, and I saw Skinner coming round by the back buildings. I have not spoken to him since I left the workhouse. I have had three conversations with Mosedale since 1902. I have not been in his company for the last two years. I never spoke to him of Skinner, or of my experiences in the mental ward. I knew Rylands as one of the attendants in the mental ward. I never mentioned Skinner to him. I never showed Mosedale a letter or postcard from Grain, the workhouse master, and complained that I did not get employment there. Mosedale is no friend of mine. I owe him a grudge and he owes me one. We were working together three weeks. I never threatened Skinner in the workhouse. I never had a belief that Skinner had been intimate with my wife. I knew Barnes in the mental ward. He went by the name of Skinner. He strait-jacketed me; Skinner was away. I never saw a magistrate when I was sent to Colney Hatch and never was told of one. I knew a detective was following me about, and I can pick him out any time at the station. I never had resentment against my wife, except for one thing, and I gave the man a

whacking for it; I stood him up in the ward and thumped him about. On Sunday, December 17, I was larking about with the missus with my rifle. I might have said I would shoot her for a lark. She laughed it off. Neither Skinner or Barnes had anything to do with my going to the asylum that I know of; it was Wessen, a relieving officer, and Mrs. Roberta, not my wife. I never knew where Skinner lived until I was taken there. About two years ago Mosedale was laid up with brainfever, and on coming back he had a row with Mr. Tandy, and he said to me,"Ted, if he hits me, I will crack his head with one of them bars of iron." That is what I meant when I spoke to him on the night I was arrested. I had no resentment against Detective Neil; the man is only doing his duty. Skinner did not know me as a stoker and he has the wrong date in his statement—1903 instead of 1902.

MRS. MACQUIRE. I have been married to prisoner 20 years and have six living out of eight children. I rent one room at 6, Stanmore Place. On December 20, prisoner came home at six o'clock. He had eggs for tea, and as they were not good some fish was sent for, and he finished his tea at half-past seven. I was doing washing and was in and out of the room. My husband did not go out. At nine o'clock some fried fish was sent for, which we had for supper, and he went to bed. Prisoner has not worn a cheesecutter cap for eight years. He never wore a white muffler. On the night of the arrest Inspector Neil asked me if I knew the name of Skinner. I said, "Yes, he belongs to the workhouse." He; said, "Was your husband out on Wednesday night, last evening." I hesitated several times and then said, "No, I am sure he was not, because I was washing." He said, "Mr. Skinner was shot last evening." I said, "Oh, dear me, what has that to do with us? Do not keen me in suspense; tell me what has happened to my husband." He said, "He is detained for the shooting." My husband was very much annoyed at being sent away to the asylum. I had heard of Mr. Skinner from my son, who was at the St. Pancras Workhouse School, and told me they were frequently kept awake by the noise of the lunatics, and that Skinner was the head man and was the only man who could take a man and put the strait-jacket on him alone. I swear I have only heard that since prisoner's arrest. I never heard of Skinner from prisoner. Prisoner only spoke angrily about Wessen. He mentioned his name many times. When Inspector Neil asked if my husband was out last night, I believe I did say "Yes." I hesitated. I did not say,"Oh, my, God, he has not done it "; I said he threatened to shoot all of us three weeks before on a Sunday. It was what he had said about shooting at a target. He sad things to me; I took it in joke; not only about shooting, but lots of other things—domestic quarrels and things of

that kind. In 1902 my husband had delusions about me, that I was unfaithful to him, and that he was followed by detectives. Prisoner never went out on the night of the murder. I was sitting in doors with my daughter.

MRS. JULIA KNATT . Prisoner rents one room from me on the first floor. Prisoner's son sleeps with mine in the room downstairs. On December 20 I remember prisoner coming in at about six or a little after—his usual time. At about seven to half-past seven, I heard him talking to his children in his room. Later on my daughter was sent for prisoner's daughter Edith, from the Mission Room, to fetch fish for their supper. I have never seen prisoner wear a peaked cap—only a bowler.

Cross-examined. I did not see prisoner at all on December 20; I heard his voice.

LILLII KNATT . I am the daughter of the last witness. I remember prisoner coming home on December 20 at six o'clock. He said "Good evening" to me and went upstairs. A few minutes' after eight Mrs. MacQuire asked me to fetch Edith from the Mission Hall as she wanted her to fetch some fish for her father's supper. She went to fetch it, and brought some potatoes for me.

Cross-examined. I did not speak to or see prisoner after six o'clock. I often met prisoner and said "Good evening" to him in the passage.

ALBERT MACQUIRE , aged 15, son of the prisoner. I work for Thompson and Co., fruiterers, Rathbone Place. On December 20 I came home at four o'clock in the afternoon, as I had worked very late the evening before. Prisoner came home at five minutes to six, his usual time. He had eggs for tea, but they were bad, and he sent for a bloater. Prisoner finished tea at ten minutes past seven. Soon after I went to bed. I heard my father talking till quarter to eight. On the Monday previous I gave my father a ticket to go to the Prince of Wales' Baths. I have the programme to show that he went there. Prisoner wore a blue flannelette muffler with white spots. I have never seen him wear a white muffler. He has not had a peaked cap for eight years.

INSPECTOR NEIL (recalled for the prosecution). On December 21 I saw prisoner's wife at 6, Stanmore Place, with the witness Western. I said, "Was your husband out last night?" She waited a moment, thinking then she said."Yes." Then she said, "Why do you want to know for?" I said, "Your husband is arrested for shooting at Mr. Skinner, of the mental ward at St. Pancras Workhouse, last night." Then she hesitated, and she said, "No, oh no. last night he was not out." Then she went on,"Oh, my God. he has not done it! I know he has threatened Mr. Skinner several times." I think about that time the purse was handed to her by Western, and I went

on searching. She said, "What are you looking for?" I said. "I am looking for a revolver or something." She said, "You won't find a revolver or anything here," and pointing to a rifle up in the corner she said, "That is the only thing he has got."

Cross-examined. That story was not put to Mrs. MacQuire at the Police Court. I have not agreed this conversation with Western.

THOMAS CHARLES WESTERN (recalled). I accompanied Inspector Neil to prisoner's house. Neil said to Mrs. MacQuire," Your husband was out last night?" She hesitated a very small time, and said. "Yes. What do you want to know for?" Neil said, "I have arrested him for the attempted murder" or "shooting of Mr. Skinner in Tufnell Park Road last night." She said, "Oh. my God, he has not done it" She went on to say,"I know he has threatened him several times, and it is a wonder he had not murdered me last Sunday." Neil then took down the lamp and searched about the room. She asked him what he was looking for. He said, "A revolver." She said, "You will find no revolver here or shot either," or words to that effect. There was a rifle standing in the corner.

Cross-examined. No revolver, ammunition, peak cap, or dirty white muffler was found, or anything of a suspicious, nature., She did not ask if an, accident had happened. First she said he was out, then she asked what he wanted to know for. After he had told her she said, "Last night, last night; no, he was not out last night."

ALFRED GROSE (recalled). On the evening of December 21 I saw Albert MacQuire at 6, Stanmore Place, at about half-past seven with P.O. Dring. I asked him whether his father was out the previous night, and he said, "I think he was; there was no row." I then went upstairs and started searching the house.

Cross-examined. I am quite sure I saw Albert. I found nothing suspicious. I have not traced a revolver into his possession. I have not traced the purchase of a peak cap.

Re-examined. On the way to Stanmore Place there is the Regent's Canal.

(Wednesday. March 14th.)

The Jury found prisoner Guilty, but not responsible for his actions. Ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.

NEW COURT; Tuesday, March 13th.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

(Continued from page 152)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-56
VerdictMiscellaneous > postponed

Related Material

ROSS, D. S. R ., and ROSS, G. B .

STUART DIXON STUBBS ROSS , recalled. Further examined by Mr. Mathews. I wish to amend the figure of £1,350 I gave

with regard to my purchase from the Picture Postcard Company; I find I paid a further £250, making £1,600 in all. When I purchased from Crook the goods remained at his place till about the middle of February. I was away in Egypt when they were cleared; but I arranged to pay him a rent pending removal. I do not know whether rent was paid. I was away in Egypt. I do not wish to contradict Crook. I cannot swear I paid him. In an undated letter purporting to be from Crook or written on his behalf, I find a reference to December 17th: "Re rent. Of course, the arrangement made as per your letter of December 17th last holds good.—Yours, faithfully, T. Crook," and initialled at the bottom. I agree with Crook that this was the first transaction I ever had with him. I saw him upon several occasions. There was no other question of rent which could have existed between Crook and myself, save for the storage of those things. That document relates to a claim for rent for that. I was not anxious to sell my Anglo-Egyptian shares. I wished to hold the whole of them. The flotation of the British and Colonial had to be postponed, and eventually did not take place till June, 1903. It was the delay and expense in connection with the alterations in the various arrangements I had to make with regard to the issue of the British and Colonial that forced me to part with some of my shares in the Anglo-Egyptian. If I had been able to make the issue in January, as I had anticipated, I would have saved many thousands of pounds, which expenditure was caused by the delay and alterations, and legal documents and things necessary. Also, I was requested by certain gentlemen in Scotland and other places, who wished to assist me to obtain further business, to let them have certain syndicate shares, as they saw the prospects were good. I think the negotiations for the purchase by me of some further machines from the Automatic Supply Company started in November, 1902, and were continued till about June 11th, 1903. Although done by Lethbridge, they were on my account. The arrangement made in November, 1902, was that a deposit was paid, and, at subsequent dates, certain other moneys were paid. The final payment for the machines was June 10th or 11th, 1903. I paid £2,000. Those machines were sold to the British and Colonial for £4,000 after the company had been offered to the public, and when I was making arrangements to continue the business. I had absolutely no doubt of the success of the British and Colonial and its successful flotation. I had spent of my own money about £10, 000 in connection with legal and general expenses. I made myself liable for £13, 000 or £14, 000. According to the prospectus the preliminary expenses were to be paid by the Anglo-Egyptian. They wore, in fact, paid by me. They were estimated at £7.500; but cost more. I have vouchers for the most part of those payments. My vouchers her amount to

between £10, 000 and £11, 000. I also made advances to the British and Colonial Company of about £3,000. That is included in the £15, 000 which I said the two companies cost—the Anglo-Egyptian £8,000, the British and Colonial £3,000, and the machines £2,000. I have vouchers for the greater part of the sums I expended for the Anglo-Egyptian. I began to sell the Anglo-Egyptian shares about the end of January, 1903. I did not sell 10, 339, but about 7, 000; 8, 205 was the number, but I repurchased some. The 8, 205 were sold for value. I gave 770 away for services rendered to the company. At the date of the liquidation there were standing in my name or that of my nominees 3, 370 shares, for which I received no consideration. The seven signatories and Colonel Bridgemana 500 make up the 12, 852. I received for the shares I parted with for value £13, 329 5s., gross; but I had to make payments by way of commission, and, in some cases, I repurchased. The commission to Irons amounted to £1,318 15s., and I repurchased Baird's shares for £550—£500 and £50 discount at the bank—Wren's 50 shares, at £100; and Gillespie's 25 shares, £6210s., about the latter end of January. Gilleepie bought his of Irons and sold 50 to his clients. He had 50 left. A friend asked me to buy 25, and I did so at £2 10s. each, so that there are 25 still in my name. Those sums amount to £2,031 5s., which subtracted from; the gross amount of £13, 329 5s. brings the net sum I received to £11, 298. I was not pecuniarily advantaged by the sale. I paid from £4,000 to £5,000 more than I received, and in other cases had to mortgage my own securities and lose £2,000 or £3,000 besides to obtain the money. Not one penny went into my pocket for the purpose of remaining there. I had expended then about £15, 000 altogether. I produce vouchers for the greater portion of those payments. This document handed to me correctly summarises the dealings in the Anglo-Egyptian shares This document gives details of the ment expended, working out to £14,054 8s. 10d. The prospectus of the British and Colonial was issued on the 23rd June, 1903. The board were all men of very strong commercial ability, of high position, and considerable business experience. The Advisory Committee for Scotland was one which I myself had arranged. Baird's name appears at the head of it The solicitors to the company were Waterhouse and Co., and they advised the directors on preliminary matters. I was not a member of the board at any time. It was at first intended that the minimum subscription upon which the company should go to allotment should be £30, 000. Each of the directors signed the prospectus authorising it, acting under the advice of their solicitors. That amount was underwritten. The prospectus had actually gone into the printer's hands for issue, when, the evening before the issue, June 22nd, 1903, certain objections were

raised by Norton, Rose, and Co. on behalf of Coates, Son, and Co., brokers. At that time 167, 000 prospectuses were printed. They wanted an increase in the minimum subscription in the prospectus from &30, 000 to £40, 000. I had to stop the printing and get other men at six o'clock in the evening and pay for all-night work and print another 200, 000 prospectuses. The company was brought out the next day. I had arranged for advertisements amounting to £4,000, or £5,000. The prospectus were not completed till the day the list was closed, so that I did not get the benefit of a lot of them. The increase to £40, 000 invalidated the underwriting, amongst other things. To add to our difficulties, the Automatic Refreshment Supply Company applied for an injunction because we used the word "buffet" in our prospectus during the time the issue was pending—the 24th June—and the motion was heard about the 24th or 25th June. It was dismissed with costs, but the report of it was on all the placards and in the papers and interfered with the successful issue. It said on the placards,"Infringement of Patent Rights," and there was no infringement at all. Only 5, 854 shares were subscribed for by the public, and the underwriting was invalidated. The prospectus first of all went before counsel, Mr. Palmer, and he approved on behalf of Waterhouse and Co. It was then placed before the directors, and each director signed the prospectus authorising the issue, and also the Advisory Board in Scotland, Baird, Brown, and Potter. Under it the Automatic Telegram and Letter Delivery Company was sold, and also the Automatic General Stores, to the Anglo-Egyptian in the first instance, the former for £15, 000 and the latter for £40, 000, of which £16, 000 was to be paid in cash. Then the Anglo-Egyptian sold the Automatic Telegram Company, the Automatic General Stores, and itself, to the British and Colonial for £85, 000, payable as to £16, 000 in cash, and as to the balance in cash or shares. The Anglo-Egyptian was a promoting as distinguished from a trading company. A valuation of the patent rights sold to the British and Colonial was made by Mr. Gardner, the oldest patent agent in England, who put them at £25, 000. I produce that valuation. The machinery was valued by Mr. Morten, of Robert Morten and Sons, Government contractors and engineers, Wishaw, Scotland, at £30, 000. I sold to the British and Colonial the contracts, some thirteen in number, of the Automatic General Stores; the contracts, four in number, of the Automatic Supply; and about thirty contracts of the Anglo-Egyptian; also about a thousand other sites at all the principal golf clubs and chemists throughout the United Kingdom. That is, agreements to take machines. Among the Anglo-Egyptian contracts were included the Hippodrome contract and that of the Mazawattee Tea Company. The minute of the first meeting of directors of the British and Colonial on June 23rd

states "The underwriting letters having been considered, it was, on the motion of Mr. Deedes, seconded by Mr. Tanqueray, resolved that the prospectus be passed." I think the actual signatures were obtained prior to that, but there was a meeting on that day of issue. The minute also says,"A printed copy of the prospectus was signed by the directors and handed to the solicitor for filing." At the meeting of directors of July 2nd, the applications of the public amounting only to 5, 854 shares, it was resolved not to proceed to allotment, and that the money paid on application be returned; the secretary and solicitor were instructed to see the company's bankers with a view to returning the money to the underwriters. That was in fact done. Mr. Rawlins, a member of that board, was the same gentleman who afterwards, with Champney and Evans, formed that committee for the purpose of reporting on the company, and Mr. Tanqueray, another member, was he who had been called as a witness in the present case. The directors asked me to see if I could make arrangements with regard to carrying the business on, teeing so much money had been expended. I did so; the solicitors approved of it, and I was able to make some modification in the arrangements with the contracting companies. It was during that interregnum that I was finding money for the British and Colonial. I approached the directors of the syndicate companies, with a view of being consolidated, and they had a meeting of shareholders, and agreed to a modification. I expended £2,900 odd, in addition to which the company had the benefit of the receipts from the 400 machines which were working. I paid the rents up to about July 23rd; after that the British and Colonial were liable for them.

By the Court. By the preliminary contract which I entered into on behalf of the Anglo-Egyptian those 400 machines were to pass to the British and Colonial, which company never went to allotment. When I took possession of the property I arranged with the parties who gave the contracts that they should be transferred to the Anglo-Egyptian and be part of their property. The machines I retained because the company had not the money to "pay me, and I paid the rents and took the receipts during that time. When the contracts of the Anglo-Egyptian were transferred to the British and Colonial Company, in the meanwhile liabilities had been incurred on those contracts which were made with the Anglo-Egyptian.

By Mr. Mathews. It was for liability incurred by the Anglo-Egyptian in relation to the rent of those machines in the interregnum, owing to the failure of the British and Colonial to go to allotment, that eventually a claim was made against the Anglo-Egyptian which resulted in the winding-up order. The

petitioning creditors were Spiers and Pond, who had the subcontract with some of the railways. I got the Automatic General Stores to agree to reduce the purchase price from £40, 000 to £32, 500, but in the case of the Anglo-Egyptian the price was increased by £7,500—from; £30, 000 to £37, 500. The new agreement was approved by Waterhouse. I produce the draft with their signature attached to it. A second prospectus was signed by the directors of the British and Colonial on January 27th, 1904. It was not issued. It was only to obtain a certificate. Only two or three copies were printed. It went to Somerset House, and the Registrar's certificate to the company to commence trading was obtained on March 16th. The minute of May 13th states that Evans, Champney, and Rawlins volunteered to investigate the affairs of the company. On May 31st there were present at the meeting Tanqueray, Deedes, Captain Osborne, Robertson, Champney, Evans, and Rawlins. I gave Robertson 100 shares. He was a director and a large shareholder in the Automatic Store 3. The minute states that Champney read the report of the investigation, and the shareholders expressed their desire that Champney and Evans might become directors. On 10th June, Champney in the chair, and Colonel Bridgeman present."The Chairman explained to the shareholders that he, together with Evans and Rawlins, had considered the conditions under which they would be willing to become directors of the company. They would require 25.000' fully-paid shares to be transferred to their names—at least £10, 000 working capital was wanted." The £7,000 debenture referred to in the minute represented close upon £3,000 advanced by me, plus the £4,000 they owed for the machines I purchased from Lethbridge. At that meeting they asked me how many I could get of that 25.000 shares to be transferred to them. I said I could find 15, 000. That was accepted, subject to my getting the balance of 10, 000. Each shareholder was entitled to so many shares under the purchase. A letter was sent to each shareholder setting out these conditions and asking if they would agree to forfeit so many shares so as to make up the 25, 000. A lot of them wrote letters agreeing to that. We found the balance, but the directors were unable to raise the £10, 000 working capital they thought necessary. I offered to make my £7.000 debenture a second charge, and to take back the machines for which I had paid £2.000 and a charged £4.000. but they would not hear of that. There was the proposal of those gentlemen in June, 1904, that with a working capital of £10, 000 the company could be successfully carried on. There were a number of Continental contracts obtained by me for the Anglo-Egyptian, principally in Belgium and Holland. Before the flotation, in March, 1903. I engaged a Mr. Philpotts to go there and secure those contracts. I paying the expenses. We purposed forming a separate company to work

on the Continent. In the contract sale the Continental rights were excluded. They were part of the assets of the Anglo-Egyptian. The correspondence with Prentice was conducted by my brother, but I accept the responsibility for it. My brother really had nothing to do with the business, except of an evening he would come in and write a few letters for me. I took fullest responsibility at the Mansion House. He had other business to attend to. I said at the Mansion House: "My brother acted entirely as my servant and clerk in the correspondence. He had no interest whatever in the proceeds of the shares. They were sld to the respective parties referred to." Mr. Martin, the transferor of the shares in Prentice's case, he was an acquaintance. About a month prior to the transfer being registered he asked me if he could make any money out of shares in the company. I practically made him a nominee for 300 £1 shares, giving! him the right to purchase them for 35s. per share. I gave him a transfer of that number. He transferred to Prentice. He did not get anything out of them; he was unable to take the option up. I did not transfer some of my own shares to Prentice as I was away in Scotland at the time. I honestly believed the appreciation in the value of those shares stated in my brother's letters would take place. I think there is a difference in the case of the Automatic General Stores. The letter says the appreciation will be as nearly as possible £3 per share. My Brother did not see the difference between a profit and having his own money returned. It would be £2 and his own money back, making £3. There had been a further issue of shares of the Automatic General Stores, but my brother did not know of that I was justified in expecting the appreciation of the Anglo-Egyptian, including the profits out of the Continental contracts. I had absolutely no intention of defrauding Prentice of his money. I believed he would be a beneficiary. Prentice wrote to me asking for certain information. I concur in the paragraph of my brother's letter, which says: "All the shares in the Anglo-Egyptian have been taken up, but if you desire to take some up I think my brother might be able to arrange to secure you some from one of his co-directors," except that one thing wants explanation—all the shares being taken up. My brother had in his mind that I was going to take up the whole, having, regard to that minute in November, where I took the right of taking all the shares at par. It was my intention to take the whole of the unissued shares, although there were only 12.300 at that time alloted to me. During the time of the Coronation Canon Moore wrote and asked me if he could bring Prentice. That is how I came to know him. He stayed at our home for a long time. On March 11th, 1903, Prentice wrote to my brother: "Will you give me in strict confidence any idea of the profit there will be on my 500 shares?" That was the Automatic General Store."Can you tell me what

profit is likely to accrue to me, or are we to look for our profit to the premium of what the shares may rise to? I should like to apply for 500 new shares, or even more. Do you advise me to do so? I should like to hold as an investment those which I do not transfer to others if you recommend me to do so, and would recommend others to do so unless they went to a very large premium." My intention was to benefit Prentice. He called several times at the Automatic Stores to see over the premises and the work done. He had the 500 shares in the previous November. With regard to Champney, Mr. Tanquerary telephoned to me one afternoon and said that Champney, a friend of his, was desirous of doing some underwriting for the British and Colonial. He, was an absolute stranger to me at that time. He called on me on June 11th, 1903; we went to 4A, Upper Thames Street, the premises of the Automatic General Stores, and I showed him over the whole building—five storeys. We had a lot of girls and men working there, and store rooms from which we supplied the machines working on the railways and other places. Those machines were the property of the Anglo-Egyptian. The whole of those belonging to the Automatic General Stores were on the railway stations. The girls made up packets to send to the station-masters for supplying the machines—chocolate, biscuits, fruit, etc. Twenty or 30 girls were employed, and 10 men. In the summer there would be four or five times as much sold as in the winter. Part of the contract was that the railway companies allowed their station-masters at country stations to look after the machines and receive a commission. Sometimes the head of W. H. Smiths bookstalls does it. I hand in note-paper with a photograph of the building, 4A, Upper Thames Street "Automatic General Stores" is up in letters six feet deep. It is not easy for anyone to mistake that for the Anglo-Egyptian. These handed to me are pictures of the different machines, some of which were working, and some of which were intended to be worked. About five or six of those are my inventions (absolutely. We had built one large machine like that shown. We had not placed any out at all. That was the first idea. A lot of those others were actually working. One machine produced umbrellas. Hitherto there has been a difficulty with regard to maghines taking] two coins; but in this you can put in twelve pennies or a two shilling piece or two shillings, and you can detect whether it is a piece of iron or lead—in the case of lead we can cut it—so that the machine can not be robbed. With regard to the telegraph machine, we got a concession from the General Post Office. I had 300 or 400 machines for the delivery of biscuits and preserved fruits. Chauipney and I returned to the offices at 159, Queen Victoria Street, and he said he was very satisfied, and would like to do some underwriting. He asked how much I could give him.

I said I had promises for over £30, 000, and could not let him have more than £500. He said there was not much in that, and asked about shares. I explained that I had about 1, 400 or 1, 500 in the Automatic General Stores, and that I had paid as much at £3 premium for some. I paid £3,000 for 750 shares, others I bought at par. He asked me for how much I could get him some, and I told him that Captain Osborne had that day sent a small cheque for the balance of some I had bought for him up to 50s. a share. Prior to that Captain Osborne had 200 shares, and he asked me if I would find a buyer. About May 8th I sent him a cheque for £200, being £2 per share for 100 shares, and he sent me a transfer of 200 shares. He told me I could keep the transfer of the other 100 and be debtor to him for them. On June 8th I gave him a cheque for £60, and on the 10th for £2 10s., making £62 10s. for twenty-five shares. I now owe Captain Osborne seventy-five shares. I used his transfer for the sale to another, party of 200 shares. His transfer did not come through my name at all. At a later date Champney wrote for a list of shareholders, which my brother wrote out from memory, and he still included seventy five to Captain Osborne. That is how Osborne's name appears on the list of shareholders in June or July, 1903. I also told Champney at our interview that I had certain shares which a stockbroker in Scotland had tansferred to one of his clerks, named Vost, which he asked me to transfer because he thought, hearing certain of those shares were for sale, he might be able to bring us business in Scotland. The stockbroker's name was Douglas Carey. At a subsequent date Champney asked me why Osborne did not put his name in this. I said in that case he referred to a friend. He said, "Why is he selling?" I said, "He has had some heavy losses in regard to some American shares," and I showed him the letter I had from Osborne. That was not on the first day on which I had an interview with Champney. On that day I told him that Osborne was chairman of the Alhambra Music Hall, and had got a concession to put the machines there. I told him Osborne was one of my co-directors at the Automatic General Stores. I telegraphed to Scotland, and was told I could have 450 shares at 50s. a share, and communicated that to Champney by letter of June 12th. In that letter there is a statement made with regard to the appreciation of each share in the British and Colonial of £3 10s. per share. It would work out to £2 10s., but further I say in that letter that they had the right to obtain shares at par, and it was my belief that those shares would go to a premium making £3 10s., and I also thought of the Continental rights. I told him on June 13th, when he called to see me, what I had been able to secure, and he agreed to the purchase. I also told him of the progress I had made with the business in the meantime. There was no

further interview. It was in December I made the statement with regiard to Osborne's losses, not at this time at all. The receipt handed to me is in my brother's writing, but it is my signature. Before I went to Bristol, knowing I might be detained there, I left Word with my brother that if this cheque arrived he had better open an account at the bank and pay it in himself, so that he would have money to pay out during my absence. That was the cheque he paid into his own account, and opened a new account at the National Bank. It is absolutely untrue that at that date or any other Champney brought me a transfer with the name of Stuart Ross upon it as transferrer, and called attention to it, and that I then made him an explanation as to why Captain Osborne's name did not appear there and mine did. No such conversation or transaction took place. The register of shareholders was there in the office open to the public, and he could have checked any such statement. Champney's statement is absolutely untrue. The transfer to Champney did go out in the name of Stuart Ross, and with that name upon it as transferrer he executed the transfer as transferee. After June 16th Champney very often came to Queen Victoria Street. I received a letter from Captain Osborne asking me to dispose of his 1, 500 shares in the Automatic General Stores in December, 1903, and as a result had an interview with Champney. I asked if he would like to buy the shares. The letter practically contained that statement of Osborne's losses. I had great difficulty in getting in my papers. I think I have got most of them. With regard to Champney's statement that I told him 8, 007 shares only had been issued up to June, 1903, we never discussed the number of shares at ail. He never asked me. No mention was made of it at any time. I had absolutely no intention of defrauding Champney of his money. I was confident of the thing being a success, and that he would make his money. I reckoned £2 10s. and £1, and £2 for the Continental rights. Altogether I think it works out to about £5 10s. in my letter. I was speaking of something which was to happen in the future, subject to the British and Colonial going successfully through. On June 11th, 1903, when I was speaking some ten or twelve days before the misfortunes I have described occurred, I was certain the company would go most successfully through. But for those difficulties I am confident that success would have waited upon the company, and that the profit would have been made. It was absolutely my intention that Champney should benefit by the transaction. The money I received from Prentice I spent on the company, and also that which I received from Champney. It did not go into my pocket for the purpose of staying there. On that very day or the day before a cheque was drawn from Waterhouse and Co. for the registration of the company.

By the Court. That particular cheque from Champney was

paid into my brother's account, and paid out at different times for the general expenses of the company. We put all our own money into the business, and lost it all. Whatever money my brother had, he put in. He is an agent for manufacturers in the City—a general merchant in soft wools and textiles. He had an office off Cheapside. He had no clerk.

By Mr. Mathews. At no time did I make a statement to Baird with regard to the number of shares issued. I never discussed it at all. The first share was sold by another party. I may have told Baird the machinery the British and Colonial were going to take over was worth £26, 000. I did not tell him that I had paid £26, 000 for the machinery, which was then owned by the Anglo-Egyptian. The machinery which the British and Colonial was going to take over was valued at more than £26, 000 afterwards.

By the Court. I did not tell him the share capital was only £8,007. I have sold very few of those shares. They have been sold by other parties, although they were my shares. I had very little conversation about them. If three people say I said the share capital was £8,007, I say they were all talking the matter over and over again. They were always dining and talking together. Sometimes there were 30 people at the luncheon table waiting for me to stand them luncheons. I never mentioned to anyone that the issue was limited to 8, 007. There was a letter written to Robertson on July 22nd which has been brought to pay notice since, which is not my writing and is not even signed by me. The first intimation I had was the letter being produced in Court.

By Mr. Mathews. Of the £1,000 I received from Baird he received £500 back. It cost me about £550, including discount. I had absolutely no intention to defraud him. My intention was quite in another direction. It is contrary to fact when Baird says he pressed me and got me to buy them back. He was hard up. He wrote me a letter asking me as a favour to release him of his obligation, and I did so. I did not press him. There was no need. He has been friendly with me and there has never been any friction. He got the £52 10s. I helped him by handing him a bill which I discounted for somebody else, and which was duly met. He got the proceeds. All the time I knew him he was more or lees short of money. His money was locked up in different enterprises, he has not repaid me. He asked me to allow it to him on account of the £1,000 he owed me for the shares he had purchased and I did so I gave him in addition a further £500 acceptance, making up £1,000, which I had discounted, and the parties failed, and I lost that money. Baird was a constant visitor to London. Either he was in London or I was in Scotland. We were constantly together. On every occasion he used to see the general manager of the Automatic Stores, with whom he was very

friendly, and who constantly wrote to him. That was both before and after he became a shareholder. With regard to Mr. Robertson's case, first of all he said he would take 500 shares. Afterwards he asked permission to cancel that undertaking, and I gave it to him, and there was an end of that. But he had himself sold 200 of them, or promised them, and it was in the name of those clients they were applied for. In the first instance he wanted a broker's fee of £150 in cash, and also wrote to apply for 5, 000 of the British and Colonial shares at par price. Instead of paying him the £150 in cash, he himself suggested I should sell him 100 shares in the Anglo-Egyptian and I did so. Before that, Robertson had been a visitor to London for the purpose of making his own inspection, and certain inquiries. He wrote and thanked me for showing him over and said he was satisfied. It was after that visit and at his own suggestion that he became a shareholder to the extent of 200 shares. I made him a present of them. I knew nothing of the 200 shares which were sold to Robertson's client by his own arrangement. I agreed to buy the 200 back from him at £2 10s. a share within twelve months. I made no statement to him by word of mouth with regard to the number of shares issued. The letter of July 22nd handed to me is signed in my name by my brother, just as one of the Prentice letters was. I am quite prepared to take full responsibility for what my brother has done, but not what he has done with any intention of wrong in it. Robertson was only a shareholder to the extent of the shares I gave him I had no intention of injuring him, but to benefit him. With regard to the shares of his clients, I agreed to repurchase them, and intended to do so. My brother and myself became bankrupt in 1904. That was on the petition of one William Dover, advertising agent, and was founded upon a guarantee which my brother and I had given to the advertising 'agent of the British and Colonial. Afterwards, I paid the petitioning creditor his debt and costs. With regard to the complaint made that I retained the books of the Anglo-Egyptian for a considerable time, in the first instance when the winding-up order was made against the companies I purposely, in the interests of the shareholders, kept the books back so as to save the contracts which were in the name of the company. Through my solicitors I had negotiations with the solicitor representing the petitioning creditor and offered him to take the full responsibility of a debt of £450, which was about half the amount they were indebted. The petitioning creditor agreed to take £450 provided I could pay £200 down and guarantee the balance. I offered the £200, but at that time I was not able to get a guarantee for the balance, so the order had to go on. It was to save valuable contracts in the business that I at that time kept the books back, but at a later date I was able to get the boos.

The books and papers were moved over to 155 and 157 Bermondsey Street, the premises of the British and Colonial. The manager, who was put there in charge to look after the property of the British and Colonial, refused me admission to the premises at all. He said the whole property there belonged to that company. I went myself there and broke open the look, and took out certain furniture which was my own property, and I had a letter from the Receiver saying that unless I returned those articles of furniture he would apply to a police court against me for taking away property which was not my own. But when I showed what was my own, he agreed; in addition to which I paid £8, so that the company might not be at a loss on any right they might have on the property. I have been spoken of as a director of these companies, but I never took one farthing in fees for my services as such. That applies to my brother so far as he gave assistance in any way. We had no money at all for our services.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I have a knowledge of engineering. My training was in linen and woollen goods. My knowledge has been acquired by constantly working with machinery. I started to make small automatic machines about 1897, prior to my connection with Automatics, Limited. That company was formed about November 19th, 1897, with a capital of £20, 000. I, my brother, and my cousin, J. T. Scott, were directors. They were not original directors. Scott sold to that company patents and improvements of his own for £18, 500 in shares. It was wound up on 28th February, 1902. The share holders got their shares in the Automatic Supply Company, but nothing in money or dividend. There was no dividend earned. On 15th June, 1899, the Automatic Supply Company was registered with a capital of £200, 000. I was director, but only for a short while. My brother George was not a director at any time. He acted as assistant-secretary. Upwards of £100, 000 was issued; I do not know how much was subscribed. The vendors had shares for nothing—Automatics, Limited—that is, I and Scott and my brother, and about sixty or seventy other shareholders, some of whom paid for their shares. The company was wound up in November, 1901. I had ceased to be a director. I do not know if the creditors only got 5s. in the £1. I had nothing to do with the winding-up. The shareholders got nothing. The Automatic Telegram Company was registered on 6th September, 1900, with a capital of £30, 000. It is still in existence. Nothing is being done. They sold their rights to the British and Colonial, and that has been wound up. The shareholders got nothing. Practically there were only a few in it. All the money put into the business I put in. The Automatic General Stores was registered on 1st May, 1901. That sold itself to the British and Colonial. The shareholders got the shares, which are now worth nothing.

The capital was £25, 000, of which £16, 000 was issued. The Anglo-Egyptian was registered on 10th November, 1901, with a capital of £15, 000. It was wound up, and the shareholders got nothing. The total nominal capital of those companies was £300, 000. but nothing like that amount had been issued. In November, 1901, I had had four years' experience of the working of those companies, and in June, 1903, I had had nearly six years' experience of it, but I was not manager of the companies. I ignored the failures altogether, for I knew the British and Colonial would pay if properly managed. There is the following minute on November 15th, 1901: "The agreement referred to in par. 3 of the Articles of Association was discussed, and it was resolved that the goods referred to in such agreement, and which are now warehoused at 4A. Upper Thames Street, and with Mr. George Hale, of Marylebone, be purchased in the ordinary way by invoice at the agreed price of £12, 500 instead of entering, into a formal agreement." Those were goods which I had purchased from the Picture Postcard Company, and others which I had made, and at the time we had that meeting I had agreed to purchase from Crook the castings which were sold by Ward, and it was intended that those castings should be stored in those warehouses. Under the agreement all that passed to the company were goods stored at 4A, Upper Thames Street, and with Hale. It was the intention to store the other goods there, so that they might be car marked. It was not necessary to mention the goods at Wells Mews, because we were shareholders ourselves. We mentioned Hale because there were goods with him at the time. There were goods at Wells Mews, and we did not mention them at all. That was because I could not keep them there. I do not accept the suggestion that it was because the goods were not sold by Ward, the liquidator, until 22nd November. Crooks visited me first about the latter end of October, before Mr. Ward became liquidator, but Mr. Ward knew he was going to sell the castings. Mr. Ward was not appointed liquidator till 10th November, but he discussed it before. Cox and Lafone advised me upon the question about the 9th or 10th November. I have had an account from them. I have never asked Mr. Cox for any account at all. Cox and Lafone are my solicitors now. I have had no bill of costs. We have always agreed the amount. I have done a large business with them. Crook called on me on that subject at the latter end of October, before Ward was appointed liquidator. He sold the goods to me about 9th or 10th November. If he did not buy them till the 22nd he had the offer of them before. I have no document showing the date; it was not necessary; I was the only one interested. With regard to the undated letter put to Crook, I found it by searching through my papers. I observe it is only the second page of the letter; I wish I could find the other part; I have been looking for months past. It is the

letter which refers to the 17th December. Crook would have a copy. It may or may not be copying ink. The other half of the letter would supply the date. It is the only document I have put forward in connection with Crook. What went to the Anglo-Egyptian were some postcard machines and other machines which I made, and the castings of machines. I was asked in my public examination (Q. 54): "But practically all you were to transfer to this company were those goods which you bought of Crook," and I said, "Yes." I also said, "Whatever was done with those goods must have been after the formation of the company, and that those were the goods which were to form part of the agreement referred to in Article 3, but that I had other castings lying by as well; they were the major portion; practically they were the whole of the goods which were to form part." Before I was examined publicly I called on Mr. Russell and made a statement to him, but only from memory, without any record to refer to. I had not my mind prepared for the questions to be asked of me publicly. I did not mention "postcard" machines at all; I did not describe them. I mentioned other machines. I do not call them postcard machines, now; I call them automatic machines. I referred to those I bought from the Picture Postcard Company. I did not say where I had got them from. I was never asked to identify them. They were ordinary delivery machines. The Anglo-Egyptian never had any cash at all, except the £500 which it got from Colonel Bridgeman. It never did any trade in the sense of putting up machines. It did business. It worked up the business eventually sold to the British and Colonial. It was said in the papers that the public was swindled, but I say we were doing trade. The company, consisting of S. Ross, J. T. Scott, and G. Ross, resolved on November 15th to buy the property for £12, 500. I was the vendor, and one of the persons who bought. Practically, I controlled it. It practically comes to this, that I myself sold to myself. I never had an independent valuation. I did not see the necessity. There were no shareholders at the time. I did not want to make money out of the public. I did not offer any shares to the public. My idea was to make the business a success, and then eventually to sell to a larger company. There was an invoice made out by me to the company showing what goods the company was buying. As to where that invoice is now, at that time there was in 1902 a fire at the premises where these things were, and the whole of the upper part of the building was burnt out. The invoice may or may not have been lost in the fire. I did not receive a receipt from the company. The company did not have a stock book. It was impossible for me to measure it up. They had no record at all of what property passed, except what is in the minute, and in the invoice which cannot be found. On December 20th, 1901, the first allotment of shares was made to Colonel Bridgeman.

He paid £250 then, and £125 in February, and the final £125 in June. The minute of that date states: "The directors discussed the desirability of opening up business in Egypt, and it was resolved that Mr. S. D. Ross should proceed there. A fee of £500 was voted for his expenses." I took another man with me, and had to pay his expenses. The minute bears my signature. It was signed before I went to Egypt. At the following meeting I was in Egypt. It was the practice for the chairman of the following meeting to sign. That would have been J. T. Scott. I thought it was essential I should sign it. In the minute-book handed to me I see this page has been turned over while my signature was still wet. The same thing happens again on the next page. I did not sign these all together in a lump, one after the other, and leave the impression of my wet signature on the previous page. The book was closed when written. It does not happen, in every case. It does happen in one or two cases. I took out a manager to Egypt, intending to leave him there if I had been successful. He came back with me. I gave him 100 gs., and paid all his expenses. There was no fixed day for our board meeting. It might be any day; but not Sundays. I have worked hard on Sundays, at 4A, Upper Thames Street, and 159. Queen Victoria Street. I see the minute of June 28th, 1903, which records business done. I cannot help that day being a Sunday. It may have been a mistake in the date. There is no object in manufacturing a minute-book years after the time it purports to relate to. The book is in my brother's handwriting throughout. The minutes were either signed by me or by J. T. Scott, my cousin, who has been in some of these companies with me from the first. At the meeting of January 31st, among other certificates, No. 33 was confirmed. I agree that anything signed after that date could not have been confirmed on that date. Certificate 33 is dated February 3rd. The last book I delivered up to the Official Receiver may have been this minute-book, on April 3rd. I do not know whether the one delivered up before that was the counterfoil-book of certificates. Certificate 33 is misdated January 3rd, and, therefore, apparently capable of being confirmed at the meeting of January 31st. I had nothing to do with the books at all. The counterfoil may have been filled in afterwards from the papers. No doubt there is carelessness. It is the wrong date put in I cannot say where. G. Ross took notes for the minutes at the time, I think. We had the meetings in the evenings.

[Adjourned to to-morrow.]

THIRD COURT; Tuesday, 13th March.

(Before Judge Rentoul.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-57
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Miscellaneous > no agreement

Related Material

COHEN, Alexander ; in incurring a certain debt and liability to Charles Church, did unlawfully obtain credit under false pretences.

Mr. Ward prosecuted. Mr. Grain defended.

CHAELES CHURCH , 81, Ossleton Street, King's Cross, builders' merchant. In January last I sold the lease of 42A, Hampstead Road to John Sanger. I had to dispose of certain hot-water apparatus there. On January 31st prisoner called on me. He said he was a wholesale iron merchant, with offices in Aldgate Avenue and warehouses at Hackney and Stratford, and spoke about his horses and vans. He called about purchasing the old iron, etc., that I had to dispose of from 42A, Hampstead Road. We agreed that he should purchase the iron stuff at 40s. per ton and the brass at 46s. per cwt., that he should call at the place with his van and fetch the stuff, then come to my place and have it weighed and pay the money. I told him to be careful to take only the hot-water apparatus. He and a man I understood to be his foreman went for the things, and I sent with them my man, Coker. Next day I went to the place and saw prisoner's foreman (or accomplice, as I now suspect him to have been) taking down some pipes. He said, "Our van has just gone up to your place; I expect it will be there now." Upon that I went back and waited at my place two hours, but no van arrived. I then went back to Hampstead Road and found that a lot of lead piping had been removed, the boiler had been taken away, and four radiators. On making inquiries, I found that these had been removed in a van belonging to May's, a firm of carting contractors. I went to Aldgate Avenue and could not find prisoner, and I communicated with the police. I have never been paid for the goods taken away. It was on the faith of prisoner's statements about his warehouses and vans and horses that I let him have the goods.

Cross-examined. When prisoner called on me I did not say,"You have the stuff weighed and let me know the weight." He told me he was a wholesale iron merchant. He gave me a card,"Alexander and Co., wholesale iron, rag, and metal merchants, dealers in waste indiarubber, 28, Aldgate Avenue." I asked him,"Where are your warehouses?" and he said at Hackney and also at Stratford. I do not know that he is, in fact, in the iron trade, or that his father was an iron merchant. Before I went to the police I made no application to prisoner by letter, and I sent him no statement of account. I swear that I never received a post-card giving the weights of the iron and brass that had been removed. All the stuff that prisoner was to take away had not been removed; there were four radiators left out of six. I did not receive a card saying that he would call for these later on.

EDWARD COKER , in the employ of the previous witness. I went with prisoner to 42A, Hampstead Road, and pointed out

the things he was to take away. I was not there when they were removed.

HENRY MANUEL , 8, Aldgate Avenue, estate agent. Prisoner rented from me one room on the ground floor of 20, Aldgate Avenue, from January 1st. I have seen the room since; there is nothing in it. He has paid no rent.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was arrested early in February; there was then only one month's rent due. His name was painted on the door. I had a reference on taking him.

Re-examined. The reference was, David Fisher, carman and contractor, 1, King's Cross Road. The reply I had was: "I have no hesitation in giving the reference. I have known Messrs. A. and Co. some considerable time, and have always found them respectable and meet their engagements promptly, and consider them good tenants." I know now that 1, King's Cross Road is a Rowton House.

WILLIAM WHITE (detective, S. Division). In company with P.S. Gregory, I arrested prisoner on February 12th. He said, "I bought the stuff, and got it to pay for." Prisoner has no premises or warehouse at Hackney or Stratford. He formerly had two places in Mile End, small rag and bone dealer's places; he had no horses or vans.

Cross-examined. Prisoner's father has a warehouse in Fann Street; he is a waste paper merchant; I do not know that he is a dealer in old iron. Prisoner was with his father for a number of years; the father still has a genuine business in the City.

(Evidence for Defence.)

DAVID HYMAN . I live at 5, King's Cross Road, that is a Rowton House. Some years ago I had been trading as David Fisher. The letter of reference produced is in my writing. I have known prisoner a good many years. I have been in the iron trade for a number of years. At prisoner's request I had to do with the removal of the stuff from Hampstead Road; it was weighed at Bethnal Green. In consequence of instructions I received from prisoner I sent prosecutor a postcard giving him the weights of the different quantities of iron, lead, and brass.

Cross-examined. David Hyman is my right name. I was written to in my adopted name of Fisher, to know whether prisoner was a respectable person, and I said yes, I had always known him as respectable. I never use the description "Rowton House," the number of the road is sufficient for a postal or telegraphic address. It is a misplaced idea that a Rowton House is a mere lodging-house. I am not very old; I have known prisoner since we were boys. I did not tell Manuel I was only a servant of prisoner's; I was not at that time; I was not asked whether I was working for him. (Q.). Did you tell Mr. Church that prisoner's van was waiting to remove the

goods? (A.) Who is Mr. Church? (Mr. Church stood up.) I have seen that gentleman; I thought his name was Connolly. I addressed the postcard to "Mr. Connolly, Builders' Merchant, Ossleton Street, Somer's Town "; the postcard has never come back.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner was then tried on a second indictment; stealing four taps and other articles, the property of Ernest Banger, and feloniously receiving same.

ERNEST SANGER . 2, Winsley Street, Oxford Street, wholesale druggist. 42A, Hampstead Road is my house. On January 31st I went there and saw prisoner with several other men removing iron. Next morning I went again and found that about 70 ft. of lead piping was missing from the upper floors; in the lower portion it had been left intact; four or five brass tape had also been taken away. I cannot say positively that the taps produced are the ones taken away. Prisoner had no authority from me to take the taps or the piping.

Cross-examined. I do not think there was piping connected with the radiators which I had sold to prosecutor. On January 31st none of my goods had been removed; I did net see prisoner afterwards.

CHARLES CHURCH . I sold to prisoner only the radiator valves; they are different to these altogether. The lead piping that was cut away had nothing to do with the radiators. I am sure the taps produced are those taken from this place.

Cross-examined. It is possible to buy similar taps at many places; but I am positive these are the actual ones.

EDWARD COKER . When I went with prisoner to Hampstead Road I showed him what he was to take, and told him that nothing else was to be removed. The four taps produced are the missing taps.

Cross-examined. I saw some of the goods being taken away; prisoner was not there then.

DETECTIVE WHITE . On February 12th I went to Beddall, old iron merchant, Bethnal Green; he gave me the four taps produced. I also saw there a quantity of old iron, including a boiler and radiator, and some old brass. (Q.) Did Beddall tell you from whom he had bought it? [Objection taken; question disallowed.]

Mr. Grain submitted that, as Beddail was not called, there was no case; Judge Rentoul thought the case bad better go to the Jury.

After speeches of Counsel and summing-up, the Jury retired at 12.50, and, on returning at 1.40, stated that they could not agree.

Case to stand to next Sessions; prisoner (found guilty on the first indictment) not on bail.

NEW COURT; Wednesday. March 14th.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

(Continued from page 190.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-58
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ROSS, S. D. S ., and ROSS, G. B .

STUART DIXON STUBBS ROSS . recalled. Further cross-examined by Mr. Muir. The minute-book of the Anglo-Egyptian Company contains a minute of January 31st, 1903, which passes the signing and sealing amongst others of certificate No. 33. The body of that certificate is in my brother George's handwriting, who was then acting as secretary. My brother informs me that the reason that is signed by James Edward Duke is that he thought it essential that somebody else should witness the signature of the directors, and Duke was called in for that purpose. Duke, I was informed, was a clerk, but he was porter and messenger. My brother, being a director, thought he should not also sign as secretary. Though I was constantly at the office I was attending to outside affairs. I was travelling night and day and was very often three nights in trains. The certificates are ordinarily kept in the office until the directors have time to sign them, but not necessarily so. I do not know of any difficulty with regard to signing the certificates at the house, but I was fully occupied. Though I have commercial knowledge, I know very little about company work. I never looked upon the secretary of a company as being its most important official, who has to vouch for the correctness of the figures in certificates to the directors. Duke was engaged as porter and messenger and employed to clean out the offices, but he showed a certain amount of ability and I did not judge him by his past. Many men like him have risen to high positions. I was paying him 27s. or 30s. a week, and I should never think of paying that to a messenger. While the case was pending in this court I had notice in writing that James Edward Duke was going to give evidence as to his position in the company, and I saw him in the corridor, looking very dilapidated and starving. He asked me for a suit of clothes. For the last three years the man has had my old clothes. As to his being the James Edward Duke whose name appears on this certificate as a public officer, when he was with me he was in a different position. It is his misfortune that he is in the position he is to day. According to the minute of March 28th, 1903, the signing and sealing of certificates Nos. 58 to 61, inclusive, since the last meeting was confirmed, but the date of the signing and sealing is not given. Often the minutes confirm something to be done during the meeting, and very often directors seal and sign certificates which are not filled in until some time afterwards. I have been present at meetings of the Automatic Supply Company where the directors have signed 20, 30, 50 or 100 certificates in one batch and handed them to the secretary to be

filled in. The two certificates produced, which were confirmed on March 28th, are dated May 12th. I cannot tell what was the reason for keeping them back. The body of the two certificates is in my brother's handwriting. He signed them as secretary, and James Edward Duke as secretary. They were filled up afterwards. It never entered my mind that Duke was signing as secretary. My brother did not take any part in the business, but came in occasionally in the evening. I practically managed the business. I cannot tell at what stage in the dealings between the two owners of shares the certificate was made out; there was no regular time, but I should think it would be after the transfer was signed. The signature to the letter of March 28th, 1903, produced, is in my brother's writing. He signs very much like me, the signature slanting upwards. I do not agree that his writing is so like mine that a stranger would not know the difference. My brother had a general authority to sign my name to everything. I might have given such an authority to anybody else if I had trusted him. His writing is freer, and a bank clerk would not mistake one signature for the other. Possibly the reason I did not sign the letter of 28th March is that I was not there at the time it was sent off. I was often away in the evening. I used mostly to leave in the evening when I went travelling. The letter of March 28th was addressed to Mr. Robertson, and says: "I have now pleasure in enclosing you herewith transfer of 100 fully-paid shares in the Anglo-Egyptian Automatic Company." I cannot say how the certificate came to be signed and sealed before Mr. Robertson got the transfer. The handwriting in the share register produced is that of Mr. George Ross. There were only seven or eight shareholders. Colonel Bridgeman was a shareholder. Then was a share register on December 20th, 1902. I deny that the book produced as the share register is a concoction. I must first have seen it when I went over to Egypt, some time in February, 1902, I think that was, but I do not remember, though a fee of £500 was voted to me for the purpose of the journey. I came back at the end of April or beginning of May. I was in Egypt about 17 weeks. Then I came home, through Marseilles and Paris. I may have documents which would fix the date, but I could not say from memory. As to the books of the company, the three books produced were bought at a later date. These books were not there at the time of the registration at all. The accounts were made up from the payments given by me, not made up at the time. The books were not made up until 1904. They were then made up for the purpose of the winding up. I had no time previously to get out what I expended. This book (produced) is in the handwriting of Mr. Engers. They were all made up afterwards—after the winding-up order, because they had no figures to go on except what I gave them. There is no sign of the 'bookseller's label (Straker's)

having been washed off in the cash book. As to the suggestion that the book did not come into existence until 1903, I had nothing to do with these books at all. I could not tell the difference between one book and another; they are all the same. The share transfers were all lost with the other papers. The whole of the books were taken out of our custody to Bermondsey Street. I recovered some of them with great difficulty. As to the St. James Corporation, the Hon. George Keppel, Lord Athlumney, myself, and Mr. Myers were the only directors. I think that was wound up in July, 1900. I think I was a creditor for £4,000. The Court made an order directing a statement of affairs to be filed, and an order was made directing the production of the books, but I was not secretary and had nothing to do with the books. I understand very little about books. I was a director of the Automatic, Limited. My brother and Mr. Scott were also directors, and Mr. Ward was liquidator. I do not remember that Mr. Ward had any difficulty in getting books from me; it is now six years ago. I never had anything to do with the books of the company. I never heard that Mr. Ward complained of alterations having been made in the minute book. According to the memorandum attached to it, that book was left by hand on October 3rd, 1904, with the Official Receiver. It was not lodged before, because we had not control of it. I cannot tell who had control of it. It was lying on the premises, 155-57, Bermondsey Street, which were in possession of the liquidator, Mr. Salaman, where they had been removed from 159, Victoria Street, I cannot tell by whom. I think my brother got the books from Bermondsey eventually, but I am not positive. I cannot name anybody who can say that that book was in existence until it came into the possession of the Official Receiver. I do not remember the date of the liquidation of the British and Colonial. The books were taken away before that. I was not a director of that company in 1904. The directors were Mr. Rawlins, Mr. Tanqueray, Mr. Herbert, and Mr. Laly. The 5th September, 1904, was the date of the winding up. The British and Colonial had carried on business in Bermondsey Street, and as the books of the Anglo-Egyptian were there, Mr. Salaman would not come into possession of the books until after September 5th, 1904. When the papers were taken from 159, Queen Victoria Street I kept the books back in the hope of getting the winding-up order cancelled by buying the petitioning creditors out, and I kept them back for a time. Three of the books—the cash-book, the ledger, and the journal—only came into existence for the purpose of the winding-up. It was only when I could make a statement of the payments I had made that the books could be made up. All the payments had been made by me. The books and papers of the Anglo-Egyptian were taken to Bermodsey Street in order that they might be

kept separately, and were locked in a separate room, the key being left in charge of one of the men at the place. Mr. Collison afterwards broke it open. I think he is now in India. I am the Mr. Ross referred to in the following minute of the Anglo-Egyptian Company in November 26th, 1902: "The business of the company was discussed, and Mr. Ross undertook to approach the directors of the Automatic General Stores and the Automatic Telegram and Letter Delivery Company, Limited, with a view to discussing the desirability of amalgamating the three companies and making the best arrangement he could at to the purchase of the same." That resolution was passed at a meeting at which my brother, Mr. Scott, and myself were present Scott, my brother, and myself were the original directors of the Automatic General Stores, and remained so for a few months, when other directors came in. The directors of the Automatic Telegram were Admiral Montagu, Mr. William Clarke, and myself. I did not control the Automatic General Stores. I had a lot of money in both companies. The stores had their own manager and secretary and a very strong board of directors—some of the strongest men in London financially and commercially, who would not be guided by me. My brother was neither director nor secretary of the Automatic Telegram. He may have been returned as secretary. I cannot say if Soott was managing director. I approached the directors of the General Stores, in accordance with the minute, but it was not necessary to report as the matter had not developed. The British and Colonial was floated in 1903. There is no minute concerning that in January, February, March, or April, 1903, as I did not discuss the negotiations with my co-directors. I think I agreed to find money for the promotion. The Anglo-Egyptian were to pay the preliminary expenses, as is set out in the agreements, but there was no resolution of the company. The expenditure did not commence until 1903. To provide money I had mortgages on Lord Athlumney's estates in the county of Meath. When I commenced company-promoting in 1897 I had a capita or £4,000 or £5,000, and I had other moneys locked up in different things. I had made it in business, selling goods of manufacturers. I had carried on business in Basinghall Street in soft goods. I gave that up because I had a desire, to work my inventions. In 1899 I had a very large account with the London and Joint Stock Bank in Pall Mall. I cannot say what my balance was eight or nine years ago. The agreement between the Anglo-Egyptian and the Automatic Telegram Company I regard as important as forming part of the basis of the flotation of the British and Colonial. I do not find any minute recording the signing of that agreement. The agreement speaks for itself. I attribute its not being entered to carelessness. It was intended to ask for a subscription of 74, 000 shares for the British and Colonial, but the minimum subscription

was £30, 000. I had no control over the issue. It was entirely in the hands of Messrs. Waterhouse and Co. If I had fixed it I should have made it much less. It was increasing it to £40, 000 in June that wrecked the company, but even if £46, 000 had been approved we should have underwritten it. If there is anything recorded in the minutes as to the difficulty of raising the minimum subscription that would be a minute of the British and Colonial. Some of the minutes of the Anglo-Egyptian appear to have been written up afterwards. In one instance, though the minute is signed, the date of the meeting is left blank; I do not know why. In other instances the dates appear to have been filled in afterwards. My habit was to sign the minutes at the next meeting. The minutes of the last meeting in the book are, however, signed. I presume they were signed when the book was handed to the Court; but I could not tell. In some cases the signatures are blurred as though the book had been closed when wet. I do not take responsibility for the omission of the dates. I think that was due to carelessness. No meetings were held after the——day of September, 1903; there was nothing to be done really. There may have been certificates to be signed; but at that time I was in difficulties, and could not attend to the books. Certificates were signed up to December 31st. 1903, and if no meetings were held it was through negligence. The entries which it is suggested have been tampered with are June 22nd, July 13th, August 20th, and September 2nd. The share register shows that the numbers of the shares transferred to Mr. John Baird were 11, 236 to 11, 525. showing that over 8, 000 had been issued; but the numbers on Mr. Baird's certificates were 6,029 to 6,228. That was due to a mistake in taking the numbers down. It was never mentioned to Mr. Baird by me that the issue of shares was to be 8, 007. We are obliged to have a share register which the shareholders may inspect. My brother was responsible for the negligence; he was quite stupid with regard to it. and that is what I am suffering from now. I never told Mr. W. E. George that there were only 8, 000 shares, nor anyone asking on his behalf. The shares transferred to him are numbered from 9, 716 to 10, 213. Mr. George was a personal friend of mine, and he bought some shares for his son-in-law. The numbers of the shares issued to Mr. Asquith were also above 8, 000. If the proper numbers were not put in it was due to the carelessness of my brother. If Mr. Fulton's certificate was only sent to him eighteen months after it was due, and after the whole thing had gone smash, it was because he had never paid any money for them. If Mr. Baird says that he got a detailed list of shareholders from Mr. Herbert, and that when added up they came out exactly at 8, 007, that would be true according to the first

return. When I first came into communication; with Mr. Baird I say there were only 8, 000 odd shares, and from March 10th, 1902, to March 10th, 1903, the number was 8, 852. Mr. Herbert was a director, of the British and Colonial, and lived in Scotland. It, of course, made a difference whether 8, 000 or 12, 000 shares were issued. The board would have power to issue other shares. I never told Mr. Robertson the issue was to be 8, 000. In July, 1906, the number actually issued was 12, 852. Mr. Irons, in introducing the matter to his friends in Scotland, named 8, 000 shares. I should never have known a shareholder in Scotland had it not been for him. The price the Anglo-Egyptian was to get for their property was £30, 000, and that sum divided by 8, 000 would give £3 15s. per share, and concerning them my brother wrote: "The syndicate shares will rank for about £3 15s. for every share, and if we are successful in getting a company floated for working the machines on the Continent there ought to be a further substantial profit" That figure does not necessitate there being more than 8, 000 shares but there were the Continental rights; and everything was coming, and we expected the shares to go to a premium. I did not mention that the issue was to be 8, 000 shares to Champney. 30s. per share on 8, 000 shares would give £12, 000, which was to be the working capital. Mr. Champney was an experienced man in company matters, and a director of several companies. Champney has sworn that after he became a member of the committee of investigation, he got hold of a list of shareholders in the Anglo-Egyptian Company, and that he came to a meeting at which I was present, and said he had discovered that there were 12, 000 shares issued whereas I bad represented that there were only 8, 000, and declared that he had been swindled and would have nothing more to do with it, but he never mentioned it I never discussed the number of shares at any time with Prentice. I represented to Mr. Robertson that I was procuring shares from somebody else. I had shares standing in the names of nominees. As to nearly the whole of the capital standing in my name there was £3,350 in the name of Mr. Oxenford. I was not desirous of selling my shares, though I paid Robertson £1,300 commission for selling shares for me in Scotland. I expected to make a profit on the sale of the company, or I should not have advanced money in the way I did. I was not trying to deceive Mr. Robertson at all. It was immaterial to him where the shares came from. The statement in one of the letters that I had had to pay for 500 shares on delivery of the transfer, and "as I am desirous of meeting your convenience, I am willing to let payment remain over until April 5th as arranged," is a lie. I never had a transfer. I take the responsibility of that letter. I cannot suggest any reason for putting lies into letters except to deceive, but I cannot tell what transpired at the

time. I do not know what the object of writing the letter was. He may haven misunderstood me; it was carelessness. The letter produced of March 23rd, 1903, to Mr. Robertson, contains a number of questions at the end. I will not swear I did not answer them; it is such a long time ago. As to the first question,"What was the original money put in by the syndicate, and has any been added since outside of profits?" £500 was the original capital. That is the true answer to-day. To the second question,"If no dividend has been paid to the syndicate, what profits have been earned and put into the business?"—the answer is that no profits have been made. As to the third question,"Are the machines (2, 750) to be taken over out of the Anglo-Egyptian yielding a revenue, and if so what?"—None of the Anglo-Egyptian machines were in operation or yielding a revenue. When Mr. Robertson swears that I told him verbally that large sums were put into the syndicate, and large profits were made, he is mixing the Anglo-Egyptian up with the General Stores. A Mr. Denham, made unfavourable comments on the companies, and Mr. Robertson in writing on April 7th said, "As to the syndicate having no revenue, I take it there has been a revenue, but it has gone into the expansion of the business." That is what happened with regard to the Automatic General Stores. The letter in reply is in my brother's handwriting: "As to the assets and the revenue of what he terms a scheme, but which I call a genuine good working business, he (Denham) is evidently at sea." That refers to the British and Colonial, the whole amalgamation In the business taken over the machines had been working, and there was a revenue. I cannot remember how many shares I had at my disposal on March 14th, but I should not think there were 10, 000. George Ross wrote at that time to Prentice: "All the shares of the Anglo-Egyptian Company (the promoting company) have been taken up, but should you wish to secure some I think my brother on his return from Glasgow might be able to secure some." Mr. Scott and my brother were my co-directors. I did not want to sell any shares, and they could not pledge me in my absence. I had been selling thousands of shares at £2, or rather Irons had on ray behalf. As to what the buyers got for these shares I bought back some for them—perhaps 2, 000. The statement that "when the new company comes out these shares will go to £3 10s. or £4. If you will let me know at your earliest how many shares you require I will try and secure them for you"—is in my brother's letter. I do not know in the least what he had in his mind at that time. My costs of living during these years were not high. I was living at home with my parents. On June 11th shares were being offered at 35s. and 40s. In the same week I bought some of Captain Osborne at 45s. I bought them because they were cheap and

paid for them, although I was selling at 40s. It may not seem good business to be buying at 45s. and selling at 40s., but I have often done that. As to why I offered them to anybody at such a ridiculous figure I could not take them all up. I had not unlimited means. All my money was locked up. I bought other shares because I thought I could sell them at a profit On June 11th I was offered 900 shares of the Automatic General Stores at 35s., and on June 12th I wrote to Champney,"I can secure 430 shares at 50s." That was not an outrageous price at all. I also said: "This, of course, is a very reasonable price, as I have paid this price for shares myself." I paid 50s. to Captain Osborne and Mr. Gillespie. Mr. Gillespie agreed to take 5, 000 shares if his name appealed on the prospectus. The 450 shares I proposed to obtain from Mr. Douglas Kearney, of Glasgow, a broker, who to-day it very sympathetic. He bought shares from Mr. Irona at £2 per share. Mr. Champney thought the shares were going to a big premium himself. On June 13th, when I wired to Gillespie,"Have secured 450 shares at 43s.,"I had secured them from Mr. Kearney. It does not appear on the register that Kearney ever held more than 200, but he had 750 in the name of Blost. He has now about 460. As a matter of fact, the shares transferred were my own. I obtained underwriting to the extent of £30, 000 approved by the directors of the British and Colonial Company. If the company had failed to float the underwriters, of course, would have come in to make up the difference. I got the best men I possibly could, and their names were laid before the directors. Mr. J. P. Irons, one of them, was a merchant in the city, and underwrote 5, 000. I did not know at the time he was an undischarged bankrupt. Mr. D. H. Evans, Oxford Street, underwrote 5, 000. He is a personal friend of mine and a very rich man. The partners in Ross and Scott were Mr. Soott and myself. Scott had money he had made in business; his father is very well off, and he would have got money if he had wanted it. Scott had also a business of his own, buying and dealing in merchandise generally. I should think his income was £600 or £700 a year; it would be more than £60 or £70. My brother was also a partner. He had money he had made in business. If the company failed to float we were not all bankrupt. I had money. I undertook to underwrite £3,250. A gentleman in the Temple underwrote £2,100, a Mr. Cannot. There are several barristers who are directors of public companies. The total of the amounts I nave given is £10, 350.

Re-examined. I had absolutely no intention to defrand any gentleman who has been mentioned in the course of this case. With respect to the various letters, transfers and documents that are assigned to my brother, of which I am quite prepared to take the responsibility, which appear to have been not quite

accurate the inaccuracy was only due to carelessness and the fact of not having a secretary who would attend to those matters. We wish to keep the expenses of the company down, and we worked absolutely with the strongest faith that our efforts would bring success to the company. I did not leave a stone unturned myself with regard to any money I could procure, either out of my business or on securities I had. I put every farthing into the company and also borrowed money from my own friends and relations. When he company was brought out I had the strongest confidence in everything connected with it, and took advice of the best solicitors and the best commercial men, and the general opinion was that it would be a great success. As to the minute book of the Anglo-Egyptian Company, the minutes were taken down at the meetings on sheets of paper, and perhaps a week after they would be written up by my brother. Sometimes they were signed immediately afterwards; sometimes at other times. With regard to the register of members, I have spoken to my brother about it, and he explains to me that it could not be found, and has been written up from 1901 from the facts and particulars he had. That accounts for some of the mistakes in the register, but as a matter of fact it is a truthful copy of the number of shares and the persons holding them. The book that was dated 1901 and only came into existence in 1903 was lost. I could not identity the book, because they were all alike. With regard to Robertson, Baird, Champney, and Prentice, there were so many conversations with regard to these various companies at various times, both in Scotland and in London, that the whole thing has been confused, and statements made with regard to one company that applied to other companies, and vice versa. My brother was not fully aware of everything that was going on, and he wrote letters believing them to be true, and certainly without motive, because he had nothing to gain by making any statement that was not absolutely true. When I originally started it was my intention to keep the matter entirely to myself. I did not sell a single share until 1903, when I met with parties who wanted to buy the shares, and the proceeds of the sale of the shares with other moneys I had put into the business. I worked day and night and put everything I had into the company in order that it might be a success. Of the contracts I had secured one alone was of £32, 000 face value, and I intended to offer it to the company with others, but I had no idea of taking money out of the company except in the most honourable way. Otherwise I should have sold he shares and put the money into my pocket. That the thing did not go through was due to want of money, but there was no idea of such a thing as deceit in the least We never worked with the object of obtaining money from anybody. It never entered into our minds at any time. If we had had

£20, 000 more we should have put the whole of the money into it.

To the Jury. The ledger, journal, and day books were made up at a later date. The company never had any bills or accounts. All the expenses incurred were incurred by me and paid in my name. There was no trade at that time, and no entries were made. I got the entries from my cheque book of moneys I paid, and I produce the vouchers of the persons I paid money to. There was no business done.

ADOLPH MARX ENGERS , accountant, 18, Ivydale Road, Nunhead. I was secretary of the British and Colonial Company, and previously head bookkeeper of the Automatic Stores, whose offices and warehouse were at 4A, Upper Thames Street. The name of the company was over the facia in large letters. I remember a visit paid by Mr. Champney on June 11th, 1903. He made a thorough examination of the business and into the way in which it was condocted. I explained to him how the books were kept. I showed him the books, and told him we had for each railway company a separate book. He asked me how I could check the amount of the stock, and I showed him the books as to that. He examined into the system under which the machines were sent out, and the books which showed the takings of the machines at the different railway stations of the various companies. This is one of the books (produced). The books of the Automatic General Stores remained at 40, Upper Thames Street until September 4th, 1903, when they were removed to 159, Queen Victoria Street, for the purpose of opening the books of the British and Colonial. I at all times kept the books of the British and Colonial. I am able to vouch the fact that Mr. Stuart Rose advanced close on £3,000 to the British and Colonial Company, and I have received vouchers in respect of the money he paid. I produce the ledger account of the British and Colonial, which in the end owed to Mr. Ross £6,946 1s. 1d., but that included £4,200 which was owing to Mr. Ross for the purchase of 400 machines. I attended the board meetings and kept the minutes of the British, and Colonial Company up to the time it was handed over to the liquidator. The minutes correctly record what occurred at the different board meetings, as well as in some instances at meetings of the general body of shareholders held for some special purpose. I remember when the liquidation took place in the autumn of 1904 Mr. Salaman making a statement with regard to where the books of the company were. September 7th the liquidation was passed, and I was under the supervision of Mr. Salaman to keep the business going. At a later date, when my employment ceased. I was asked for the keys by Mr. Myers, and I gave him the key of the safe, and pointed out the books to him, and he took them over. The whole of the books were afterwards removed from Queen Victoria Street to Bermondsey by Mr. Salaman's

direction. They related to the business of the Anglo-Egyptian Company as well as to that of the British and Colonial. They were pecked in baskets by the workmen and taken over in big vans with the machinery, office furniture, and stationery. I remember Mr. Baird coming to 40, Upper Thames Street about this time and showing him the books of the Automatic General Stores. I have never shown any books to Mr. Prentice. It is a fact that in March, 1903, the Automatic General Stores had a very large number of machines at work. In 1901-2 the Anglo-Egyptian had part use of the premises, 40, Upper Thames Street. What was stored there included a large quantity of machinery. There were machines in the basement and on the first and third floors. They were mostly in working order, but they could not be put out, because we had not sufficient capital; therefore, they were left there. They did not belong to us, and the Anglo-Egyptian had no contracts at that time.

Cross-examined. I was in the service of the Automatic Generate Stores since 1891, when the company was started. I was originally engaged as bookkeeper. I had known Mr. Stuart Ross some three years before, through his coming to a big tailoring establishment in Cheapside where I used to audit. At his request I kept the books of the Automatic Supply Company for some three years previous to 1891. I did not go to Queen Victoria Street at all. before the British and Colonial lock over the Anglo-Egyptian. I went at the beginning of September, 1903, so that I was there at the time of the liquidation of the British and Colonial. I did not before 1903 see any books of the Anglo-Egyptian, with which company I had nothing to do. They would probably be in the front room, where Mr. Stuart Ross and Mr. George Ross were. When the business of the Anglo-Egyptian was taken over the books came into my possession. I think it was in June or July, 1904, that Mr. George Ross asked if I had leisure to write up a set of books from notes supplied by him. I said yes, and he handed me his notes and these three books, which were then quite new. Whenever I required more information I went to Mr. George Ross and said, "I want to know when the allotments took place," or,"I want to know what the allotments were," and when I got the notes they were entered. The notes took the form of sheets of paper, and were in the handwriting of Mr. George Ross. The books I wrote up were the cash book, journal, and ledger; and he supplied me with the bank pass book as well. The cash book is made up from the pass book. Mr. George Ross told me he required the books made up because he had to give them to the Official Receiver. It took me about a fortnight to get them finished, so that they were ready for delivery to him at the end of July or beginning of August. I had nothing to do with the making out of the register. I left Bermondsey Street. I think, in November, 1904, and up to that

time the British and Colonial and Anglo-Egyptian books, which were brought away from Queen Victoria Street, were in charge of Ross and Scott, in their own room, but not those of the Automatic General Stores. I never saw George Ross or Stuart Ross searching in the Bermondsey place for missing books, but they told me they had done so. I never saw the transfers of the Anglo-Egyptian. The transfers of the British and Colonial were filed after being entered in the transfer book, and, if necessary. I can produce them to-day. As secretary of the Automatic General Stores, I used to sign transfers by request of Mr. George Ross. I became secretary to the Automatic General Stores in 1893. Just before the British and Colonial came out, to which I was appointed secretary, I was told that in a very short time I should have to take over the secretarial position of the Anglo-Egyptian; and with that presumption I once or twice put my name to the share certificates. George Ross was secretary of the Automatic General before I acted as such, and, as far as I know, of the Anglo-Egyptian. James Edward Duke was porter, not secretary.

Re-examined. I never saw any Anglo-Egyptian books either at Queen Victoria Street or at Bermondsey. I remember the door being forcibly opened at Bermondsey Street by my colleague, Mr. Collison, the manager. That was done to ascertain what things were on the first floor, because they were wanted to hand over to Mr. Salaman, the liquidator.

(Thursday, March 15th, 1906.)

Verdict, Guilty.

Mr. Mathews asked that a case might be stated on two points: 1st, As to whether there was any evidence on the first two counts to support the charge of general conspiracy; 2nd, that the false pretence with regard to the number of shares issued was so imperfectly staled as not to amount to a false pretence at all—"8, 000 "instead of "8, 000 only."

The Recorder: You have no point of law raised upon Count 3 at all. Is your point of law of any use?

Mr. Mathews: So far as the first and second counts are concerned, I might get advantage if I were successful in showing there was no evidence to support one or the other, by the admission here of evidence in regard to Count 3 which ought not to have been received, having regard to the fact that there was no case made out on either Counts 1 or 2.

The Recorder: I have stated my perfect willingness to grant a case if you desire it. I confess I do not think there is much in your point, but I may be wrong.

Mr. Muir presented a report of a stormy meeting of the shareholders in Automatics, Limited, which would be verified by the liquidator, at which both the prisoners were present and in which false pretences had been made and large sums of money

had found their way into the prisoners' possession in 1902. Before that, in 1900, in another corporation controlled by the prisoners and Scott, orders had to be made against the directors before they would file statements and deliver up the books.

After a conference with the prisoners, Mr. Mathews withdrew the application for a case.

Sentence: S. D. S. Ross, 18 months' hard labour; G. B. Ross, 12 months' hard labour.

OLD COURT; Thursday, March 15th.

(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-59
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

BEXLEY, Alice (26) ; murder of Alfred Harold Bexley. Mr. A. E. Gill and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Curtis-Bennett and Mr. Piers on defended.

CAROLINE RUST , 46, Ranelagh Road, Harlesden. For twelve months, up to October last, prisoner and her husband, an omnibus conductor, had been lodging in my house. They then removed to 44, Mrs. Quin's, and in November prisoner gave birth to a little boy. She had two other children, aged three and two. On Friday, January 26th, she came to my house and said she wished to go home and gave me 8s. to take care of, which had been given her by Mr. Cromie, Vicar of Harlesden, Next day she came again and said she could not get off that day and left a fish-basket (produced) with me containing a brown skirt. On the Monday following she came to me a little after three o'clock in the afternoon, wearing the black cape produced and carrying her baby partly hidden by the cloak. I could see its face and should say it was certainly alive at that time. Prisoner seemed in a great hurry and was trembling very much. She asked for a sheet of notepaper and wrote the following letter to her husband: "Dear Fred,—Mrs. Quin has been quarrelling with me, so I cannot stay. I have gone. Do not expect me back. My love to you and the children. I hope you will get on well. I have taken baby.—Your laving wife, Alice." Prisoner asked me,"Shall I put 'I am taking baby'?" and I said "Yes, you had better." The reason she gave for going was that her husband had been out of work for weeks and weeks. She had several times said to me,"I shall never go without saying good-bye to you," and I was not surprised at her going off like that, as she was in such trouble. Her husband did not treat her well; she did her part. When he had money he did not give her plenty; he kept her short. It was pouring with rai and I said, "I will just go to the station with you to carry the fish-basket,"as I thought she would not manage, and went with her to Willesden Station. In the basket, besides the skirt, there was a bag with two or three bananas in. I did not see any brown paper. Prisoner said, "I have just had a row with

Mrs. Quin." She took a ticket to Broad Street, and when I left her at the barrier I handed her the basket with the brown skirt. After that I posted the letter to her husband. She seemed very, very poorly. Next day (Tuesday) she came to my house between three and four. She had not her baby, but was carrying a very untidy brown paper parcel tied up with string corresponding in size to the fish-basket. I asked her in to hive some tea and said, "Where is baby?" She said it was at her mother's. I asked if I might go round and tell Mr. Bexley she had come home, and she said, "Yes." She afterwards picked up the parcel and took it with her. I think she said she had come back on account of the young children, Freddy and Jack. Whilst living fit Mrs. Quin's she had sometimes worked for me. She said she could not get work because of baby.

Cross-examined. I had known Mrs. Bexley about fifteen or sixteen months. She was an affectionate mother, and fond of baby, which the said she thought already knew her. Her husband had been out of work since the end of September. Some time before Mrs. Bexley said she would like to show the baby to her mother.

MARGARET QUIN . 44, Ranelagh Road, Harlesden. I let two rooms to prisoner and her husband, a back parlour downstairs and a front room upstairs for 6s. 6d. a week. On January 27th £1 13s. was owing. Prisoner gave me a weeks rent when she came back from her mother's. I remember seeing her on Monday, January 29th, about the rent. She had the baby in her arms, and said her husband had gone out to look for some money, and if he came in with any I should have some. I did not see any more of her until Tuesday, when she gave me a week's rent in the afternoon, which she said had come from her people. She said she had left baby at home with her people, where it would be well cared for and well minded.

Cross-examined. I could not say prisoner was not fond of her children. She kept her place and I kept mine. I never saw her ill-treat her children.

EMMA STARLING . I live at Glemsford, in Suffolk; prisoner is my daughter. On Monday, January 29th, she came to my house; I was surprised to see her. My husband was up. She had with her a brown paper parcel, which I took to be a lot of old clothes. I asked her how the children were, and she said they were all right, and that was all I could get out of her. She seemed very tired. I gave her food and she went to bed. The parcel was left on the table in the front room. I had no thought to ask her anything about it. She left next day by the 12 o'clock train. I told her she had better be going home and seeing after her children. I gave her 12s. as she said she had no money at home. She seemed all right

when she went out I knew she was badly off, because I had sent her money before. She said she had not enough to eat; her husband was out of work, and was not likely to get into work.

Cross-examined. My daughter had previously been, down with the children, and I kept the biggest for six months.

CHARLES SMITH , Sub-Divisional Inspector, X Division. On Tuesday, January 30th, prisoner came to the Harlesden Police Station with her husband at 1/4 to 6. He showed me a letter, and made a statement in prisoner's presence.

Mr. Curtis-Bennett objected to the statement being given in evidence. The husband would not be a competent witness to give evidence as to the statement and to be cross-examined. It was now sought to put in the evidence of the husband, because it was given in the presence of the prisoner before a police officer, but that fact could not make admissible evidence otherwise inadmissible.

Mr. Gill. What the husband said would, of course, not be evidence in itself, but if the conduct of the prisoner showed acquiescence in or adoption of the statement, then it would be. In Reg. v. Smith (18, Cox's Criminal Cases, p. 470), Mr. Justice Hawkins said: "Whether the evidence offered for this purpose in this or analogous cases would justify a jury in so finding or in drawing such inference is a question for the judge to determine before he admits the evidence. If he thinks there is such evidence he ought to allow the statement with that evidence to be submitted to the jury, with a direction that if they came to the conclusion that the prisoner had so admitted the truth of the whole or any part of it they might take the statement or so much of it as they thought was admitted (but no more) into consideration as evidence in the case generally; not because the statement standing alone afforded any evidence of the matters contained in it, but solely because of the prisoner's admission of its truth; but unless they found, as a fact, that there was such admission they ought to disregard the statement altogether. If, on the other hand, the judge is of opinion that there is no such evidence as would justify the jury in arriving at such conclusion he ought not to allow the statement to be read or communicated to them. This is the true test to be applied."

Mr. Justice Grantham. As far as I gather from the evidence, this is not a statement made by the husband in the presence of the constable to which the wife gives an answer, but a statement by the husband as to something his wife had said before they came there, to which she makes no answer at all; therefore, it is an inference you are drawing because she makes no answer. Supposing the woman had said, in answer to her husband's statement: "I did do so and so to the life of the child," that would be clearly admissible as a statement made by the wife. But here you have not got that, because she says nothing, and you do not want to explain nothing by giving the statement the husband made.

Mr. Gill. It would be expected that something would be said by the prisoner if the statements made in her presence were untrue.

Mr. Justice Grantham. It might be so or it might not.

Mr. Gill. I will not press it, but I suggest that in principle the fact that a statement in made by the husband is material, because the principle of the thing is that if it is acquiesced in or adopted by the accused it then becomes the statement of the accused.

Mr. Curtis-Bennett. Here you only have the statement of the man, not from both sides.

Mr. Justice Grantham. It is a question in this case whether the conduct of the party on the other side is not equivalent to acquiescence. If the person charged says in the presence of the constable,"That is quite true," that is admissible.

Mr. Curtis-Bennett. According to Mr. Justice Hawkins, not only may an assent be accepted, but also a dissent. He draws a distinction. The bare fact of not getting an assent is not sufficient; there must be dissent. Can a woman suddenly taken to the Police Station on a charge of this sort be expected to take notice of what is said and to take a definite course, perhaps not even knowing whether she had a right to take any course?

Mr. Justice Grantham. It is not as if she had been taken to the Police Station. She goes there voluntarily, and it seems to me she is a party to the statement made by her husband. It will be for you to argue at to her state of mind, but that does not affect the question whether the statement is admissible. I cannot exclude it. I do not think the relation of husband and wife makes any difference. Supposing anybody else had come there with her and made the statement, it would have been clearly admissible.

Mr. Curtis Bennett. My chief point is whether your lordship thinks upon the depositions there in any sign at all that this woman knew that she had a right to reply, or that she did in any possible way assent; whether, in fact, what she did was not dissent.

Mr. Justice Grantham. If I thought there was anything amounting to dissent I should certainly exclude it; but, at I read it, the was a party to the statement being made.

Mr. Curtis-Bennett. We do not know what pressure was brought on her to go to the station, or whether she went there willingly.

Mr. Justice Grantham. I quite agree, but, taking it at evidence of what was said when she was there, I cannot exclude it.

Mr. Curtis-Bennett. I would ask your lordship if necessary to reserve a point upon it.

Mr. Justice Grantham. Yet. I think it it an important point, if Mr. Gill wishes to rely upon it.

Mr. Gill. No, I should not ask your lordship to reserve it, under the circumstances. I will not press the evidence.

WITNESS. Bexley showed me the letter, and made a statement as to the circumstances in which his wife had returned to him. I knew he had been to the station the night before; with reference to his wife's absence. Prisoner made no reply, but burst into tears. I told her she must be detained, and, with the husband, went to their lodgings in Ranelagh Road. On the bed in the first floor front room I found a rather large brown paper parcel tied loosely with string. On removing the paper this brown skirt (produced) was revealed, wrapped tightly round the fish basket. The basket was crammed tightly with various articles of women's and children's clothing. The woman's nightdress (produced) was covering the dead body of a male child, fully dressed, about two months old. The husband identified the body as that of his child. It was quite cold, and had been dead tome hours. A portion of the nightdress, with slight stains of blood upon it, was immediately over the mouth of the child. There wasa slight quantity of blood round the nostrils. The lower part of the note was flattened level with the cheeks. I removed the whole of the clothing with the body to the Police Station and called in Dr. Burns Gibson, divisional surgeon. The husband's statement was taken down in writing. The charge against her was also

read over to her. She made no reply to either. On the child's head was a woollen baby's bonnet.

Cross-examined. A slight difference was afterwards noticeable in the nose, which returned to a more normal appearance. The prisoner's rooms were clean, but poorly furnished.

DETECTIVE INSPECTOR POLLARD , X Division. At seven o'clock on the evening of January 30th I asked prisoner's husband to repeat the statement he had made, which was then taken down by Sergeant Chandler. Before anything was said I cautioned prisoner. I told her she would be charged with the wilful murder of her son, Alfred Harold. She said nothing. She was in a dazed condition and appeared ill, and was crying all the time.

JOHN BURNS GIBSON , Divisional Surgeon. I examined the body of the child, and found some lividity about the limbs. The nose was slightly flattened, and there was a faint tinge of blood about the nostrils. The body had been dead something between 6 hours and 24. On January 31st I made a post-mortem examination and found all the organs healthy—brain, stomach, liver, lungs, and heart—but the lungs were congested with dark blood and almost devoid of air. They were just a little shrunk. The right side of the heart was gorged with dark blood; the left side contracted and empty. The cause of death was suffocation, but the evidence did not enable me to form an opinion as to how that was brought about. It was not by strangulation, because there were no marks of violence. It is possible it might have been brought about by placing something over the mouth of the child, but I can form no opinion as to whether that was done accidentally or intentionally. The flattening of the nose had no significance for me, as it might have been done after death. As to the statement of the Inspector, that after the removal of the pressure the nose came back to its normal state, in medical opinion dead noses are not elastic bodies, and do not rise of themselves after death. The appearances were also compatible with death from exposure to cold.

Cross-examined. The flattening of the nose and the blood stains might have been caused after death. There are cases on record of children having been accidentally suffocated whilst being fed at the breast, and such a thing might happen if the mother went to sleep or the child was covered too tightly with a cape. Want of proper nourishment after confinement would obviously affect a woman's health. If a woman accidentally suffocated her child it would no doubt be a great shock to her.

GEORGE HENRY NEWBURY . 158, Railway Cottages, Willesden. I am employed at Willesden Station. The first train to Broad Street a person getting to the station at 1/4 to 4 p.m. could catch would be the 3.52, which should arrive at 4.32.

MARK HICKS , 10, St. George's Road, Leyton, guard on the Great Eastern. Assuming a person to arrive at Broad Street at 1/2 past 4 p.m., the first train for Glemsford would be the 5.15, changing at Cambridge, which would be reached at 6.34.

GEORGE PLUM , Three Crowns Road, Colchester, guard on the Great Eastern. A train leaves Cambridge at 7.10 for Glemsford, where it would arrive at 8.18, so that a person making the connection would have to wait half an hour or more.

EMMA STARLING , recalled. I remember my daughter asking me for a piece of brown paper and string, which I gave her. I do not know what she did with them. The parcel she took away was the same as she brought.

Mr. Curtis-Bennett submitted that there was no evidence that any crime had been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court. The evidence of Miss Rust was that at 4 o'clock on the evening of January 29th the child was certainly alive. If there had been evidence that death occurred between Willesden and Cambridge, the ease would undoubtedly have been within the jurisdiction, but the death might have occurred anywhere between Willesden and Glemsford. The evidence of Mrs. Starling was that prisoner left her house with a brown paper parcel at noon of January 30th, and that parcel was afterwards found to contain this dead body, but it was not to be presumed that because the body was found in London death oocurred within the jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice Grantham. Where do you suggest the indictment should be laid? If the charge had been laid against her in Suffolk, what would have been the position there?

Mr. Curtis-Bennett. As the law stands at present the position would be precisely the same until the prosecution can show something.

Mr. Justice Grantham. According to that, she could not have been convicted anywhere.

Mr. Curtis-Bennett. Until me prosecution can prove what they allege she cannot be convicted, though it seems rather a reductio ad abeurdum. It is for the prosecution to bring evidence that it is within the jurisdiction of the Court. The presumption is that the case ought to have been tried in Suffolk, because there we have the body for the first time found inside a parcel.

Mr. Justice Grantham. This is the only jurisdiction in which the child was alive and found dead. If you had been for the prisoner in Suffolk you would have raised the same point.

Mr. Curtis-Bennett. I might have considered the same point. Because the point teems to be absurd it is not necessarily bad. I have searched very carefully, and I cannot find that this particular point has ever been raised, and it may be there is a flaw in our law. The prosecution should not be allowed to trust to luck as to whether they could prove that the crime alleged was within their jurisdiction. Supposing a man to be charged with murder within the jurisdiction of this Court, it might be his defence that he was in Kent the whole day, but it would not be upon him to show that he was in Kent until something definite was laid against him.

Mr. Justice Grantham. The fact being that the body was found in the custody of the prisoner in this jurisdiction with no explanation of it, the inference fairly to be drawn is that the alleged minder was committed in this jurisdiction, there being no proff where it was committed.

ALICE BEXLEY . (Prisoner on oath.) I have been married to Frederick Alexander Bexley for four years. Until the end of September my husband was in the employ of the London General Omnibus Company, and since then he has not been able to get work. Ho did not get anything from any unemployed fund, but I got a lot of help. On December 4th I was confined of a son. My husband being out of work, I did not get proper nourishment, and my health wag a good deal affected. Mrs. Quin was always on at me about the rent, and, as a matter of fact, I was living to a great extent upon the kindness of people, the Vicar of Harlesden amongst others. In the week of the 26th January I went to see him, and he gave me 8s. to enable me to go down to my mother. On January 26th I gave Miss Rust the 8s. to keep for me. I intended to go next day, but something prevented me, and I decided to go on the Monday. When I started baby was quite well. I carried it under my arm with the cape over it. I gave the letter which has been read to Miss Rust to post. At Broad Street I crossed over to Liverpol Street, and left by the quarter-past five train. I meant to have caught the quarter-past four train, which would have gone straight to Glemsford, through Mark's Tey. At Cambridge, where I had to wait half an hour, baby was all right. I sat on the platform. When I got into the train leaving at 7.10 I took off my hat, gave baby the breast, and fell off to sleep. The cape was still over the baby. I woke up when we arrived at Cavendish, just before Glemsford. I laid the baby on the seat and put on my hat, and when I went to take him up I saw he looked very strange. When we arrived at Glemsford baby was dead. I put him into the basket. I was very fond of baby, and was looking forward to showing him to mother, who had for some time been very good about sending me money. When I arrived home mother was very much surprised to see me. I made the statement I did to her because I was frightened to tell her, as I had been a great worry to her and a lot of expense since I had been married, my husband not having treated me properly. The baby was not covered up with anything but the clothing. I left the basket on the table. Next morning I asked mother for some brown paper and string and wrapped the whole parcel up, basket and all. My mother gave me 12s. when I started back. I think I did make the statement to Miss Rust that I had left baby with mother, as I thought it my place to tell my husband first. I remember going with my husband to the Police Station. I was dazed, and the matron was there looking after me. It is not true that I wilfully suffocated the child, but my unfortunate baby came by its death in the way I have said.

Cross-examined. I have not given the explanation I have now made to anyone before to-day, neither to my solicitor, my mother, my husband, Miss Rust, Mrs. Quin, nor the police. I cannot say why I did not do so. On January 29th I was in very great trouble. I was worried very much about the rent. Mrs. Quin came to the door that morning and asked me for the rent. I told her I had not any to give her; but my husband had gone out to find work, and if he got any money I would give her some. She came again after dinner and abused me, and put up her fist to strike me. That occurred in the passage inside the door. It upset me very much, and I went away intending to leave my husband altogether. My mother could not support me, but I meant to go and live with her and work to keep myself and baby. My mother would have looked after the child when I was away. I could not go to work in London and leave three children at home very well. I discovered the child was dead in the train after we had passed Cavendish. There was no one else in the carriage. When I got out there was only the station-master on the platform. It did not occur to me that perhaps it was not quite dead, and that something might be done for it. As to why I did not tell the station-master, I was very much depressed, and cannot account for anything. I was in tears, and the station-master looked at me very strange. I went straight to my mother's. I did not tell my mother because I was afraid she would say I had killed the child, but because I had been such a trouble and worry to her. I knew she would learn sooner or later the child was dead, and I wish now I had told her. When I went to bed I was crying, but mother did not notice it. I was not on very good terms with my husband; but he knew very well where I was gone, because I had told him so many times I would leave him. I do not remember telling Mrs. Quin that I had left the child with mother, where it would be well cared for, and I was going to look after some work. My husband was at home when I arrived carrying the parcel. I asked him if he had got any work. I told him I had been home to mother, and had left the baby with her. I do not remember hearing his statement read to me at the Police Station. I do not remember saying to him: "Mother told me that it would be a relief for her to have the child, as I could seek employment as well as you." I do not remember him saying,"You won't gain much by that, as you will have to stick at home to look after those two boys." I do not know that he asked me what was in the parcel. I told him the baby was in the parcel upstairs when we were on the way to the Police Station. He told me he had been to the police to tell them I had disappeared, and he would have to report that I had come back. He said the police would want to know where the child was, and it was then I told him it was upstairs, I

do not remember saying that I had done away with the child or that I was mad at the time. I do not know whether my husband is here to-day.

Re-examined. I made the statement I have made to-day to the prison doctor, Dr. Griffiths. The trouble about the rent was nothing new. My mother would have looked after the child down in the country while I was at work. My father is a mat maker employed at a factory there.

Verdict, Not guilty.


OLD COURT; Monday. 5th March.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-60
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

JACKSON, John (38, labourer), pleaded guilty to maliciously damaging a plate-glass window, value £10, the property of Henry Samuel. Six months' hard labour.

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-61
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

FREEMAN, John (32, gardener), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Hetty Violet Hall, his wife being then alive. Police gave prisoner a very bad character for immorality. Five years' penal servitude.

OLD COURT; Tuesday, 6th March.

(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-62
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

VINE, Charles Frederick (33, baker) ; feloniously wounding Devi Dayal Sasun, with intent to kill and murder him and to do him some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Hoffgaarde prosecuted. Mr. Warde defended.

Prisoner, in the hearing of the jury, stated that he was guilty of unlawful wounding.

Verdict. Guilty of unlawful wounding. Police gave prisoner an excellent character. Prisoner bound over in his own recognisances in the sum of £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

THIRD COURT, Tuesday, 6th March.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-63
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BAXTER, Ernest (22, painter), otherwise PHILLIPS [see evidence.] On January 17th, 1906, uttering counterfeit coin, well knowing same to be counterfeit. On another indictment uttering counterfeit coin twice on the same day, February 8th, 1906, well knowing, etc.

Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.

THOMAS COLLINS , barman at the "Cricketers," Woodford. On January 17th, at quarter to six p.m. prisoner came in, called for a glass of ale, which cost one penny, and tendered the shilling piece produced; I gave him 11d. change. I picked out prisoner from several others at the Police Station and identify him as the man.

Cross-examined by Prisoner. I had no suspicion of the coin when I served you. My master first drew my attention to its being a bad coin. I am certain this is the coin you passed because I had changed no other shilling then, and we keep "change" money separate.

ALICE ISABEL ELLIS . I keep a stationer's and tobacconist's shop at Woodford. On February 8th, between six and half-past, prisoner came in and asked for a penny packet of Woodbine cigarettes, tendered the coin produced, and I handed him 11d. change. I noticed a peculiar colour about the coin, but as it rang well I gave the change. I identified prisoner at the station, and have no doubt he is the man.

Cross-examined by Prisoner. Before the magistrate I said it was half-past four when you came; I was confused; you came at half-past six. I also said, "I think this is the man." I am sure you were the man. I am quite sure the coin produced is the one you gave me.

CHARLES CLARK . of the "Rose and Crown," Woodford. On February 8th, at seven o'clock p.m., prisoner came in and called for a mild and bitter, which would cost 11/2 d. He tendered a shilling. I tested the coin, and found it was counterfeit. I fetched my master, and prisoner was detained until the police came, and he was given into custody.

Cross-examined by Prisoner. You might have run away while I was with my master, but I don't think you could have gone far; you did not attempt to run away.

GEORGE JUDGE (P.C. 362 J.). On February 8th, at quarter-past seven, I was called to the "Rote and Crown," where the landlord gave prisoner in charge for tendering a bad shilling. On searching prisoner at the station we found one shilling, ten sixpences, and 3s. 11d. in bronze, and a packet of Woodbine cigarettes.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins to the Royal Mint. The three coins produced are counterfeit; two of them of the same mould.

(Evidence for Defence.)

EMMA PHILLIPS , 27, Norfolk Road, Forest Gate. Prisoner is my husband; he would not give his real name because of

my people. I remember January 17th; we had a birthday party; prisoner came home between twelve and one, and never went out afterwards. On February 8th, in the evening, he went out, saying he was going to the "Rose and Crown," Woodford, to see a man who owed him money; he left home between 5 and 5.45; it would be an hour and a quarter's walk from our place to Woodford.

Cross-examined. January 17th was a Thursday; we had a children's party downstairs on Thursday, January 17th. I made a mistake; it was a Wednesday. Prisoner was at home all that afternoon; he was asleep; I woke him between six and seven. We had a number of friends at the party; they are not here; they do not know of his trouble.

FREDERICK EGGBOROUGH , Detective, J Division, stationed at Woodford (called by prisoner). I accompanied you by train from Woodford to Stratford on February 9th. You asked me how long that barman had been working at the "Rose and Crown," and I said about twelve months. You did not say, "I came down to see him."I said, "Why, do you know him?" and you said "Rather."

CHARLES CLARK , recalled. By the Court. I did not know prisoner till this incident; never owed him money; had never seen him before this.

PRISONER (not on oath). The reason I was at the "Rose and Crown" was because a friend told me that a man who owed me money was at that house. When I got there I found the man whom I knew was not there; I called for a drink, and it happened that the shilling I tendered was a bad one. With regard to the incident at the tobacconist's, it was a case of mistaken identity. From my house to Woodford is three miles; I did not leave home till quarter-past five; if I had wanted to change a bad shilling there were hundreds of places for me to do so before getting to Woodford.

Verdict, Guilty on second indictment (double uttering).

Police evidence. Several previous convictions proved. Prisoner belongs to a gang of flash barmen; known to the police for fifteen years; is a dangerous and an habitual criminal.— Fifteen months' hard labour.

FOURTH COURT; Tuesday, 6th March.

(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-64
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

KING, Thomas (22, porter) ; stealing a pair of trousers, the property of James Mack, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted.

JESSIE MACK , wife of prosecutor, clothier, 128, Plaistow Road, West Ham. On the 13th February, I was called into the shop at half-past six in the evening by the ringing of me shop-bell, where I found prisoner and a boy standing together at the part of the shop farthest from the door. Prisoner asked if my husband gave credit for clothes, and said that if so, he would pay a deposit on the following Saturday. Without leaving the shop, I held up my hand at the window overlooking the back garden land my husband came in. The boy went out just as my husband came in, and I noticed that he seemed to be stooping. The trousers produced are the property of my husband.

To the Court. As the shop-bell only rang once, the prisoner and the boy must have come in together.

JAMES MACK . When I came into the shop I saw a lad just going out. Prisoner spoke to me about a suit of clothes on credit. I told him I did not give oredit, and he left. The trousers produced are my property. I last saw them when I was lighting the gas in the shop at about four o'clock on the same day.

THOMAS WALKER , PC, 829 K. At 6.50 p.m. on February 13th, I was in plain clothes in Plaistow Road, off duty. I saw prisoner coming from the direction of West Ham, carrying a bundle underneath his left arm. He entered a coffee-shop, and, looking through the glass panel of the window, I saw him sit down at the first table, and after a few minutes he commenced to undo the parcel. P.C. Foster subsequently came up and we entered the shop; as I opened the door prisoner threw the bundle underneath the table. I asked him what he had got and he said, "I have got nothing." I asked the young chaps who were sitting at the table to stand up, and I found the bundle underneath the table half undone, and about yard and a half from where the prisoner had been sitting. When I told prisoner I should take him to the station and charge him with stealing the trousers he said, "I know nothing at all about it." Enquiries were made, and Mack subsequently identified the trousers by a mark in his own handwriting, upon a piece of calico.

By Prisoner. On taking up the bundle I did not say,"Who owns this?" nor ask a question as to who brought the trousers there, because I knew you had brought them. I looked through the coffee-shop window because when I saw you carrying the bundle I suspected you had something that did not belong to you.

ERNEST FOSTER , P.C, 888 K. I was in plain clothes in the Plaistow Road, on the evening of February 13th, when I saw Walker looking through the window. I also stopped to look, and

I saw prisoner sitting at the left hand table with three other men and proceeding to untie the bundle. When P.C. Walker walked in, prisoner threw the bundle underneath the table. Walker asked,"What have you in that bundle?"; and he replied. "I have no bundle."

By Prisoner. I do not remember P.C. Walker saying,"Who owns this?" When Walker asked who the bundle belonged to, nobody owned it.

By the Court. I am perfectly sure prisoner was handling the bundle, and trying to undo it. I did not see any boy in the coffee-house.

PRISONER (on oath). I had been at work at Stratford Market doing odd jobs, and coming home having a few shillings in my pocket I thought I would like a new suit. I went into prosecutor's shop thinking it was the sort of shop that would suit me, and he said he would make me a suit for 30s. I asked him if would do it on the deposit system. and I was willing there and then to pay the deposit, because I had the money in my pocket. As I walked into the shop I saw a lad there, and he came out as if he had something on him, and walked in a very suspicious manner. After staying in the shop two or three minutes I went straight to this coffee-shop and had tea, and was just going out when the two constables came in and accused me of having this bundle. All I can say it I know nothing about the bundle. I was charged with stealing it, and this charge of receiving has been fresh brought up since the last Court. A man cannot be two people; he cannot be thief and receiver, too, and I am neither.

Verdict, Guilty. Previous convictions were proved. Twelve months' hard labour.


FOURTH COURT; Wednesday, 7th March.

(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)

5th March 1906
Reference Numbert19060305-65
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SIBLEY, James (48, horsekeeper); pleaded guilty to stealing a quantity of horse provender, the property of the London General Omnibus Company, Limited, and feloniously receiving same.

A previous conviction proved. Two months' hard labour.

View as XML